Template_talk:Charles,_Prince_of_Wales
Template talk:Charles III
 | British Royalty: Operation London Bridge / Charles III Template‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Recently I changed all the other related monarch (and consort) templates, to match the changes made to this template & Elizabeth II's template, per consistency. However, I'm quite willing to undo those changes, if we restore King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms here & Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms at Elizabeth II's template. Notifying @Keivan.f:, @DrKay: & @Fry1989:, of this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
BTW: If the changes I've made on the other templates are reverted? I won't contest it. But, we do need consistency across these related monarch & consort templates. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I have said it before and I'm going to say it again. Vague terms such as King/Queen or Emperor/Empress at the very top of template convey nothing in terms of meaning or importance to our readers. Nothing at all. Given the fact that the infoboxes currently in use on Elizabeth and Charle's pages utilize the terms "King/Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" I don't know why the same thing cannot be used for the their templates. Keivan.fTalk 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree completely. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Given the lack of response from the other interested parties, I will be restoring the templates back to their original form. Keivan.fTalk 18:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Keivan.f: I may have missed this conversation, but I certainly contest it for the same reasons I have previously stated. "King" is not a vague term, it's what He is. Do please try and explain to me how readers can be confused that a person is a "King", not a particularly ancient and forgotten concept, but by our listing one of their many realms in preference even though they are legally equal, magically adds just that dusting of context needed to enlighten the readers. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about 'preference', but the world does not revolve around Britain or even the Commonwealth realms. There are many other kings in the world at the moment and Charles is simply one of them; it's absurd to have a single word at the very top of the infobox. And we cannot assume that every reader is either British, a citizen of the Commonwealth, or a royal enthusiast who knows what Charles' job description is. The phrase provided matches with how his article describes him in the lede and in the infobox. The fact is that his ancestors were kings and queens of England/Scotland; he was born on British soil and primarily resides in the United Kingdom. The way he's described is a reflection of what he is primarily referred to as. Keivan.fTalk 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- To be entirely blunt, familial heritage and place of residence is utterly irrelevant. The problem we are facing is that there are no comparable examples of this sort of shared head of state. The closest may be the Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of the Netherlands, both of which consist of several "countries", but the respective monarchs reign them as a whole. To put this into a republican scenario would be even more bizzare. There has never been a person that was president of two countries at the same time with those countries being otherwise legally and constitutionally independent of each other. This is an entirely unique circumstance and unique circumstances require stepping out of normal practice and thinking creatively. I refuse to accept that this is the only way. The "job title" also varies from country to country. The only fully agreed upon element is that Charles III is King. To be a King is a title in and of itself. Re-working the infobox to list the countries of which Charles III is King in a non-biased, non-preferential manner, is not an impossible thing to accomplish. Fry1989 eh? 20:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- The current version suits fine. Charles III is best known as the British monarch. It's the realm he was born in & resides in, thus not requiring a UK governor-general. BTW - there's a monarch/republic combination held by one person - The president of France is also a co-prince of Andorra. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- There was, Simón Bolívar was president of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia at the same time. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- To be entirely blunt, familial heritage and place of residence is utterly irrelevant. The problem we are facing is that there are no comparable examples of this sort of shared head of state. The closest may be the Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of the Netherlands, both of which consist of several "countries", but the respective monarchs reign them as a whole. To put this into a republican scenario would be even more bizzare. There has never been a person that was president of two countries at the same time with those countries being otherwise legally and constitutionally independent of each other. This is an entirely unique circumstance and unique circumstances require stepping out of normal practice and thinking creatively. I refuse to accept that this is the only way. The "job title" also varies from country to country. The only fully agreed upon element is that Charles III is King. To be a King is a title in and of itself. Re-working the infobox to list the countries of which Charles III is King in a non-biased, non-preferential manner, is not an impossible thing to accomplish. Fry1989 eh? 20:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about 'preference', but the world does not revolve around Britain or even the Commonwealth realms. There are many other kings in the world at the moment and Charles is simply one of them; it's absurd to have a single word at the very top of the infobox. And we cannot assume that every reader is either British, a citizen of the Commonwealth, or a royal enthusiast who knows what Charles' job description is. The phrase provided matches with how his article describes him in the lede and in the infobox. The fact is that his ancestors were kings and queens of England/Scotland; he was born on British soil and primarily resides in the United Kingdom. The way he's described is a reflection of what he is primarily referred to as. Keivan.fTalk 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Keivan.f: I may have missed this conversation, but I certainly contest it for the same reasons I have previously stated. "King" is not a vague term, it's what He is. Do please try and explain to me how readers can be confused that a person is a "King", not a particularly ancient and forgotten concept, but by our listing one of their many realms in preference even though they are legally equal, magically adds just that dusting of context needed to enlighten the readers. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Given the lack of response from the other interested parties, I will be restoring the templates back to their original form. Keivan.fTalk 18:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree completely. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)