Talk:George I of Great Britain/Archive 1

Names of States on the British Isles
Moved comment to Talk:List of British monarchs.

The earlier part of this discussion was moved to Talk: Names of States on the British Isles (Archive) to make more space here for more people to contribute. Hope everyone is happy with that.

Help: I find many sources that list George I's birthplace as Leineschloss, Osnabrück, Hanover, Germany; however, as far as I can tell, Leineschloss is not located in modern day Osnabrück. Does anyone know the details on this? I want to update George I's birthplace and possibly famous people born in Osnabrück. --TedMcDonald

Then every monarch before 1801 needs to be changed. And all of the pages that link to them need to have the correct terminology. -- Zoe

23, 2002 (UTC)
 * From the US Constitution: "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." So yes the article for the Presidents should be at President of the United States of America since that is the name of the country. Rmhermen 18:25 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

If you knew an elementary amount about British history, which you obviously don't, you'd know that whereas places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc were governed by the United Kingdom, they were not judged part of the UK. Ireland, Scotland and Wales, were, which is why they had little things called MPs, and why the union flag consists of St. Patrick's Cross (Ireland), St Andrew's Cross (Scotland) and St. George's Cross (England, including Wales). And which is yet one more reason why there is no such thing in law (and has not been since 1707) as a 'english' king or queen.

I'm sorry for pushing this and I assure you I do not mean any offence and hope you will not take anything personally. Perhaps you isunderstood me, while your point would be valid if this was a debate on the name of the nation, it is an article on the title of the British monarchs. Yes Canada was not part of the UK but the king of the UK was also King of Canada, Emperor of India etc. The comparisson with the American presidents is a bad one, a better one would be whether the article should be titled Greece, or the Hellenic Republic. Hellenic Republic is legally correct on on their embassies etc., but far more people, including experts, use Greece. I would argue to be an accesible encyclopedia Greece is the better option, you may disagree. Also you seem to be ignoring my evidence that pretty much all historians refer to them as George I of England, and Anne of England. I have so far found one academic source that refers to George I of Great Britain, and many that refer to him as George I of England. Do you have electronic access to journals where you are? You can quickly see that most experts use 'of England.' (One thing is no one refers to him as George I of the United Kingdom, so we can both agree that option is a poor one) -SimonP
 * Again u are incorrect, Simon and COMPLETELY missing the point by a MILE, and your use of the Hellenic nonsense shows it. The issue in Greece is one of name: are we the Hellenes or Greece. It is only a subtle point about name. But what we are arguing about is NOTHING TO DO WITH NAME. NOTHING. You seem to think that England=GB=UK; they are simply three different ways of saying the same thing. They are three DIFFERENT STATES, not three names for the one state, and the monarchy had DIFFERENT powers, functions and roles in each of the different states, hence the different titles to define themselves. England refers to the a state that covered approx 2/3 of one of the British Isles. Great Britain refers to a state that covered the ENTIRE ISLAND. The United Kingdom refers to a state that originally covered the ENTIRE BRITISH ISLES, and now covers one and a quarter of the main two isles. They had different constitutional systems, different parliaments made up of different people (England's - all english; GB: English + Scottish + Welsh. UK: English + Scottish + Welsh + Irish.) Laws differed. The UK was a parliamentary democracy, England at best a parliamentary monarchy. And that's the central issue: we have DIFFERENT states, with DIFFERENT names, DIFFERENT geographies, DIFFERENT territories, DIFFERENT governments, who had only TWO sets of continuity - a monarchy whose title changed as the states it governed over changed, and an Anglo-centric system of government that owed more in terms of continuity to England than any of the other states, but which still WAS NOT ENGLAND. And each new state as it emerged, with a new landmass, adopted a new title, which is the whole point of this ludicrous argument. And all that then shaped the monarchy, because, while the person who was king was a descendant of earlier monarchs, what they were king or queen of was CONSTANTLY CHANGING, which directly changed their offices.

It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT that individual historians when talking in general terms interplaced the terms 'england', 'GB' or 'UK'. In many cases they were english historians who like so many english people tend to put themselves at the centre of the universe (which is why the Welsh, Scottish and the Irish tend to hate the english so much, because they tend to imagine as though the history of the last couple of hundred years on these islands is 'english' history when it isn't.) In other cases, they aren't arguing about the technicalities of statehood but about policy issues. But the whole issue here we are dealing with its precisely that, statehood. Who governed what entity covering what land area under what title? And on that, the answer is clear as crystal. And you don't have to do a google search. You only have to look at the titles by which monarchs were proclaimed. They were either proclaimed monarchs of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, each title indicating that they ruled over a different set or combination of parts of the British isles in a different timeframe. Until I corrected it, this site had the wrong titles against the wrong monarchs. Queen Anne couldn't have reigned over the UK because it didn't come into existence until nearly a century LATER. She reigned TWO kingdoms, not one, over a different landmass, with a diffferent political elite and set of law. (The 'united kingdom' reference in the 1707 Act of Union isn't a name of a state, it is a discription of what they hoped GB would become, a united kingdom.) It is irrelevant whether one historian or a hundred calls George V 'King of england'. His title is contained in the Royal Titles Act and in the Act of Union that defines the state he governed, which was the UK, which is different to the states his ancestors Henry VIII (england) and George I (GB) governed. And his state was different in turn from the one HIS father reigned over, because whereas under Edward VII, the british Isles was one geopolitical unit and kingdom with one government, under George V it was two states (a smaller UK + the Irish Free State), with THREE of 'His Majesty's Governments' (UK, Northern Ireland local parliament, and the Irish Free State), three sets of laws, a differing royal roles in each state, and a far different relationship to that of his father's day.

