Talk:George VI

Ancestors

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)

Title

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)

Image

What happened to the image? Astrotrain 21:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copy-vio.

I've had a look, but I can't find any decent pictures of G6 that will be PD; after all, most images of him will be from post-1923.

James F. (talk) 19:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Albert

What did Queen Victoria actually have against kings being named Albert? 193.167.132.66 11:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Her husband was called Albert, and the British government refused to grant him the title of King, as she wanted. Therefore she was against the idea of a future King Albert, and even a future Queen Victoria. Astrotrain 19:27, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. This had puzzled me for years. Fortunately Queen Victoria's wishes don't carry on outside the UK, or else the future Queen of Sweden would have to change her name. 193.167.132.66 14:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that this is just a rumour. She wanted her eldest son to reign as King Albert I in memory of her husband, and evidence of this was in the naming of her British grandchildren: as the eldest child of the Prince of Wales would be the future king, she wanted him to be called Albert, and indeed the POW's eldest son was named Albert Victor, and it was QV's hope he would reign as such. However, he died and his brother became next in line. Upon the birth of his first son, QV wanted the future George V to name the future Edward VIII 'Albert' rather than 'Edward.' She obviously really wanted a King Albert. Morhange 22:02, 15 April 2006 (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

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 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Causes of Stammer

The nanny doted over Albert's brother, Prince Edward while neglecting Albert. As a result, Albert developed a severe stammer that lasted for many years. This was also exacerbated by his being forced to write with his right hand although he was a natural left-hander.

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

Trivia

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.

Date formats

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)

The trouble is that if a user's preferences are set to use British dating, a problem with the dates doesn't show up (that's why when individuals as here change some dates in an article from the British system to the American system it isn't automatically noticed, even when the article is a jumbled mix of the British and American systems). I've corrected all the errors in terms of extra spaces that I could see, as well as fixing the dates in an article on a British monarch to the British dating system. I also left a message earlier on the wikipedian I think is innocently leaving the spaces to explain the problems they cause. Now if only the "lets Americanise" brigade who keep trying to Americanise every article in terms of American English, American grammar, American capitalisation and American dating would read the rules of Wikipedia they might realise that articles like this one are supposed to be written in BE, not AE, and British dating, not American dating.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:49, 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)

King-emperor

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)

Actually, Kipling uses "Queen-Empress" rather frequently in his works, but your overall point seems reasonable. Choess 22:37, August 9, 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)

Legacy

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:

"A statue of George VI adorns The Mall, near Admiralty Arch.

"A biographical television series, Bertie and Elizabeth, was broadcast on BBC in 2003. The series was also broadcast on PBS as a part of the Masterpiece Theater series in March 2005."

Masalai 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Styles

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)

D-Day Argument With Winston Churchill

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 usual story involves Churchill wanting to go and the King realising this was a bad idea but being unable to talk Churchill out of it the King realised the only way to stop the PM was for the monarch to declare he'd go as well! Even Churchill realised this was a bad move and so agreed to stay. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Joined the RAF in 1917?

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)

I just watched Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress, the 1944 documentary about the aircraft and crew that was the first in the U.S. Eighth Air Force to complete 25 missions as a crew over Germany and German-occupied Europe. At the end of the film, the King and Queen visited the airfield to congratulate the crew of the aircraft. King George appeared to be wearing a Royal Air Force officer's uniform, although I could not make out what rank insignia he wore. Is it correct that members of the British Royal Family are considered members of all of the British Armed Forces? I see from this recent photo that Charles, Prince of Wales wears the uniform of an Air Marshal. --rogerd 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Appeared on the balcony"

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)

George, Duke of Kent??

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)

It would also have involved bypassing the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret of York. I've no idea exactly how this supposed plan was meant to be implemented. I've vaguely heard talk of it on several occasions, but never anything specific. My general understanding is that it was thought best not to go crazy with amending the Act of Settlement, but to do the minimum damage possible, which is why this ill-thought out course was not taken, but I can't say for certain that it was ever seriously considered. It seems unlikely to me that Queen Mary, for instance, would have had any truck with it. john k 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Prince of Wales?

"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? – DBD does... 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope- that was my error. Copied from BRoy Style Guide, and didn't edit properly. Will fix now. --G2bambino 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Military positions

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)

Yeah, I put it under honours using a rather broad definition of the term... If titles (which are legally-held) are listed on Honours page, then why not CiCships in under Honours in TSHA? Best solution I could think of... Any alternatives to suggest? – DBD 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fail GA

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

the gruff Duke of York was certainly for all his censoriousness a deeply concerned and loving father and the publically austere Duchess had a frivolous and frolicsome side which she revealed only to her children Nevertheless, the hands-off conventions of English upper class child-rearing of the time allowed the Royal nanny to have a dominating role in their young lives. The nanny doted over Albert's brother, Prince Edward, while neglecting Albert. Albert developed a severe stammer that lasted for many years as well as chronic stomach problems. He also suffered from knock knees, and to correct this he had to wear splints, which were extremely painful. He was also forced to write with his right hand although he was a natural left-hander.

