Talk:George VI

Reign Length

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.

Untitled

Can the title be changed to "King George VI" or simply "George VI". He was King of many places and as much the King of Canada and Australia as of the UK. Similarly for other British kings and queens... ````Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.4.29 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

See my point below under 'titles'. The Imperial title was never used in the UK or any of the Dominions of the Empire - it was specifically reserved for the Indian Empire only (when the title was created in 1877 by Benjamin Disraeli, the Act specifically excluded its use for anywhere outside India - to Queen Victoria's great annoyance). However the exceptions to this were the Royal Signature (where R I was used), and the addition of IND IMP on UK coinage (both these labels merely reflecting the Imperial position of the Crown as a sum of its many titles). In summary, the Sovereign was only addressed as Queen-Empress or King-Emperor in India, and nowhere else.Ds1994 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Churchill himself discusses this incident at some length in his book "Closing the Ring". The King's dissuading note is included in full and is well worth reading. 13.13.137.1 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2011 (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)

King George was promoted to Marshal of the Royal Air Force, the RAF's highest rank, in 1936 and frequently worn his RAF uniform during World War II. Greenshed (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2009 (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)

The Imperial title was never used in the UK or any of the Dominions of the Empire - it was specifically reserved for the Indian Empire only (when the title was created in 1877 by Benjamin Disraeli, the Act specifically excluded its use for anywhere outside India - to Queen Victoria's great annoyance). However the exceptions to this were the Royal Signature (where R I was used), and the addition of IND IMP on UK coinage (both these labels merely reflecting the Imperial position of the Crown as a sum of its many titles). Ds1994 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Not an oddity at all. The Crown possesses by right the title of Duke of Normandy, and has done so since the invasion of Duke William of Normandy in 1066. The Channel Islands are a part of this Dukedom and remain so to this day (the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, and are only associated with the UK through the personal bond with the Crown via the Dukedom of Normandy). When in the Channel Islands, the Queen is also addressed as 'our Lord Duke'. Ds1994 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. DrKiernan (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))

No, they didn't. DrKiernan (talk) 13:57, 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))

Not quite true: it was actually 1948. The Irish Government (still Saorstát Eireann—Irish Free State) mandated George to carry on appointing diplomatic representatives, as long as she was a member of the Commonwealth, in the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936. Her The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 repealed the 1936 Act, and presumably George's responsibility for external relations with it as the Irish Presidentr was given the job. (The Act also changed the name of the state.) When George gave assent to Britain's Ireland Act, 1949 he acknowledged that "Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty’s dominions." As suggested, this is all too much for the lede, and possibly too detailed to include anywhere in full. Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is the King in the Constitution of Ireland 1937 [1]? I see only a President mentioned. DrKiernan (talk) 16:56, 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))

You have performed more than three reverts in the last 24 hours, and are thus in breach of our rules. You must undo your last revert, or you may be blocked from further editing. DrKiernan (talk) 17:27, 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))

You have again performed four reverts in the space of 24 hours. DrKiernan (talk) 16:24, 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))

It doesn't belong in either article because if you look in most biographies of George and Edward, it isn't mentioned. Articles should treat each aspect of a subject with a weight appropriate to its significance. We should follow the example of others, and discuss each aspect of their lives in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Because most summaries of George and Edward's lives omit it, so should we. In particular, mentioning it in the first paragraph of the lead gives it far too much prominence. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article but it isn't even mentioned in the body of either article, so it certainly shouldn't be in the lead. DrKiernan (talk) 19:50, 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's not sourced and it's not relevant, and whether he was is disputed. Stating it as a fact in the article introduces trivia, misunderstanding and bias. DrKiernan (talk) 18:39, 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))

The decline of Britain is in the article already. DrKiernan (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2011 (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 [2] (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)

Queen Salote that would be.

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)

More complicated even than that ! The Canberra Times of 8 February 1952 quotes "Court Chaimberlains and authorities on titles and precedence are studying problems raised by thi King's death

Existence of two other Queens -the mother and grandmother of the Sovereign-is unprecedented in hundreds of years. An authority said it would take some time to look up the practice established in the old days. The chief problem which will be answered only by an announcement from Buckingham Palace is the titles to be assumed by the two Queens Queen Elizabeth, aged 51, and Queen Mary, aged 84"

Although Queen Mary did not want to be "Queen Mother", the Canberra Times was very quick off the mark in captioning a photo of the Royal Family labelling Queen Elizabeth as "Queen Mother" on 7 February.Eregli bob (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2010 (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 II & VII 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)

