![]() | 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 |
I recently heard that on the eve of D-Day both Churchill and the King wanted to go with the supporting troops into Nornandy. Though they both decided against, when Churchill pointed out that if they were killed Britain could lose its two main leaders. Could anyone elaborate on this ?
The opening paragraph says he was the "last King of Ireland." Surely the title King of Ireland ceased to exist at the Act of Union of 1801. He was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was a single national entity with a single Crown. Otherwise we would have to conclude that the Queen has the title Queen of Northern Ireland, which clearly she does not. The George III article correctly asserts that George was King of Ireland only until 1801. Either that article or this article is wrong, and it is this one. This reference should be removed. Intelligent Mr Toad 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please also remember that with the Act of Union of 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland did not cease to exist. True the two countries of Great Britain and Ireland were unified under a Parliamentary system (the Irish House of Commons and Lords being abolished and MPs and Peers being represented at Westminster). However the country of Ireland itself continued to exist as a separate identity (otherwise the title of the Union would have been: the United Kingdom of the British Isles, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Ireland). This is why the crown was represented at Dublin with a Viceroy of Ireland. And this is why, although the United Kingdom Peerage came into effect in 1801, a separate Peerage of Ireland continued to exist, with Irish Peerages continuing to be created as separate idnetities until the end of the nineteenth Century. Ds1994 ( talk) 10:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"Please also remember that with the Act of Union of 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland did not cease to exist"-er, yes it did. Also, constitutionally speaking; Edward VIII was the last 'King of Ireland', not George VI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Ds1994, Ireland did cease to exist, legally, with the 1801 Act of Union. There was no Kingdom of Ireland after 1801, just as there is no Kingdom of England or Kingdom of Scotland now, although they have administrative law status, hence different law systems in both countries BUT legally, as witnessed by the accreditation of ambassadors, and membership of international organisation, they are one state, the United Kingdom, which Ireland was subsumed into (like England and Scotland) before independence and partition. Ats71 ( talk) 3 April 2011, 3.27am UTC
Given that the issue is debateable, as the Irish Free State did not recognise him as King of Ireland, I think it's best to remove this from the lead. It is too nuanced to cover adequately, and is given undue prominence when mentioned in the first paragraph. DrKay ( talk) 12:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The Irish Free State continued to recognise him as Head of State in external matters until 18 April 1949. ( 92.20.39.232 ( talk) 13:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
Yes they did. George VI continued to officially represent all of Ireland in foreign affairs until Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949. And even if some politicians objected, the fact is that he did not legally cease to hold the title "King of Ireland" until 18 April 1949. ( 92.20.39.232 ( talk) 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
The south could not become a republic until George VI ceased by law to be Head of State on 18 April 1949. Without any question George VI was the King of Ireland until 29 December 1937. ( 92.20.39.232 ( talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
Perhaps it should just say he was the last King of Ireland (which he undoubtedly was on his accession to the throne). If we are to question whether he was really the Head of State in Ireland we might as well question whether Henry VIII was either. Certainly by law George VI continued to hold the separate title "King of Ireland" until 18 April 1949. ( 92.20.42.182 ( talk) 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
Should Edward VIII's article be amended to say that he was the last King of Ireland? ( 92.20.42.182 ( talk) 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
Even if we accept that the Irish Free State became a republic in December 1937, George VI was still King of Ireland for the first year of his reign. Therefore he was without doubt the last King of Ireland. ( RichardElden ( talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC))
It is certainly relevant since it demonstrates the decline of Britain during his reign as a result of World War II. There is no disputing the fact that he was King of Ireland at the time of his accession, that he still represented all of Ireland in international affairs until 1949, and that he did not formally relinquish the title until the country left the Commonwealth. Therefore I think the introduction should at least mention that George VI still represented Ireland abroad until 1949, since it was not formally a republic until then. ( RichardElden ( talk) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC))
I've added to the arms section George VI's arms in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. India, Pakistan, and Ceylon were left out only because I can't find any arms for those states when they were Dominons/Commonwealth realms. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
In a monarchy; the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same, because the monarch is sovereign; legally speaking, they 'are the state'; as opposed to a republic where the people as a whole are sovereign, hence the arms of a republic are those of the people as a whole. Hence why a armigerous President of a Republic will possess personal arms that are absolutely different to those of the state. So, the arms of George VI in Canada would have been his arms in right of his being King of Canada, the same goes for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland de jure until 1949. India and Pakistan and Ceylon did not have arms during his reign in them, but Pakistan and Ceylon did adopt arms during the reign of his daughter, Elizabeth II. I would suggest whoever added Canada's arms to also add those of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland, as they would be absolutely correct to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.136.244 ( talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"As a result of the training, the Duke's opening address at Australia's Federal Parliament at Canberra in 1927 went successfully,[23]" in the text. Was this not the opening in Melbourne? The linked article says that the address was in Canberra which the linked article attributes the QE2. 124.176.49.207 ( talk) 10:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Who wrote this?
Did you not see the actual movie? George did not even become King until 1937! WWII started in 1939. In the movie, they set it up in 1925 at the British Empire Exhibition where the Duke Of York was to give his first speech on behalf of his father. He could speak at little engagements but this was the big test. He was horrible. Lional and his son were present at the stadium. Then he started visiting Lional in roughly 1935/1936 and it carried forward from there. Lional was present at the coronation in the King's box, third level. They had a strong friendship by the time of the coronation. It did carry through the war. The Abdication crisis did give Bertie the fits but he knew that a very solemn duty was about to come his way, even though he truly was reluctant to take it on. It produced a severe stammering time for him but with Lional's help, he managed to get through it. -- Lady Meg ( talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly (1) Money was no object to having more children (2) A male heir would have been desirable. So why did they stop at two daughters, and not continue having children until they got a son?