Where does all this come from? It doesn't appear to be common knowledge to me. And in the following paragraph:

Prince Edward had, according to almost everyone who ever knew him, an extraordinary and magnetic charm. No one felt his charms more strongly than the younger members of his family. In the isolation of their lives, he was the most attractive person they ever knew. In childhood they followed his leadership, while as young men they ardently admired him.

Oh, come on...

A reference would also be nice for the paragraph:

The growing likelihood of war erupting in Europe would dominate the reign of King George VI. Initially the King and Queen took an appeasement stance against Adolf Hitler, supporting the policy of Neville Chamberlain. The King and Queen greeted Chamberlain on his return from negotiating the Munich Agreement in 1938, and invited him to appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with them, sparking anger among anti-appeasement MPs including Winston Churchill.

(section "Reign")

and for this sentence:

Although the aim of the tour was nevertheless mainly political, to shore up Atlantic support for Britain in any upcoming war, the King and Queen were extremely enthusiastically received by the Canadian public and the spectre of Edward VIII's charisma was comprehensively dispelled.

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. DrKiernan 08:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say that when you believe you have amended the concerns, you are welcome to resubmit the article as a GA candidate. / Fred-Chess 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I've read over the article, and feel that the concerns brought up by the previous reviewer, e.g. lack of citations, have been responded to and rectified. I would suggest that the flags under the Titles section be removed per WP:FLAGCRUFT. However, I'm passing this article as a GA. ErleGrey 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Picture

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)

Support ^† DBD 00:08, 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)

• Oppose As I have said before that image is by Yousuf Karsh, and whilst its copyright may have expired in Canada, it is still in force outside of Canada until 2072. See WP:PD#Canadian images: Yousuf Karsh. According to The Official Web-site of the British Monarchy the copyright is owned by Camera Press. I agree that the current image is disappointing, but my understanding is that you can not claim fair use of a copyrighted image unless no other image showing the same information is available. That does not apply in this case. DrKiernan 08:27, 26 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)

• wikipedia.org is a set of web-pages hosted on a US server which must adhere, at the very least, to US law. At this stage it is unclear whether the copyright is in force in the US, ordinarily it would be for 70 years after the photographer's death, i.e. until 2072. Camera Press claims to be the exclusive distributor of Karsh images and releases its pictures in the US through a US distributor - Retna pictures. Furthermore, it isn't yet clear that the picture is out of copyright in Canada, we have just assumed that based on information on wikipedia. Just because others break the law by stealing copyrighted work, does not give you the right to do the same. I believe Duncan's request for information from Camera Press is the best way forward as they will either claim ownership (as they did with the Karsh image of Einstein) or not. DrKiernan 13:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Photo is in Copyright within the UK, I have today spoken to Camera Press. They have offered us the photograph but they request a fee of £150 per year for its use, presuming that none of us wants to pay that, I have today removed the photograph, its important to note that as Dr.Kiernan suggested above, all the other websites using the photograph are in breach of copyright and can be sued. --Duncanbruce 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Even if someone were willing to pay for it, it's extremely unlikely that Camera Press would agree to release it under a free license for $150 Nil Einne 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Titles

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)

Wartime residence

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 Duke of Windsor was sent to the Bahamas as governor, but it is currently thought he was sent there to get him out of the way (he was not popular with the British establishment), rather than as a stand-by King in case George VI was killed or captured by the Nazis. DrKiernan 09:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Duke of Normandy?

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)

• He is Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands only, see George VI of the United Kingdom#Titles and Duke of Normandy#Channel Islands. DrKiernan 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I missed that. Thanks for the clarification. Actually an interesting little oddity. Epeeist smudge 09:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Home-page summary

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)

Rename subsidiary article?

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)

It's now been moved. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

King of Ireland?

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)

Ok, he wasn't the last "King of Ireland", but rather the last king of all Ireland, in the way that EIIR is queen of England, but not "Queen of England"... ^† DBD 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See King of Ireland, Monarchy in the Irish Free State and Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. DrKiernan 06:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The title "King of Ireland" was revived in 1927 under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, to emphasise the existence of different independent countries all under the same monarch, in the case the Irish Free State. The title remained in use until the Republic of Ireland was created in 1949, so George VI was indeed the last King of Ireland. -- Arwel (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

"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)

Education

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)

It is in the article. DrKiernan 18:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

George Medal

please can you add this medal? thanks (my english isn't very well)--87.78.65.254 (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Did Baldwin 'inform' or 'advise' Edward VIII?

