Talk:List of titles and honours of Charles III

message: except in Scotland where he is styled His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay.
I live in Scotland and I have only ever heard Prince Charles introduced as His Royal Highness The Prince Charles,Prince of Wales. I don't think he has been called the Duke of Rothesay for a very long time.
:Nevertheless, that is his Scottish title. GoodDay 13:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oficially he is known as the D. of Rothesay in Scotland. He and his wife are the only royals to have a distinct alternate title for Scotland. It mustn't be used, but it can be. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: His title in Scotland

message: I've re-added the fact, that Charles has been promoted to service ranks- Admiral (RN), General (British Army) & Air Chief Marshall (RAF). These facts are backed by the Royalty News website. GoodDay 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also in the Guardian. David 13:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Promoted

message: :Image:Canadian Land Forces Command Badge.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Canadian Land Forces Command Badge.PNG

message: When The Duke of Edinburgh dies his titles will revert to the crown - and will not be anyone's unless they are re-created for someone else.
Unlike many peerages, Royal peerages are not inherited. Peerages only descend according to the Letters Patent which create them. In non-Royal cases the LP will include phrases such as "heirs male of his body" or "heirs general". These are omitted from LP creating Royal peerages.
It is widely believed that the title Duke of Edinburgh will be re-created (by Q. Elizabeth or a future K. Charles depending on the order of deaths) for the use of the current Earl of Wessex (P. Edward). If I can find a verifiable source I shall amend the article.
GordonFindlay 10:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it's just that if it is inherited by Charles when he is alredy King, the titles will merge in the Crown. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And if it is inherited by Charles after he is already king, the titles will still merge in the Crown: so when he inherits his father's peerages is irrelevant. Only if he pre-deceases his father -- and thus never inherits his titles -- or is removed from the line of succession by Parliament during Philip's lifetime will Philip's titles pass beyond Charles. Andrew is expected to get Philip's dukedom by a new creation, not by inheritance. FactStraight (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, in the above statement I assume you mean that Edward, not Andrew, is expected to get Philip's dukedom, however that comes about. Metheglyn (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I stand corrected. But there's no "however that comes about" about it: there's only one way for Edward to inherit his father's dukedom: Philip dies before Elizabeth II, but Charles, William and George all die before she does with William and George leaving no sons but either of them leaving a living daughter who succeeds Elizabeth II as queen, then Harry and Andrew die before Edward, also leaving no sons. Given the unlikelihood of that sequence, the only realistic way for Edward to one day become Duke of Edinburgh, as has been publicly announced, is by a fresh creation of that title for Philip with a special remainder to Edward (as was done for Edward VII's son-in-law, Alexander Duff, with the Dukedom of Fife) or for Edward after Philip's death. I want them to hurry up and do this lest a new regime come into office which bars the Queen from creating hereditary titles even for members of the Royal Family. FactStraight (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is yet another way for Edward to inherit the dukedom. Charles, William, George and Andrew all die while either Philip or Elizabeth or both of them are still alive, leaving Beatrice as heir apparent to Elizabeth and Edward as heir apparent to Philip. A very unlikely one would involve passing an Act of Parliament to alter the way the dukedom passes, as was done to enable the Duke of Marlborough's daughter and further female(-line) heirs to succeed him. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to this macabre game, some of you forgot about Prince Harry, who is also in line to the Dukedom and mighy survive to have sons. Also once the Queen dies, there is very little chance the Dukedom won't merge in the Crown before Edward can get to it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming to think of it Edward can inherit the Dukedom if: a) a lot of people die b) The title doesn't merge in the crown because any of the interluding successors becomes King before they die. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Good alternative. But Harry would also have to die sonless, and Elizabeth II would have to outlive all her male-line male descendants except Edward. Parliament, of course, can change anything but is unlikely to extend anyone's hereditary titles in the 21st century; more likely for the Sovereign to take action, which is both possible and easier in this case. FactStraight (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Inheritance of his father's titles

message: This section lists Wales, England and Virginia as Countries. Should Virginia be changed to the United States? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholastic Fellowship 