Simply because some people and a dodgy web search throw up a wrong name in a particular context is irrelevant. And again, I go back to the 'president of America' analogy. Just because a lot of people call George Bush that doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Our job is to get the title right. And that is perfectly straightforward. Pre 1707 Kingdoms of England, Scotland. 1707-1800 Kingdom of Great Britain. 1800-1920s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1920s-present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is that simple, that straight-forward, a perfect case of right or wrong. And anything other than those names by those dates is wrong. JTD 08:14 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

A rebuttal:

Again u are incorrect, Simon and COMPLETELY missing the point by a MILE, and your use of the Hellenic nonsense shows it. The issue in Greece is one of name: are we the Hellenes or Greece. It is only a subtle point about name. But what we are arguing about is NOTHING TO DO WITH NAME.


 * It has everything to do with name, while throughout history other names were more correct the monarchs were refered to as 'of England,' rather than their legal title. Wikipedia rules state the most common usage should be the name of the article, and I think we should follow those rules.

NOTHING. You seem to think that England=GB=UK; they are simply three different ways of saying the same thing. They are three DIFFERENT STATES, not three names for the one state, and the monarchy had DIFFERENT powers, functions and roles in each of the different states, hence the different titles to define themselves.


 * The Hellenic Republic before its new name was also a different state with a different constitution, the name change was a change in constitution just as drastic as the Acts of Union.

England refers to the a state that covered approx 2/3 of one of the British Isles. Great Britain refers to a state that covered the ENTIRE ISLAND. The United Kingdom refers to a state that originally covered the ENTIRE BRITISH ISLES, and now covers one and a quarter of the main two isles. They had different constitutional systems, different parliaments made up of different people (England's - all english; GB: English + Scottish + Welsh. UK: English + Scottish + Welsh + Irish.) Laws differed. The UK was a parliamentary democracy, England at best a parliamentary monarchy. And that's the central issue: we have DIFFERENT states, with DIFFERENT names, DIFFERENT geographies, DIFFERENT territories, DIFFERENT governments, who had only TWO sets of continuity -


 * Not really, the King of England still ruled Ireland long before the United Kingdom was proclaimed. The changes in names were not changes in much besides administration.  Changes like the arrival of parliamentry democracy etc. had nothing to do with the Acts of Union.  The Acts of Union did not bring about geographic and population changes of what was under the monarch's control, they were an administartive reform to rearrange the governing of those areas already controlled.  Your average person would not have considered the Act of Union to be terribly important.

a monarchy whose title changed as the states it governed over changed, and an Anglo-centric system of government that owed more in terms of continuity to England than any of the other states, but which still WAS NOT ENGLAND. And each new state as it emerged, with a new landmass, adopted a new title, which is the whole point of this ludicrous argument. And all that then shaped the monarchy, because, while the person who was king was a descendant of earlier monarchs, what they were king or queen of was CONSTANTLY CHANGING, which directly changed their offices.


 * The British monarch often adopted new titles, such as King of Canada or Emperor of India. Why do we not include this in the title of the article?  For instance George III title was: Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc. The titles were constantly changing, but for sake of simplicity and continuity the entire world has stuck to calling them Kings and Queens of England.

It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT that individual historians when talking in general terms interplaced the terms 'england', 'GB' or 'UK'.


 * Many of these were pretty specific discussions of the monarch in question?

In many cases they were english historians who like so many english people tend to put themselves at the centre of the universe (which is why the Welsh, Scottish and the Irish tend to hate the english so much, because they tend to imagine as though the history of the last couple of hundred years on these islands is 'english' history when it isn't.) In other cases, they aren't arguing about the technicalities of statehood but about policy issues.


 * I hope you are not letting politics and nationalism affect your judgement on this issue. I could get quite annoyed about how people like you think the monarchs are all about the British Isles they tend to imagine as though the history of the last few hundred years of these monarchs is 'british' history when it isn't.  It is Canadian, and American, Indian, and Australian history as well.  So why aren't we mentioned in the title of the article?  Perhaps that is why we colonials have long felt so ignored and undervalued.

But the whole issue here we are dealing with its precisely that, statehood. Who governed what entity covering what land area under what title? And on that, the answer is clear as crystal. And you don't have to do a google search. You only have to look at the titles by which monarchs were proclaimed.


 * The titles they were proclaimed under were awfully long, I think most people would prefer not to use these titles.

They were either proclaimed monarchs of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, each title indicating that they ruled over a different set or combination of parts of the British isles in a different timeframe.


 * They were also proclaimed Emperors of India, why isn't this mentioned?

Until I corrected it, this site had the wrong titles against the wrong monarchs.


 * It still does, no King or Queen was ever proclaimed under these titles.

Queen Anne couldn't have reigned over the UK because it didn't come into existence until nearly a century LATER. She reigned TWO kingdoms, not one, over a different landmass, with a diffferent political elite and set of law. (The 'united kingdom' reference in the 1707 Act of Union isn't a name of a state, it is a discription of what they hoped GB would become, a united kingdom.) It is irrelevant whether one historian or a hundred calls George V 'King of england'. His title is contained in the Royal Titles Act


 * and this act certainly doesn't call him King of the United Kingdom, his title is far more elaborate. Also different parts of the empire have different Royal Titles Act, i.e. Canada calls ERII: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Is the UK act more important than the Australian one or the Canadian one?  (Well yes because the monarch lives in the UK and spends the vast majority of her time dealing with UK business, of course the same could be said of England.)

and in the Act of Union that defines the state he governed, which was the UK, which is different to the states his ancestors Henry VIII (england) and George I (GB) governed. And his state was different in turn from the one HIS father reigned over, because whereas under Edward VII, the british Isles was one geopolitical unit and kingdom with one government, under George V it was two states (a smaller UK + the Irish Free State), with THREE of 'His Majesty's Governments' (UK, Northern Ireland local parliament, and the Irish Free State), three sets of laws, a differing royal roles in each state, and a far different relationship to that of his father's day.