86.189.10.3 ( talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(1) Most people limit their families due to economics - I would assume that this is not a constraint on royalty. (2) Though constitutionally possible, a woman inheriting the crown was pretty rare (Mary, Elizabeth, Mary [of William and], Victoria - 4 in 800 years: were there any more?) - it would surely have been regarded as more satisfactory to have had a male inherit? It just strikes me as rather odd they stopped at two girls - did Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have some gynaecological problem perhaps? 109.144.211.20 ( talk) 00:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says that George was constitutionally bound to support Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. I just read Hitchens' article- he says that the monarchy intervened to support Chamberlain before Parliament had given its assent and quotes an expert saying that it was a flagrant abuse of power without precedent- that George very much actively supported Chamberlain. Given Edward VIII's controversial attitude toward Hitler, it would not be surprising; however, I'm not saying I just take Hitchens' word for it. < http://www.slate.com/id/2282194/pagenum/all/#p2> Maurizio689 ( talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I added the King's monogram, however it was removed by DrKay, who claimed it wasn't the same as this photo http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/image/47605031 but as you can see, it IS the same. He said it's not the same crown, but it is, they're both a Tudor Crown, just one's a stylized graphic, the other is a metal relief on a gate. Unless he can give another reason for it not to be included, or anybody has any objections, I ask that it remain on the page. Fry1989 ( talk) 04:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for a pre-1948 version of the Royal Cypher (GRI) to accompany the 1949 one, and found the 1937 Coronation Medal (taken from Canada's Dept of Veterans' Affairs) on Wikipedia (at King George VI Coronation Medal. However, the attached fair-use/rights notice cautions that other uses, including on Wikipedia, may be restricted. While Googling "Royal Cypher George VI", I ran across a Great War Forum thread that said that both Georges V & VI used GRI as their cypher (too complicated, I suspect, to say they were the 1st and 2nd Georges to be emperor but the 5th and 6th to be King). I also ran across this discussion elsewhere (quoting from the Royal Household site) about the crowns used on the cypher: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-badges/crowns.htm#cyphers. Anyone like to follow this up (e.g. by cropping or converting the image, or pursuing further research)? —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this one of the old featured articles? Because it has too many paragraphs without a single source. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the American usage of 'World War I' is present throughout the article. Perhaps this is pedantic but since this article is about a British topic, shouldn't the BE First World War/Second World War be used instead? Michaelphonic ( talk) 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
World War I should always be used for the 1914-1918 conflict. The first world war was the Seven Years' War. ( 92.20.42.182 ( talk) 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
In 1952 I'd just arrived at school when the headmaster announced the death of King George VI and he was sending us all home as a sign of respect and mourning. When I got home my mother was in tears, the only time I ever did see her in tears so there was genuine sadness at the loss of the king.
The BBC History magazine also claims that in his later years George VI was daily consuming large quantities of brandy. Combined with his chain smoking this must have seriously undermined his health.
Both Edward and the future George VI had both suffered from Mumps at some time on military service. Could this be why there were so few royal children.
American scources state that the former Mrs Wallace Simpson had undergone a hysterectomy before marrying Edward. There couldn't have been any children from the union. This would have still made Elizabeth the next UK sovereign but at the age of approx 45 rather than 25. AT Kunene ( talk) 07:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It was widely speculated that the Duke of Windsor was incapable of having children. ( 92.7.27.185 ( talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC))
Do we know anything about the future king's early education? I presume there's no truth (or is there?) in the claim I've just removed here, that he and "his relatives" went to school in Broadstairs.-- Kotniski ( talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Why was the signature of King George VI removed from this page? The file containing the signature was, obviously, deleted - for what reason? Who was foolish enough to do that?? -- Krawunsel ( talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Please add his reign length after the years of his reign (similar to his predecessor's pages). I've calculated it to 15 years 56 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.175.103 ( talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A photo caption starts with this: "George VI, grants Royal Assent to laws in the Canadian Senate," The 1st comma (just after "George VI") should be removed. 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Firma del Rey George VI.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC) |
The pending deletion is nonsense. Signatures are ineligible for copyright! --
Krawunsel (
talk)
09:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand how this is controversial. Just as terms like New Deal, Great Society, and War on Drugs are routinely capitalized, so is the 1948-1991 South African policy of Apartheid. In most instances, the term "apartheid" is a common noun (just as "deal," "society" and "drugs" ordinarily are), but not in this particular instance, where its not merely being used as an ordinary common noun, but rather as the name of a formalized policy, and hence functions as a de facto proper noun. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The crown copyright on all those speeches have expired and because his coronation was the first televised coronation, it is an important event for which the footage and audio should be hosted, next his wartime speech is also important because it was made during tough times and was broadcast throughout the Empire and considered an influential speech. Does anyone know where we can get these files? — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 10:16pm • 12:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
Requested move/dated|?}}
– 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC) timestamp for RM bot Per the reasoning given in the request above:
Reasons for making the break between "Name Number of the UK" and plain "Name Number" after Victoria:
- Consistency is not being harmed by this, since there has to be a break anyway, given what has been decided about Elizabeth, and the fact that we probably can't drop the mention of UK from all UK monarchs, since (it is felt that) William IV of the United Kingdom is not the primary topic for plain William IV
- All the UK monarchs after Victoria are primary topics for the plain "Name Number" expression, so there is no need to add UK other than some desire for consistency (for which see above)
- Victoria's article needs to be discussed separately, and almost certainly needs changing - whatever is decided, it won't have the same form as the other monarchs (no numeral), so a natural break in the naming sequence will already exist at that point
- The same arguments apply as to Elizabeth - these men are not normally referred to with the "of the United Kingdom" epithet, and indeed they were kings not only of the United Kingdom, but of other independent states also, as well as being Emperors of India (a far larger realm and "higher" title)
- Apart from Edward VII (oh, and George V initially), these kings were not even officially titled "of the United Kingdom", and for deliberate reason (the situation with Ireland).
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.
— James ( Talk • Contribs) • 10:16pm • 12:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1. There was a similar discussion comparatively recently, it is unhelpful to re-open discussons in this way.
2. It is probably impossible to avoid inconsistency completely. However, if we move these, what about e.g George III and George IV of the UK, both already primary meanings? There are umpteen monaarchs who are already the sole or primary meaning of a name + number comination, some of them quite obscure e.g. George VIII of Georgia, Robert III of Scotland, several French Louis's and English Henrys and Edwards.
3. Let's not pre-empt any move disussion in relation to Victoria.
4. Previous decisions to treat someone as a special case e.g. Napoleon have tended to be on the grounds that they are a historically major figure.
5. This is anglocentric since it assumes that recent UK monarchs are a special case. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
When the king died we were all given a day off from school. At the time the story was that he'd learned to smoke heavily while on naval service.
Another story,a the time, was that he was consuming a bottle of brandy a day. AT Kunene ( talk) 15:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Birth and Family section in the first paragraph, the link for King Edward VII actually links to Edward VIII. 58.175.19.62 ( talk) 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Elizabeth Bowes Lyon 1923 wedding.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
George VI was not a heavy smoker. According to the biography I read he only smoked 20-25 cigarettes a day. ( 92.7.9.96 ( talk) 20:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC))
Slight problem here; granted, George VI did not have a separate title for each dominion; and it could be arguaed that his separate kingship of each Dominion is covered under the title '..and the British Dominions beyond the seas', BUT he was not King of them all at the same time, some becoming independent later than others, and some becoming republics prior to his death. In other words:
He was King of the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa 1936-1952, but he was King of Newfoundland 1936-1949, of Pakistan 1947-1952, Ceylon 1948-1952, and of India only from 1947-1950. As such, I think the succession boxes should be altered to reflect this.
I appreciate constructive comment on this JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
-But he wasn't King of them all at the same time, like his father and brother were. They were also all sovereign, independent countries after the Statute of Westminster too. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
-Yes; well, in the sense that he had the words 'and the British dominions beyond the seas' were part of his official title, but not only does that a.refer to the colonies as well as the Dominions, but b. It doesn't inform the casual viewer of the page of the fact that George VI was King of these independent states separately from his status as King of the United Kingdom.