I'm content with John's removal of the text, but I'm not in favour of adding that he abdicated out of political pressure. There is ample evidence that Edward wanted to abdicate, and he clearly stated in his own memoirs that the abdication was his personal idea, and that Baldwin was "startled" by the suggestion (p. 332 of A King's Story). Mrs Simpson stated publicly at the time that she would withdraw so that Edward could remain King, but Edward insisted on going through with the abdication (see this article on the documents and press release). Rumours that he planned to abdicate as soon as he inherited the throne were circulating in the 1920s (e.g. see Time magazine in 1929: "how much truth there is in the story that he once said he would renounce his rights upon the death of George V"). There are several interpretations of why Edward abdicated, and the careful phrasing of the current article is designed specifically to ensure that none of these different opinions are unduly favoured. DrKiernan (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think taking a 'neutral course' is perhaps the best idea. I think though, if the King had had his way, and managed to keep both Mrs Simpson and the Crown, he would have been 'happier' (if he could ever be happy) than taking the route of abdication (he made it clear that he needed the support of Mrs Simpson to conduct his duties as King). As is often the case, Princes quite like the idea of 'having their cake and eating it', but fortunately for us the intriguing 'opaque edges' of the unwritten British Constitution have often saved us from recalcitrant Kings!

As far as the Duke of Windsor's account is concerned (in his memoirs 'A King's Story', which you allude to) I think we can certainly treat this account with a great degree of circumspection. The book of course was 'ghost written', and although it certainly conveys the flavour of the age, I think we can take many interpretations of the senstitive issues of the abdication in particular with a 'pinch of salt'. Certainly the Duke of Windsor had always enjoyed a good PR machine - his reputed good looks saw to that. But the fact that he had the intellectual and emotional capacity of a twelve year old (many held the view that he never developed emotionally beyond the inception of puberty) would tend to suggest that any view he may have held would certainly be masked by the ghost writer. Certainly many Establishment figures today go down on their knees and thank the Lord for the abdication, as it certainly would have precipitated a Constitutional Crisis on any issue you care to mention, at some point down the line, if Edward had somehow engineered his survival on the Throne. Ds1994 (talk) 11:20, 27 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." [3] 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)

Good point. I am looking at this now.Eregli bob (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2010 (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 [4] This website [5] suggests George VI made it a moveable feast in June Thanks Moonraker.86.134.50.37 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the current RM discussion (which is now at the location linked above as the previous one has been archived) does not affect this page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Imperatru?

The Latin word for "Empress" has come up as "Imperatu". It should be "Imperatrix". Thanks. Anthony Kaye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.122.61 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Title

George VI never held the title George VI of the United Kingdom, but was King of Great Britain, Ireland, etc. (see Style of the British sovereign) and also Emperor of India. George VI (United Kingdom) would make sense according to normal Wikipedia disambiguation, but the present article title is a nonsense. AJRG (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As there's only been one George VI & since his daugther's article has been moved to Elizabeth II, this article should be named George VI. In fact, all monarchial articles should be Name # & Name # (country) (when required). GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per George_VI_(disambiguation), there have been two other George VIs, though plain George VI does redirect here. Barnabypage (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is the primary topic, so no disambiguation is necessary. AJRG (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the recent move of Elizabeth II may have been, it does not automatically follow that her father should be moved as well, there are some significant differences. If you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it says "If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic". So it is perfectly legitimate for George VI to be a redirect to this article with the longer title. In several cases where there is a primary meaning of a name it is a redirect to an article with a longer title e.g. Amundsen, Hitler, Rommel, Sacramento. We also have several cases where a monarch is the primary but not unique meaning of a name + number combination, but the article title includes their realm, e.g. George III, IV, V of the United Kingdom, James IV of Scotland, George VII, VIII of Georgia, should these all be moved? PatGallacher (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Article titles should be concise - there needs to be a justification for a longer title. In this case, the longer title is an invented name anyway, so the article should move to George VI. AJRG (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As many monarchial articles as possible, should be moved to Name # & when necessary, Name # (country). GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The debate over the guideline really needs to happen over at NCROY. AJRG (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unclear pronoun

The last two sentenes of the opening paragraph in this section read:

The day before the abdication, he went to London to see his mother, Queen Mary. He wrote in his diary, "When I told her what had happened, I broke down and sobbed like a child."