Simply because some people and a dodgy web search throw up a wrong name in a particular context is irrelevant. And again, I go back to the 'president of America' analogy. Just because a lot of people call George Bush that doesn't mean Wikipedia should.


 * But most articles do refer to people by their most common name, I believe that is wikipedia policy not to pick their legal name. If the New York Times called him Dubya, and google showed that 'President Dubya' far outranked 'President Bush' I think wikipedia should call him that.  We call him 'Muhammed Ali' and not 'Cassius Clay,' and we call the Hellenic Republic Greece.  It doesn't matter what the constitution states, or the Royal Titles Act.  Wikipedia naming policy is that the common option trumps all.

Our job is to get the title right.
 * no it isn't its to make a accesible, and factual, encyclopedia.

And that is perfectly straightforward. Pre 1707 Kingdoms of England, Scotland.


 * and numerous colonies, the Isle of Man, claims to France, etc.

1707-1800 Kingdom of Great Britain.


 * and the American colonies, and much of the West Indies, etc.

1800-1920s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,


 * and King of Canada, and Empress of India, and King of Australia


 * 1920s-present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is that simple, that straight-forward, a perfect case of right or wrong. And anything other than those names by those dates is wrong. JTD 08:14 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * getting the title right is no where close to straightforward. George III of Great Britain, it is not correct, it leaves out a lot of areas that consider themselves important.  What you are proposing is a shortened version of the official title, cutting off all you don't think is important enough.  Most people do not have the hubris to do so.  That is why almost everyone uses King of England, yes it excludes the vast majority of the area and people controlled, yes it is not legally correct, but it is also always right because the monarch always did control England, and spent the vast majority of their reigns concerned with English affairs.  'of England' is certainly the most common title, since we cannot include the legal title, we should include the most common. -SimonP

Some rules from wikipedia naming conventions:
 * Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature


 * As to names of persons, there are two schools of thought: use the most commonly used name, or use the person's full name. After a vote among those interested, we've come down in favor of the former. Names of persons should be the most commonly used name


 * In general, use the most common form of the name used in English


 * Names of kings and queens of modern kingdoms should include their kingdom This is to differntiate between many rulers with the same name and number. English rulers get "of England" added. No Cognomens (nicknames) in article titles -- they go in the first line of the article.

Since a recent study showed that only something like 5% of Americans knew what the United Kingdom was, and my google search has showed England is the most popular name, I think we should move them to 'of England.' (As the naming conventions already agreed.) -SimonP


 * Wow! What a lot of fuss over the UK from people who don't even live here!  Some of the controversy can be easily eliminated - the title of the article doesn't have to contain all the additional bits and pieces, such as "Empress of India", because they can be mentioned within the article.  However, to call British monarchs "of England" would be totally wrong and offensive to a large proportion of British people.  The point is that it is foreigners, who are generally ignorant of our internal affairs, who usually use the word "England" when they mean Britain/UK.  We use the latter terms interchangeably, although admittedly there are a few ignorant English people who think they are at the centre of the universe.  No, it has to be either Great Britain or the UK after 1707.  I don't much mind which, but I always thought that "Anne of the United Kingdom" had a very strange ring to it. Deb

Correct, Deb. England is totally wrong for the post 1707 period. Polls suggest that most Americans don't know where most countries in Europe are, struggle to know where Asia is, and haven't a clue beyond that. Maybe Simon would suggest we re-do the map of the world to relocate countries to where Americans think places are. Or replace most of the Republic of Ireland page with pictures of leprechauns, catholic priests and a photo of John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara from the Quiet Man because after all that's what all too many Americans think is Ireland.

Just because such a large proportion of Americans are so ill-informed about the world does not mean that Wikipedia has to drop down to the level of their ignorance. The people of Britain deserve nothing less than to have the pages that refer to their monarchs accurate. And Simon doesn't seem to grasp that we are supposed to use the most common correct name. Just because Americans mostly know the incorrect one, is no justification for using it, anymore than because people call Bush the 'President of America' would justify Wikipedia using that incorrect title, or because in the 1980s, most Americans used the term 'Russia' would mean that at the time Wikipedian should not refer to the 'Soviet Union'. We may disagree on titles, but at least Deb, we seem to appreciate the subtlties of our two islands' histories, and the different meanings involved. According to the index of Norman Davis' The Islands (which is focused on clarifying the technicalities and twists & turns of the history of the islands), he refers to 'Anne, Queen of England', 'George I, King of Breat Britain, France and Ireland', 'George II, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland', 'George III, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, later of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. 'George VI, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. p.1198. (As you know, the 'France' bit was just a claim that was made but never taken seriously, even by the monarchs concerned.) JTD 20:19 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I don't understand why you felt you had to drop to the level of name calling, Jtdirl, it adds nothing to your argument but make you look small-minded. And who in the world ever calls our President "President of America"? -- Zoe

Sorry, Zoe, I didn't mean to name call. Worl


 * Absent the name-calling, I have to say I agree with JTDirl. I think that the intervention is appropriate and well-explained. There is a difference between the same man sitting on the thrones of England and Scotland and another man sitting on the throne of Great Britain, a kingdom that spans both. Perhaps (shameless plug) Queen of Canada could shed some light on the situation. - Montréalais

Acoring to a kings and queens book i own which says each Kings and queens authority, George I's was:King of Great Britain and Ireland, then list other things like 12 colines in america 7 main carribean islands, etc. why not move the page tp George I of Great Britain and Ireland?

