Talk:Proclamation of accession of Charles III

Like mother, like son

Recommend using the Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II page, as the model for this page. GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I had just written a longer post (see below) as you were posting the above! Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggested article structure

Is it best to structure this article along the same lines (or similar) to that used at Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II? It would also be a good idea to read the talk page discussion at that earlier article, in particular the valid reasons for not including the text of all the proclamations in the other countries (as they are published). The differences are interesting, but putting the text of all of them on one page overwhelms the article. See the argument advanced here (I've linked to the page history, so don't try and edit that old version of the talk page!) by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, where he points to Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. I think some quotation from the other proclamations is of use to those wanting an idea of the differences, and the names and titles of those dealing with this in other countries may also be relevant. I agree the full text is not needed for the other countries. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Do note, the Elizabeth II proclamation page's style & content, was the result of an RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I am fine with that. There are potential problems with the same content at Accession Council. How best to address that? Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Differences from 1952

What are the main differences between now and 1952? I think it is primarily the reduced number of countries (which ones have removed the British Monarch as their head of state?) and the fact that there are devolved governments in the UK. Any other major differences? Carcharoth (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Back then, it was the United Kingdom and six other realms. Today, it's the United Kingdom and 14 other realms. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot my basic history! :-) Yes, it is more now, not less. But am I right that there are countries that became 'other realms' after 1952 (so would in theory have had a proclamation), but then became completely independent and so will not now have that? Kind of 'ghost' proclamations that never were? Anyway, more to the point, have any of the 'six other realms' moved to the point where there will be no proclamation today? I think I am right that Pakistan, South Africa and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) no longer had the Queen, and that it is only Australia, New Zealand and Canada today? Plus 11 others? (If I get this wrong, I will need to go on a refresher course in basic history.) Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Three of the original realms, became republics. The future 11, use to be British colonies. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Useful article: List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II. There will be politics around any accession and proclamation in some of those places. I have forgotten how complicated it is. I will probably sit back and watch others gradually add the developments as they occur, but hopefully that article is useful. Carcharoth (talk)

As the article develops organically, it is clear there are a number of differences due to the languages used today (possibly not used in 1952) and some territories not as well established (e.g. it is not clear if a proclamation was made in the British Antarctic Territory - the Signy Research Station was manned at the time, but only with three people). Anyway, at some point this article may get scaled back, but I suggest waiting until as full a record has been made as possible, and then that 'larger' version of the article will be available in the page history. Carcharoth (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Video Recordings in BOTs

• Anguilla 7:50
• Bermuda
• Cayman Islands
• Gibraltar
• Montserrat
• SBA
• Turks and Caicos Islands 17:45
• Virgin Islands 1:40

112.118.57.99 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Photographs

Have any Wikipedians managed to get into the public recitations of the proclamations and taken pictures? Or have had friends or relations do it? I saw hundreds of cellphones waving in the air on BeeB. So Please, someone upload the Garter King of Arms doing the only job he still is needed for. Notwisconsin (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Notwisconsin I have taken these in the local town....probably not what you are after.

The King's Proclamation in Masham 2

The King's Proclamation in Masham

Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There are more pictures at Commons:category:2022 proclamation ceremonies for King Charles III. Regards Crep1711 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Protests and arrest

The following seems notable to include, perhaps in a Reactions section to the proclamations? Republican protesters arrested at King Charles proclamations, The Guardian, 11 September 2022. QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

They are well-covered, but allowing people to invade Wikipedia articles based on minor, small-scale misconduct is not a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Holy Communion

I have read that when Princess Elizabeth returned hurriedly from East Africa after the death of King George VI, she was met at the aerodrome by a delegation from the Privy Council, who witnessed and recorded that she took Communion according to the Church of England and signed the Declaration Against Transubstantiation and the Declaration Against Papal Supremacy, after which she was proclaimed Queen. Did Charles also take Communion, in addition to signing all those declarations? J S Ayer (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Move reverts