George V was head of state of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and in 1922 became head of state of the Irish Free State. So was Edward VIII. George VI was never head of state of the Irish Free State due to adoption by Ireland of a new constitution, he ceased to be King of Newfoundland in 1949 when it became part of Canada, he became head of state of both India and Pakistan in 1947 when both became independent, but he ceased to be head of state of India in 1950 when it became a republic, and he became head of state of Ceylon in 1948.
Same could be said for Queen Victoria and Edward VIII: Victoria was only head of state of Canada from 1867, and only head of state of Australia from a month before her death. (without; note, the words 'and the British Dominions beyond the seas' in her title.) Similarly, Edward VII was only head of state of Newfoundland and New Zealand from 1907. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It was raised earlier on this talk page that the arms of the Dominions (that is, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland (de jure), South Africa, India, Pakistan, and Ceylon) should be added to the 'Arms' section, because George VI was monarch of each dominion in a separate capacity from his role as King of the United Kingdom.
It was then pointed out by user:DrKay and other users that it does not follow that the arms of each dominion/realm and the King are one and the same. It was then found (via verified sources) that the arms of the monarch and the state were indeed one and the same for Canada, but sources have not been found for any other realms so far in relation to this.
However, in law; in a republic the people are sovereign. Hence the term 'republic' from the latin 'res publica', 'peoples concern' or 'public concern' So the arms represent the people as a whole. Hence why, for example, a President of the United States, or any republic for that matter, may bear arms that are completely different to those of the state itself.
This is not the case with a monarchy. In a monarchy, the monarch is always sovereign. Hence the term 'monarchy' (from the greek monos archos -'rule by one'). Power derives from the monarch, (as is the case in black and white with each and every commonwealth realm that has a constitution.) and any government is always in the name of the monarch.Therefore, unless all the other commonwealth realms have suddenly removed all sovereignty from the Queen in right of each realm, and the governments have ceased to be carried out in her name, then the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same because she is sovereign.
John Brooke-Little states in his 1983 revision of Boutell's Heraldry (p. 222): "Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the rank and office of royalty." regarding the commonwealth realms; he states (p.240): "While for convienience one may refer to the arms of a dominion or colony, strictly the arms appertain to the government and not the territory in general."
He also states in his book 'An Heraldic Alphabet' under 'Arms of Dominion': "These, which are also termed 'Arms of Sovereignty', are those borne by a sovereign in respect of the territories he rules rather than his own family arms. The royal arms are arms of dominion; the Queen's arms of descent would be those of her branch of the House of Saxony. Arms of Dominion do not follow the ordinary rules and conventions of armory, but are settled ad hoc by the monarch, usually, of course, with ministerial and heraldic advice."
So; the arms of the Queen in respect of the United Kingdom are not just her personal arms as such, but the arms of the United Kingdom as well. So to say that the UK arms are merely her 'personal arms' is a nonsense because they are one and the same. Also; as a government in a monarchy is always carried out in the name of the monarch, they are still legally the arms of the monarch, albeit by delegation. The use of lesser arms of a monarch for use by the government has a long history as well, for example the lesser arms of the Geman Monarchy were often used de facto as the arms of the government.
Mention was made of the government and the monarch of Sweden, Norway, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Although distinction is made in these states between the arms 'of the stete' or 'of the government'; in reality the government is using a lesser version of the Royal Arms. for example, the three crowns of the arms of the Danish government are found in the greater royal arms. The lion gules and barry wavy field of the Luxembourgois government are found in the greater coat of arms of Luxembourg, and so on. Even the British government uses a lesser form of the Royal Arms of the UK.
The Vatican is an exception to the rule, but it must be noted that even in medieval times, the arms of the Papal States and the arms of the Pope were different. Presumably, this reflected the ecclesiastical nature of the polity, and perhaps the fact that the Pope was considered to have special place amongst the medieval countries of Europe, but this is just speculation on my part, but certainly, the Vatican is the only monarchy where the arms of the monarch and the state have no charges or elements in common: there is no way the arms of Benedict XVI could be considered to be a lesser version of the arms of the Vatican City State. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 15:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is very true; but most articles on monarchs detail their arms and formal styles, even if only in passing. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 15:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move per request. The "x of the United Kingdom" format is not the most commonly used format to refer to the persons implicated in this move discussion, and the articles indicated are the primary targets for the proposed titles. Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty and nobility state that "it is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English," and that corresponds with the proposed titles. Neelix ( talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
– Reformulating this move request properly. See recent thread above (and older thread way above) for detailed arguments. Briefly, the longer titles are not needed for disambiguation (these are all unique or clear primary topics), they do not reflect what these men are normally called, they mislead substantially as to what their actual titles were, they do not increase consistency (they come between two reigning queens whose titles do not include the name of any realm), and for wikilawyers, they are not needed for compliance with WP:NCROY (which allows exceptions in such cases). Kotniski ( talk) 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
We have Robert III of Scotland, James IV of Scotland and James V of Scotland, already the primary or sole meaning, not their official title, they were "King of Scots". Albert II of Belgium is officially "king of the Belgians", there are also the kings of the Hellenes, the kings of Sweden had a peculiar official title. It's dangerous to argue that because there are a handful of special cases we throw all consistency to the winds. Are Edward VIII, who only reigned for a few months, or Edward VII, who nnly lasted about a decade, really as important figures as the present Queen or Victoria? As has been pointed out before, there is the serious possibility that we could have a Queen Victoria of Sweden soon, so we will have to re-examine what we call the UK queen. This is problematic enough, but it gets even more problematic if several other titles have been decided by analogy with Victoria's article. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There was a consensus to move to George VI? GoodDay ( talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Legacy Section, add a sentence at the end. "On television, James Wilby portrayed George VI and his family life in the 2002 Masterpiece Theatre feature, "Bertie & Elizabeth: The Story of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth." 208.76.113.2 ( talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I found this photo amongst my late fathers content with inscription on the back: "King's Parade at Sahatha"
May be of interest to researchers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rademeig ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead is presently giving some very misleading information (at the insistence of a certain editor). It speaks about the monarch of Ireland being removed from that country's constitution on the day of George VI's accession, but then later states Ireland became a republic in 1949. That says Ireland ceased to be a monarchy on two dates: one in 1936 and again in 1949. Of course, this is the result of a total absence of any information about the fact that George VI did still have a role in the Irish Free State after his accession as king; an absence my edits were intended to address. Perhaps an explanation is forthcoming as to why they were reverted in their entirety. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
When the protection placed on this article expires, there will be no need to revive the question about the status of Ireland as a republic. It can be seen from the sources at this article as at [ [5]] (per DrKay's last revision), and related articles, that after the accession the law authorised the new king to act instrumentally as requested by the Irish government for the sole purpose of formally accrediting diplomatic representatives to other sovereigns (royal, dominion, republican or soviet), but not otherwise: thus the monarch had been removed from the constitution, and sovereignty in name and fact was assumed by the Irish government as recognised by the king and his governments of the UK and other realms and territories. Whatever hopes and expectations either party (king and Irish government) may have had for the future, the king had no further lawful part of any kind in the government of that country, and its government had no other claim of right upon the king. Certainly, then, it was a republic de facto and, as far as the parties to the arrangement themselves were concerned, de jure. Qexigator ( talk) 17:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