Sorry, Zoe, I was been sarcastic. The point I was making was that there are minimum standards of accuracy required in our entries, one of the key requirements being getting the name of a state right, particularly when each name refers to a different state, with different boundaries, different political cultures and different histories. I wasn't attacking Americans. I suppose given the size of the United States of America, it is understandable if the they are less knowledgable about the world outside their massive borders. That lack of knowledge is often commented on by non-Americans, who for example, found it hilarious (and joked about it worldwide for months) that George W. Bush had only ever stepped outside the US once before becoming president. Tourists to Ireland often have use in hysterics at their image of Ireland - one American asked me whether people in Ireland used the sort of donkey and cart transport shown in some clichéd Irish postcards. She wasn't sure if we used cars, let alone 'cell phones' (what we call 'mobile phones')!!! (And many presume that everyone is Roman Catholic, none of us are gay, and all white. she should meet my best friend, a black muslim gay Irishman!) It is bizarre to see so many Americans come to Ireland wearing green suits looking to buy aran sweaters which they think we all wear!

Another asked a friend of mine in a tourist office in Atlanta if British people all wore bowler hats and spoke like the queen, or whether French people still wore stripped tops and wore strings of garlic around their necks while cycling everywhere. And you can't blame some Europeans for their stereotypes of gun-totting, gum-chewing, Americans when their exposure to American culture comes via Jerry Springer. At least some of us have the West Wing, Frasier, Six Feet Under, Law & Order, to see a different, much more impressive side of America. I was just being rather bitchily sarcastic. Sorry if I caused offence. (re- 'president of America' - it was used just the other morning on a CNN report, while 'American President' is used almost all the time. ) JTD 22:24 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * It is a fair point. Perhaps we should rename the page to include a reference to 'ireland'. However the Kingdom of Ireland dated back to 1541 so it would involve changing the names of all monarchs back to Henry VIII, which is a big challenge. But I am all for it if people think it is a good idea. I did go into various pages to add in a reference to Ireland.

PS - sorry if I offended anyone. I've got a bad flu, a splitting headache and a big phone bill came in, which made me realise how much time I have spent on Wikipedia. I was in a bad mood, which often leads me to being sarcastic (which I can be sometimes). No offence was meant. I think as they stand the pages are more factually correct and as someone hooked on Wikipedia (hence my phone-bill) I want to see Wikipedia as the best source-book on the net available, user-friendly and accurate, without compromising on either. JTD 22:30 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I don't think that the "of Ireland" is also needed. Page titles should be only as complex as needed in order to correctly distinguish different subjects. Otherwise some people will go insane and add "lord protector etc" and we end up with 20 word long titles which nobody will link to directly. In other words KISS. --mav


 * Agreed. I originally did the renaming to 'of Scotland', 'of England', 'of the UK', etc. when things started to get confusing with all the Alexanders, in Scotland and abroad.  It was only intended as a disambiguation exercise.  I didn't realise it would grow all these arms and legs.  As far as I am concerned the title should be the minimum necessary to disambiguate the article.  I never attempted to give the official title of the kings and queens concerned since some of them were so early that they had no official title and since most of the title is a form of official boasting in any case.  KISS sounds good to me. -- Derek Ross 18:58 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

England, Great Britain, United Kingdom
The interchanging of the terms 'England' and 'Great Britain' (or United Kingdom) causes much confusion and offence to the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. Please correct this article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.220.75 (talk • contribs).

James Stuart and the 'Nineteen.'
I've edited this to remove the references to James Stuart. He did not come to Scotland in 1719. Rcpaterson 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Title before accession
George I's son, the future George II, was created His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge by Queen Anne in 1706, according to his article. However, George I is still listed as only a Serene Highness until he succeeded to the throne. Surely he didn't have a lesser title than his son- was he given the HRH as well? Of course, I'm not sure if the title His/Her Royal Highness was in common use in Britain before 1714 anyway, in which case this is a moot point. Any ideas? TysK 05:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I may be mistaken but I think at the time George I wasn't actually expected to reach the throne - he was older than Queen Anne for a start. Or perhaps the Elector title took primacy. Or maybe it was considered difficult to given a ruling monarch of another state a title. Timrollpickering 16:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * His Serene Highness is a mistranslation from German Seine Durchlaucht, what itself is a translation from Latin per illustris, what never was a style of adress of British (English)peers. (The Director of the European Institut fo Protocol, Ceremonial and Etiquette, Hanover, Germany)


 * Something seems to be wrong with the titles George I had before becoming King of Great Britain. Firstly, why did his style reduce from Highness to Serene Highness when his father received the coveted electoral status. Why is he given as Highness in the first place as a junior member of the Brunswick ducal family? I think that at that time, The Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg or Brunswick-whatever was Highness but not members of his family, who were only Serene Highness. Furthermore, the correct title of an Elector's heir is (according to the Almanac de Gotha), like the son of any head of house, is The Hereditary Prince of. There is no such thing as The Electoral Prince of in respect to an elector's son. Therefore, following his father's elevation to electoral status in 1692, George Louis should correctly be His Serene Highness The Hereditary Prince of Hanover. Following his own 1698 accession to the designate electorship (it did not come into effect for Hanover until 1708), he should be probably His Serene Highness The Elector-designate of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, etc., and in 1708, when the electorship took effect, His Most Serene Highness The Elector of Hanover. Electors had the style Most Serene Highness at this time, and later, Royal Highness (but by then, George was already The King of Great Britain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovanniCarestini (talk • contribs) 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This was before the formalisation of titles. The hierarchy of different highnesses was only just forming at this date. Those given are the nearest translations to those actually employed at the time. DrKay (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancestors table?
Does this article need or want one of those 'ancestor tables' (see below for example) that seem to be in lot of articles on European royalty? Lec CRP1 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well, since no-one seems to have objected... Lec CRP1 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Succession in 1714
Although there were fifty-two possible heirs to the throne of Great Britain at the time and the fact that direct lines were considered to be direct through males and not women, pursuant to the Act of Union 1707, George became King of Great Britain, when Anne died on 1 August 1714.