To whom does the bolded "he" above refer? Both Edward and Albert are referenced in the same paragraph. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Orlady (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

George VI of the United Kingdom → George VI — Since Elizabeth II's article is now titled without mentioning the UK, there must be a break in consistency at some point, and for reasons I will detail outside this template, it seems preferable to make the break after Victoria than after George VI. Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Edward VIII of the United Kingdom → Edward VIII
• George V of the United Kingdom → George V
• Edward VII of the United Kingdom → Edward VII

Further explanation: 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.--Kotniski (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been noted at WT:NCROY (the naming convention page) and at the UK, Ireland, Australia and Canada noticeboards/WikiProjects. Oh, and India. That's probably quite enough.--Kotniski (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've slight problem with George V. It ought to be moved to George V (United Kingdom), as there's a George V of Hanover [which should be George V (Hanover)]. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support For the reasons given by the nominator. City of Destruction 19:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose For a whole series of reasons. I'm afraid this could turn into a complex wrangle. Although there is room for a few exceptions to the guidelines, there comes a point where departing from them creates a new guideline.

1. We have a large number of monarchs who are the sole or primary meaning of a name + number combination e.g. George III and IV of the UK, several later English Henrys and French Louis's, James IV, V and Robert III of Scotland. Are we going to remove the disambiguator from all of them?
2. As Kotniski points out, two of these four were officially title "of the UK" at times. Where's the logic?
3. Whatever the merits of moving Elizabeth II, some arguments advanced in her case do not apply. She has been monarch of an unusually (though not necessarily uniquely) large number of nominally separate sovereign states in her time, but these four were monarch of far fewer.
4. Elizabeth II is the unique meaning of her name + number combination, two of these four are not.
5. There was a previous argument that the Statute of Westminster 1931 creates a cut-off point, I accept that this was a significant measure, although I think some people have exagerated its importance. By comparison, a cut-off point just after Queen Victoria is completely arbitrary.
6. There are dangers of systemic bias, by suggesting that the UK is a "sui generis" entity, see WP:BIAS. PatGallacher (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One of your points is incorrect: there was a break between Victoria and Edward VII; it is not arbitrary. Edward VII was the first King of the British Dominions: no other monarch had used this title before. DrKeirnan (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