message: Having just completed a search of the London Gazette (LG) and a cross-check of Prince Charles' entry on the Official Website of the British Monarchy (OWBM), I am now confident that we have captured the full list of his UK military ranks and promotions. From OWBM and the LG, it is clear that he entered the RAF as a Flt Lt to complete fast jet training. His earlier training with the RAF was prior to joining. When he ceased regular military service to assume a full complement of royal duties in late 1976, he was an RN Lt and was still an RAF Flt Lt (or he may have left the service entirely given his appointment as a Wg Cdr in 1977 does not refer to him being promoted or holding a more junior rank). There is no evidence on the OWBM or in the LG that he was promoted to Lt Cdr/Sqn Ldr before his promotion to Cdr / Wg Cdr in 1977 and given the very short time frame (2 weeks), it is safe to assume that this never occurred. The OWBM provides a fairly detailed history of his military progression and there is no mention of him being granted Army rank (honorary regimental appointments don't confer substantive rank) until he was appointed a Maj Gen in 1998; the LG entry does not refer to a more junior rank or to being promoted, he is simply to 'be Major General...'. All other ranks are now accounted for and referenced with reliable sources. The ref for his promotion to Adml of the Fleet/FM/Mshl of the RAF should be updated once it has been promulgated in the LG. I have removed one honorary appointment (Welsh Guards) and his RN ship command from the military ranks section. Neither belonged there - his Welsh Guards appointment is already captured in the appropriate section of this article. Military postings aren't included on this page, however his ship command is already in the main article. AusTerrapin (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Military Ranks 

message: Charles was born on 14 November, but the Royal Warrant making him Prince Charles was issued on 22 November, right? So wasn't Charles actually styled the Earl of Merioneth for the first eight days? Jus asking. --82.181.201.187 (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules made by George V in 1917 clearly state that the children of the sovereign are HRH and Princes.So, Royal warrant or not..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles wasn't a child of the sovereign at birth, but a grandchild of the sovereign in the female line. Such children are entitled to...nothing, title- or style-wise. So George VI's Royal Warrant elevating his daughter Elizabeth's children to royal status was indeed necessary to prevent the present Prince of Wales from being born Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth. FactStraight (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course! Now why didn't I think of that.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl of Merioneth 

message: Apparently, Charles's name was only announced a month after his birth. What reliable source could have referred to him as "HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh" in November 1948? Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly dubious he was known as Prince Charles from birth no evidence that he was not, I have removed the tag per common sense. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't it be dubious? There are plenty of sources that confirm that Charles's name was not announced until a month after his birth. I am therefore restoring the tag per sources. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: His name was announced the day he was christened it says nothing about being unnamed before that point just that the general public were not aware, pretty sure I could find a few hundred references that say Prince Charles was born on the 14 November 1948. You could apply your logic to nearly every biography article on wikipedia as most individuals are not officialy named the instant of birth, in British law you have a period of time to register the birth but that doesnt mean the name only exists from the moment of registration. So please remove the tag and lets move on, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you could not apply my logic to nearly every biographical article on Wikipedia. You obviously don't understand my point. I am not saying that Charles was not Charles until he was named. I am saying that we should not straightforwardly lie to readers. This article claims that Charles was actually referred to as "Prince Charles" before his name was announced, which obviously cannot be true. If it somehow is true that reliable sources referred to him as "Prince Charles" before the name was announced, you will have no problem finding a source that supports that claim. I should also point out that "Common sense is a source dear" is probably the most ridiculously absurd claim I've read in an edit summary. Surtsicna (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK clearly you are ignoring the fact that a number of editors do not agree with you and keep removing your tag , the fact you keep re-adding it could be seen as disruptive, perhaps it is time to accept the common sense view. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of editors do agree with me. Removing tags from a BLP-related article without addressing them is what's disruptive. You are clearly avoiding to respond to my arguments. I will repeat, hoping that you will stop and think about it for a moment. If Charles was really referred to as "Prince Charles of Edinburgh" by reliable sources in November 1948, you will have no problem finding such sources. Once again, I am not saying that Charles was not Charles in November 1948. I am saying that he was not referred to as such. The section does not list 14 November as his birthday; it lists 14 November as the date sources started calling him "Prince Charles of Edinburgh". You can find a few hundred references that say the Prince of Wales was born on 14 November 1948, but it doesn't mean that he was known as Prince of Wales from 14 November 1948. Why knowingly include misleading and contradictory information when we can just safely leave the year? Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really dont understand common sense then I have nothing to add. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply uttering the words "common sense" does not make an argument. When it comes to BLP-related articles, there is especially no excuse for favouring "common sense" to sources. What common sense are you even talking about? Is it sensible to claim that this man was styled as "Prince Charles of Edinburgh" when nobody yet styled him as such? Of course not. It's entirely senseless. And this is why discussing common sense is senseless. Just cite a source. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh wait, you forgot Elizabeth II, she was given a name 6 months after her birth, go trample with that, oh sheeeshh, try George VI, his name was announced a year after his birth, be my guest. Let's wait for more news on when they were given names, Victoria? George V? Edward VIII?, how about Lady Diana? oh, we forgot Prince Harry? (facepalm) Pseud 14 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Facepalm"? Wow. This project is obviously too serious for you. And why on Earth are you lying about Elizabeth II's and George VI's naming? Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a pun to talk about your total lack of common sense Pseud 14 (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, it was an immature and entirely unconstructive comment. Anyway, there is nothing sensible about claiming that Charles was referred to as "Prince Charles of Edinburgh" when he was not and when he could not have been. Nothing. 14 November is not given there as his birthday but as the date he became known as "Prince Charles of Edinburgh", which is absolutely incorrect. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim 