--re "last King of Ireland" ], there is an absence of any source to show that any official instrument was made at any time in his name as "King of Ireland", and even if not absent, the status of Ireland as republic de facto and de jure described above would remain. The lead is not ambiguous in this respect, and is consistent with the parties having allowed themselves some flexibility with reference to " head of state" for the purposes of diplomatic and Commonwealth practice, and consistent with the description of events in History of the Republic of Ireland, if not in all respects with the section on "Constitutional status", which is lacking supporting sources. Supporting sources are also lacking for the inclusion of George VI as one of the Monarchs of the Irish Free State in the article Monarchy of Ireland, nor is the statement, in that article, that George VI was "the last monarch to reign as king in all of the island of Ireland" source-supported. Qexigator ( talk) 17:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
--Two further points, which can be seen as suggestive but not conclusive either way:
--and consider that by Her lieges could be meant those making the Proclamation of Accession, as persons who had sworn an Oath of allegiance, or could be taken as meaning more generally the people who lawfully owe allegiance by reason of "the tie which binds the subject to the Sovereign in return for that protection which the Sovereign affords the subject"[ [7]]? But the mutuality of allegiance would not necessarily have applied to a citizen or national of the Irish Free State in the reign of George VI, after the king's sovereignty there had ceased from his accession in 1936. Qexigator ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
--The passing of the legislation at the time of George VI's accession was intended to change the residual position of the king which had obtained in the latter days of George V's reign and to which Edward VIII had succeeded. It was done because those concerned considered it necessary for the change to be effected and put beyond legal doubt or quibble, such that Ireland could be governed as a republic. It follows that whatever residual constitutional function had passed from George V to Edward VIII on the demise of the crown was not permitted to pass to George VI. In the result, Edward VIII was, for the few months from his accession to his abdication, the last reigning king of Ireland. Qexigator ( talk) 21:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
--The Republic of Ireland page seems to have it right: "In 1949 the remaining duties of the King of Ireland were removed and Ireland was declared a republic, with the description Republic of Ireland." i.e. that is when Ireland became a republic. If Ireland had previously been fully a republic, then it would have said so, and wouldn't have felt the need to declare it in 1949. As for needing constititution powers in order to be a true monarch: neither the Japanese nor the Swedish monarchy have any powers at all, and yet the Emperor of Japan is still the Emperor of Japan, and the King of Sweden is still the King of Sweden. Simhedges ( talk) 20:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
--Motivation (another nail for the deck): In connection with the long history of " the Irish question" and its antecedents, it is not surprising that, if in some respects the legislation was as delicately equivocal as the political circumstances, all principal parties at the time had to be wary of allowing questions of allegiance and loyalty be overstrained when negotiating a settlement for the future government of the people of Ireland after the formation of the Irish Free State and in view of the controversy among republicans about the Oath of Allegiance (Ireland); and to be mindful that such questions are liable to become intensified in time of war with a third country. Qexigator ( talk) 11:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
--Royal style (yet one more nail for the deck): In the royal style, "... of Ireland...King" was used under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, until it was changed under the Royal Titles Act 1953[ [8]] to "... of Northern Ireland...Queen" after the accession but before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. As mentioned above, in the accession proclamation for the Queen there was no mention of Ireland, the words used being "...Queen of this Realm...", where for George VI's the words had been: "...of Great Britain, Ireland...". Qexigator ( talk) 21:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
--more: The principal parties were also aware of the need to let themselves sidestep the Tudor Crown of Ireland Act 1542 "that the King of England, his Heirs and Successors, be Kings of Ireland" [1]. In connection with the Irish Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 the distinction between the king or other person or body acting "on advice" or "by authority" when appointing diplomatic representatives was explained when the bill was being debated. [9] -- Qexigator ( talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
References
George VI remained Emperor of India until 22 June 1948 when he reverted to being the King of India and Pakistan. His reign as Emperor did not end in August 1947. ( 92.11.205.56 ( talk) 12:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC))
True; although King of both Pakistan and India, he never actually held either the title 'King of India' nor 'King of Pakistan' either. The 1948 renunciation of the Imperial title was, however; deemed to be retroactive however, although the title did appear on some 1948 coins.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if the legislation was backdated George still remained Emperor of India until June 1948. The agreement on Indian independence in August 1947 was that he would give up the title at some point in the near future. ( 92.11.206.158 ( talk) 14:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC))
Is this not worth mentioning? See [10] and [11], it is said now that Britain was ready to declare Germany before they even invaded Poland.-- Windows66 ( talk) 09:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the new script, "An early version of the ‘King’s Speech’ reveals Britain was preparing to declare war on Germany before Hitler invaded Poland." [12] This new bit of evidence shows that Britain was going to declare war on Germany whether they invaded Poland or not.-- Windows66 ( talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Read the article, this is one of the main headpoints from the article itself. Lets look at some other sources that have shown this speech from him:
"Britain was preparing to declare war on Nazi Germany before Hitler invaded Poland, according to an early draft of the royal broadcast that was the subject of the movie The King's Speech" [13]
"The British Government was preparing to declare war on Nazi Germany even before Hitler invaded Poland" [14]
"An early version of the ‘King’s Speech’ reveals Britain was preparing to declare war on Germany before Hitler invaded Poland" [15]
""It was written before Poland had been invaded but at a time when it was clear we were moving towards war with Germany." [16]
As you can see this is nothing to do with what happened after Hitler invaded Poland but rather before, it shows that Britain was going to declare war on Germany regardless of the Polish situation/crisis. This definitely needs to be mentioned as its newly found and is showing that there was a lot of anti-German feeling and the script portrays Germany as the bully for world dominance and the final clearer version did not mention Germany but rather "our enemies" [17].-- Windows66 ( talk) 17:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not on about Chamberlain or anything to do with George being a war-monger neither. But this is newly accurate evidence that Britain were at least preparing to fight Germany before the even WW2 had begun.
@Qexigator I am showing you points made in the articles that have surfaced this speech/script and posted it as their own. The more clearer version of this does not even use the word 'Germany' but rather 'our enemies' like I have pointed out.
Do you think this newly found speech means nothing? Of course it does - there was quite a high amount of anti-German sentiment in Britain at that time and Britain as a country were preparing to fight Germany - this was not when they were even aware of the invasion of Poland. This script was done NINE days before the invasion and was done to try and somehow tell the nation they were going to go to war with Germany. I am by no means advocating an edit of such "George VI was a war-monger" or ANYTHING of the kind but rather something along the lines of how nine days before the official speech that George was preparing and ready for a war against Germany and to try and explain how to prepare the nation for the war against Germany.-- Windows66 ( talk) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
What I am saying is that this bit of newly found script could be added saying that George nine days before the official clear version was given prepared a draft in preparing the nation into war with Germany. I do apologise if you think I am accusing George or Chamberlain as a war-monger as I am not.-- Windows66 ( talk) 09:54, 30 November 2013 (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 |
I recently heard that on the eve of D-Day both Churchill and the King wanted to go with the supporting troops into Nornandy. Though they both decided against, when Churchill pointed out that if they were killed Britain could lose its two main leaders. Could anyone elaborate on this ?
