Talk:Charles III

I have a question about that part in the lead section : "An environmentalist, Charles supported organic farming and action to prevent climate change during his time as the manager of the Duchy of Cornwall estates, earning him awards and recognition as well as criticism. He is also a prominent critic of the adoption of genetically modified food, while his support for alternative medicine has been criticised."

As I recall, that part was recently rewritten to put the "criticism" part into perspective. Unless I'm mistaken, the criticism he received was about his support for alternative medicine. The current version seems to imply that he was criticized not only for this, but also for his actions to prevent climate change. Unless I missed something, this and his support for organic farming were never particularly controversial. Maybe we should clarify by removing the text in bold ? Psychloppos (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I've adjusted the wording to avoid the unintended implication that Charles's environmental work attracted criticism. ItsShandog (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I also wonder about this sentence: "He has also been a prominent critic of genetically modified food, and his support for alternative medicine has attracted criticism." This is factually correct, but shouldn't we alter the wording to avoid the repetition between "critic" and "criticism" ? Psychloppos (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Good point. What about now? ItsShandog (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Fine for me. Psychloppos (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

"King of the United Kingdom" just sounds very strange considering that the "United Kingdom" does not describe an area entity and is purely a combo of the words united and kingdom. I know that United Kingdom is the common shortform for the country but I think for the lead of this article specifically it will sound a lot better as "Charles III is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and 14 other Commonwealth realms". It's just a lot more formal and sensible I think.

Do others agree? ~2026-20617-66 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

No. The lead is a summary. Lengthy unnecessary detail is inappropriate. DrKay (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

No. The title shown is just fine the way it is. RicLightning (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On footnote 39, this is an independent quote in parenthesis that begins with the word “so”. Capitalization is required. This is under the ‘Prince of Wales’ category. MushsterThe (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: It's fine as it is. Our Manual of Style prescribes that where, as here, a quoted passage is integrated into the surrounding sentence, the initial capital letter can be made lowercase. The change in capitalization can be indicated with brackets, but this is not required. See MOS:CONFORM, at the bottom of the section. Day Creature (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Please delete the abdullah image. It was added by a sock puppet shingling334_Coolguy1200 (talk) Coolguy1200 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: The user who added it does not appear to be a known sockpuppet, but then again the picture dates from 2023 and is not relevant to the section in which it was inserted, relating to Charles' tenure as prince of Wales. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned this before but i was a dumbass about it.

The House of Glûcksburg page mentions charles a lot, and even has him listed in the infobox as a "Current member"

This page doesn't include a single mention if it and i believe it's the only page for a royal that doesn't mention their agnatic line at all (excluding linking his father of course) and i don't see a reason for this?

I get that all British monarchs are officially windsors, but all dutch monarchs are official Orange-Nassaus, but Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands's infobox still says

Orange-Nassau (official) Amsberg (agnatic)

Can't we just do that? Because as of right now 3 pages are in disagreement.

House of Windsor says that all descendants of Elizebeth II and Phillip are members of both Windsor and Glücksburg

House of Glücksburg says that Charles is a Glücksburg who "reigns as a member of the House of Windsor"

And this page says "Windsor" and then drops it. Zenryzap (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that you type "agnatic" into the search bar on this talk page, read some of the resulting threads and then come back to us if you have any questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I know this has been talked to death but theres no reason to actively NOT mention it, i think as long as its clear that windsor is the official house theres no harm in at least stating that because his father is agnatically an oldenburg, so is he. Its the standard on practically every article where this matters.

I've seen some people say that Willem-Alexander and Henri of Luxembourg both have "titles deriving from their paternal houses" while charles does not and i don't see how that prevents a mention of his agnatic heritage. He currently holds titles (Duke of Edinburgh, earl of merioneth, and baron of greenwich) that inherited from his father, just because he doesn't have any titles that "derive" from Glücksburg doesn't mean he isn't a member and he doesn't have patrilineal heritage from that house.