On point 1, personally I'd be happy to (remove the disambiguator for all of them), but there's no need to if people prefer consistency; however with the ones in the proposal, bringing them into line with Elizabeth actually increases consistency, in one (perhaps the most significant) sense. On point 2, they were not officially titled as we currently title them, of course, I just mean that those one-and-a-half did at least have "of the United Kingdom" somewhere in their titles.--Kotniski (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I still don't understand how fear of WP:BIAS can be an argument in favour of including "of the United Kingdom" in titles. Surely in cases where someone was sovereign of different realms, we reduce bias by not picking out one of those realms to identify them with (at least in cases where we don't need to disambiguate them like that).--Kotniski (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Additionally, there's an avoidable confusion that can be avoided: that Elizabeth (despite her formal title, Elizabeth, the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen, ...) is in fact the first Elizabeth to rule the UK (or for that matter, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the other dominions). Elizabeth I was the first Queen Elizabeth of England, and Edward VI the sixth King Edward of England. Edward VII was the first King Edward to rule the UK. (Although this also applies to William IV, it doesn't apply to the Georges, all six of whom ruled a United Kingdom.) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(I think you'll find it does apply to the Georges - the UK was only created during the reign of George III. Or maybe you're right - GB was also called the UK, even if the kings didn't carry that title...)--Kotniski (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, I was thinking that the first United Kingdom (of Great Britain) was formed by the Act of Union of 1707, during the reign of Queen Anne. In fact there have been three UK's, depending on how much of Ireland they include. While it's too wordy for an article title, "Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" [or "Edward VII of Great Britain and Ireland"] sound a little more natural to me than "Elizabeth II [or Edward VII] of the United Kingdom". —— Shakescene (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there has only been one UK. The UK was formed when the Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland merged to form a new state in 1801, with the Parliament of the United Kingdom replacing the Parliament of Great Britain and Parliament of Ireland. The formal name of the UK was changed from "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1922, but the state remained unchanged despite the succession of the Irish Free State. City of Destruction 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But the Kingdom of Great Britain was also called the United Kingdom of Great Britain. I don't know the technical details and haven't read all the arguments that led to Wikipedia's choice of title, but I consider there to be a continuous UK history since the union of the English and Scottish parliaments in 1707. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that the Acts of Union 1707 were much more important than the Acts of Union 1800, as marking the creation of Britain as a unified state. From a constitutional perspective, however, to my best knowledge, the current state dates from 1801. Not that this is important to the move request. In terms of monarchs, all the monarchs of the Kingdom of GB took names which hadn't previously been used before in England or Scotland (Anne, Georges I – III). William IV of the United Kingdom was the first king to take a regnal name used before the Acts of Union 1707, and set the precedent of continuing the English numbering system, rather than calling himself William I. City of Destruction 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And Victor Emmanuel II was the first Victor Emmanuel to be king of Italy, but that didn't stop him. john k (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I think. These monarchs are pretty clearly primary topics. As DrKiernan notes above, the move at this point makes sense if we want to limit it, since Edward VII was the first one to be king of the UK "and the Dominions beyond the seas," and certainly the case against George V - Edward VIII - George VI not actually using the title "King of the UK" is also fairly convincing. This would also open the door, should we decide to go through it, of a more thorough going revision of the naming convention. I tend to think that titles like Louis XVI of France, Catherine II of Russia, and Juan Carlos I of Spain are kind of silly - why does the country need to be there? Doing this move wouldn't force us to move those articles, but it would allow us to do more to consider such moves on their own merits, rather than letting the dead weight of tradition keep us from doing it. john k (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have immediate authorities for the Edwards and Georges, but my reprint of the 1900 Whitaker's Almanack (page 86) does indeed make Victoria Queen of the UK: HER MAJESTY VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Empress of India. I'd still prefer to use Queen Victoria here, but if asked what she was Queen of, I'd say Great Britain and Ireland, just as Jacques Chirac, technically President of the French Republic, is President of France to Wikipedia (see redirect) and most people. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Through 1927 the title was "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King." 1927-1953, because of the independence of the Irish Free State, it became, "of Great Britain and Ireland King". In 1953 it was changed to "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Queen." john k (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting to be a sidetrack, but I'm confused by your second sentence. (1) Did you mean to write "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, King"? The Irish Free State was a dominion outside the UK until it became a Republic in 1948. The UK of GB and Northern Ireland dates back, I think, to 1924 or 1922, although it may not have crept into royal titles until 1927. (De Valera kept Ireland within the Commonwealth and under the Crown, in extremely attenuated fashion, in hopes that it might make joining the Irish Free State less objectionable to loyalists in Ulster. The parties which unseated De Valera created the Republic of Ireland in 1948.) (2) Was it George, the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain... or George, the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland, King? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all listed at Style of the British sovereign#Styles of British sovereigns. From 1922 to 1949 the British monarch was king of all of Ireland, but all of Ireland was not part of the UK, so in 1927 they dropped "United Kingdom" and just had "George the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" john k (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very useful to know; see also the original documents at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1927 So Edward VIII and George VI were never (unlike Victoria or Elizabeth II) titled monarchs of the United Kingdom, only (by the Grace of God) of Great Britain, Ireland, etc. That's a fairly strong argument for not using Edward VIII of the United Kingdom or George VI of the United Kingdom. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'll be honest, though; every step away from the [Name] of [Country] is, as Martha Stewart would say, a good thing. -Rrius (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support -- George V (disambiguation) contains three other rulers with the same name, but not important rulers, and dealt with by a DAB capnote. I have not checked the other monarchs in the nom. The present format is designed to avoid WP being excessively anglo-centric, but we have changed Elizabeth II, after extremely prolonged heart-searching, and it is logical to carry this furhter. For the present queen there were no rivals for the article title. Here there are but the DAB capnote deals with that well enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The only other people we have listed named "George VI" are two obscure medieval Georgian rulers. The only other thing named Edward VII would appear to be a battleship named after the British king. There don't seem to be any other Edward VIIIs. john k (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - even if we are throwing our standards away, we should maintain consistency within the Georges - and Edwards. Deb (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