The opening paragraph says he was the "last King of Ireland." Surely the title King of Ireland ceased to exist at the Act of Union of 1801. He was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was a single national entity with a single Crown. Otherwise we would have to conclude that the Queen has the title Queen of Northern Ireland, which clearly she does not. The George III article correctly asserts that George was King of Ireland only until 1801. Either that article or this article is wrong, and it is this one. This reference should be removed. Intelligent Mr Toad 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please also remember that with the Act of Union of 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland did not cease to exist. True the two countries of Great Britain and Ireland were unified under a Parliamentary system (the Irish House of Commons and Lords being abolished and MPs and Peers being represented at Westminster). However the country of Ireland itself continued to exist as a separate identity (otherwise the title of the Union would have been: the United Kingdom of the British Isles, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Ireland). This is why the crown was represented at Dublin with a Viceroy of Ireland. And this is why, although the United Kingdom Peerage came into effect in 1801, a separate Peerage of Ireland continued to exist, with Irish Peerages continuing to be created as separate idnetities until the end of the nineteenth Century. Ds1994 ( talk) 10:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"Please also remember that with the Act of Union of 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland did not cease to exist"-er, yes it did. Also, constitutionally speaking; Edward VIII was the last 'King of Ireland', not George VI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Ds1994, Ireland did cease to exist, legally, with the 1801 Act of Union. There was no Kingdom of Ireland after 1801, just as there is no Kingdom of England or Kingdom of Scotland now, although they have administrative law status, hence different law systems in both countries BUT legally, as witnessed by the accreditation of ambassadors, and membership of international organisation, they are one state, the United Kingdom, which Ireland was subsumed into (like England and Scotland) before independence and partition. Ats71 ( talk) 3 April 2011, 3.27am UTC
Given that the issue is debateable, as the Irish Free State did not recognise him as King of Ireland, I think it's best to remove this from the lead. It is too nuanced to cover adequately, and is given undue prominence when mentioned in the first paragraph. DrKay ( talk) 12:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The Irish Free State continued to recognise him as Head of State in external matters until 18 April 1949. ( 92.20.39.232 ( talk) 13:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
Yes they did. George VI continued to officially represent all of Ireland in foreign affairs until Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949. And even if some politicians objected, the fact is that he did not legally cease to hold the title "King of Ireland" until 18 April 1949. ( 92.20.39.232 ( talk) 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
The south could not become a republic until George VI ceased by law to be Head of State on 18 April 1949. Without any question George VI was the King of Ireland until 29 December 1937. ( 92.20.39.232 ( talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
Perhaps it should just say he was the last King of Ireland (which he undoubtedly was on his accession to the throne). If we are to question whether he was really the Head of State in Ireland we might as well question whether Henry VIII was either. Certainly by law George VI continued to hold the separate title "King of Ireland" until 18 April 1949. ( 92.20.42.182 ( talk) 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
Should Edward VIII's article be amended to say that he was the last King of Ireland? ( 92.20.42.182 ( talk) 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
Even if we accept that the Irish Free State became a republic in December 1937, George VI was still King of Ireland for the first year of his reign. Therefore he was without doubt the last King of Ireland. ( RichardElden ( talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC))
It is certainly relevant since it demonstrates the decline of Britain during his reign as a result of World War II. There is no disputing the fact that he was King of Ireland at the time of his accession, that he still represented all of Ireland in international affairs until 1949, and that he did not formally relinquish the title until the country left the Commonwealth. Therefore I think the introduction should at least mention that George VI still represented Ireland abroad until 1949, since it was not formally a republic until then. ( RichardElden ( talk) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC))
I've added to the arms section George VI's arms in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. India, Pakistan, and Ceylon were left out only because I can't find any arms for those states when they were Dominons/Commonwealth realms. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
In a monarchy; the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same, because the monarch is sovereign; legally speaking, they 'are the state'; as opposed to a republic where the people as a whole are sovereign, hence the arms of a republic are those of the people as a whole. Hence why a armigerous President of a Republic will possess personal arms that are absolutely different to those of the state. So, the arms of George VI in Canada would have been his arms in right of his being King of Canada, the same goes for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland de jure until 1949. India and Pakistan and Ceylon did not have arms during his reign in them, but Pakistan and Ceylon did adopt arms during the reign of his daughter, Elizabeth II. I would suggest whoever added Canada's arms to also add those of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland, as they would be absolutely correct to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.136.244 ( talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"As a result of the training, the Duke's opening address at Australia's Federal Parliament at Canberra in 1927 went successfully,[23]" in the text. Was this not the opening in Melbourne? The linked article says that the address was in Canberra which the linked article attributes the QE2. 124.176.49.207 ( talk) 10:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Who wrote this?
Did you not see the actual movie? George did not even become King until 1937! WWII started in 1939. In the movie, they set it up in 1925 at the British Empire Exhibition where the Duke Of York was to give his first speech on behalf of his father. He could speak at little engagements but this was the big test. He was horrible. Lional and his son were present at the stadium. Then he started visiting Lional in roughly 1935/1936 and it carried forward from there. Lional was present at the coronation in the King's box, third level. They had a strong friendship by the time of the coronation. It did carry through the war. The Abdication crisis did give Bertie the fits but he knew that a very solemn duty was about to come his way, even though he truly was reluctant to take it on. It produced a severe stammering time for him but with Lional's help, he managed to get through it. -- Lady Meg ( talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly (1) Money was no object to having more children (2) A male heir would have been desirable. So why did they stop at two daughters, and not continue having children until they got a son?