AFAIK the British, English, and Scottish successions do not skip women and have not since the Norman Conquest at least. In any event, George's claim is through a daughter of James I and VI. So the highlighted bit should be excised. Adamgarrigus 09:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevancy of the Later Years section
This section actually doesn't really talk about George I's later years, it just discusses events that took place in George II's reign after George I's death. I'm not going to touch it for now, but I just don't see how the information is relevant when it can just be covered in George II's page. --Nakedophelia 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe needs a little more info. I'll go and look up the George I biog my library has next time I go. Lec CRP1 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Did he have a surname?
There is no mention of his surname in this article. Was it Welf, or did he simply not have one? Perebourne 04:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He never used one. DrKay 06:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct date of birth?
I've found a lot of fairly consise books and a couple of reasonably respectable websites list his date of birth as being the 28th of March, rather than May. So far Wikipedia and a book I borrowed from my local library some time ago are the only sources I can find stating he was born in May. Is there some confusion as to his date of birth? Which is correct? March or May? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.40.122 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct place of birth and death?
He was born in Hannover and died in Osnabrück - Detlev Vennemann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.49.82 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Britannica, Encarta and the sources given in the article give Osnabrück for both events. DrKay (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Dr Kay is correct. The old stories, e.g. Moreri, Le Grand Dictionnaire Historique (1759), used to say that George I died in the same room as that in which he was born at Osnabruck, but many other authorities, such as Oettinger's Moniteur des dates (1866) and Kekule von Stradonitz's Ahnentafelatlas (1898-1904), say that he was born at Hannover and their statements are confirmed by the Electress Sophia's ''Memoiren der Herzogin Sophie nachm. Kurfurstin von Hannover (ed. A. Kocher, 1879, pages 1 and 68) who says that her two eldest sons were born at Hanover, and by the four notifications from Hanover to the court at Wolfenbuttel, as noted in L'Allemagne Dynastique, Tome III (1981, page 85, note 46a) and in Ragnhild Hatton's George I'' (1978, page 25). L'Allemagne Dynastique is a far superior general source to anything published in England. AnthonyCamp (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm happy to accept Hatton and Huberty et al. as more reliable than Britannica, Encarta and Weir. DrKay (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Added Dates in Wars and Rebellions
I've added dates to the Treaty of Utrecht and the death of Louis XVI to clarify the chronological flow of events. Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations to all editors who have contributed to this.. main page featured! Well done! PrinceOfCanada (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of main page featuring, it might be nice to have a go through this article, copyediting wise, as soon as humanly possible. It kind of feels like we've invited the in-laws over but left dirty dishes in the sink. (Would do, have final in two hours though.) --Gimme danger (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When in-laws visit, one should always leave dirty dishes in the sink—with any luck, they will either leave early or do the washing-up. DrKay (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with his son
I have no access to any sources on the era, so I can't be sure, but there is an apparent contradiction in the first paragraph of the "Wars and Rebellion" section. We have a number of claims that father and son disliked each other, followed by the claim that Walpole and the Princess of Wales engineered a reconciliation. The paragraph, however, concludes with the remark that "Father and son would never again be on cordial terms", which is at least attached to a citation. Given that father and son had been reconciled before, the fact that they were "never again" cordial sounds contradictory. Additionally, the wording is obscure, as there's no obvious post-reconciliation event described after which they could "never again be on cordial terms".

I marked the contradiction on the page itself a few days ago, leaving a full explanation of the reason in the edit summary (I hadn't thought through the implications of "never again" at the time), but apparently someone didn't want their article looking like that, so I've added this fuller explanation here, for those wondering why the tag is present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. Conciliation can occur without cordiality. Cordiality implies true heartfelt feelings of warmth (which never existed between father & son again). Reconciliation in this sense would be a compromising placation for the political harmony of the throne and future of the crown which shouldn't be confused for a personal harmony between the two men.  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 14:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's still the second issue of the word "again", which implies that father and son were on cordial terms until event X occurred, after which they ceased forevermore to be so. Given that this sentence turns up after father and son are reconciled in the existing text, the strong implication is that something happened post-reconciliation to put them at loggerheads again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Event X is the baptism of Prince George William of Great Britain. They were cordial until this event and then never were again...and this "again" issue wording isn't dependent on the reconciliation issue wording. The reconciliation has nothing to do with the lack of cordiality..the last sentence relates back to the chief subject of the paragraph. I'll clarify the last statement in the paragraph with the qualifier that I believe you are seeking. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 10:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've altered the sentence accordingly. Another possibility could be: Following the quarrel at the baptism and despite their reconciliation, father and son would never again be on cordial terms.


 * Is this along the lines of what you had in mind? Cheers, <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 12:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That rewording seems to make more sense, definitely. Probably time to wait until another semi-educated layman turns up and asks more questions now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That now is known as Germany
As a high rated article I wonder what that will say: Lower saxony, which is now part of a country known as Germany. Was Lower Saxony part of another country? Lower Saxony has been part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations. I found several article by now including comments like this, I don't think they fit well in scientific articles. Why don't you just write it was part of the Holy roman Empire of German Nations?????? That does describe it much better wat it was, regarding the rarly developed understanding of nations at that time. To my opinion that would be histroricaly and scientific correct. Sorry but words make a differnce, I'll never going to donate anything to wikipedia as long that is treated like that.