But the Georges and Edwards are not consistent. The first two Georges and the last two Edwards are different from the others. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And what about Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor? Consistency exists only in the imaginations of the owners of the supposed guideline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - primary article so no problem with the move. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I don't know the ins and outs of this, but if "of the United Kingdom" is not necessary, we should lose it, especially if there is a growing consensus among those who do know the ins and outs. Scolaire (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Kotniski. The second and fifth dot points I find particularly compelling. Hesperian 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all the kings of X should be named "Xyz of X", especially those that are dead for some time. For those living outside UK, it is not obvious at all that these are British kings. Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II are notable exceptions since these are very notable people that people with decent knowledge of history have heard of them (George # or Edward # on the other hand are not). The next logical step would be to to start moving Albert II of Belgium to Albert II. Since that would be a bad idea, why make the UK kings special? Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nergaal. As for the nom's argument: Elizabeth II was moved in part on the grounds that (1) she was the present monarch, and so unusually notable; (2) that the move would not be precedent. To use it as precedent to move dead monarchs is - well - disingenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Elizabeth is immortal? --Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets hope so. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per PatGallacher, per Nergaal, and above all, in objection to the misconception that Name # of the United Kingdom reflects Wikipedic bias rather than compliance with prevalent usage among English speakers. FactStraight (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Henry IV of England may be "prevalent usage among English speakers"; "George VI [or anyone else] of the United Kingdom" is prevalent only among a few specialists and a subset of Wikipedia editors (cf. "London, United Kingdom" or "London, Canada"). I'm willing to consider something a little closer to what the monarchs styled themselves, e.g. "George VI of Great Britain" or "Edward VIII of Great Britain and Ireland".—— Shakescene (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Nergaal's argument is essentially "use the commonly applied name" or "comply with prevalent usage". It can be tested by doing searches for "George VI" among reliable sources. See how many of those mentions of George VI are accompanied by a country modifier or do not refer to the right man: one swiftly sees that country modifiers are generally not used and there is only one man generally called George VI. If, on the other hand, one does the same thing for "Albert II" it can be seen easily that there are other Alberts II who are not from Belgium. Hence, disambiguation in that case is necessary. So, on the basis of this argument, the country can be dropped from George VI but must be kept for Albert II. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, "prevalent usage among English speakers" is the most bizarre argument to be used in opposition to this move - I didn't make much of it the nomination since I presumed it would be obvious to everyone, but the current titles are very much not prevalent usage, just as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" was not prevalent usage (the main(?) reason why her article was renamed).--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment/support in principle argument about QEII was that the realms are recognised as being equal hence issue about the use of of the United Kingdom as it was an inappropriate disambiguation. The equality came about at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in 1953 whereby the Queen would accord herself different styles and titles in each of her realms, reflecting that in each state she acted as monarch of that particular country, regardless of her other roles. The community has been shifting away from a predisambiguation practice over the last year and it now generally accepted that disambiguation should now only occur if it necessary so where the person is the primary topic I see no reason to disambiguate. Gnangarra 12:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support A consistent bias that favours one state over others is not a consistency that should be maintained. Of the monarchs listed, at least those back to and including George V, during whose reign the principle of equality between the dominions and the UK was established, should have the "United Kingdom" qualifier removed. From a purely internal Wikipedia standpoint, disambiguation is also unnecessary (and, if it were needed, some other method could surely be employed). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support for Edward VII, Edward VIII & George VI. But Oppose for George V. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nergaal. Consistency harms nobody and helps many. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So, "[Name] of Xredon" is okay, so long as all the titles are presented as such consistently? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose because I need a clue that these are names of monarchs and not cruise ships or whatever comes first to mind. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Merely because Elvis Presley is commonly called Elvis doesn't mean the page name is changed (there's a redirect). A sovereign is sovereign of a particular country. He's not just Bob VIII; he's Bob VIII of Pumpkinville - even if there aren't other sovereigns named Bob. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that in these particular cases they are sovereigns of multiple countries not one. It is poor logic to say in one breath that we must include the country and then in the next breath say the exact opposite. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's decided to keep these & other monarch articles as Name # of country? then I'd support Elizabeth II being moved back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I find this a puzzling argument. The implication that there is some natural or integral connection between the numbering and the country ruled seems particularly wrong. A monarch chooses a regnal name and number. They also have a title. But that doesn't mean that regnal name and number, by themselves, are incorrect. Philip II of Spain didn't even have the title of "King of Spain". A sovereign is a sovereign of a particular country, certainly, but that particular country isn't necessarily part of their name. To say "Henry IV" is perfectly correct, and not incomplete in the way that "Elvis" would be. The problem is that "Henry IV" is ambiguous, not that it is incomplete. This is why other encyclopedias, which don't need to give unique titles, just title their articles on monarchs "Henry IV" and has a bunch of different articles with that title, or "Louis XIV" and has one article. john k (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thus my reason for wanting Name # (country) for those common names. GoodDay (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So John (England)? That would be horrible. I'd prefer Louis XIV and Henry IV, King of France, personally, as the options. john k (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we could continue to use ...of country for disambiguated monarch titles & non-numeral numbered monarch titles = thus Frederick I of Prussia & John of England would be allowable. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: in all four cases the proposed name is recognizable, natural, precise and concise. The best the opposers can come up with is inconsistency, but we all (should) know that Wikipedia is inconsistent. The current state is no more recognizable and is less natural, less precise (because inaccurate) and less concise. See also John k's comment here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support all. Makes more sense, easier to find and doesn't look dumb. For a long time the majority of the community has disliked names like this, esp. when they are not needed, but has been blocked by the same dedicated group of conservatives for no good reason. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (since I've already Supported): One reason that people dislike "King Edward VII of the United Kingdom" is that it sounds redundant, like calling Prince Charles "Prince of the Principality of Wales" or "Duke of the Duchy of Cornwall". Sometimes this is necessary in legal prose ("City Council of the City of Berkeley" or "United States District Court for the District of Vermont"), but (apart from acronyms like "PCV valve" and "ATM machine") it's not colloquial or natural. ¶ I'm beginning to lean towards a rough and ready solution of giving every monarch after 1701 (or 1603) "X of Great Britain" or else every monarch from 1820 to 1952 "Y of [Great] Britain and Ireland". That would keep the disambiguation necessary in, for example Henry IV (of England or Navarre?) while being more natural and easier for users to search. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The oppose arguments are simply unconvincing and most are logically flawed.