86.189.10.3 ( talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(1) Most people limit their families due to economics - I would assume that this is not a constraint on royalty. (2) Though constitutionally possible, a woman inheriting the crown was pretty rare (Mary, Elizabeth, Mary [of William and], Victoria - 4 in 800 years: were there any more?) - it would surely have been regarded as more satisfactory to have had a male inherit? It just strikes me as rather odd they stopped at two girls - did Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have some gynaecological problem perhaps? 109.144.211.20 ( talk) 00:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The article says that George was constitutionally bound to support Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. I just read Hitchens' article- he says that the monarchy intervened to support Chamberlain before Parliament had given its assent and quotes an expert saying that it was a flagrant abuse of power without precedent- that George very much actively supported Chamberlain. Given Edward VIII's controversial attitude toward Hitler, it would not be surprising; however, I'm not saying I just take Hitchens' word for it. < http://www.slate.com/id/2282194/pagenum/all/#p2> Maurizio689 ( talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I added the King's monogram, however it was removed by DrKay, who claimed it wasn't the same as this photo http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/image/47605031 but as you can see, it IS the same. He said it's not the same crown, but it is, they're both a Tudor Crown, just one's a stylized graphic, the other is a metal relief on a gate. Unless he can give another reason for it not to be included, or anybody has any objections, I ask that it remain on the page. Fry1989 ( talk) 04:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for a pre-1948 version of the Royal Cypher (GRI) to accompany the 1949 one, and found the 1937 Coronation Medal (taken from Canada's Dept of Veterans' Affairs) on Wikipedia (at King George VI Coronation Medal. However, the attached fair-use/rights notice cautions that other uses, including on Wikipedia, may be restricted. While Googling "Royal Cypher George VI", I ran across a Great War Forum thread that said that both Georges V & VI used GRI as their cypher (too complicated, I suspect, to say they were the 1st and 2nd Georges to be emperor but the 5th and 6th to be King). I also ran across this discussion elsewhere (quoting from the Royal Household site) about the crowns used on the cypher: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-badges/crowns.htm#cyphers. Anyone like to follow this up (e.g. by cropping or converting the image, or pursuing further research)? —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this one of the old featured articles? Because it has too many paragraphs without a single source. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the American usage of 'World War I' is present throughout the article. Perhaps this is pedantic but since this article is about a British topic, shouldn't the BE First World War/Second World War be used instead? Michaelphonic ( talk) 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
World War I should always be used for the 1914-1918 conflict. The first world war was the Seven Years' War. ( 92.20.42.182 ( talk) 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
In 1952 I'd just arrived at school when the headmaster announced the death of King George VI and he was sending us all home as a sign of respect and mourning. When I got home my mother was in tears, the only time I ever did see her in tears so there was genuine sadness at the loss of the king.
The BBC History magazine also claims that in his later years George VI was daily consuming large quantities of brandy. Combined with his chain smoking this must have seriously undermined his health.
Both Edward and the future George VI had both suffered from Mumps at some time on military service. Could this be why there were so few royal children.
American scources state that the former Mrs Wallace Simpson had undergone a hysterectomy before marrying Edward. There couldn't have been any children from the union. This would have still made Elizabeth the next UK sovereign but at the age of approx 45 rather than 25. AT Kunene ( talk) 07:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It was widely speculated that the Duke of Windsor was incapable of having children. ( 92.7.27.185 ( talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC))
Do we know anything about the future king's early education? I presume there's no truth (or is there?) in the claim I've just removed here, that he and "his relatives" went to school in Broadstairs.-- Kotniski ( talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Why was the signature of King George VI removed from this page? The file containing the signature was, obviously, deleted - for what reason? Who was foolish enough to do that?? -- Krawunsel ( talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Please add his reign length after the years of his reign (similar to his predecessor's pages). I've calculated it to 15 years 56 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.175.103 ( talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A photo caption starts with this: "George VI, grants Royal Assent to laws in the Canadian Senate," The 1st comma (just after "George VI") should be removed. 128.63.16.82 ( talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Firma del Rey George VI.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC) |
The pending deletion is nonsense. Signatures are ineligible for copyright! --
Krawunsel (
talk)
09:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand how this is controversial. Just as terms like New Deal, Great Society, and War on Drugs are routinely capitalized, so is the 1948-1991 South African policy of Apartheid. In most instances, the term "apartheid" is a common noun (just as "deal," "society" and "drugs" ordinarily are), but not in this particular instance, where its not merely being used as an ordinary common noun, but rather as the name of a formalized policy, and hence functions as a de facto proper noun. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The crown copyright on all those speeches have expired and because his coronation was the first televised coronation, it is an important event for which the footage and audio should be hosted, next his wartime speech is also important because it was made during tough times and was broadcast throughout the Empire and considered an influential speech. Does anyone know where we can get these files? — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 10:16pm • 12:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
Requested move/dated|?}}
– 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC) timestamp for RM bot Per the reasoning given in the request above:
Reasons for making the break between "Name Number of the UK" and plain "Name Number" after Victoria:
- Consistency is not being harmed by this, since there has to be a break anyway, given what has been decided about Elizabeth, and the fact that we probably can't drop the mention of UK from all UK monarchs, since (it is felt that) William IV of the United Kingdom is not the primary topic for plain William IV
- All the UK monarchs after Victoria are primary topics for the plain "Name Number" expression, so there is no need to add UK other than some desire for consistency (for which see above)
- Victoria's article needs to be discussed separately, and almost certainly needs changing - whatever is decided, it won't have the same form as the other monarchs (no numeral), so a natural break in the naming sequence will already exist at that point
- The same arguments apply as to Elizabeth - these men are not normally referred to with the "of the United Kingdom" epithet, and indeed they were kings not only of the United Kingdom, but of other independent states also, as well as being Emperors of India (a far larger realm and "higher" title)
- Apart from Edward VII (oh, and George V initially), these kings were not even officially titled "of the United Kingdom", and for deliberate reason (the situation with Ireland).
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.
— James ( Talk • Contribs) • 10:16pm • 12:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1. There was a similar discussion comparatively recently, it is unhelpful to re-open discussons in this way.
2. It is probably impossible to avoid inconsistency completely. However, if we move these, what about e.g George III and George IV of the UK, both already primary meanings? There are umpteen monaarchs who are already the sole or primary meaning of a name + number comination, some of them quite obscure e.g. George VIII of Georgia, Robert III of Scotland, several French Louis's and English Henrys and Edwards.
3. Let's not pre-empt any move disussion in relation to Victoria.
4. Previous decisions to treat someone as a special case e.g. Napoleon have tended to be on the grounds that they are a historically major figure.
5. This is anglocentric since it assumes that recent UK monarchs are a special case. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
When the king died we were all given a day off from school. At the time the story was that he'd learned to smoke heavily while on naval service.
Another story,a the time, was that he was consuming a bottle of brandy a day. AT Kunene ( talk) 15:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Birth and Family section in the first paragraph, the link for King Edward VII actually links to Edward VIII. 58.175.19.62 ( talk) 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Elizabeth Bowes Lyon 1923 wedding.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
George VI was not a heavy smoker. According to the biography I read he only smoked 20-25 cigarettes a day. ( 92.7.9.96 ( talk) 20:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC))
Slight problem here; granted, George VI did not have a separate title for each dominion; and it could be arguaed that his separate kingship of each Dominion is covered under the title '..and the British Dominions beyond the seas', BUT he was not King of them all at the same time, some becoming independent later than others, and some becoming republics prior to his death. In other words:
He was King of the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa 1936-1952, but he was King of Newfoundland 1936-1949, of Pakistan 1947-1952, Ceylon 1948-1952, and of India only from 1947-1950. As such, I think the succession boxes should be altered to reflect this.
I appreciate constructive comment on this JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
-But he wasn't King of them all at the same time, like his father and brother were. They were also all sovereign, independent countries after the Statute of Westminster too. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
-Yes; well, in the sense that he had the words 'and the British dominions beyond the seas' were part of his official title, but not only does that a.refer to the colonies as well as the Dominions, but b. It doesn't inform the casual viewer of the page of the fact that George VI was King of these independent states separately from his status as King of the United Kingdom.