Fittschen (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Highness or Serene Highness?
I find it strange that George suddenly dropped from Highness to Serene Highness upon becoming Elector. He was born as Highness and kept acquiring higher titles until 1714, so I can't believe that he held higher style as a duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg than as reigning elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg. If this claim isn't verified in the next few days, I'll replace HSH with HH. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Durchläuchtig was the style used for electors in this time period. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So Serene Highness was considered higher than Highness during his reign as elector? Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Velde, it was not until 1844 that the dukes of Brunswick began using Hoheit . During George's life, Durchlaucht and Durchläuchtig were used for the electoral families, and Hochgeboren was used for high-ranking dukes and princes (see also ). Presumably, before 1692 George was either Hochgeboren or Herzog.
 * I have reduced the section to what is agreed in this section and the section above Talk:George I of Great Britain. DrKay (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New images
I've uploaded three portraits of George I by Godfrey Kneller. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 10:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Last Will & Testament
Is there any information available regarding the whereabouts or contents of the last Will & Testament of George I?Kasparova (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Three copies of the Will were made. cit. The Political History Of England by William Hunt, et al., 1912. One copy was in the hands of Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury before being taken by George II. Another copy was in the hands of the Chancellery of the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel. This copy was obtained by George II through monetary and other influence. The third copy was, at some time, believed to be in the hands of Sir Henry Sloane. His library was purchased for twenty thousand pounds in 1753 and became the nucleus for the British Museum collections. This copy of the Will has never been seen. An appendix to the biography of William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland (of Culloden infamy) gives detail of the Will and a letter to the London Times by the erudite and aristocratic barrister Sir Evan Charteris, dated 21 January, 1909, makes mention of the will. This writer has not seen this letter and asks that it be published here.Kasparova (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is much discussion about the will and codicils made by George I in Ragnhild Hatton's George I (1978). They were printed in R. Dragereit's article Das Testament Konig George I und die Frage der Personalunion zwischen England und Hannover in Niedersachsisches Jahrbuch fur Landesgeschichte (1937). AnthonyCamp (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Samuel Johnson on George the First
"George the First knew nothing, and desired to know nothing; did nothing, and desired to do nothing; and the only good thing that is told of him is, that he wished to restore the crown to its hereditary successor."

James Boswell Life of Samuel Johnson ( 1791 ) 6 April 1775 -Phil5329 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hanover first?
Re-ordering the first sentence to read:


 * George I (George Louis; German: Georg Ludwig; 28 May 1660 – 11 June 1727) was ruler of Hanover in the Holy Roman Empire from 1698, and King of Great Britain and Ireland from 1 August 1714 until his death.

Good idea or not? Snori (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the higher title come first? We're supposed to lead with the most important fact about someone, and then follow with the other bits of interest. There's also a problem because as ruler of Hanover he was "George Louis" rather than "George I". DrKay (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of his name as ruler of Hanover, shouldn't we mention that he ruled Hanover as "George I Louis"? After all, the last King of Hanover was George V of Hanover. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

move
this page should be moved to george i. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.220 (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Birthplace
The lede states that he was born in Hanover, then the "Early Life" section states that he was born in "either Hanover or Osnabruck". Is there a scholarly discrepancy? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Death
I've often heard it said that he died from a bout of diarrhoea - is this a myth (possibly put about by Horrible Histories? 194.75.129.200 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Titles in Pretence.
Whether the claim by George I 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 abount 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 2 further successors of George I. 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) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is for the important points. The most important point is that he was King of Britain; the second most important point is that he was ruler of Hanover. So, the points should be presented in that order. His official style is a minor point and need not be covered in the lead at all. It is sufficiently covered, with due weight, in the "Titles and style" section. DrKay (talk) 20:30, 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 error, 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 and was not repudiated by him: it's a claim, a title in pretence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the article. He was allied with France. My opinion that this is merely a nominal style and not a real claim remains unchanged. DrKay (talk) 07:35, 25 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. Statesmen often make alliances with enemies - just look at the NAZI-Soviet Pact. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not addressing the argument. It's undue weight to highlight it. That it was a nominal style is insufficient to make the issue prominent; it is already covered in the article in due weight and nothing more is merited. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My case throughout has addressed the argument - that George claimed a title in pretence in addition to his other undisputed titles. The point is that it not up to use today to adjudicate whether he was insane to make such a claim, whether he really intended to invade France to back up the claim, whether it was nominal or ever acted on. To do any of these things would move us outside of verifiable evidence and move us in the direction of OR. We can only deal with the evidence before us. On that evidence, the style enjoys an equal status with his other regnal styles, indeed it appears before that of Ireland. It is sufficient at this remove of time to say in parentheses that the claim is in pretence. Anything more would be unfair, anything less would be untrue. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with DrKay, the lead is a summary for the most important points. Other minor/technical points should be dealt with in the body of the article. Snappy (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My resident stalker. Quelle surprise. I'll treat the comments with the seriousness they deserve. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments deal with improving articles. You are making the same mistake as with the Counties of Ireland; putting too much technical/minor info in the lead. As DrKay said, its undue weight. Snappy (talk) 17:56, 26 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) 18:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is disputing the fact that she used the title? Nobody. What we are disputing here is the need for a succession that deals with a trivial title that was part of every English monarch's title for centuries. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that the substance of the Template usage is not in dispute. However, I think that "trivial title" reasoning for excluding it does not really stand up. How is the title King of France trivial? Is it more trivial than the title Duke of Bremen? Why should the latter stay and the former go? That the continuation of the pretence, beyond all hope of actually realising the goal, gave rise to on-going suspicions about intentions can hardly be in doubt. That it was used as a propaganda tool by the French in pointing to bad faith by Britain cannot be doubted either. All told, there were serious socio-political ramifications from the grim determination to hold on to the titles. That makes them noteworthy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He actually ruled the Duchy of Bremen, while never ruling any part of the Kingdom of France. Therefore, the title of "King of France" he held is trivial because it is no more than a part of the big, pompous title he held as King of Great Britain. Again, nobody is disputing the fact that the title was used. What we are arguing against is cluttering the article with redundant boxes dedicated to titles that do not need a succession box. George I derived the title from being King of Great Britain the same way he held the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. However, he actually was Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. So why not add