message: An editor has removed "(as from birth)" which had been inserted to "clarify with stricter accuracy, and properly informative, per Talk". The reason later given by that editor was "No need to place "as from birth" as clearly the start date was his birth". The fact is that it is not self-evident in that context. I see nothing in the article that makes plain that this title operated from birth. It is known to me, and may be presumed or known by others, but not necessarily to all readers, many of whom (like some Wikipedia editors) are likely to have little or no prior knowledge about the British titles system (including those born and brought up in Britain as well as numerous English speaking persons, whether of one of the Commnonwealth countries or not). Instead of improving the article the edit seems to be merely self-opinionated, with edit war implication on that editor's part, unless. clear and sufficient reason is given to show otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to add as from birth as Wikipedia doesnt need to explain the obvious. MilborneOne (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reread above and explain your assertion that it is obvious. Factually, it is not obvious. Qexigator (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit was challenged so needs to gain consensus on the talk page I understand it is up to you (and others) to may a case that can be supported. Asyour suggested edit could change many thousands of royal biograph articles it may be better to make a case as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility rather than each of the 15,000 article that will need to be changed.  MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not made yourself clear. Which edit was challenged?  If there is a case for or agaiinst, why not let it be stated here, before bothering others at "Project" with so simple a point. Why would this affect 15,000 other articles "that will need to be changed". I very much doubt it. If you have a good reason in respect of this article specifically, you are welcome to put it on this page. Qexigator (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of (as from birth) was reverted twice by user Pseud 14 and is a challenge to the addition and a reason to discuss on the talk page. As this clearly will effect all 15,000 articles (nothing peculiar about the presentation in this article) I cant see much point in gaining a local consensus to change from the status quo. If you think you have a case it is much better to get a project consensus and change them all, possibly with a bot, as the same arguments must apply to all of them. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While those comments seem to be well meant, they also seem not to be engaging with what is now in question. Let us all move on to better things. Bravo, Platinum! Qexigator (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "(as from birth)"  

message: Having followed the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Arts_(Oxbridge_and_Dublin) should the Cambridge BA be listed? The MA is not another degree that he took, but the BA automatically became an MA after the required number of years. The aforementioned link suggests that only one degree should be listed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigbyJames (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  University degrees 

message: The Australian  template does not show the Canadian Forces Decoration awarded to Charles in 1982, leaving an gap between his QSO and PC, shown as . Is this because the Australian template needs to be manually modified to accommodate for Charles' honours from Canada, or because this award is not recognised in Australia? A copy of this discussion is also placed here. Rangasyd (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of Australian post-noms 

message: Charles's full style is given as His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, CC, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. Surely the dukedoms should come before the earldoms, and the post-nominal letters ought to be last. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The dukedoms should come first by convention (and common sense), but for some reason the Clarence House website lists the post-nominals before the peerages as you have listed above - 213.123.75.36 (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Order? 