"I don't like it" is not a valid reason to undo a page move. "There was no RM" is equally invalid, both as a stand-in for "I don't like it" and as a "reason" in itself; nothing says a RM is required before moving a page. Nothing. So, GoodDay is going to have to present a valid reason or quit reverting the move. Indeed, the guide he simultaneously exhalts and misunderstands directs him to "Request to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves [...] at WP:RM/TR." But, he will, of course, need to state a reason why the page should not be re-titled. So, either way, the ball's in your court, GoodDay. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've put in a request for this unilateral page move, to be reverted. An RM on this matter should've been opened. GoodDay (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes it should have. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Prove it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Charles III is a highly notable individual. Making a page move so closely related to him, should indeed be discussed first. GoodDay (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This page is not Charles III and prove tangential relation to a notable subject requires discussion ahead of a re-titling to correct grammar in the title. Cite a Wikipedia policy or move along. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait for further input from others, concerning the 'recent' page move. GoodDay (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting there is no policy requring discussion before correcting grammar in a page title. Thank you also for admitting you don't have a valid reason for starting this dispute. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility for input, from other editors. GoodDay (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Translation: I'm already losing this argument so I need to drag other people into the dispute I manufactured. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If you get a consensus for your bold page move? then so be it. But if you don't? the page move should be reversed & then an RM opened. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved per WP:RMUM. Follow the WP:RM process for future moves. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. If you want to move a page, you make a request. You don't unilaterally move it yourself. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh? And do either of you have proof of an RM being necessary to make a grammatical correction to a page title? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Open up an RM. There can be only 'two' possible outcomes - move page or don't move page. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RMUM and my edit summary for guidance. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I did read that summary before and my immediate response was: I may have undone GoodDay's revert, but only because "there was no RM" is not a valid reason for reverting the move. To be certain I'm not incorrect in saying that, I've asked repeatedly for evidence to the contrary and, so far, none has been put forward, which only affirms GoodDay didn't give a sound reason for reverting in the first place. I even (above) alerted him to the fact he needs to present a reasonable justification for his actions and, in response, all he's done is repeat the "you didn't do an RM" line again and again, meaning there's still no valid reason for blocking the move. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've told you twice.

See WP:RMUM: recent undiscussed moves may be reverted by any editor who disagrees with the move. That's any editor for any reason. An editor can revert a recent undiscussed move if they disagree with it.

See also point 2 of the lead section at WP:RM: Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. [My emphasis]. As the administrator acting in this case, I am required to undo unstable recent undiscussed moves.

See WP:RM#CM: "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." That's any reason to believe a move would be contested, regardless of whether that reason is "valid" or "sound". Whether reasons are valid or sound is for the move discussion to determine.

See WP:RMUM: "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." DrKay (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of telling twice, you should read twice. I'm not protesting your undo of the move per WP:RM/TR. I'm responding to your statement, "such a move [done without a RM] can be undone by any other editor and should not be reimposed until after consensus is clear". My point is: it's impossible to form consensus when the only person objecting is doing so by literally nothing but repeating, completely regardless of what I say to or ask of him, the same false claim about a required RM, thereby, through sheer, blind obstinance, forcing me to either just drop things as they are or start the RM that he was wrong to say I needed to begin with!

Of course, late yesterday, well after you became involved, GoodDay finally said something other than "you need a RM". If he'd done that at the outset, you and I wouldn't be having this chat. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by a requested move discussion, as detailed at WP:RM#CM. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you don't need a full RM, but if people contest your move, you don't then move it back and act in this confrontational manner when you are replied to in a discussion which, let me remind you, you started. This is policy and if you have a problem with it, go to WP:VPP. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RM says GoodDay shouldn't have reverted: "Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR." He didn't go to WP:RM/TR until after he'd already reverted here twice.

And who do you really think is being confrontational? The person asking for a valid argument and proof of a claim? Or the person responding to every one of those requests with the exact same unfounded, irrelevant claim? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim about grammar. "Proclamation" in the page title isn't misleading, as it can be read as covering multiple proclamations, IMHO. Now, will you please open an RM, if you still think the page should be moved? GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. By the same logic, we'd have to move, say, Book to Books. Both refer more than one "thing" that exists or has happened, but that article covers all such things in that category, e.g. royal proclamations about Charles III, or books. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's rather a false equivalence. The analogous article to Book would be Proclamation. This article isn't even akin to Accession Council, as the proclamations of Charles' accession were each a one-time event. This is more like Articles of Confederation and Carlsbad Decrees: multiple different documents issued at one point in history. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the whole debate about who reverted what; but I do want to say that any discussions about this page's title should also cover Proclamation of accession of George V and Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II to preserve consistency. And since users are disagreeing on different points, if anyone wants to move the pages I think he/she should open an RM. Keivan.f^Talk 00:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I second what User:Keivan.f has said above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there's only one point of disagreement, so far. But, I was aware of the other pages. (Proclamation of accession of George V wouldn't be affected, though, as, while the proclamation of his inheritance of the throne was read out in muliple places around the world, there was still only one, undivided crown at that time and, therefore, one proclamation of the king's taking of it.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)