![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Where was John Bellingham described as a "madman"? His entry states that his sanity "was not questioned by the court". redcountess 00:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Do we really need a detailed outline of a Blackadder episode here? Bastie 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of Blackadder, why does it say here that Hugh Larie played George IV, but in the Blackadder entry it says Hugh played George III, and the end episode shows Blackadder himself taking over the reigns to become IV?
Neither can I actually, somehow I thought Laurie was number III, rather than his his father. Oh well, thanks.
"It is reported that every time George IV was with a woman he would cut a lock of her hair and place it in an envelope with her name on it. At the time of his death there were allegedly 7000 such envelopes" That is a different woman every day for 19 years. C'mon lets have some reality here, or at least a source for this piece of information.
If it is true, it should be in a trivia section rather than the lead. Why the coy middle class language "with a woman" doe this mean every time he was in the same room as an adult woman he attacked her with a pair of scissors or did he only do this following sexual intercourse? I think we should be told. A reliable source in a week or it goes. Giano | talk 09:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to note - George IV would've been at it for well over 19 years. Probably he'd have been on it from, say, 1780 (when he turned 18) until 1830 - that's 50 years. Which means only one woman every three days or so...that being said, the number does seem highly dubious. At any rate, I don't think the current phrasing implies that the story is actually true, just that it's a story that has been told. Moving it to the trivia section seems appropriate, though. john k 04:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed when this article was on the front page that George IV's habit of interfering in politics gave Catholic Emancipation as an example. Curious to know the details, I clicked on the link, and got to an article explaining Catholic Emancipation (which I already know something about) that did not say anything about George IV. I eventually noticed that there was a section in the article about the issue, which does not contain a link for those curious to know what Catholic Emancipation was all about. I therefore think the links should be the other way round.
Instead of:
I think the links should go:
I don't feel strongly enough about it to alter the entry unilaterally, but I thought I'd mention it: if enough people agree, maybe I will make the changes.
Del C 15:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any specified convention as to referring to deceased monarchs of Great Britain/the United Kingdom, where by the dead monarch must be referred to as "His/Her Late Majesty?" I noticed this title above the photograph; should every monarch's page thus be modified to read "His/Her Late Majesty?"
Under Section 7 - Legacy, the article states that George IV was not well regarded upon his death in 1830. This is stated in the second paragraph, which quotes an unfavorable obituary of the time.
However, in the third paragraph, the article states the following:
"The Economist, on the other hand, commented favourably on George's dislike of the Corn Laws and pro-free-trade opinions"
Just when did The Economist offer this position? It could not have been in 1830, since The Economist did not begin publication until 1843.
If the above quote is correct, does it make sense to place it in such close proximity to an obituary? The juxtaposition implies that The Economist wrote a laudatory obit of George IV when he died, which was clearly impossible.