1. Consistency: we don't have articles titled "Barack Obama of the United States", so why should articles for other heads of state be any different? "Elizabeth II" and "Napoleon I" omit the country so why not omit it here? The articles do not become less consistent by removing the disambiguator. Consistency is not damaged in this case since there is no country in three of the Edwards already and the country is already omitted from Elizabeth II.
2. Official titles: their official titles were much longer than "of the UK" and two were not "of the UK" at all. So, arguing that we should apply "of the UK" on the basis that it is the official title is obviously wrong. "Use the official title" is an argument for removal or extension not for retention.
3. Multiple states: "Elizabeth II" is monarch of multiple states so the country was omitted. But then these four were also monarch of more than one state, so there is no logic to saying the same argument does not apply.
4. Unique name: two are unique so disambiguation is unnecessary, for the other two "George V" and "George VI" are redirects to the longer titled articles, so they are clearly primary usage. Again this is an argument for removal not for retention.
5. Appropriate point to apply change consistently: as pointed out by me and John K, an appropriate point to apply the change is the introduction of the longer official title, which incorporates the other countries over which they reigned. Other monarchs in this series are titled "of England" or "of Great Britain", which reflects official changes in the titles and nature of the Crown, so it is appropriate to apply a similar change at a similar break in official titles or the nature of the Crown.
6. Removal of the title does not suggest that the UK is a sui generis entity. It merely suggests that it is unnecessary to have a long title when a short one will suffice. Kotniski argues that bias is reduced by removing one country from the title when more than that one country is reigned over.
7. On Nergaal's argument, cited by Septentrionalis, FactStraight and Laurel Lodged, comply with prevalent usage is an argument for removal not retention, since the prevalent usage is without a country disambiguator. Claims that people outside the UK do not know the nationality of Edward VIII, and so require the disambiguator, do not make sense. People are directed to the article by typing in "Edward VIII". On the contrary, one has to know the country already to look up "Edward VIII of the United Kingdom".
8. Noel's argument does not address the problem of multiple countries or the use of common names. Presidents and prime ministers are of particular countries but we don't add countries to their names, unless their name is ambiguous (see Charles Taylor).

In support of a move, it is argued the change increases consistency, but such an argument is bedevilled by the same flaw in the argument that change decreases consistency: there is no consistency anyway. The first three Edwards do not have countries, the subsequent ones do. Some sovereigns have titles included (Wilhelm II, German Emperor), some do not. Some heads of state have countries included, most do not. And so on. Consequently, I reject the consistency argument for both support and oppose cases.

In support of a move it is argued that it is unnecessary to disambiguate with a lengthy title as the shorter one is either the primary or sole use. This is true but, as correctly pointed out by Noel's Elvis example, this is not in itself a reason for reduction. For the reduction argument to hold water, there must be a demonstrated need to reduce the title.

In support of a move to an alternative title, but not necessarily to reduce it:

1. Comprehensiveness: The current titles are insufficient and misinforming. These men ruled over more than the United Kingdom. To encompass all their domains, the title would need to be "of the British Empire" or some such, not restricted to a single country.
2. Neutrality: The current titles are perceived as bias because they unnecessarily use one nation and exclude others.

In themselves, these are arguments for a change in the country name but not necessarily for the removal of it.

To be in support of the proposed move one must look at the support arguments together. Removing the country removes the perceived favoritism towards one country and removes the misinformation that they were kings of one country only. It does not make the title more comprehensive or more understandable, but then the current title is not comprehensive or increasing of understanding either. So, removing the single country name reduces perceived bias while not introducing new bias, and reduces misinformation while not introducing new misinformation. Consequently, on the basis that the proposed move has a rational argument in its favor, and no valid oppose rationale, I support. DrKiernan (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Noel's Elvis example is irrelevant and a poor comparison. "George VI" is a fully complete name for this person, and is in fact the title used by every paper reference work in existence for the subject of this article. Encyclopedias do not use "Elvis" to title their articles on Elvis Presley. john k (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In an international work he's not just "George VI"; he's "George VI of Someplace". There are a few royals and others who can get away with just a first name (e.g. Napoleon, Marie Antoinette, Cher), but this is rare, and the four people under discussion don't get close to that level. If there were an article about butterflies (e.g.) written in the U.S.A. mentioning some species named after this man, it wouldn't just say "named for George VI". Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC

Indeed, becaue we like to provide context. That doesn't mean his name is "George VI of the United Kingdom". One would provide some additional context than just the name when mentioning just about anybody in an unrelated encyclopedia article, or any other work, for that matter. In my dissertation, I mention at a few points "British foreign secretary Lord Malmesbury." I would imagine that most books that mention Malmesbury in passing would identify him as the British foreign secretary. That doesn't mean that his article should include "British foreign secretary" in the title somewhere, even though far, far fewer people have heard of Lord Malmesbury than George VI. "George VI" is his name; it's what the article should be called unless there is a conflict of some sort. And his title wasn't even "King of the United Kingdom"! The article itself of course explains what he was king of, as should any article that links to him. That doesn't have anything to do with what the title should be. john k (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support per DrKiernan. AJRG (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this will just create a needless battle over renaming articles without accomplishing anything of substance. Type "George VI" into the search field and "George VI of the United Kingdom" will be offered as a choice and if you just press <enter> after typing "George VI" you come to this article. "Name of Country" is a settled pattern and changing that pattern in some cases just starts another round of pointless debate. There is plenty of work to be done to improve the content of articles without these constant efforts to move articles to accomodate someone's idea of what is "correct." Next month someone else will come along with a different idea and the cycle again. Just say "No." Johnwilliammiller (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support Keep article titles as simple and as accessible as possible. This is the English language Wiki, so I would suppose that most readers would understand who George VI was (through historical association, at least) or who was most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, if this were, say, German wiki, then I would expect that (Kaiser) William/Wilhelm I would need no disambig, whereas the British William I would. A similar argument relates to King George in Greek or German or Armenian wikis. Also, although the correct state title is "United Kingdom" (or similar), I doubt whether that is commonly used (Scots & Welsh are continually irritated by being lumped in with "England"). I only use "UK" on official forms (sometimes Great Britain); friends and relations in the US never introduce me as being from either of those. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arms

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)

These should not have been added since as far as I can discern they are not royal arms, they are national arms, and the monarch would still use his/her personal arms (i.e. those as used in England) when acting as sovereign in these realms. Until it's clear that they are royal arms I'll take them out. Slac speak up! 11:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to look, but my suspicion is that that's wrong. If the sovereign can have different royal arms with different supporters in Scotland (with the Scottish lion rampant in the first and fourth quarters, and the Unicorn changing places with the Lion), I'm pretty sure that his or her arms in Canada and other dominions would be just as personal. The Royal Standard I remember seeing on pictures of royal tours of dominions was I think not the one that flies over Windsor Castle when the Queen is in residence. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A royal standard and royal arms are two different things. "I'm pretty sure that" doesn't hold - Scotland has royal arms (and no national arms), the UK has royal arms (and no national arms); other nations have national coats of arms, which are not designed for personal monarchial use. Cf the situation of France, whose arms have always been the royal arms; consequently, with no monarchy, France has no arms. As for royal standards: they are identifying personal flags for the sovereign's use, not national flags. Slac speak up! 06:36, 28 January 2011 (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)

Even assuming good faith, I can only take that as a Canadian perspective, because it is simply not how it works in the other realms, constitutional theory or no. 06:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This certainly doesn't hold for all monarchies. The arms of the state and the arms of the monarch are different in Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, and the Vatican. Liechtenstein and Sweden have lesser arms that are state arms and greater arms that are both national and royal. There are solid sources for Britain and Canada's arms being royal and state arms, but we don't have sources saying the same for the others. DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

King's Speech (1)

"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)

The "opening address" was in fact the dedication of Old Parliament House, Canberra, so yes, it was in Canberra. Slac speak up! 11:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Kings Speech

Who wrote this?

"The King's Speech dramatises his speech therapy with Lionel Logue (played by Geoffrey Rush), and takes several dramatic liberties, including setting the action in the lead-up to World War II instead of the mid-1920s."

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)

Actually, George's therapy with Logue began in 1926. The following year, he gave a speech at the dedication of the Australian parliament building and then read the Throne Speech for the opening of the first session of parliament in the new building. The Duke wasn't perfect, but he spoke normally. The film eliminates this fact for the sake of dramatic effect.Sydney Morning Herald: "King's voice coach calmed a nation" --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He became King in (December 11) 1936, actually. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why no son?

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 contine having children until they got a son?