George V was head of state of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and in 1922 became head of state of the Irish Free State. So was Edward VIII. George VI was never head of state of the Irish Free State due to adoption by Ireland of a new constitution, he ceased to be King of Newfoundland in 1949 when it became part of Canada, he became head of state of both India and Pakistan in 1947 when both became independent, but he ceased to be head of state of India in 1950 when it became a republic, and he became head of state of Ceylon in 1948.
Same could be said for Queen Victoria and Edward VIII: Victoria was only head of state of Canada from 1867, and only head of state of Australia from a month before her death. (without; note, the words 'and the British Dominions beyond the seas' in her title.) Similarly, Edward VII was only head of state of Newfoundland and New Zealand from 1907. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It was raised earlier on this talk page that the arms of the Dominions (that is, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland (de jure), South Africa, India, Pakistan, and Ceylon) should be added to the 'Arms' section, because George VI was monarch of each dominion in a separate capacity from his role as King of the United Kingdom.
It was then pointed out by user:DrKay and other users that it does not follow that the arms of each dominion/realm and the King are one and the same. It was then found (via verified sources) that the arms of the monarch and the state were indeed one and the same for Canada, but sources have not been found for any other realms so far in relation to this.
However, in law; in a republic the people are sovereign. Hence the term 'republic' from the latin 'res publica', 'peoples concern' or 'public concern' So the arms represent the people as a whole. Hence why, for example, a President of the United States, or any republic for that matter, may bear arms that are completely different to those of the state itself.
This is not the case with a monarchy. In a monarchy, the monarch is always sovereign. Hence the term 'monarchy' (from the greek monos archos -'rule by one'). Power derives from the monarch, (as is the case in black and white with each and every commonwealth realm that has a constitution.) and any government is always in the name of the monarch.Therefore, unless all the other commonwealth realms have suddenly removed all sovereignty from the Queen in right of each realm, and the governments have ceased to be carried out in her name, then the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same because she is sovereign.
John Brooke-Little states in his 1983 revision of Boutell's Heraldry (p. 222): "Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the rank and office of royalty." regarding the commonwealth realms; he states (p.240): "While for convienience one may refer to the arms of a dominion or colony, strictly the arms appertain to the government and not the territory in general."
He also states in his book 'An Heraldic Alphabet' under 'Arms of Dominion': "These, which are also termed 'Arms of Sovereignty', are those borne by a sovereign in respect of the territories he rules rather than his own family arms. The royal arms are arms of dominion; the Queen's arms of descent would be those of her branch of the House of Saxony. Arms of Dominion do not follow the ordinary rules and conventions of armory, but are settled ad hoc by the monarch, usually, of course, with ministerial and heraldic advice."
So; the arms of the Queen in respect of the United Kingdom are not just her personal arms as such, but the arms of the United Kingdom as well. So to say that the UK arms are merely her 'personal arms' is a nonsense because they are one and the same. Also; as a government in a monarchy is always carried out in the name of the monarch, they are still legally the arms of the monarch, albeit by delegation. The use of lesser arms of a monarch for use by the government has a long history as well, for example the lesser arms of the Geman Monarchy were often used de facto as the arms of the government.
Mention was made of the government and the monarch of Sweden, Norway, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Although distinction is made in these states between the arms 'of the stete' or 'of the government'; in reality the government is using a lesser version of the Royal Arms. for example, the three crowns of the arms of the Danish government are found in the greater royal arms. The lion gules and barry wavy field of the Luxembourgois government are found in the greater coat of arms of Luxembourg, and so on. Even the British government uses a lesser form of the Royal Arms of the UK.
The Vatican is an exception to the rule, but it must be noted that even in medieval times, the arms of the Papal States and the arms of the Pope were different. Presumably, this reflected the ecclesiastical nature of the polity, and perhaps the fact that the Pope was considered to have special place amongst the medieval countries of Europe, but this is just speculation on my part, but certainly, the Vatican is the only monarchy where the arms of the monarch and the state have no charges or elements in common: there is no way the arms of Benedict XVI could be considered to be a lesser version of the arms of the Vatican City State. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 15:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is very true; but most articles on monarchs detail their arms and formal styles, even if only in passing. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 15:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move per request. The "x of the United Kingdom" format is not the most commonly used format to refer to the persons implicated in this move discussion, and the articles indicated are the primary targets for the proposed titles. Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty and nobility state that "it is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English," and that corresponds with the proposed titles. Neelix ( talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
– Reformulating this move request properly. See recent thread above (and older thread way above) for detailed arguments. Briefly, the longer titles are not needed for disambiguation (these are all unique or clear primary topics), they do not reflect what these men are normally called, they mislead substantially as to what their actual titles were, they do not increase consistency (they come between two reigning queens whose titles do not include the name of any realm), and for wikilawyers, they are not needed for compliance with WP:NCROY (which allows exceptions in such cases). Kotniski ( talk) 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
We have Robert III of Scotland, James IV of Scotland and James V of Scotland, already the primary or sole meaning, not their official title, they were "King of Scots". Albert II of Belgium is officially "king of the Belgians", there are also the kings of the Hellenes, the kings of Sweden had a peculiar official title. It's dangerous to argue that because there are a handful of special cases we throw all consistency to the winds. Are Edward VIII, who only reigned for a few months, or Edward VII, who nnly lasted about a decade, really as important figures as the present Queen or Victoria? As has been pointed out before, there is the serious possibility that we could have a Queen Victoria of Sweden soon, so we will have to re-examine what we call the UK queen. This is problematic enough, but it gets even more problematic if several other titles have been decided by analogy with Victoria's article. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There was a consensus to move to George VI? GoodDay ( talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Legacy Section, add a sentence at the end. "On television, James Wilby portrayed George VI and his family life in the 2002 Masterpiece Theatre feature, "Bertie & Elizabeth: The Story of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth." 208.76.113.2 ( talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I found this photo amongst my late fathers content with inscription on the back: "King's Parade at Sahatha"
May be of interest to researchers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rademeig ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead is presently giving some very misleading information (at the insistence of a certain editor). It speaks about the monarch of Ireland being removed from that country's constitution on the day of George VI's accession, but then later states Ireland became a republic in 1949. That says Ireland ceased to be a monarchy on two dates: one in 1936 and again in 1949. Of course, this is the result of a total absence of any information about the fact that George VI did still have a role in the Irish Free State after his accession as king; an absence my edits were intended to address. Perhaps an explanation is forthcoming as to why they were reverted in their entirety. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
When the protection placed on this article expires, there will be no need to revive the question about the status of Ireland as a republic. It can be seen from the sources at this article as at [ [5]] (per DrKay's last revision), and related articles, that after the accession the law authorised the new king to act instrumentally as requested by the Irish government for the sole purpose of formally accrediting diplomatic representatives to other sovereigns (royal, dominion, republican or soviet), but not otherwise: thus the monarch had been removed from the constitution, and sovereignty in name and fact was assumed by the Irish government as recognised by the king and his governments of the UK and other realms and territories. Whatever hopes and expectations either party (king and Irish government) may have had for the future, the king had no further lawful part of any kind in the government of that country, and its government had no other claim of right upon the king. Certainly, then, it was a republic de facto and, as far as the parties to the arrangement themselves were concerned, de jure. Qexigator ( talk) 17:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