If the Economist was founded in 1843, it is at least plausible that something could have been written around that time, as part of the Economist's own opposition to the Corn Laws. john k 02:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the Arms as described in this section and the Arms as included in the House of Hanover template. Did he use a different form to the rest of the family, or is the template version incorrect? -- Yendor1958 10:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This article only has one reference. If it is to keep its featured status, someone needs to add a few more. -- Arctic Gnome 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The article states that George IV's coronation cost over £900 000, a truly staggering sum for those days. Near the bottom of this article ( http://www.georgianindex.net/coronation/Coronation-GeorgeIV.html) I read that it cost £238 000, and it gives a breakdown of where those monies came from. The lower sum seems more plausible to me. Is there a source for the higher amount? I'd want more than the say-so of another web site to go changing the article.-- Iacobus 06:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Towards the end of his life, he also began to show symptoms of mental illness but never to the same extent as his father. He claimed to have been a soldier and to have fought at the Battle of Waterloo." ref name=later_mental_illness> "George IV". Spartacus Educational. Retrieved 2006-08-23.</ref
I have read that he was sometimes referred to as "Prinny", but don't have a source for it. In Brighton Pavilion there is a scurrilous painting of him with "The Spirit of Brighton". The painting is often reproduced on postcards, etc. so it would be nice if it could be included as an illustration of popular attitudes to him. Itsmejudith 12:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the section Titles, styles, honours and arms only goes on to deal with titles, styles and arms. Could someone expert in such matters add a subsection concerning his honours, please? talk Giler S 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! At a few places throughout Wikipedia I see the house "Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield", other times "Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld" (no "i" in "feld"). I think some consistency might be in order, and would favour "Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld" (no "i"). Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.177.4 ( talk) 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Would be nice if the intro included what age he was when he became King. 5Q5 ( talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:How to get Un-married, - Ay, there's the Rub! by J.L. Marks.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. This caricature by J.L. Marks mocks George IV's attempts to divorce Queen Caroline. Dcoetzee 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
George IV never said those last words. According to the biography I read he had "passed a large extraction mixed with blood", then went into a coma and died. ( 92.3.208.208 ( talk) 14:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
I have seen it claimed that George began to show signs of mental instability towards the end of his life, although less extreme than his father, and would tell people about how he was at the Battle of Waterloo. It is possible he was just trying to wind up the Duke of Wellington, but do we have a source? PatGallacher ( talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
George IV and his daughter both suffered from the same mental illness as George III. During his reign George IV would often tell guests how he had fought at the Battle of Waterloo, and personally won the Derby. The Duke of Wellington had no doubt the King was serious, saying, "I think insanity runs in the family." ( 92.14.254.135 ( talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC))
The IP range beginning 92.. is used by banned User:HarveyCarter, who has already targeted this article multiple times, e.g. [7] [8]. The supposed illnesses of British monarchs is one of his favorite topics. In accordance with WP:BAN, edits by banned editors may be reverted without explanation at any time. DrKay ( talk) 07:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As George IV was Prince of Wales and heir apparent to the King in his capacity as King of the UK, he was also the Crown Prince of Hanover given that he was also heir apparent to the King of Hanover (same person). I included this title because I find the listing of titles and styles to be very anglocentric. I have a source for it as well but I do not know how to incorporate it. Can anyone be of assistance? Thank you! :-) Seven Letters 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Under the heading of "Early Life", there is a curious anomaly regarding the conversion of the value of £60.000 converted into today's monetary value.
"The Prince turned 21 in 1783, and obtained a grant of £60,000 (equal to £5,744,000 today) from Parliament"
"In 1787, the Prince's political allies proposed to relieve his debts with a parliamentary grant. ... Parliament, meanwhile, granted the Prince . . . and £60,000 (equal to £6,252,000 today) for improvements to Carlton House."
In other words, in just four years, the same sum of money, i.e., £60.000, has increased in value, converted into today's monetary value, by £508.000!
How has this been worked out, and by whom???
20:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Anna - Borsey379 - 03.10.2010 (2nd October 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsey379 ( talk • contribs)
Two Brazilian Order of Chivalry are presented in this "featured" article as Portuguese and awarded in 1818, when none of them existed yet. It wouldn't have hurt much if whoever wrote this article had done a little more research. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Prinny says "For 'Prinny' as a historical nickname, see George IV of the United Kingdom." However, the name is not mentioned in this article. It would be good to rectify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.83.145 ( talk) 22:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
this page should be moved to george IV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.220 ( talk) 10:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
His visit to Scotland, organised by Sir Walter Scott, was the first by a reigning British monarch since Charles I went there in 1633
What about Charles II in 1650-51? I know he wasn't recognized as King of England at the time, but in retrospect he was considered to be reigning monarch, and he was certainly the reigning king of Scotland. Oh, and Charles I definitely visited Scotland in 1641. john k ( talk) 01:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the British government recognised him as the King of Scotland. ( 92.7.18.72 ( talk) 21:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC))
Charles II was no more the monarch in 1649 than James Francis Edward Stuart was in 1715. ( 92.10.138.213 ( talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC))
"George IV was the last British King to be shown on coins wearing a Roman-style laurel wreath." I am unsure of the significance of this as I seem to remember that the pre-decimal coins of our present Queen show her wearing a laurel wreath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tglawson ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, this succession box is inaccurate. He was heir to the thrones between 1820 and 1830. Before his father's death, he was heir apparent since nobody can be the heir of a living person (Nemo est heres viventis). However, what really concerns me is the triviality of this kind of succession boxes. It prompts users to create similar boxes and clog articles with them. It also poses the question: if "Heir to the British throne" is included, why exclude boxes such as "Heir to Bremen-Verden" and "Heir to the Saxe-Lauenburg throne"? Finally, do we really need succession boxes for the status of being first in line to a throne, especially when we have boxes related to titles such as Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall? Surtsicna ( talk) 21:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The meaning of English words is determined by the consensus of educated speakers, not Latin tags. Removing heir to the throne succession boxes is a drastic step which would need to be taken by an appropriate wider discussion. I take the point that sometimes a large number of succession boxes can clutter up an article, but I don't think this is the best place to start. PatGallacher ( talk) 23:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion of this matter at the talk page for the Manual of Style Biographies page. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think heir to the throne is needed in the succession box(For British Monarch), Although it is not a title heir has a responsibility and publisity for even a presumptive, and their is no formal title for a heir/heiress presumptive in Britain. Also no formal title given for a heiress aparent(only one time occured to date) Chamika1990 ( talk) 14:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
While researching another topic, I came across this in the London Gazette (issue 15039, from the bottom of page 636 to the top of page 637):
“ | Carlton-House, July 5, 1798. *
Office for managing the Affairs of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. By ORDER of the EARL CHOLMONDELEY. Notice is hereby given, that every Creditor of His Royal Highness is to deliver into this Office, within Ten Days from the Date hereof, a Particular, in Writing, containing the Nature and Amount of any Debt, signed -by him or her,-that they have accrued within the Quarter ending this Day ; and all Debts or Demands, of what Nature or Kind soever, which shall not be presented as aforesaid, and within the Time limited as afore- said, are not, under any Pretence or Colour of Au- thority whatever, to be paid, satisfied, or dis- charged, nor any Part thereof,, but are barred both at Law and in Equity: And all Bonds, Bills, Notes, or other Securities for Money, given or made in consideration of any Debt or Demand, whereof the Particulars in Writing are not delivered as aforesaid, are to all Intents and Purposes null and void.
|
” |
Given the wording, this appears to be a regular thing ("... accrued within the Quarter ending this day..."), or else had became so bad by 1798 that this had to be declared. The article does mention that "... the Prince of Wales's debts of 1795 were finally cleared in 1806, although the debts he had incurred since 1795 remained", and a further search of the Gazette reveals this and this, issued from Carlton House on 24 September 1795. Might these be worth inclusion, and are there any further sources supporting the issue of these notices (e.g. were there particular periods during which he spent wildly, or how constant was it if not)? From these notices being placed, I'd imagine it suggests that the Prince Regent was still spending in great excess despite the best efforts of those around him to manage his debts, so it may help to illustrate how great the challenge of managing the Prince Regent and his extravagance was. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George III of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George IV of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
His father refused to let him join the Army, and he rebelled against this by living the debauched life. It might be good to find a source for this. Valetude ( talk) 20:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Since "George IV" already redirects to this page, what about moving the article's name to simply "George IV"? M. Armando ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Support claims COMMONNAME, CONCISE, and PRIMARYTOPIC. These claims are not even challenged. Opposition cites no basis in policy whatsoever. Consensus clearly favors the move here. ( non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
George IV of the United Kingdom → George IV – Since "George IV" already redirects to this page, what about moving the article's name to simply "George IV"? M. Armando ( talk) 16:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I added Anna Sophia Hodges as a possible mistress, but it was reverted straight away as apparently "Two hundred year old sources are rarely reliable". The reference I used is a word for word transcript of the court case published in the same year as it happened. Hodges was certainly significant enough to earn a place on the wall next to Mrs Fitz in this cartoon of 1791, and is referred to on the British Museum site as "said to have been a mistress of the Prince of Wales". I note there are other sources from 1818, 1827 and 1768 already used on the page - will these be reverted for similar reasons? Happy to discuss the wording of the edit, but I do believe it is reasonable to include Mrs Hodges in the list. DrThneed ( talk) 11:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Position of Monarch should be placed first. Just like it's done in the British prime ministers infoboxes. GoodDay ( talk) 08:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@ DrKay: the monarch outranks the regent. The younger George is filling in for his father, not the other way around. GoodDay ( talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
2 of the portraits in the section on George IV's declining health are labelled "Henry IV" although they are of George IV, one even has it on the image header "Henry IV" Henry IV never grew quite so obese in his life 216.211.13.73 ( talk) 08:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I searched a bit more and I believe at least one of these pictures is actually Falstaff from Shakespeare's "Henry IV" Gremlin66n ( talk) 08:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Recent access to royal archives have provided evidence seriously contesting Macalpine and Hunter's claim about porphyria and that the King clearly seems to have suffered four/possibly five episodes of bipolar disorder. Source
According to the documentary " Madness of King George", porphyria seems to have been an attempt by royalists to remove mental illness from the royal bloodline. - Cy21 ➜ discuss 16:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
There is mention of George IV Bridge in the article. Is George Street also named after him? His statue is placed there. Would it improve the article to mention George Street? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.241.162 ( talk) 21:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
George was an Anglican, he was baptized Anglican, attended Anglican services, he had an Anglican funeral, he's buried in an Anglican church. I don't understand why George III and all of the Stuarts are labeled as Anglican but George IV isn't even though all of them were also members of the Church of Scotland. TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 01:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Where was John Bellingham described as a "madman"? His entry states that his sanity "was not questioned by the court". redcountess 00:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Do we really need a detailed outline of a Blackadder episode here? Bastie 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of Blackadder, why does it say here that Hugh Larie played George IV, but in the Blackadder entry it says Hugh played George III, and the end episode shows Blackadder himself taking over the reigns to become IV?
Neither can I actually, somehow I thought Laurie was number III, rather than his his father. Oh well, thanks.
"It is reported that every time George IV was with a woman he would cut a lock of her hair and place it in an envelope with her name on it. At the time of his death there were allegedly 7000 such envelopes" That is a different woman every day for 19 years. C'mon lets have some reality here, or at least a source for this piece of information.
If it is true, it should be in a trivia section rather than the lead. Why the coy middle class language "with a woman" doe this mean every time he was in the same room as an adult woman he attacked her with a pair of scissors or did he only do this following sexual intercourse? I think we should be told. A reliable source in a week or it goes. Giano | talk 09:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to note - George IV would've been at it for well over 19 years. Probably he'd have been on it from, say, 1780 (when he turned 18) until 1830 - that's 50 years. Which means only one woman every three days or so...that being said, the number does seem highly dubious. At any rate, I don't think the current phrasing implies that the story is actually true, just that it's a story that has been told. Moving it to the trivia section seems appropriate, though. john k 04:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed when this article was on the front page that George IV's habit of interfering in politics gave Catholic Emancipation as an example. Curious to know the details, I clicked on the link, and got to an article explaining Catholic Emancipation (which I already know something about) that did not say anything about George IV. I eventually noticed that there was a section in the article about the issue, which does not contain a link for those curious to know what Catholic Emancipation was all about. I therefore think the links should be the other way round.
Instead of:
I think the links should go:
I don't feel strongly enough about it to alter the entry unilaterally, but I thought I'd mention it: if enough people agree, maybe I will make the changes.
Del C 15:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any specified convention as to referring to deceased monarchs of Great Britain/the United Kingdom, where by the dead monarch must be referred to as "His/Her Late Majesty?" I noticed this title above the photograph; should every monarch's page thus be modified to read "His/Her Late Majesty?"
Under Section 7 - Legacy, the article states that George IV was not well regarded upon his death in 1830. This is stated in the second paragraph, which quotes an unfavorable obituary of the time.
However, in the third paragraph, the article states the following:
"The Economist, on the other hand, commented favourably on George's dislike of the Corn Laws and pro-free-trade opinions"
Just when did The Economist offer this position? It could not have been in 1830, since The Economist did not begin publication until 1843.
If the above quote is correct, does it make sense to place it in such close proximity to an obituary? The juxtaposition implies that The Economist wrote a laudatory obit of George IV when he died, which was clearly impossible.
If the Economist was founded in 1843, it is at least plausible that something could have been written around that time, as part of the Economist's own opposition to the Corn Laws. john k 02:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the Arms as described in this section and the Arms as included in the House of Hanover template. Did he use a different form to the rest of the family, or is the template version incorrect? -- Yendor1958 10:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This article only has one reference. If it is to keep its featured status, someone needs to add a few more. -- Arctic Gnome 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The article states that George IV's coronation cost over £900 000, a truly staggering sum for those days. Near the bottom of this article ( http://www.georgianindex.net/coronation/Coronation-GeorgeIV.html) I read that it cost £238 000, and it gives a breakdown of where those monies came from. The lower sum seems more plausible to me. Is there a source for the higher amount? I'd want more than the say-so of another web site to go changing the article.-- Iacobus 06:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Towards the end of his life, he also began to show symptoms of mental illness but never to the same extent as his father. He claimed to have been a soldier and to have fought at the Battle of Waterloo." ref name=later_mental_illness> "George IV". Spartacus Educational. Retrieved 2006-08-23.</ref
I have read that he was sometimes referred to as "Prinny", but don't have a source for it. In Brighton Pavilion there is a scurrilous painting of him with "The Spirit of Brighton". The painting is often reproduced on postcards, etc. so it would be nice if it could be included as an illustration of popular attitudes to him. Itsmejudith 12:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the section Titles, styles, honours and arms only goes on to deal with titles, styles and arms. Could someone expert in such matters add a subsection concerning his honours, please? talk Giler S 12:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! At a few places throughout Wikipedia I see the house "Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield", other times "Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld" (no "i" in "feld"). I think some consistency might be in order, and would favour "Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld" (no "i"). Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.177.4 ( talk) 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Would be nice if the intro included what age he was when he became King. 5Q5 ( talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Recently the file File:How to get Un-married, - Ay, there's the Rub! by J.L. Marks.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. This caricature by J.L. Marks mocks George IV's attempts to divorce Queen Caroline. Dcoetzee 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
George IV never said those last words. According to the biography I read he had "passed a large extraction mixed with blood", then went into a coma and died. ( 92.3.208.208 ( talk) 14:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
I have seen it claimed that George began to show signs of mental instability towards the end of his life, although less extreme than his father, and would tell people about how he was at the Battle of Waterloo. It is possible he was just trying to wind up the Duke of Wellington, but do we have a source? PatGallacher ( talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
George IV and his daughter both suffered from the same mental illness as George III. During his reign George IV would often tell guests how he had fought at the Battle of Waterloo, and personally won the Derby. The Duke of Wellington had no doubt the King was serious, saying, "I think insanity runs in the family." ( 92.14.254.135 ( talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC))
The IP range beginning 92.. is used by banned User:HarveyCarter, who has already targeted this article multiple times, e.g. [7] [8]. The supposed illnesses of British monarchs is one of his favorite topics. In accordance with WP:BAN, edits by banned editors may be reverted without explanation at any time. DrKay ( talk) 07:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As George IV was Prince of Wales and heir apparent to the King in his capacity as King of the UK, he was also the Crown Prince of Hanover given that he was also heir apparent to the King of Hanover (same person). I included this title because I find the listing of titles and styles to be very anglocentric. I have a source for it as well but I do not know how to incorporate it. Can anyone be of assistance? Thank you! :-) Seven Letters 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Under the heading of "Early Life", there is a curious anomaly regarding the conversion of the value of £60.000 converted into today's monetary value.