message: If the abbreviation AK is to be included, then it might be appropriate to list the Order of Australia. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Same for QSO. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Australia 

message: As a king, shouldn't he also be Duke of Lancaster and all other associated titles?--Sira Aspera (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: New title

message: I am aware that the Queen's regnal name in PNG did not include "by the Grace of God", however the proclamation of Charles III as King of PNG included it (. Since the proclamation of a King is a rather official business I think for the time being those words should be included in his titles. Gugganij (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the regnal name to align with the proclamation and sourced it accordingly. Gugganij (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regnal name Papua New Guinea 

message: Does he hold this title, or not? A lot of Channel Islanders seem to think so. 2601:647:5800:3B60:E8A7:522:43C0:7C5F (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its held by the sovereign automatically by convention, in the islands Charles would be referred to as the Duke instead of King. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the Sovereign "Duke of Normandy" is merely a folk tradition in the Channel Islands; it has no basis in law. Indefatigable (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Duke of Normandy

message: The title of the Queen, may she rest in peace, in Grenada was "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Grenada and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."
Within the Commonwealth, only Canada and Grenada had kept the "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in the title of the monarch.
However, when King Charles was announced, he was styled as "His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Grenada and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth," without the "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
Such change can only be approved by a new "Royal Style and Titles Act" passed by the Parliament of Grenada.
Did this happened? Can somebody add the reference for such change? Coquidragon (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Was wondering the same thing. Not questioning that Grenada made the change. I can only 'assume' that Grenada's Parliament passed the appropriate Act, with the stipulation that it only take effect upon Elizabeth II's death. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title in Grenada. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should there not be a titles addition for the titles His Majesty inherited from his father, as these are missing and His Majesty was the Duke of Edinburgh ect. between Prince Phillips death and HM's ascension? Dbainsford (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: Should there be a mention of him holding titles prior to his mother's ascension in the introduction? It currently states that he held "numerous titles as both" under his mother and as King, but King Charles held the princely title prior to his mother's ascension under letters patent of King George VI. Dbainsford (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an entire section mentioning his numerous titles individually and specifically prior to accession in the section immediately follow the lead. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles introduction 

message: Does anybody remember if we 'ever' came to a consensus on how to present the styles & titles, concerning the dates? Did we have an RFC on that, for all members of the British royal family? GoodDay (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We should present them factually if we are to present them at all. We should not lie to our readers that these people were called something they were not called during given time periods. We should also not mislead our readers into thinking that the cited sources say something they do not say. Surtsicna (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no personal preference. Just hoping that we've got total consistency across all the related bio pages & their styles/titles pages. GoodDay (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of styles & titles 

message: No "by the grace of God" in the King's official title in PNG. See article 85 of the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.https://www.parliament.gov.pg/constitution-of-the-independent-state-of-papua-new-guinea IACOBVS (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papua New Guinea 

message: someone reversed my edit to the incorrect end date for HM subsidiary titles when he was Heir Apparent. They stated he was "not known" by the subsidiary titles, but adding an end date reads as if HM never held those titles post Prince of Wales Jord656 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect end date 

message: More than one person has already edited this article to incorrectly apply the proposed changes to Charles III's Canadian styles & titles (mainly removing "United Kingdom" and "Defender of the Faith"). Those changes have been PROPOSED in a Canadian budget bill, but have NOT taken effect.
Please do NOT make this edit until (a) the bill has received Royal Assent and (b) the Letters Patent referred to in the bill has been issued. Until then, any change to the Canadian styles and titles should be considered a revert war. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change in Canada 

message: Surely we must add a section mentioning that he is Lord of Mann. Jedi Master Wysk (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jedi Master Wysk - WP:BEBOLD, add it if you want to. DDMS123 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord of Mann 

message: the section for HM full style in the UK is a bit much, should we not simplify it to "Charles III by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith". We could underneath put Lord of Mann? Jord656 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full style  

message: Zimbabwe
Morocco
Kazakhstan
Colombia 79.117.90.62 (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Charles - foreign honours absent from list: