![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Can the title be changed to "King George VI" or simply "George VI". He was King of many places and as much the King of Canada and Australia as of the UK. Similarly for other British kings and queens... ````Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.4.29 ( talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Should we change the huge infobox about ancestors to the model used in the Elizabeth II article at the end of the box with her political offices? I think that could save space, specially when standardizing the sovereigns' articles that are too big. Cosmos666 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The future King George VI was always referred to in the British and international press as "HRH The Duke of York" between June 3, 1920 (the date of his creation or birth) and December 10, 1936 (the day he succeeded Edward VIII). See the Index and archives for the Times (of London),the Daily Telegraph, the New York Times. Also see the Court Circular in the Times from this period. He was not known by the public as "Prince Albert" during these years, as previous versions of this Wikipedia article state. In Britain, it is always proper to refer to a member of the royal family who holds a peerage by that title (e.g., the Earl of Wessex not Prince Edward, or the Duke of Kent not Prince George).
Most British sovereigns of the Houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor created their younger sons and the sons of the Prince of Wales (if they existed) dukes shortly after coming of age or in their 20s. Elizabeth II is unusual in that she waited until the morning of her the respective weddings of her two sons, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, before conferring peerages on them.
It was only after the 1947 marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the former Prince Philip of Greece that the press began to refer to royal family members by their princely titles and personal names, in lieu of their correct peerages (prefixed with HRH).
Yvonne Demonskoff's Royalty Homepage and the archives for the newsgroup alt.talk.royalty discuss this in great detail.
You are quite correct. Though everyone referred to Princess Diana no such person actually existed, just Lady Diana Spencer, HRH the Princess of Wales, and Diana Princess of Wales. Unfortuntately wiki cannot use simply the title in headings; names have to be used disambigulate different Princes of Wales, Dukes of York, etc. Reliance exclusively on titles is a problem because there is a determined minority who have made every effort to insist that names, not titles should only be used. (I had a fight to the current Prince of Wales' article moved to
Charles, Prince of Wales from
Charles Windsor!!!) So complete reliance on titles rather than names risks generating edit wars from that entrenched monority. Usage of some personal names in some contexts is the compromise that was agreed to stop the minority, mainly in the US and anti-monarchist forcing patently absurd naming conventions on royalty.
FearÉIREANN 17:29, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) (BTW, don't forget to sign your messages. ~~~ gives your identity, four of them, ~~~~ gives name and time of message.
As far as I can see, George VI never held the title "Prince of Wales". During the period given in the article (1901-1910) it was the late George V, his father, who was Prince of Wales. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.229.215.191 (
talk) 02:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Edward VIII as the eldest son was the previous Prince of Wales.
94.196.120.105 (
talk)
19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the image? Astrotrain 21:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What did Queen Victoria actually have against kings being named Albert? 193.167.132.66 11:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Victoria's eldest son, the future Edward VII, was christened Albert Edward. I believe that she wanted him to reign as such, in homage to her late husband but not with exactly the same name (Albert). However, upon ascending the throne he chose to reign simply as Edward as a way to show a little independence after living under her shadow for such a very long time. RockStarSheister ( talk) 08:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
India did not become a republic in 1947. India and Pakistan became independent dominions within the British commonwealth. George VI remained head of state, as King (although he wasn't actually styled "King of India" or "King of Pakistan," I think. India only became a republic in 1950, and Pakistan in (I think) 1956. john k 16:04, 6 March 2005 (UTC)
Is this a joke? Can anyone say with a straight face that these two things are definitive causes of Albert's stammer, much less even plausible explanations?
Stammering is a common manifestation of left-handers being forced to write with the right hand (or vice-versa). 64.132.218.4 17:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Cee
The birth/name anecdote properly fits here, immediately following his list of titles in life. He is dead; he no longer has any title but "the late".
MoralHighGround
21:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC) sockpuppet of a banned Canberra user. This sockpuppet, and the numerous others he created, has been banned indefinitely.
Will someone please explain why the various dates are being forced to the DD Monthname format via the addition of an extraneous space at the end? The space makes it look utterly ridiculous, regardless of what your opinion of British vs. American date formatting is.— chris.lawson ( talk) 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Er, it's worth noting that the article has been in 'American' date format for its entire life, until the mass changeover a few days ago. (You should know that, Jtdirl; you've contributed to the article for nearly three years without changing it.) There wasn't some Americanization conspiracy at work; it's just how the article was written. Either way, this is a silly thing to have a revert war over, isn't it? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
As a non-British person I have a question: the queens and kings of the United Kingdom were also Emperor of India. So, why was it then not common to name them with the title King-emperor or Queen-empress?
Probably because they were not a native emperor with a local history, unlike say the Austrian emperor and King of Bohemia, who possessed titles and a presence in both territories since ancient times. The title Emperor of India was more a legal creation than a creation of history, so the monarch was seen simply as King of the United Kingdom, with India an appendage.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think its something to do with nationalism, they didnt want to upset the british public (at least thats what i read somwhere)
The terms Queen-Empress and King-Emperor were indeed used in legal proceedings and statutory enactments in pre-Independence India. However, British monarchs were only empress and emperors in India (as the Hohenzollerns prior to 1871 were electors were "king in Prussia" but not elsewhere).
The latin legend et I was found on documents signed by the Monarch. Victoria was the first to use this title after India had been 'acquired' for Britain, I recall reading how she had signed her first document with great relish using her new signature VR et I - Victoria Regina et Imperatu, (Victoria, Queen & Empress), apparently using her new title of Empress with great delight. C Williams - Llantrisant. 217.134.249.2 ( talk) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
See my point below under 'titles'. The Imperial title was never used in the UK or any of the Dominions of the Empire - it was specifically reserved for the Indian Empire only (when the title was created in 1877 by Benjamin Disraeli, the Act specifically excluded its use for anywhere outside India - to Queen Victoria's great annoyance). However the exceptions to this were the Royal Signature (where R I was used), and the addition of IND IMP on UK coinage (both these labels merely reflecting the Imperial position of the Crown as a sum of its many titles). In summary, the Sovereign was only addressed as Queen-Empress or King-Emperor in India, and nowhere else. Ds1994 ( talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It is surely fatuous in the extreme to describe George VI's "legacy" as consisting of a statue and a BBC television series. Suleiman the Magnificent he wasn't, obviously, but that's just not what a "legacy" is:
Masalai 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Added back in George's (Albert's) style from 1895-1898. From his birth to 1898, he was styled His Highness Prince Albert of York. In 1898, Queen Victoria issued letters patent that allowed children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to be styled His/Her Royal Highness. George VI was the son of George V (who was the eldest surviving son of the Prince of Wales). Prsgoddess187 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The article states that In 1917, Albert joined the Royal Air Force but did not see any further action in the war. [1] The RAF did not come into being until 1 April 1918 and so this statement cannot be correct. Did he join the Royal Flying Corps? Greenshed 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Does it not occur to anyone else that the statement, "On VE Day, the Royal Family appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace to celebrate the end of the war in Europe" is acutely odd? It's not as though they didn't and don't "appear on the balcony" on many other occasions and in any case it makes it sound as though this were some sort of miraculous visitation. One could perhaps amplify with mildly foolish, albeit conventional, observations regarding the nation coming together on the Mall with the Royal Family as the focus of their celebrations, and all that guff, but surely the article would be improved simply by deleting it altogether. Masalai 00:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that balcony appearance by the royals were the norm back then as they are now, which is why it is mentioned. RockStarSheister ( talk) 08:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article it's mentioned that consideration was given to bypassing the 'nervous' Duke of York infavor of the Duke of Kent as Edward VIII's successor. What about the Duke of Gloucester?? Who's older then the Duke of Kent. GoodDay 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"From his brother's ascension to the throne, on January 20, 1936, until his own accession, on December 11, 1936, Prince Albert held the style His Royal Highness, The Prince Albert, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland." Any source? – D B D 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps where I've put it isn't the right location, but George VI held the position of Commander in Chief of the Canadian Militia, Naval and Air forces through constitutional law, not as an honour. I also suspect he held other official positions within his militaries in his realms. The information therefore shouldn't be included within the section on his honours. -- G2bambino 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the criterias, everything that is likely to be challenged should have a direct (inline) citation. The articles does it very well in some parts, but other parts are failing. In particular the section "Early life" contains many statements of the sort, such as
Where does all this come from? It doesn't appear to be common knowledge to me. And in the following paragraph:
Oh, come on...
A reference would also be nice for the paragraph:
(section "Reign")
and for this sentence:
What does extremely enthusiastically received actually refer to? What is the source for that? And in what way was the spectre of Edward VIII's charisma comprehensively dispelled.? Footnotes would be nice.
Other than that I don't have any complaints at this moment. Only a minor thing though: put "Further reading" beneath the reference section.
Fred- Chess 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made some of the suggested changes above but the page requires the removal the "citation needed" markers before renomination. DrKay 08:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to the community that we change from the current portrait, to this photograph Image:King George-VI.jpg The Photo shows the King in Military Uniform as the head of the armed services during the War. So much of George's reign is during the war and I feel that this image more represents what service men and women would view as there king, ie: a leader, rather than someone garnished in robes and jewels, added to the fact the current picture I do not think does him justice. What is everyone's view, would anyone have a problem if I changed it?-- Duncanbruce 00:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the picture for now, it anyone has a problem please feel free to talk on these forums and I will of course remove it if needed -- Duncanbruce 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say it is impossible for them to impose copyright on an image they have already released into the public domain. Several other websites are using the image, I have decided to contact Camera Press and request consent for us to use this image. -- Duncanbruce 11:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of confusion here, Camera Press own the rights to the Photograph within the UK for Printing etc, but wikipedia.org is a worldwide community where anyone can update. You cannot gaurentee that any photo/picture is completely out of copyright in all countries, for example any country can declare anything copyright. Because the photo is no longer in copyright in Canada and no one is clear who owns the copyright if anyone to worldwide web publishing I believe we have justification to keep the photograph. A Quick search using the Google Search engine produced several websites which are also using the photograph without approval so I believe the photograph is in contention over its use on the internet -- 193.63.27.195 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Should George and for that matter, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII and Victoria not be credited as either:
His Imperial Majesty, The King Emperor or Her Imperial Majesty, The Queen Empress?
Instead they seem to be just credited as His Majesty, The King Emperor?-- Duncanbruce 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Imperial title was never used in the UK or any of the Dominions of the Empire - it was specifically reserved for the Indian Empire only (when the title was created in 1877 by Benjamin Disraeli, the Act specifically excluded its use for anywhere outside India - to Queen Victoria's great annoyance). However the exceptions to this were the Royal Signature (where R I was used), and the addition of IND IMP on UK coinage (both these labels merely reflecting the Imperial position of the Crown as a sum of its many titles). Ds1994 ( talk) 10:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
About the line When war broke out in 1939, George VI and his wife resolved to stay in London and not flee to Canada, as had been suggested, I have read that the British government made sure that a member of the royal family (Duke of Windsor, the former King) was safely out of reach of Nazi troops in Bermuda, in case of a successful Nazi invasion of Britain. Even to the extent of dispatching a Royal Navy ship to take him there. Is this correct? If so, should it be mentioned at this point? It seems relevant to the article. T-bonham 08:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The article lists Duke of Normandy as one of George's titles, but he isn't listed as such on the Dukes of Normandy page. I confess I was a little surprised to see Normandy listed. Any comment/citation on this title? Epeeist smudge 09:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not an oddity at all. The Crown possesses by right the title of Duke of Normandy, and has done so since the invasion of Duke William of Normandy in 1066. The Channel Islands are a part of this Dukedom and remain so to this day (the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, and are only associated with the UK through the personal bond with the Crown via the Dukedom of Normandy). When in the Channel Islands, the Queen is also addressed as 'our Lord Duke'. Ds1994 ( talk) 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone remove the comma before 'and each' - or insert one after 'Dominions' - on the first line of the home-page summary? I'm not sure how to do that. Barnabypage 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at George VI of the United Kingdom/Honours and appointments, and the page should be renamed to lose the "/" (as Wikipedia article space does not have subpages). What should the name be, and who agrees it should be renamed? Carcharoth 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"A couple of days" before Edward VIII abdicated and George succeeded Crystal Palace burnt down. "A few days" before George VI was crowned the LZ 129 Hindenburg airship was destroyed by fire.
A somewhat bizarre coincidence, nothing more. Jackiespeel 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello! This article is great, but why is there no mention of his time at Trinity College, Cambridge? I don't remember if he obtained a degree but he spent some time studying there, and it was for this reason that Trinity Cambridge was later chosen for his grandson, Prince Charles. -- Ashley Rovira 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
please can you add this medal? thanks (my english isn't very well)-- 87.78.65.254 ( talk) 17:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a bit harsh to say that Stanley Baldwin 'informed' the King that it was unacceptable that he marry Mrs Simpson. It was, after all, his task to advise the King, and the King was free to accept or reject that advice. Markswan ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"In a break with tradition, Queen Mary attended the coronation as a show of support for her son."
Does this mean that queen mothers did not attend their childrens' coronations? Surtsicna ( talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Kay, I do not dispute the accuracy of your comments, and I find them very helpful. If attending the coronation of the Pope implies that the Pope is higher than the King, however, I doubt we will see many British monarchs attending papal coronations! Technically, though, the last papal coronation, and the last use of the triple tiara, occurred in 1963, when Pope Paul VI was installed. Since then (John Paul I in 1978, John Paul II in 1978, and Benedict XVI in 2005), neither the triple tiara nor the term "coronation" has been used. Thanks again for your comments. John Paul Parks ( talk) 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article contains the following statement: "By reason of this abdication, unique in 2000 years of British history, George VI ascended the throne as the third monarch of the House of Windsor." This is not correct. First of all, Richard II abdicated in 1399. Admittedly, it was forced, and it might be characterized as a deposition, but Edward VIII was not the first King to give up the Throne. Secondly, to refer to "2000 years of British history" in connection with the monarchy seems excessive, since the British monarchy generally dates to 800 A.D., during the time of Egbert.
John Paul Parks ( talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record Richard II and Edward VIII were not the only abdications in English and British history. Edward II was forced to abdicate in 1327, and did so formally in the presence of all the representatives of the shires and bishoprics of England (on the understanding that if he did not abdicate and allegiance be cancelled then the Plantagenet line would be formally extinguished and another be put in its stead). Both abdication and deposition are not unique in English and British history (quick recap: Edward II abdicated and murdered by the insertion of red hot poker in the rectum in Berekely Casle, Richard II abdicated and murdered by starvation Pontefract Castle, Henry VI deposed twice (on second time murdered with blow to head in Tower of London), Edward V deposed and murdered Tower of London, Richard III summarily deposed and his body chopped to pieces and dumped in the river at Bosworth Field, Charles I deposed and publicly beheaded in Whitehall London, James II & VII deposed and exiled to Rome). The English are extremely adept at removing incapable Kings! Ds1994 ( talk) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Happened a week after the Hindenberg Disaster. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
For "collectors of curious coincidences" (and historical events tend to get separated from chronologically close other events). Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering (as there doesn't seem to be anywhere in the article mentioning this at the moment) if there should be some mention in the article of things people said about George VI both immediately and later on after his death. For instance, the Times said the morning after his death, "In nothing in all his life and reign did the late King ever fail the peoples over whom he came to rule." [2] I'm sure there are many other such comments (although perhaps less hyperbolic). Ideas? 77.96.123.10 ( talk) 10:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This mollified the baby's great-grandmother, who wrote to the baby's mother, the Duchess of York: "I am all impatience to see the new one, ....".
Wouldn't this be something to make a note on?
Did George VI have an official birthday when celebrations took place, on a different date from his real birthday - such as Queen Elizabeth does nowadays? I have a diary reference to the King's Birthday in 1942 and from the context it must be between February and September 1942. 86.134.50.37 ( talk) 08:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The Latin word for "Empress" has come up as "Imperatu". It should be "Imperatrix". Thanks. Anthony Kaye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.122.61 ( talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
George VI never held the title George VI of the United Kingdom, but was King of Great Britain, Ireland, etc. (see Style of the British sovereign) and also Emperor of India. George VI (United Kingdom) would make sense according to normal Wikipedia disambiguation, but the present article title is a nonsense. AJRG ( talk) 18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of the recent move of Elizabeth II may have been, it does not automatically follow that her father should be moved as well, there are some significant differences. If you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it says "If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic". So it is perfectly legitimate for George VI to be a redirect to this article with the longer title. In several cases where there is a primary meaning of a name it is a redirect to an article with a longer title e.g. Amundsen, Hitler, Rommel, Sacramento. We also have several cases where a monarch is the primary but not unique meaning of a name + number combination, but the article title includes their realm, e.g. George III, IV, V of the United Kingdom, James IV of Scotland, George VII, VIII of Georgia, should these all be moved? PatGallacher ( talk) 19:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The last two sentenes of the opening paragraph in this section read:
The day before the abdication, he went to London to see his mother, Queen Mary. He wrote in his diary, "When I told her what had happened, I broke down and sobbed like a child."
To whom does the bolded "he" above refer? Both Edward and Albert are referenced in the same paragraph. Sottolacqua ( talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Orlady ( talk) 18:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
George VI of the United Kingdom →
George VI — Since
Elizabeth II's article is now titled without mentioning the UK, there must be a break in consistency at some point, and for reasons I will detail outside this template, it seems preferable to make the break after Victoria than after George VI.
Kotniski (
talk)
11:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Further explanation: Reasons for making the break between "Name Number of the UK" and plain "Name Number" after Victoria:
I hope this won't turn into another bad-natured debate like the Liz II one did - this isn't aimed against the overall naming convention for monarchs (see WP:NCROY), but just aims to make an exception for these four articles, like the other exceptions that already exist.-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been noted at WT:NCROY (the naming convention page) and at the UK, Ireland, Australia and Canada noticeboards/WikiProjects. Oh, and India. That's probably quite enough.-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The oppose arguments are simply unconvincing and most are logically flawed.
In support of a move, it is argued the change increases consistency, but such an argument is bedevilled by the same flaw in the argument that change decreases consistency: there is no consistency anyway. The first three Edwards do not have countries, the subsequent ones do. Some sovereigns have titles included ( Wilhelm II, German Emperor), some do not. Some heads of state have countries included, most do not. And so on. Consequently, I reject the consistency argument for both support and oppose cases.
In support of a move it is argued that it is unnecessary to disambiguate with a lengthy title as the shorter one is either the primary or sole use. This is true but, as correctly pointed out by Noel's Elvis example, this is not in itself a reason for reduction. For the reduction argument to hold water, there must be a demonstrated need to reduce the title.
In support of a move to an alternative title, but not necessarily to reduce it:
In themselves, these are arguments for a change in the country name but not necessarily for the removal of it.
To be in support of the proposed move one must look at the support arguments together. Removing the country removes the perceived favoritism towards one country and removes the misinformation that they were kings of one country only. It does not make the title more comprehensive or more understandable, but then the current title is not comprehensive or increasing of understanding either. So, removing the single country name reduces perceived bias while not introducing new bias, and reduces misinformation while not introducing new misinformation. Consequently, on the basis that the proposed move has a rational argument in its favor, and no valid oppose rationale, I support. DrKay ( talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Can the title be changed to "King George VI" or simply "George VI". He was King of many places and as much the King of Canada and Australia as of the UK. Similarly for other British kings and queens... ````Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.4.29 ( talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Should we change the huge infobox about ancestors to the model used in the Elizabeth II article at the end of the box with her political offices? I think that could save space, specially when standardizing the sovereigns' articles that are too big. Cosmos666 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The future King George VI was always referred to in the British and international press as "HRH The Duke of York" between June 3, 1920 (the date of his creation or birth) and December 10, 1936 (the day he succeeded Edward VIII). See the Index and archives for the Times (of London),the Daily Telegraph, the New York Times. Also see the Court Circular in the Times from this period. He was not known by the public as "Prince Albert" during these years, as previous versions of this Wikipedia article state. In Britain, it is always proper to refer to a member of the royal family who holds a peerage by that title (e.g., the Earl of Wessex not Prince Edward, or the Duke of Kent not Prince George).
Most British sovereigns of the Houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor created their younger sons and the sons of the Prince of Wales (if they existed) dukes shortly after coming of age or in their 20s. Elizabeth II is unusual in that she waited until the morning of her the respective weddings of her two sons, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, before conferring peerages on them.
It was only after the 1947 marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the former Prince Philip of Greece that the press began to refer to royal family members by their princely titles and personal names, in lieu of their correct peerages (prefixed with HRH).
Yvonne Demonskoff's Royalty Homepage and the archives for the newsgroup alt.talk.royalty discuss this in great detail.
You are quite correct. Though everyone referred to Princess Diana no such person actually existed, just Lady Diana Spencer, HRH the Princess of Wales, and Diana Princess of Wales. Unfortuntately wiki cannot use simply the title in headings; names have to be used disambigulate different Princes of Wales, Dukes of York, etc. Reliance exclusively on titles is a problem because there is a determined minority who have made every effort to insist that names, not titles should only be used. (I had a fight to the current Prince of Wales' article moved to
Charles, Prince of Wales from
Charles Windsor!!!) So complete reliance on titles rather than names risks generating edit wars from that entrenched monority. Usage of some personal names in some contexts is the compromise that was agreed to stop the minority, mainly in the US and anti-monarchist forcing patently absurd naming conventions on royalty.
FearÉIREANN 17:29, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) (BTW, don't forget to sign your messages. ~~~ gives your identity, four of them, ~~~~ gives name and time of message.
As far as I can see, George VI never held the title "Prince of Wales". During the period given in the article (1901-1910) it was the late George V, his father, who was Prince of Wales. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.229.215.191 (
talk) 02:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Edward VIII as the eldest son was the previous Prince of Wales.
94.196.120.105 (
talk)
19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the image? Astrotrain 21:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What did Queen Victoria actually have against kings being named Albert? 193.167.132.66 11:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Victoria's eldest son, the future Edward VII, was christened Albert Edward. I believe that she wanted him to reign as such, in homage to her late husband but not with exactly the same name (Albert). However, upon ascending the throne he chose to reign simply as Edward as a way to show a little independence after living under her shadow for such a very long time. RockStarSheister ( talk) 08:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
India did not become a republic in 1947. India and Pakistan became independent dominions within the British commonwealth. George VI remained head of state, as King (although he wasn't actually styled "King of India" or "King of Pakistan," I think. India only became a republic in 1950, and Pakistan in (I think) 1956. john k 16:04, 6 March 2005 (UTC)
Is this a joke? Can anyone say with a straight face that these two things are definitive causes of Albert's stammer, much less even plausible explanations?
Stammering is a common manifestation of left-handers being forced to write with the right hand (or vice-versa). 64.132.218.4 17:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Cee
The birth/name anecdote properly fits here, immediately following his list of titles in life. He is dead; he no longer has any title but "the late".
MoralHighGround
21:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC) sockpuppet of a banned Canberra user. This sockpuppet, and the numerous others he created, has been banned indefinitely.
Will someone please explain why the various dates are being forced to the DD Monthname format via the addition of an extraneous space at the end? The space makes it look utterly ridiculous, regardless of what your opinion of British vs. American date formatting is.— chris.lawson ( talk) 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Er, it's worth noting that the article has been in 'American' date format for its entire life, until the mass changeover a few days ago. (You should know that, Jtdirl; you've contributed to the article for nearly three years without changing it.) There wasn't some Americanization conspiracy at work; it's just how the article was written. Either way, this is a silly thing to have a revert war over, isn't it? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
As a non-British person I have a question: the queens and kings of the United Kingdom were also Emperor of India. So, why was it then not common to name them with the title King-emperor or Queen-empress?
Probably because they were not a native emperor with a local history, unlike say the Austrian emperor and King of Bohemia, who possessed titles and a presence in both territories since ancient times. The title Emperor of India was more a legal creation than a creation of history, so the monarch was seen simply as King of the United Kingdom, with India an appendage.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think its something to do with nationalism, they didnt want to upset the british public (at least thats what i read somwhere)
The terms Queen-Empress and King-Emperor were indeed used in legal proceedings and statutory enactments in pre-Independence India. However, British monarchs were only empress and emperors in India (as the Hohenzollerns prior to 1871 were electors were "king in Prussia" but not elsewhere).
The latin legend et I was found on documents signed by the Monarch. Victoria was the first to use this title after India had been 'acquired' for Britain, I recall reading how she had signed her first document with great relish using her new signature VR et I - Victoria Regina et Imperatu, (Victoria, Queen & Empress), apparently using her new title of Empress with great delight. C Williams - Llantrisant. 217.134.249.2 ( talk) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
See my point below under 'titles'. The Imperial title was never used in the UK or any of the Dominions of the Empire - it was specifically reserved for the Indian Empire only (when the title was created in 1877 by Benjamin Disraeli, the Act specifically excluded its use for anywhere outside India - to Queen Victoria's great annoyance). However the exceptions to this were the Royal Signature (where R I was used), and the addition of IND IMP on UK coinage (both these labels merely reflecting the Imperial position of the Crown as a sum of its many titles). In summary, the Sovereign was only addressed as Queen-Empress or King-Emperor in India, and nowhere else. Ds1994 ( talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It is surely fatuous in the extreme to describe George VI's "legacy" as consisting of a statue and a BBC television series. Suleiman the Magnificent he wasn't, obviously, but that's just not what a "legacy" is:
Masalai 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Added back in George's (Albert's) style from 1895-1898. From his birth to 1898, he was styled His Highness Prince Albert of York. In 1898, Queen Victoria issued letters patent that allowed children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to be styled His/Her Royal Highness. George VI was the son of George V (who was the eldest surviving son of the Prince of Wales). Prsgoddess187 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The article states that In 1917, Albert joined the Royal Air Force but did not see any further action in the war. [1] The RAF did not come into being until 1 April 1918 and so this statement cannot be correct. Did he join the Royal Flying Corps? Greenshed 20:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Does it not occur to anyone else that the statement, "On VE Day, the Royal Family appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace to celebrate the end of the war in Europe" is acutely odd? It's not as though they didn't and don't "appear on the balcony" on many other occasions and in any case it makes it sound as though this were some sort of miraculous visitation. One could perhaps amplify with mildly foolish, albeit conventional, observations regarding the nation coming together on the Mall with the Royal Family as the focus of their celebrations, and all that guff, but surely the article would be improved simply by deleting it altogether. Masalai 00:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that balcony appearance by the royals were the norm back then as they are now, which is why it is mentioned. RockStarSheister ( talk) 08:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article it's mentioned that consideration was given to bypassing the 'nervous' Duke of York infavor of the Duke of Kent as Edward VIII's successor. What about the Duke of Gloucester?? Who's older then the Duke of Kent. GoodDay 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"From his brother's ascension to the throne, on January 20, 1936, until his own accession, on December 11, 1936, Prince Albert held the style His Royal Highness, The Prince Albert, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland." Any source? – D B D 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps where I've put it isn't the right location, but George VI held the position of Commander in Chief of the Canadian Militia, Naval and Air forces through constitutional law, not as an honour. I also suspect he held other official positions within his militaries in his realms. The information therefore shouldn't be included within the section on his honours. -- G2bambino 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the criterias, everything that is likely to be challenged should have a direct (inline) citation. The articles does it very well in some parts, but other parts are failing. In particular the section "Early life" contains many statements of the sort, such as
Where does all this come from? It doesn't appear to be common knowledge to me. And in the following paragraph:
Oh, come on...
A reference would also be nice for the paragraph:
(section "Reign")
and for this sentence:
What does extremely enthusiastically received actually refer to? What is the source for that? And in what way was the spectre of Edward VIII's charisma comprehensively dispelled.? Footnotes would be nice.
Other than that I don't have any complaints at this moment. Only a minor thing though: put "Further reading" beneath the reference section.
Fred- Chess 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made some of the suggested changes above but the page requires the removal the "citation needed" markers before renomination. DrKay 08:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to the community that we change from the current portrait, to this photograph Image:King George-VI.jpg The Photo shows the King in Military Uniform as the head of the armed services during the War. So much of George's reign is during the war and I feel that this image more represents what service men and women would view as there king, ie: a leader, rather than someone garnished in robes and jewels, added to the fact the current picture I do not think does him justice. What is everyone's view, would anyone have a problem if I changed it?-- Duncanbruce 00:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the picture for now, it anyone has a problem please feel free to talk on these forums and I will of course remove it if needed -- Duncanbruce 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say it is impossible for them to impose copyright on an image they have already released into the public domain. Several other websites are using the image, I have decided to contact Camera Press and request consent for us to use this image. -- Duncanbruce 11:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of confusion here, Camera Press own the rights to the Photograph within the UK for Printing etc, but wikipedia.org is a worldwide community where anyone can update. You cannot gaurentee that any photo/picture is completely out of copyright in all countries, for example any country can declare anything copyright. Because the photo is no longer in copyright in Canada and no one is clear who owns the copyright if anyone to worldwide web publishing I believe we have justification to keep the photograph. A Quick search using the Google Search engine produced several websites which are also using the photograph without approval so I believe the photograph is in contention over its use on the internet -- 193.63.27.195 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Should George and for that matter, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII and Victoria not be credited as either:
His Imperial Majesty, The King Emperor or Her Imperial Majesty, The Queen Empress?