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)

Changed to your suggestion. DrKiernan (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Queen Mary and George VI's coronation

"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)

Traditionally, they did not, as no crowned head (i.e. no king or queen) would attend the coronation of another king or queen. This is because the service usually includes a show of obeisance to the sovereign and kings and queens do not show each other obeisance as they are equals. Similarly, other heads of state (such as Presidents) do not traditionally attend because they do not obey other sovereign heads of state. Where monarchs are acknowledged to be "higher" then kings and queens do attend; so kings and queens attend the coronation of a pope, or maharajahs attend the coronation of an emperor because the pope and an emperor are above them. In line with Queen Mary attending the coronation of her son, Queen Elizabeth did attend the coronation of her daughter, though foreign heads of state did not, so this tradition may no longer apply. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was really helpful. I thought that only kings don't attend coronations of their consorts, but now I can see why. Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very interesting, but it's also wrong. Per the [1] (my emphasis added): "In front of more than 8,000 guests, including prime ministers and heads of state from around the Commonwealth, she took the Coronation Oath and is now bound to serve her people and to maintain the laws of God." ... however, it was only Heads of State from Commonwealth Realms, so you are somewhat right, somewhat wrong. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't wrong. "heads of state" here means people like Queen Salome of Tonga, who were then subordinate to the British crown, as Tonga and the Arab emirates were British protectorates. No "heads of state" from independent, sovereign countries attended. Furthermore, the "head of state" of Commonwealth Realms is the Queen. MA (Cantab) (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It would probably help if you had read my entire comment. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Kiernan, 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)

Protestant monarchs do not attend papal coronations; Catholic ones used to. I was not speaking above of British kings but of all kings in general, everywhere. DrKiernan (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the First Abdication

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)

It was unique in that the monarch abdicated of his own (relatively) free will. Richard II was forced to abdicate at the point of a sword, if memory serves. The British monarchy actually only dates to 1707 (which, to be thoroughly pedantic, does mean that Edward's abdication is unique in the British monarchy, but using 'British' as a sort of catchall term fr the islands is in relatively common use. That being said, I think it should be changed.. I'll rewrite it. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 17:31, 4 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 VII & II deposed and exiled to Rome). The English are extremely adept at removing incapable Kings! Ds1994 (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's only a very tendentious reading that makes Edward VIII's abdication unique. I'm also not sure about the idea that Edward VIII's abdication was particularly more voluntary than Richard II's. Certainly the wording, which says that other abdications were brought about by "political pressure," is dubious - Baldwin telling Edward he had to abdicate if he wanted to marry Mrs. Simpson is "political pressure" too. Charles X's abdication was unique in one thousand years of French history, or what not; British monarchs have abdicated on several occasions. john k (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I believe Edward VIII was as much pressured to abdicate as was Edward II and Richard II. There is no doubt that Edward would have desparately wished to keep the throne and marry Mrs Simpson. Baldwin made it clear that he would re-consider his position as Prime Minister if Edward did not at least give up the idea of marrying Mrs Simpson. He also consulted the Premiers of the Dominions of the Empire, and they were all unanimous in their rejection of the idea of the King marrying Mrs Simpson, even though this was packaged within the context of a morganatic marriage (the idea of a morganatic marriage was suggested to the Dominions first - if this had met with success then it may have covered a little more ground within the UK) . If that is not political pressure, I don't know what is! Edward relented purely because there was the danger in the UK of a Constitutional Crisis of the first magnitude if he did not either give up Mrs Simpson or the Throne (the emergence of a 'King's Party' immediately prior to his agreement to abdicate signalled that a constitutional crisis was a real possibility). I think the text should be changed to reflect this.Ds1994 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

George VI's coronation

Happened a week after the Hindenberg Disaster. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Umm.. and? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:24, 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)

When they have absolutely nothing to do with each other, yes. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Death and obituary; how people saw George VI

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)

Typo?

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, ....".

Was this Victoria's actual wording, or is it a typo on the part of an editor? If the former, a [sic] might be of some value. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the phrase "I am all impatience," and I don't think it's an error. "I am all impatient" would be an error, since "all" is an adjective, not an adverb. john k (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First British Monarch to visit the US

Wouldn't this be something to make a note on?

It says first reigning monarch to visit North America in the "Reign" section. Since William IV, Edward VII, George V and Edward VIII all visited the States at some point or another, we cannot be more specific than that. DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Official birthday?

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)

"Edward VII (who reigned 1901–1910, and whose birthday was in November) moved the ceremony to summer in the hope of good weather"—from Queen's Official Birthday. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit of internet searching gives the date as 11 June 1942 [3] This website [4] suggests George VI made it a moveable feast in June Thanks Moonraker.86.134.50.37 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)