Talk:George II of Great Britain/Archive 1

older entries
"She exercised political influence by her friendship with the prime minister, Robert Walpole, even after a quarrel with the king which resulted in the Prince and Princess of Wales - as they then were - being thrown out of their royal apartments."

Please clarify this paragraph. Who quarreled with whom, exactly, and who were thrown out? It is very confusing with titles instead of names. I don't know enough about the subject to help, sadly. - user:Montrealais — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montrealais (talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 September 2002 (UTC)

Jacobites and Illusions.
I think it quite wrong to say that the Forty-Five almost dethroned George. The rebellion caused much panic, but it would take more than 5,000 tired and ill-equiped men to topple the British throne. The Jacobite army came to England not in search of George, but in search of kindred spirits, precious few of whom appeared. With two powerful government armies on their flanks, and no sign of the English Jacobites, all of Charles Edward's commanders insisted on a retreat to Scotland. The invasion had never been more than a reconnaissance-in-strength. Rcpaterson 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal send off
Is there any truth to the story, that George II died using the bathroom? Should this be added to the article. GoodDay 21:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No I don't think there was any truth in that, but I'm not 100% sure. In Mark Bryant's Private Lives, he writes that "George died suddenly, aged 77, at Kensington Palace around 8am on 25 October 1760, from a rupture of the right ventricle of the heart when preparing for a walk in the gardens. He was buried in Westminster Abbey. He requested that he be interred next to Queen Caroline, with the adjoining sides of the coffins opened so that their dust might mingle". Craigy (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Mr. Bryant was just being discreet. George may have been preparing to go for a walk, but he had necessary business to attend to first. He suffered an aortic dissection while using the lavatory! Hope this clarifies the point. Rcpaterson 01:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Move?
Shouldn't we move this article to Georg August von Brunswick-Lüneburg? After all the article on Wladyslaw II of Poland got moved to Jogaila recently, which means that we should apply the same rules to all similar articles.  // Halibutt 08:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for info
I'm doing the ancestors info box on George II - I've come to a halt on his maternal grandmother Eleanor d'Olbreuse. I can't find anything about her parents' names. Even Google gets only 3 results for "Eleanor d'Olbreuse", and one of those doesn't even work! Lec CRP1 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I don't believe the picture depicts George II. It is not like any other picture I have seen of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.44.134.71 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC). he is a king.

Coronation
From the infobox: "Coronation: 11 October 1727"

From the text: "George was crowned at Westminster Abbey on 4 October."

So, when was he crowned? Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dat is vun big lie?
Don't we need a reference for that? 195.153.160.240 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Later life
I copied the following from this section: "...Pitt the Elder guided policy relating to the Seven Years' War, which may be viewed as a continuation of the War of the Austrian Succession. Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria..." By the time of the Seven Years' War, Maria Theresa was safely empress of Austria.JGC1010 (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

New files
Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

Dcoetzee 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Word Choice Clarification
After banishing his son, George also lost his wife, who died on 20 November 1737. Reputedly, when she asked her husband to remarry, he replied, "Non, j'aurai des maîtresses!" (French for "No, I will have mistresses!"). Reputedly, she replied "Ah, mon Dieu, cela n'empeche pas." ("My God, that doesn't prevent it.")

Who is she? It can't be George II's wife if she died on 20 Nov. 1737. Is it his son's wife?

Strdstryr (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Quarrel With The King
The pages for George I and George II give contradictory accounts of the quarrel surrounding the baptism of Prince George William.

The page for George II states: "the Prince of Wales insisted on having the Duke of Newcastle (whom the king detested) as a godfather, whilst the King chose his brother, the Duke of York and Albany. When he publicly vituperated his father, the Prince of Wales was temporarily put under arrest."

However, the page for George I states: "The King, supposedly following custom, appointed the Lord Chamberlain, the Duke of Newcastle, as one of the baptismal sponsors of the child. The King was angered when the Prince of Wales, disliking Newcastle, verbally insulted the Duke at the christening, which the Duke misunderstood as a challenge to a duel."