Instead they seem to be just credited as His Majesty, The King Emperor?-- Duncanbruce 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Imperial title was never used in the UK or any of the Dominions of the Empire - it was specifically reserved for the Indian Empire only (when the title was created in 1877 by Benjamin Disraeli, the Act specifically excluded its use for anywhere outside India - to Queen Victoria's great annoyance). However the exceptions to this were the Royal Signature (where R I was used), and the addition of IND IMP on UK coinage (both these labels merely reflecting the Imperial position of the Crown as a sum of its many titles). Ds1994 ( talk) 10:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
About the line When war broke out in 1939, George VI and his wife resolved to stay in London and not flee to Canada, as had been suggested, I have read that the British government made sure that a member of the royal family (Duke of Windsor, the former King) was safely out of reach of Nazi troops in Bermuda, in case of a successful Nazi invasion of Britain. Even to the extent of dispatching a Royal Navy ship to take him there. Is this correct? If so, should it be mentioned at this point? It seems relevant to the article. T-bonham 08:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The article lists Duke of Normandy as one of George's titles, but he isn't listed as such on the Dukes of Normandy page. I confess I was a little surprised to see Normandy listed. Any comment/citation on this title? Epeeist smudge 09:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not an oddity at all. The Crown possesses by right the title of Duke of Normandy, and has done so since the invasion of Duke William of Normandy in 1066. The Channel Islands are a part of this Dukedom and remain so to this day (the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, and are only associated with the UK through the personal bond with the Crown via the Dukedom of Normandy). When in the Channel Islands, the Queen is also addressed as 'our Lord Duke'. Ds1994 ( talk) 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone remove the comma before 'and each' - or insert one after 'Dominions' - on the first line of the home-page summary? I'm not sure how to do that. Barnabypage 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at George VI of the United Kingdom/Honours and appointments, and the page should be renamed to lose the "/" (as Wikipedia article space does not have subpages). What should the name be, and who agrees it should be renamed? Carcharoth 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"A couple of days" before Edward VIII abdicated and George succeeded Crystal Palace burnt down. "A few days" before George VI was crowned the LZ 129 Hindenburg airship was destroyed by fire.
A somewhat bizarre coincidence, nothing more. Jackiespeel 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello! This article is great, but why is there no mention of his time at Trinity College, Cambridge? I don't remember if he obtained a degree but he spent some time studying there, and it was for this reason that Trinity Cambridge was later chosen for his grandson, Prince Charles. -- Ashley Rovira 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
please can you add this medal? thanks (my english isn't very well)-- 87.78.65.254 ( talk) 17:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a bit harsh to say that Stanley Baldwin 'informed' the King that it was unacceptable that he marry Mrs Simpson. It was, after all, his task to advise the King, and the King was free to accept or reject that advice. Markswan ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"In a break with tradition, Queen Mary attended the coronation as a show of support for her son."
Does this mean that queen mothers did not attend their childrens' coronations? Surtsicna ( talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Kay, I do not dispute the accuracy of your comments, and I find them very helpful. If attending the coronation of the Pope implies that the Pope is higher than the King, however, I doubt we will see many British monarchs attending papal coronations! Technically, though, the last papal coronation, and the last use of the triple tiara, occurred in 1963, when Pope Paul VI was installed. Since then (John Paul I in 1978, John Paul II in 1978, and Benedict XVI in 2005), neither the triple tiara nor the term "coronation" has been used. Thanks again for your comments. John Paul Parks ( talk) 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article contains the following statement: "By reason of this abdication, unique in 2000 years of British history, George VI ascended the throne as the third monarch of the House of Windsor." This is not correct. First of all, Richard II abdicated in 1399. Admittedly, it was forced, and it might be characterized as a deposition, but Edward VIII was not the first King to give up the Throne. Secondly, to refer to "2000 years of British history" in connection with the monarchy seems excessive, since the British monarchy generally dates to 800 A.D., during the time of Egbert.