to the succession boxes as well? Because all those titles and offices were derived from his being King of Great Britain. Compare with the articles about Kings of Denmark and Sweden; in articles about them, we do not have seperate succession boxes for titles such as "King of the Goths" or "King of the Wends". Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To user Surtsicna. I think that your argument is in the wrong place. It would be more at home in the template talk page itself. You seem to be making the case for the deletion of the Titles in Pretence template in its entirety. If so, I await the outcome of that debate. It is naturally the case that most titles in pretence are aspirational and not a little silly. To delete the embarrassing claim from this article is to force it to be deleted from nearly every other instance of its use (Reductio ad absurdum). As that's a larger question, it would be wrong to presume to settle it here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:51, 10 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) 20:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's undue weight. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is "due weight" meant to rebut one of points 1 - 7 above or is this this now the full extent of your "Arguments in favour of deleting the template" case? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
That was very readable and informative. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The 1719
The paragraph on the 1719 Spanish backed Jacobite attempt needs a little work. It states Eilean Donan was attacked "a month later", but the preceding sentence only gives a year not a specific date. It should also mention that the Spanish fleet was destroyed by a storm on route to the south coast. Alex@eileandonan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.41.132 (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2011 (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) 19:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If no biography calls him a pretender, then we should not use the term here per WP:OR. See also Talk:William III of England/Archive 1. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

When was he designated "the first"?
There are a few British monarchs who have never had a number, because no II has come to the throne yet. This used to be the case with Elizabeth, who was designated Elizabeth I in 1952 when another Elizabeth came to the throne. So when did the king we now know as George I get the "I"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Remarriage
The article says that George I's former wife was not allowed to remarry. What about George? If he was allowed to remarry, why didn't he? Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George I of Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035654/https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=104&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1516478&ActiveTextDocId=1516478&filesize=5567 to https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=104&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1516478&ActiveTextDocId=1516478&filesize=5567
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102185330/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheBath.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderoftheBath.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Closer blood relationship to Anne
George was Anne's second cousin, as stated in the lead. Of the 56 Catholics with a superior claim, c. 40 were more distantly related to Anne than George (second cousins once removed, third cousins, etc), so "closer blood relationships" does not seem clear enough. Can this not be reworded somehow? Surtsicna (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. I missed your edit summary because I looked at this diff instead of this one. DrKay (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction?
William Makepeace Thackeray wrote: I, for one, would have been on his side in those days. But then, ''Writers of the nineteenth century, such as Thackeray... looked back on the Jacobite cause with romantic, even sympathetic, eyes.''

Both can't be right. Valetude (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

languages?
Much has been made of George's lack of English, as you say, and you point out he had French, but Lucy Worsley says English was his fourth language, so perhaps you could find out some more about that. Was his third Latin perhaps? Vince Calegon (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See George I of Great Britain. DrKay (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Youth and death in Germany
As my additions have been deleted as "unsourced" by DrKay, no doubt an authority, I leave them here for further discussion. Maybe someone does have some English sources, mine are German and don't seem to be helpful here. The article however is somewhat unclear in this regard:

When George I was born, his father was only a titular duke and ruled no duchy to his own; instead, the family lived in Hanover at the Leineschloss court of Ernest Augustus' eldest brother. When his father was appointed Prince-Bishop of Osnabruck in 1662, his parents moved to Iburg Castle, together with their two eldest sons and Sophia's niece Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate. In 1667 his parents began to build a more up-to-date residence, Osnabruck Palace, and in 1673 they moved there. Their youngest son was born there in 1674.

George I suffered a stroke on the road between Delden and Nordhorn on 9 June 1727, and was taken by carriage to the Prince-Bishop's palace at Osnabruck, the house his parents had built and where he had spent parts of his childhood. By then it had become the residence of his youngest brother, Ernest Augustus, Duke of York and Albany who was Prince-Bishop of Osnabrück from 1715 until 1728. In the presence of his brother he died there in the early hours before dawn on 11 June 1727. --Equord 01:54, 09 May 2019 (CEST)
 * Some of these details are in the article already and all the others are in his parents' articles. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, because I have put them there, and they have so far escaped unqualified deletion.--Equord 14:42, 17 May 2019 (CEST)