"The Prince turned 21 in 1783, and obtained a grant of £60,000 (equal to £5,744,000 today) from Parliament"
"In 1787, the Prince's political allies proposed to relieve his debts with a parliamentary grant. ... Parliament, meanwhile, granted the Prince . . . and £60,000 (equal to £6,252,000 today) for improvements to Carlton House."
In other words, in just four years, the same sum of money, i.e., £60.000, has increased in value, converted into today's monetary value, by £508.000!
How has this been worked out, and by whom???
20:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Anna - Borsey379 - 03.10.2010 (2nd October 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsey379 ( talk • contribs)
Two Brazilian Order of Chivalry are presented in this "featured" article as Portuguese and awarded in 1818, when none of them existed yet. It wouldn't have hurt much if whoever wrote this article had done a little more research. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Prinny says "For 'Prinny' as a historical nickname, see George IV of the United Kingdom." However, the name is not mentioned in this article. It would be good to rectify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.83.145 ( talk) 22:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
this page should be moved to george IV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.220 ( talk) 10:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
His visit to Scotland, organised by Sir Walter Scott, was the first by a reigning British monarch since Charles I went there in 1633
What about Charles II in 1650-51? I know he wasn't recognized as King of England at the time, but in retrospect he was considered to be reigning monarch, and he was certainly the reigning king of Scotland. Oh, and Charles I definitely visited Scotland in 1641. john k ( talk) 01:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the British government recognised him as the King of Scotland. ( 92.7.18.72 ( talk) 21:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC))
Charles II was no more the monarch in 1649 than James Francis Edward Stuart was in 1715. ( 92.10.138.213 ( talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC))
"George IV was the last British King to be shown on coins wearing a Roman-style laurel wreath." I am unsure of the significance of this as I seem to remember that the pre-decimal coins of our present Queen show her wearing a laurel wreath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tglawson ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, this succession box is inaccurate. He was heir to the thrones between 1820 and 1830. Before his father's death, he was heir apparent since nobody can be the heir of a living person (Nemo est heres viventis). However, what really concerns me is the triviality of this kind of succession boxes. It prompts users to create similar boxes and clog articles with them. It also poses the question: if "Heir to the British throne" is included, why exclude boxes such as "Heir to Bremen-Verden" and "Heir to the Saxe-Lauenburg throne"? Finally, do we really need succession boxes for the status of being first in line to a throne, especially when we have boxes related to titles such as Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall? Surtsicna ( talk) 21:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The meaning of English words is determined by the consensus of educated speakers, not Latin tags. Removing heir to the throne succession boxes is a drastic step which would need to be taken by an appropriate wider discussion. I take the point that sometimes a large number of succession boxes can clutter up an article, but I don't think this is the best place to start. PatGallacher ( talk) 23:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion of this matter at the talk page for the Manual of Style Biographies page. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think heir to the throne is needed in the succession box(For British Monarch), Although it is not a title heir has a responsibility and publisity for even a presumptive, and their is no formal title for a heir/heiress presumptive in Britain. Also no formal title given for a heiress aparent(only one time occured to date) Chamika1990 ( talk) 14:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
While researching another topic, I came across this in the London Gazette (issue 15039, from the bottom of page 636 to the top of page 637):
“ | Carlton-House, July 5, 1798. *
Office for managing the Affairs of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. By ORDER of the EARL CHOLMONDELEY. Notice is hereby given, that every Creditor of His Royal Highness is to deliver into this Office, within Ten Days from the Date hereof, a Particular, in Writing, containing the Nature and Amount of any Debt, signed -by him or her,-that they have accrued within the Quarter ending this Day ; and all Debts or Demands, of what Nature or Kind soever, which shall not be presented as aforesaid, and within the Time limited as afore- said, are not, under any Pretence or Colour of Au- thority whatever, to be paid, satisfied, or dis- charged, nor any Part thereof,, but are barred both at Law and in Equity: And all Bonds, Bills, Notes, or other Securities for Money, given or made in consideration of any Debt or Demand, whereof the Particulars in Writing are not delivered as aforesaid, are to all Intents and Purposes null and void.