John Paul Parks ( talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record Richard II and Edward VIII were not the only abdications in English and British history. Edward II was forced to abdicate in 1327, and did so formally in the presence of all the representatives of the shires and bishoprics of England (on the understanding that if he did not abdicate and allegiance be cancelled then the Plantagenet line would be formally extinguished and another be put in its stead). Both abdication and deposition are not unique in English and British history (quick recap: Edward II abdicated and murdered by the insertion of red hot poker in the rectum in Berekely Casle, Richard II abdicated and murdered by starvation Pontefract Castle, Henry VI deposed twice (on second time murdered with blow to head in Tower of London), Edward V deposed and murdered Tower of London, Richard III summarily deposed and his body chopped to pieces and dumped in the river at Bosworth Field, Charles I deposed and publicly beheaded in Whitehall London, James II & VII deposed and exiled to Rome). The English are extremely adept at removing incapable Kings! Ds1994 ( talk) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Happened a week after the Hindenberg Disaster. Jackiespeel ( talk) 14:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
For "collectors of curious coincidences" (and historical events tend to get separated from chronologically close other events). Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering (as there doesn't seem to be anywhere in the article mentioning this at the moment) if there should be some mention in the article of things people said about George VI both immediately and later on after his death. For instance, the Times said the morning after his death, "In nothing in all his life and reign did the late King ever fail the peoples over whom he came to rule." [2] I'm sure there are many other such comments (although perhaps less hyperbolic). Ideas? 77.96.123.10 ( talk) 10:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This mollified the baby's great-grandmother, who wrote to the baby's mother, the Duchess of York: "I am all impatience to see the new one, ....".
Wouldn't this be something to make a note on?
Did George VI have an official birthday when celebrations took place, on a different date from his real birthday - such as Queen Elizabeth does nowadays? I have a diary reference to the King's Birthday in 1942 and from the context it must be between February and September 1942. 86.134.50.37 ( talk) 08:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The Latin word for "Empress" has come up as "Imperatu". It should be "Imperatrix". Thanks. Anthony Kaye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.122.61 ( talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
George VI never held the title George VI of the United Kingdom, but was King of Great Britain, Ireland, etc. (see Style of the British sovereign) and also Emperor of India. George VI (United Kingdom) would make sense according to normal Wikipedia disambiguation, but the present article title is a nonsense. AJRG ( talk) 18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of the recent move of Elizabeth II may have been, it does not automatically follow that her father should be moved as well, there are some significant differences. If you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it says "If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic". So it is perfectly legitimate for George VI to be a redirect to this article with the longer title. In several cases where there is a primary meaning of a name it is a redirect to an article with a longer title e.g. Amundsen, Hitler, Rommel, Sacramento. We also have several cases where a monarch is the primary but not unique meaning of a name + number combination, but the article title includes their realm, e.g. George III, IV, V of the United Kingdom, James IV of Scotland, George VII, VIII of Georgia, should these all be moved? PatGallacher ( talk) 19:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The last two sentenes of the opening paragraph in this section read:
The day before the abdication, he went to London to see his mother, Queen Mary. He wrote in his diary, "When I told her what had happened, I broke down and sobbed like a child."
To whom does the bolded "he" above refer? Both Edward and Albert are referenced in the same paragraph. Sottolacqua ( talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Orlady ( talk) 18:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
George VI of the United Kingdom →
George VI — Since
Elizabeth II's article is now titled without mentioning the UK, there must be a break in consistency at some point, and for reasons I will detail outside this template, it seems preferable to make the break after Victoria than after George VI.
Kotniski (
talk)
11:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Further explanation: Reasons for making the break between "Name Number of the UK" and plain "Name Number" after Victoria:
I hope this won't turn into another bad-natured debate like the Liz II one did - this isn't aimed against the overall naming convention for monarchs (see WP:NCROY), but just aims to make an exception for these four articles, like the other exceptions that already exist.-- Kotniski ( talk) 12:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been noted at WT:NCROY (the naming convention page) and at the UK, Ireland, Australia and Canada noticeboards/WikiProjects. Oh, and India. That's probably quite enough.-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The oppose arguments are simply unconvincing and most are logically flawed.
In support of a move, it is argued the change increases consistency, but such an argument is bedevilled by the same flaw in the argument that change decreases consistency: there is no consistency anyway. The first three Edwards do not have countries, the subsequent ones do. Some sovereigns have titles included ( Wilhelm II, German Emperor), some do not. Some heads of state have countries included, most do not. And so on. Consequently, I reject the consistency argument for both support and oppose cases.
In support of a move it is argued that it is unnecessary to disambiguate with a lengthy title as the shorter one is either the primary or sole use. This is true but, as correctly pointed out by Noel's Elvis example, this is not in itself a reason for reduction. For the reduction argument to hold water, there must be a demonstrated need to reduce the title.
In support of a move to an alternative title, but not necessarily to reduce it:
In themselves, these are arguments for a change in the country name but not necessarily for the removal of it.
To be in support of the proposed move one must look at the support arguments together. Removing the country removes the perceived favoritism towards one country and removes the misinformation that they were kings of one country only. It does not make the title more comprehensive or more understandable, but then the current title is not comprehensive or increasing of understanding either. So, removing the single country name reduces perceived bias while not introducing new bias, and reduces misinformation while not introducing new misinformation. Consequently, on the basis that the proposed move has a rational argument in its favor, and no valid oppose rationale, I support. DrKay ( talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)