It may be that the George II page is in error because the wiki for the Duke of Newcastle makes reference to the enmity between Newcastle and George II. Also the Penny Cylopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge volumes 11 / 12 page 159 has the prince (and not the king) objecting to Newcastle:

"A quarrel between the king and the prince broke out on the 28th November 1717 on occasion of the baptism of a son of which the princess of Wales had been delivered on the 3rd of that month the immediate cause of the rapture was the displeasure expressed by the prince at the duke of Newcastle standing godfather with the king instead of the king's brother the duke of York whom he wished to have been appointed But it seems observes a contemporary writer (Salmon in 'Chronological Historian') there were other reasons of this misunderstanding with which we are not to be acquainted The next day the king sent his commands to the prince to keep his own apartment till his pleasure should be further known soon after he was desired to quit St James's on which his royal highness and the princess went to the house of the earl of Grantham in Albemarle Street. The children however by the king's order remained at St James's and shortly after the judges being consulted decided by a majority of ten to two that the care of the education ofthe royal family belonged of right to the king See an account of the proceedings in Hargrove's State Trials xi 295-302"

--RHWaugh (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

move
The page should be moved to george ii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.220 (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Birth
Wasn't George II born on November 10, 1683? Because that's what many other websites have written...but I'm not entirely sure. I'm curious to know which date is the REAL birth date of George. 75.90.106.163 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Was he named after Saint George?
I wondered if there is any relation between his name, George, and the patron saint of England, George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbnull (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC) ---not likely, seeing as he was german by birth and upbringing and both his parents were german too.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC) JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth
There has been some editing around the birth date of George II. Using the BBC as a reliable source suggests that it should be 10 November 1683; although it doesn't explicitly clarify whether that is an Old Style or New Style date (presumably OS): http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/george_ii_king.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelio (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed this back to the 9th because although the New Style date can be given in sources as either the 9th or the 10th, I've only seen the Old Style date as 30 October (which was the 9th November N.S. at the time). DrKay (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huberty, Michel; Giraud, Alain; Magdelaine, F. et B. (1981) L'Allemagne Dynastique Volume 3, p. 108, ISBN 2-901138-03-9, confirms that he was born on the 30 October/9 November, but because the calendar shifted forward a further day in 1700, the date is occasionally miscalculated as 10 November. DrKay (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

new style / old style
i had no idea they switched calendars at that time period. what a mess.

i wonder if they're going to switch calendars again. makes you think about things, because certain dates have entered into our collective consciousness. if you rename the date, do you recreate our perception of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.179.142 (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