86.189.10.3 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither of your points is clear, the second especially so. DrKeirnan (talk) 09:41, 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)

There was also Queen Anne. There's no guarantee about the sex of your children. They might have tried for ever and kept on getting daughters. My mother is one of 5 daughters, no sons. "Surely have been regarded as more satisfactory to have had a male inherit" - that is entirely your POV. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They likely couldn't have any more children. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Constitutionally Bound?

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 think it would be better to quote John Grigg for this interpretation rather than Hitchens directly. I've pinched a bit from Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's article (and a different Hitchens piece) and inserted it. DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the specific charge was that George intervened before Parliament heard Chamberlain and therefore I was questioning the term "constitutionally bound;" he may have been constitutionally bound to support it after Chamberlain went to Parliament, but was actually constitutionally discouraged from assenting beforehand.Maurizio689 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand that bit of Hitchens' argument. There wasn't anything for George to give assent to; the Munich agreement wasn't a bill and he must follow the advice of ministers, as long as they command a majority in the house. Chamberlain did command a majority, and on the 28th, one or two days before the agreement was signed, the House of Commons had already given Chamberlain an ecstatic ovation when he announced that he was to go to Germany for talks. DrKiernan (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Monogram

Reinterpretation of the monogram by User:Glasshouse created by switching the original crown with a different one

The actual monogram used was not colored and was designed in 1949.

For the vast bulk of George's reign the GRI monogram, as shown on this sixpence, was used.

I added the King's monogram, however it was removed by DrKiernan, 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)

The color version is original research; I can only find monochromatic examples. It is misleading to show the 1949 version as if it was in use in his early reign; it was not. Why is it relevant? Images should be integrated with the text; this one is just inserted as miscellaneous information. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We show Victoria's cypher with the royal arms, so it's appropriate to show George's. Clearly, once George had ceased to be Rex-Imperator (King-Emperor), with the independence of India, Pakistan & Burma, a new cypher had to be used, so I think both versions should be shown. (Does George VI's cypher differ from his father's, which needed no numeral when there had been no previous Georgius Rex Imperator?) The watermarks on British postage stamps show different monograms and styles of crown (but, unlike coinage, not that gothic or black lettering), so perhaps a printed or on-line stamp catalogue can be used as an indicative, if not definitive, source. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC) ¶ Now that I see where the Royal Cypher is presently placed, I suggest we follow the example of Queen Victoria#Royal Cypher and move it down to the Arms, Titles & Honours section, to show it there with the GRI cypher -- either as part of the Arms subsection or in a separate one for the Royal Cypher. [The number of Coats of Arms images may increase as, when and if George's arms as King of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other dominions are added.] —— Shakescene (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem with DrKiernan. He removes these monograms for the most trivial reasons. He says the crown isn't the same, but it is. Then he says the colours are wrong, but that's something that can EASILY be fixed. He says it's "original research", but how is that, when he already have a JPG of it, and this is just a vectorization? Also, per another monogram, he claims a coin and a book cover as his sources against it, saying neither match the vector. However, the Coin matches the vector exactly, except in colour(yes, he actually tried to argue that since the coin doesn't have colour, that's proof that the vector is wrong), and in any case, the coin and the book cover show two very different things! For all these reasons, i don't trust his arguments against placing monograms on the pages of those people they represent. He has no clue what he's talking about. Also note, he admits that the Jpeg on the right WAS King George's monogram after 1949, so what is his problem with using a vector of it??? Fry1989 (talk) 18:41, 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)

Just one other note. DrKiernan claims to have "corrected" the caption, by altering it to say that it wasn't in colour. IDK if he's blind, but the JPEG that he supports is blue, and last time I checked, blue is a colour. And once again, he fails to understand that BOTH the JPEG and Vector use a Tudor Crown. He clearly has no clue what he's talking about. Fry1989 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He also just tried to alter it once again, from "not coloured" to "monochromatic" to escape my above criticism. Fry1989 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comment of 08:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC) above. DrKiernan (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You tried to change it AFTER my above criticism. Whether it was a typo or not, you tried to cover it up. Also, agian, because the file is vector, the colours can easily be changed, and that is not a reason to remove the file altogether. Fry1989 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment is exactly the same as it was at the time I wrote it, and it quite clearly says "monochromatic". Please comment on the content not the contributor. This page is for discussing the article, not other editors. DrKiernan (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That you've contradicted yourself, is relevant to this discussion, as it regards whether or not your arguments can be accepted or not. Fry1989 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it featured?

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)

Blah blah blah --Krawunsel (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

World War I/II or First World War etc

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)

The terms World War I and II are used in Britain. DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 27 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))

Errata

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))

Early education

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)

Signature?

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)

Unfortunately, signatures are eligible for copyright in the UK.--Ibagli (Talk) 06:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)