Full names
Do we really need to use the full names of his father, brother and wife? Векочел (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, for both recognisability and clarity. They're also the names that were used by them and are used by the citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Source of quote
Who was it that called George I “some old rubbish got from somewhere to stop up a hole in the Constitution”? This is a striking way of emphasising his unexpectedness, but we need a source before it can be added. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8D62:4BC2:F384:4F8F (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

not the reigning senior duke of Brunswick
After his ascension as Elector, yes he retained several estates and sub-principalities (ie Gottingen, Calenberg-Hanover, and part of Luneburg) that remained subordinate states within the Duchy of Brunswick-Luneburg, ruled by the senior the head of house, Duke Anton Ulrich Brunswick-Luneburg-Wolfenbuettel. The Wolfenbuettel line remained the chief monarchs over the whole duchy of Brunswick-Luneburg, till the end of the Napoleanic wars and the council of Vienna calling Hanover now a Kingdom, while Brunswick-Wolfenbuettel only a Duchy. Still even then the regular payments as a sub principality were made to the head of house (Wolfenbuettel) until the new widely disputed constitution of 1820 stripped out those allowances, and redefined the duchy into a new entity, then protested heavily by Duke Charles II of Brunswick-Wolfenbuettel, as it was passed in the disputed year of his minority (18 years old) during the Regency of his uncle in the duchy, the King of England. The encyclopedias till that point in time also always wrote Brunswick-Wolfenbuettel remained senior head of house. Hanover acknowledged the Wolfenbuettel supremacy till 1884. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:80c0:444:3c1a:6d70:c4a5:7b4f (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Switch Hatton reference?
The current Ragnhild Hatton reference is ISBN 978-0-500-25060-0. I have not found this online; however, ISBN 0-674-34935-0 is available on archive.org. Both are first editions, one difference being the publisher. It may, therefore, be worthwhile to switch to using the version which is available online, particularly if the page numbers match. — (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC not met due to other notable monarchs with the same name (eg. George I of Greece and George II of Greece). (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT. There should be no doubt that "George I" and "George II" are these two monarchs' most common name in English. A quick glance of the sources used in these articles proves that. And I think it is fairly self-evident that when an English speaker refers to "George I" or "George II" (or searches for that term on Wikipedia) that they are highly likely to be referring to these two monarchs, which makes them the primary topic. Additionally, all of the other British monarchs have been moved over the past decade or so to their more common and concise titles, including Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria in 2010; George VI, Edward VIII, George V, and Edward VII in 2011; and William IV, George IV, and George III in 2020. The only other British monarch that hasn't been moved is Anne, but she was Queen of England before the Acts of Union. And since she has no ordinal, she requires some form of disambiguation in her title, so she's an odd case. Therefore, to be consistent with all the other British monarchs, I think that it's time we move these last two articles to their common names. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * George I of Great Britain → George I
 * George II of Great Britain → George II
 * George I → George I (disambiguation)
 * George II → George II (disambiguation)
 * Support. It gets far more views than the rest. -- The Tips of  Apmh  14:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? The other countries don't count because they're just Johnny Foreigners? Which is funny, because during his lifetime, George I was possibly more commonly known as "German George". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Strong Oppose. In the strongest possible terms, per WP:SOVEREIGN, recognizability, etc., reasons that have been gone over numerous times in these sort of move attempts. The move to George III in 2020 was bitterly  controversial (and unjustified IMO, going baldly against policy at the time).   It is precisely to prevent this sort of move that the policy was recently amended in WP:SOVEREIGN. Per clarity, the current naming guidelines for sovereigns are:
 * "kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Philip IV of Spain; Henry I of France."
 * i.e. the norm is for monarchs with numerals to be listed as "Name # of Country". This move goes directly against WP:SOVEREIGN and the general consensus achieved by the RfC there recently.
 * Attempt to sneak around NCROY by appealing to common name and primary topic have no basis here. There are numerous other people called "George I" and "George II".  Britain is not the primary country in the world.   Again, this proposition goes against the consensus achieved in NCROY, which precisely tries to avoid giving primacy of one country over another.  It neglects the WP:GLOBAL basis of Wikipedia and reinforces WP:BIAS.  If the proposer is concerned about consistency, the case would be to revert the prior mistake and move George III back to "George III of the United Kingdom" rather than the other way, where it and other English monarch articles have long been for over a decade before this sudden wave of ill-thought moves in 2020. Walrasiad (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is policy. WP:SOVEREIGN is just a guideline. There are exceptions made to WP:SOVEREIGN on a case-by-case basis when editors think that it is appropriate to apply our general article titling policies ahead of that guideline, such as the British monarchs that I listed above in the nomination, as well as several English monarchs such as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. The "Name # of Country" format is a standard form of disambiguation in monarch article titles, but when there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, artificial disambiguation in the title is unnecessary and undesirable. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for all the usual reasons that have been well rehearsed in this forum on many occasions over the years. Shock revelation: there are other kings in the world called George that are not in the UK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because there is a primary topic for a particular article title doesn't mean there aren't other subjects with the same name. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have consinstently voted against these renames, and feel that they are disgraceful. Making another mistake in assuming this is the primary topic for George I is further evidence of bias. Dimadick (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I can see an argument for monarchs who are the only ones with that specific name and ordinal, George I and George II are a bit too numerously used in comparison.2601:241:300:B610:A14C:2E09:E65:D11A (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We should keep the "Monarch # of country" title form. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, didn't Greece (when it was last a monarchy) have kings named George I & George II? GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. I’ll just add guidelines like WP:NCROY should supplement policy at WP:AT and WP:D, primarily by providing guidance on how to disambiguate when policy dictates disambiguation is required, and they should not undermine and contradict policy like NCROY does in essentially suggesting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC be ignored in this and similar cases. Ambiguity alone is never a sufficient condition to disambiguate; the use in question must also not be the primary topic.  This George I is the primary topic and the title should reflect that.  --В²C ☎ 09:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Not WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, WP:CONSISTENT. It also keeps the country per WP:SOVEREIGN, such as Great Britain/Greece. --2001:4452:490:6900:C59A:95F:9D38:A52B (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm no supporter of the whole notion of primary topic, but if we are to have such a principle we should apply it consistently. And the lack of AGF in some of the above is appalling. Andrewa (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Order of the Bath
This article states that George I revived the Order of the Bath. The main article for the Order argues that this is a mistake; the Order did not previously exist. Yitz711 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The content is supported by the reference at the end of the sentence. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)