--re "last King of Ireland" ], there is an absence of any source to show that any official instrument was made at any time in his name as "King of Ireland", and even if not absent, the status of Ireland as republic de facto and de jure described above would remain. The lead is not ambiguous in this respect, and is consistent with the parties having allowed themselves some flexibility with reference to " head of state" for the purposes of diplomatic and Commonwealth practice, and consistent with the description of events in History of the Republic of Ireland, if not in all respects with the section on "Constitutional status", which is lacking supporting sources. Supporting sources are also lacking for the inclusion of George VI as one of the Monarchs of the Irish Free State in the article Monarchy of Ireland, nor is the statement, in that article, that George VI was "the last monarch to reign as king in all of the island of Ireland" source-supported. Qexigator ( talk) 17:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
--Two further points, which can be seen as suggestive but not conclusive either way:
--and consider that by Her lieges could be meant those making the Proclamation of Accession, as persons who had sworn an Oath of allegiance, or could be taken as meaning more generally the people who lawfully owe allegiance by reason of "the tie which binds the subject to the Sovereign in return for that protection which the Sovereign affords the subject"[ [7]]? But the mutuality of allegiance would not necessarily have applied to a citizen or national of the Irish Free State in the reign of George VI, after the king's sovereignty there had ceased from his accession in 1936. Qexigator ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
--The passing of the legislation at the time of George VI's accession was intended to change the residual position of the king which had obtained in the latter days of George V's reign and to which Edward VIII had succeeded. It was done because those concerned considered it necessary for the change to be effected and put beyond legal doubt or quibble, such that Ireland could be governed as a republic. It follows that whatever residual constitutional function had passed from George V to Edward VIII on the demise of the crown was not permitted to pass to George VI. In the result, Edward VIII was, for the few months from his accession to his abdication, the last reigning king of Ireland. Qexigator ( talk) 21:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
--The Republic of Ireland page seems to have it right: "In 1949 the remaining duties of the King of Ireland were removed and Ireland was declared a republic, with the description Republic of Ireland." i.e. that is when Ireland became a republic. If Ireland had previously been fully a republic, then it would have said so, and wouldn't have felt the need to declare it in 1949. As for needing constititution powers in order to be a true monarch: neither the Japanese nor the Swedish monarchy have any powers at all, and yet the Emperor of Japan is still the Emperor of Japan, and the King of Sweden is still the King of Sweden. Simhedges ( talk) 20:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
--Motivation (another nail for the deck): In connection with the long history of " the Irish question" and its antecedents, it is not surprising that, if in some respects the legislation was as delicately equivocal as the political circumstances, all principal parties at the time had to be wary of allowing questions of allegiance and loyalty be overstrained when negotiating a settlement for the future government of the people of Ireland after the formation of the Irish Free State and in view of the controversy among republicans about the Oath of Allegiance (Ireland); and to be mindful that such questions are liable to become intensified in time of war with a third country. Qexigator ( talk) 11:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
--Royal style (yet one more nail for the deck): In the royal style, "... of Ireland...King" was used under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, until it was changed under the Royal Titles Act 1953[ [8]] to "... of Northern Ireland...Queen" after the accession but before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. As mentioned above, in the accession proclamation for the Queen there was no mention of Ireland, the words used being "...Queen of this Realm...", where for George VI's the words had been: "...of Great Britain, Ireland...". Qexigator ( talk) 21:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
--more: The principal parties were also aware of the need to let themselves sidestep the Tudor Crown of Ireland Act 1542 "that the King of England, his Heirs and Successors, be Kings of Ireland" [1]. In connection with the Irish Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 the distinction between the king or other person or body acting "on advice" or "by authority" when appointing diplomatic representatives was explained when the bill was being debated. [9] -- Qexigator ( talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
References
George VI remained Emperor of India until 22 June 1948 when he reverted to being the King of India and Pakistan. His reign as Emperor did not end in August 1947. ( 92.11.205.56 ( talk) 12:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC))
True; although King of both Pakistan and India, he never actually held either the title 'King of India' nor 'King of Pakistan' either. The 1948 renunciation of the Imperial title was, however; deemed to be retroactive however, although the title did appear on some 1948 coins.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if the legislation was backdated George still remained Emperor of India until June 1948. The agreement on Indian independence in August 1947 was that he would give up the title at some point in the near future. ( 92.11.206.158 ( talk) 14:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC))
Is this not worth mentioning? See [10] and [11], it is said now that Britain was ready to declare Germany before they even invaded Poland.-- Windows66 ( talk) 09:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the new script, "An early version of the ‘King’s Speech’ reveals Britain was preparing to declare war on Germany before Hitler invaded Poland." [12] This new bit of evidence shows that Britain was going to declare war on Germany whether they invaded Poland or not.-- Windows66 ( talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Read the article, this is one of the main headpoints from the article itself. Lets look at some other sources that have shown this speech from him:
"Britain was preparing to declare war on Nazi Germany before Hitler invaded Poland, according to an early draft of the royal broadcast that was the subject of the movie The King's Speech" [13]
"The British Government was preparing to declare war on Nazi Germany even before Hitler invaded Poland" [14]
"An early version of the ‘King’s Speech’ reveals Britain was preparing to declare war on Germany before Hitler invaded Poland" [15]
""It was written before Poland had been invaded but at a time when it was clear we were moving towards war with Germany." [16]
As you can see this is nothing to do with what happened after Hitler invaded Poland but rather before, it shows that Britain was going to declare war on Germany regardless of the Polish situation/crisis. This definitely needs to be mentioned as its newly found and is showing that there was a lot of anti-German feeling and the script portrays Germany as the bully for world dominance and the final clearer version did not mention Germany but rather "our enemies" [17].-- Windows66 ( talk) 17:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not on about Chamberlain or anything to do with George being a war-monger neither. But this is newly accurate evidence that Britain were at least preparing to fight Germany before the even WW2 had begun.
@Qexigator I am showing you points made in the articles that have surfaced this speech/script and posted it as their own. The more clearer version of this does not even use the word 'Germany' but rather 'our enemies' like I have pointed out.
Do you think this newly found speech means nothing? Of course it does - there was quite a high amount of anti-German sentiment in Britain at that time and Britain as a country were preparing to fight Germany - this was not when they were even aware of the invasion of Poland. This script was done NINE days before the invasion and was done to try and somehow tell the nation they were going to go to war with Germany. I am by no means advocating an edit of such "George VI was a war-monger" or ANYTHING of the kind but rather something along the lines of how nine days before the official speech that George was preparing and ready for a war against Germany and to try and explain how to prepare the nation for the war against Germany.-- Windows66 ( talk) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
What I am saying is that this bit of newly found script could be added saying that George nine days before the official clear version was given prepared a draft in preparing the nation into war with Germany. I do apologise if you think I am accusing George or Chamberlain as a war-monger as I am not.-- Windows66 ( talk) 09:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)