is england still irritated that it had to switch calendars in 1752? so it keeps its own parallel record of history according to a different calendar, and thus can lie about anything it feels like? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.179.142 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Titles in Pretence.
Whether the claim by George II to be King of France should (A) be in the lead and (B) use the Titles in Pretence template. My view is that there is evidence that the claim was made by George, that it was in his style and coronation oath. This evidence is verifiable. We know nothing about the mind or intend of the King. We don't know whether or not he truly believed that he was King of France. That not the point thought. The point is that he officially made a verifiable claim, a claim made by all the Plantagenets and 1 further successors of George II. Whether his claim had any more substance than that of the Old Pretender to his own throne is neither here nor there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He did not make a conscious claim or attempt to become King. The Old Pretender did. It's undue weight to treat both "claims" the same, or place the use of an ancient style on the same footing as a claim to be a King. DrKay (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when is a style not a claim? It's how he was addressed by his ministers and foreign ambassadors. If he thought that they were in erro, no doubt he would have corrected them. He did not do so. From this, we know that he consented to the use of the style and agreed with the claim. Whether that claim was actively or passively pursued we do not know and is in any case irrelevant. It's in his coronation oath, neither was it repudiated by him: it's a claim, a title in pretence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not George acted as "King of France" in his private boudoir I don't know. But it's not relevant to the discussion. A title in pretence is one that is claimed, whatever the practicalities of achieving the object. The claims operate on a spectrum: at one end we have the Old Pretender who stood a decent chance of gaining the throne, on the other end we have Giorgio Carbone, pretended head of the Principality of Seborga. In between, we have bewigged George. It is sufficient that he claimed it: the template makes no comment on how delusional or otherwise his state of mind was when he made the claim. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been no engagement from DrK on this topic for over 2 months now. That should have been enough time for him to find solid evidence to back up his POV. Yet he has not posted it if he has it. Not withstanding this, he has reverted the restoration of the template. The claim is true, sourced and verifiable. There is no evidence that it is untrue. There is no source that says he recanted, reneged, disavowed or otherwise gave up the claim. What he believed in his heart about the claim is unknowable. It suffices that he made the claim for the template to be validly included. Unless proof to the contrary can be provided, I propose to insert the template and to keep re-inserting it until DrK's bizarre POV reversions desist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the way I phrased it is closer to the sources and clearer to understand than the succession box. My insertion is cited, so there is no rational reason for you to complain on that score. DrKay (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the position. That George claimed the title is not in dispute. That it was a silly claim is not in dispute. That the "Titles in Pretence" template is a legitimate template is not in dispute. That articles should not be cluttered unnecessarily with duplications is not in dispute. Arguments in favour of retaining the template: 1. it supplies additional wikilinks not in the main body of the article (e.g. Capetian) 2. it is no more an item of clutter than any of the other templates and hidden info boxes - why pick on that one in particular? 3. the duplication is minimal 4. the duplication is inherent to all succession boxes. All mention the facts in in the main body of the article. That's not the point of them - they're cute, neat and easily navigable 5. if the TIP template is non-essential then all other succession boxes are guilty of the same offence and ought to be deleted 6. it's not trivial - the crown of France is a serious, noteworthy title. TIP boxes are used for far less notable titles 7. it is the nature of TIP that many will be silly or embarrassing to the modern eye. Just because they have been applied to English/British monarchs is not a reason to exclude them. Are they any more deserving of being saved from embarrassing issues than other monarchs? 8. a decision to delete in this case automatically invalidates the entire TIP template. I'll let others write the "Arguments in favour of deleting the template" case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I phrased it is clearer to understand, cited to a reliable source, and is covered with due weight in an appropriate section. None of these three points is true of the succession box: it does not make clear why the style was used; there is no source provided linking George to the failure of the Capetian succession, and the claim should not be treated with the same weight as clearly more important substantive offices. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation is not about the main body of the article. I'm sure the phrasing is lovely, the soucing impeccable and the section chosen is apt. The issue is whether or not the template should remain, independant of other materials in the main body. Are you now saying that all succession boxes must say why they are present? May it not be assumed that if the title of the succession box says "King of England" that the subject of the article was at one time King of England? Or would an explanatory note be needed? Similarly, may it not be assumed that if the title of the succession box says "Titles in Pretence" that the subject of the article at one time held the title listed in pretence? Or would an explanatory note be needed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most readers would agree that my explanatory note "France was included in the title out of tradition as English claims to the French throne were made in the medieval period." is clearer, and nearer to the sources, than your explanatory note "Reason for succession failure: Capetian Succession Failure". On the whole, explanatory notes are not necessary but they are usually given for titles of pretence and to explain the creation or abandonment of titles. DrKay (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

MilHist B-Class assessment
This article obviously has a lot going for it and is very close to B-Class. The following require citation, however: I spotted a few prose things here and there but those aren't so important until you go for GA or higher. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Last sentence, para 3, Early Raign
 * Last sentence, para 2, War and rebellion
 * First para, Legacy
 * Titles, styles, honours and arms; Ancestors; Issue (unless data cited elsewhere in main body)
 * Many thanks for taking a look: changes made. DrKay (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob, mate. Note that his succession by George III under Death should still be cited, common knowledge though it is, but I won't hold up B-Class assessment over that. Also I suspect the pop culture list might not survive at higher-level reviews in its current form -- perhaps rejigging it as prose, with citations, would help. Again, it's not a big issue at B-Class level. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry
In the Ancestry section, is there a way to have it show the family tree accurately, instead of having two copies of the same individuals, having one copy with two lines going to it?--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretender
As DrKernan & I are now at two reversions each, etiquette demands that we take it to the talk page. So, what's your beef with the wikilink to Pretender? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see main discussion at Talk:William III of England/Archive 1, which is likely to have similar arguments. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Style / New Style mess
WP:DATERET is about date formats, not handling Old Style dates. The other related articles do not use this ostentatious method for dealing with the switchover. Marking both dates is tiresome and pointless: pick one and use it. The part of WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers that actually applies says that events before the switchover should be in OS and after in NS. Since parts of this article deal with events while the continent was on NS, but Britain on NS, particular events such as the his crossing to England in 1714 should be dealt with by picking a date and marking it. No benefit is derived from showing both dates, and the distraction is reason enough to avoid it. -Rrius (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of the two calendars and the two different switchover dates in the two countries it is clearer to use both so that the date is unambiguous. Most articles do not have this complexity because they don't cover periods where three different calendars are in use, or because they are not featured articles and the dates have not been audited to check that they are accurate or all use the same format. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Links
Why is Archtreasurer linked to a page but king and duke are not? Talax (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style/Linking, everyday words like duke and king should not be linked, but links that aid in understanding such as Prince-elector are appropriate. DrKay (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And who would they be, then ?
" In 1701, his grandmother, Sophia of Hanover, became second-in-line to the British throne after about fifty Catholics higher in line were excluded by the Act of Settlement,"

So who would these 50 Catholics be ?