|
” |
Given the wording, this appears to be a regular thing ("... accrued within the Quarter ending this day..."), or else had became so bad by 1798 that this had to be declared. The article does mention that "... the Prince of Wales's debts of 1795 were finally cleared in 1806, although the debts he had incurred since 1795 remained", and a further search of the Gazette reveals this and this, issued from Carlton House on 24 September 1795. Might these be worth inclusion, and are there any further sources supporting the issue of these notices (e.g. were there particular periods during which he spent wildly, or how constant was it if not)? From these notices being placed, I'd imagine it suggests that the Prince Regent was still spending in great excess despite the best efforts of those around him to manage his debts, so it may help to illustrate how great the challenge of managing the Prince Regent and his extravagance was. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George III of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George IV of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
His father refused to let him join the Army, and he rebelled against this by living the debauched life. It might be good to find a source for this. Valetude ( talk) 20:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Since "George IV" already redirects to this page, what about moving the article's name to simply "George IV"? M. Armando ( talk) 04:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Support claims COMMONNAME, CONCISE, and PRIMARYTOPIC. These claims are not even challenged. Opposition cites no basis in policy whatsoever. Consensus clearly favors the move here. ( non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
George IV of the United Kingdom → George IV – Since "George IV" already redirects to this page, what about moving the article's name to simply "George IV"? M. Armando ( talk) 16:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I added Anna Sophia Hodges as a possible mistress, but it was reverted straight away as apparently "Two hundred year old sources are rarely reliable". The reference I used is a word for word transcript of the court case published in the same year as it happened. Hodges was certainly significant enough to earn a place on the wall next to Mrs Fitz in this cartoon of 1791, and is referred to on the British Museum site as "said to have been a mistress of the Prince of Wales". I note there are other sources from 1818, 1827 and 1768 already used on the page - will these be reverted for similar reasons? Happy to discuss the wording of the edit, but I do believe it is reasonable to include Mrs Hodges in the list. DrThneed ( talk) 11:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Position of Monarch should be placed first. Just like it's done in the British prime ministers infoboxes. GoodDay ( talk) 08:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@ DrKay: the monarch outranks the regent. The younger George is filling in for his father, not the other way around. GoodDay ( talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
2 of the portraits in the section on George IV's declining health are labelled "Henry IV" although they are of George IV, one even has it on the image header "Henry IV" Henry IV never grew quite so obese in his life 216.211.13.73 ( talk) 08:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I searched a bit more and I believe at least one of these pictures is actually Falstaff from Shakespeare's "Henry IV" Gremlin66n ( talk) 08:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Recent access to royal archives have provided evidence seriously contesting Macalpine and Hunter's claim about porphyria and that the King clearly seems to have suffered four/possibly five episodes of bipolar disorder. Source
According to the documentary " Madness of King George", porphyria seems to have been an attempt by royalists to remove mental illness from the royal bloodline. - Cy21 ➜ discuss 16:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
There is mention of George IV Bridge in the article. Is George Street also named after him? His statue is placed there. Would it improve the article to mention George Street? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.241.162 ( talk) 21:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
George was an Anglican, he was baptized Anglican, attended Anglican services, he had an Anglican funeral, he's buried in an Anglican church. I don't understand why George III and all of the Stuarts are labeled as Anglican but George IV isn't even though all of them were also members of the Church of Scotland. TheFriendlyFas2 ( talk) 01:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)