The problem is that this article's editors have come to agreement to not mention it, while other articles's editors have come to agreement to mention it. While I personally think the best solution is to just both and make it clear which is which, i just want a clean consensus, and for these articles to say the same thing, rather than ignoring or opposing each other Zenryzap (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition based on previous consensus, per WP:BRD. If you can present new reliable sources or other new rationale that might convince us to change our minds, feel free. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you tell me what the current consensus is? Is it that Charles's agnatic line is windsor? Or is it just to not include mention of Glücksburg in this article? Zenryzap (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The consensus is not to mention it – largely because reliable sources don't mention it either. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, so do you think that the Glücksburg page should mention it either? Zenryzap (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

(1) He doesn’t hold any of those titles (Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich). Upon his accession, those titles merged with the Crown. The current Duke of Edinburgh is the King’s younger brother, Prince Edward. (2) Those titles were not derived from the Glücksbergs. They were all conferred on Prince Phillip by King George VI, in his capacity as British monarch and head of the House of Windsor. The fact that Charles inherited them on his father’s death has nothing to do with the Glücksbergs. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The sourcing in the House of Glücksburg article is OK with respect to Philip's being born into the house; it has no sources relating to Charles, but then again it doesn't actually claim that Charles is a member of the house. Including any such claim anywhere in Charles's article would require excellent sourcing and, without that sourcing, including the information prominently in the infobox would very clearly be giving it undue weight. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It does claim that Charles is a member, look at the second paragraph. He is the first "Current Monarch" listed.

You are correct though, there is no source for Charles, actually the only cited source referring to him is a citation protecting the fact that he is a Windsor. Its the "Royal Family Name" article from the king's website.

After a bit of searching around I found one book about Charles being a Glücksburg, it also seems to be the only source that mentions it at all, it's 20 bucks at Barnes and Nobles.

House of Windsor also, ableit indirectly, claims that Charles is a Glücksburg, once again, uncited.

Ideally all three articles (Windsor, Glücksburg, and Charles) should say roughly the same thing, and I think the main issue just lies on wether or not Charles being patrilineally descended from Glücksburg is "Common Knowledge" or not, because Charles is most certainly officially a Windsor and because of that all sources refer to him as a Windsor.

I think it should also be noted that in the other instances of this, Guillaume V, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, and Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, where Amsberg and Bourbon-Parma are listed as separate agnatic branches, more sources would include that fact simply because Wikipedia does.

I don't see any harm in including the agnatic branch the same as those other articles, especially as currently speaking this page is the only page that doesn't agree that Charles, while officially a windsor, is patrilineally descended from Glücksburg, and so either 4 articles need to be edited to standardize this consensus, or just this one article needs to be edited to keep standard with that consensus.

It's a one line change that doesn't cause any confusion Zenryzap (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

If it was worth including, it wouldn't be this difficult to find sources for it. We don't include Monpezat at Frederik X. I see no reason to include Glücksburg here. House of Glücksburg is a low-rated article that has few citations. This article is a Wikipedia:Good article that has extensive citations. We shouldn't be making this article more like a worse one. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like that article is the source of this whole issue, which has been talked about a thousand times, I'm going to do some research and fix it. Zenryzap (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

About the only thing we currently have citations for is that Philip was born into the house of Glücksburg. Did he remain a Glücksburg after he relinquished his Danish and Greek titles? If so, is his son a Glücksburg as well as a Windsor? The answers to those questions can't be considered as common knowledge; good sourcing would be essential. And given how much has been written about the British royal family, if all we have is the single source that you found then it is effectively a fringe viewpoint anyway. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok that point made me look some things over and since Charles was born in 1948, a year after Philip renounced his titles and adopted the name "Mountbatten" after his mother. So Charles's agnatic line would be Mountbatten. And honestly I don't really care anymore

You win :) Zenryzap (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)