So Sophia was a grand-daughter of James I and VI. James was not exactly chock-ful of grandchildren. Only two of his children ( Charles I and Elizabeth ) had offspring. Charles' sons Charles, James and Henry managed to have no sons and two barren daughters between them. Charles' daughter Mary had only one child. Did the Duchess of Orleans really manage 50 descendants by 1701 ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia had nine kids, and Sophia was the youngest of those.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   06:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a list at Jacobite line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones in 1714. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Johann Ludwig von Wallmoden
That does make sense, but the article asserts that Johann Ludwig von Wallmoden was doubtlessly George's son. If his paternity is not disputed by anyone, should he still be excluded both from the infobox and from the Issue section? Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While there are sources saying he was, others say "widely believed" or "probably". DrKay (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

King of France
This primary source document includes France in the royal style; why would George II be considered King of France by the American colonials? It's not mentioned by the style in House of Hanover either. -- Beland (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because that title's a relic from the Hundred Years War when the Plantagenet Kings of England claimed for themselves the French Crown after the direct Capetians had died out. Their successor Kings of England and Great Britain from the Tudor, Stuart and Hannoverian dynasties didn't relinquish this (titular) claim to the crown of France untill 1801, when the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was formally created. See "British claims to the French throne" -- fdewaele, 20 January 2013.

religion?
I noticed that for the first 2 Georges it lists Lutheran as religion, and for the George II (and William IV) is lists Anglican, though all of the Hanoverian monarchs were both head of the Church of England and the Lutheran Church of Hanover simultaneously. And, as far as I am aware, there was never any formal "conversion," the relevant court theologians proclaiming that the 2 confessions were in agreement in all things essential. George I through William IV should probably all read Anglican/Lutheran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.0.215 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2014‎


 * I'd agree that not listing the Supreme Governor of the Church of England as an Anglican seems fairly peculiar, at least without any explanation or discussion. TSP (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

birth date
What's the reference for November 9? Other sources give Nov 10. Thisdaytrivia (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right to be suspicious, this was discussed before at Talk:George II of Great Britain/Archive 1. I will add a note. DrKay (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Portrait of the King
I was curious about the King's look, because except his bright bulging eyes I found that the pictures that I have collected were different from one artist to another.

I have read that he didn't like to be seated and get his picture to be taken. But John Michael Rysbrack was one of the lucky artist who having the king to be seated twice and get a clay model of his bust portrait taken from life, and claimed that the likeness of the bust model was much approved.

I took the white marble version and coloring it in Photoshop, and combining it with a matching painting for his body, after tried some of George's painting, I found that Du Pan's work was fitting.

So this is him, and I hope all of you fans of George II are enjoying this art. :) Uriel welsh (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Need help to add info to the Death section
Could anybody help me adding some info from the Source no. 115 by Frank Nicholls to the "Death" section?

He appeared to have just come from his necessary-stool, and as if going to open his escritoir. I want to add this line because I have read that some people asking if the King was fallen from the close-stool. Perhaps adding this info will clarify the questions.

I need help to add this line because I can't find the edit option from my old blackberry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uriel welsh (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added a little more detail on this from the source, as requested. TSP (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TSP 😉 Uriel welsh (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Cause of death
The physician who performed the autopsy described the patophysiologic mechanism of death that corresponds to aortic dissection, but he used the terms aortic distension, aneurism and dissection interchangibly, which I believe, would be considered inaccurate in modern medicine. Zephyrae (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I recall in the late 70s reading a book of medical related historical snippets that he is described as having 'died on the throne' in a manner of speaking, that the strain of constipation hastened his death. Also that Horace Walpole (if I recall the correct name) in his diary (as recounted in a book on Kensington Palace I read in the same decade) wrote that he had also injured his head in falling, gashing it against a piece of furniture and that he expired after trying to speak to the person who found him dying. If sources could be found these details would be welcome to mention.Cloptonson (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George I of Great Britain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)