Talk:George VI/Archive 2

D-Day Argument With Winston Churchill
I recently heard that on the eve of D-Day both Churchill and the King wanted to go with the supporting troops into Nornandy. Though they both decided against, when Churchill pointed out that if they were killed Britain could lose its two main leaders. Could anyone elaborate on this ?


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


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

King of Ireland?
The opening paragraph says he was the "last King of Ireland." Surely the title King of Ireland ceased to exist at the Act of Union of 1801. He was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was a single national entity with a single Crown. Otherwise we would have to conclude that the Queen has the title Queen of Northern Ireland, which clearly she does not. The George III article correctly asserts that George was King of Ireland only until 1801. Either that article or this article is wrong, and it is this one. This reference should be removed. Intelligent Mr Toad 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, he wasn't the last "King of Ireland", but rather the last king of all Ireland, in the way that EIIR is queen of England, but not "Queen of England"... DBD 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See King of Ireland, Monarchy in the Irish Free State and Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. DrKay 06:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The title "King of Ireland" was revived in 1927 under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, to emphasise the existence of different independent countries all under the same monarch, in the case the Irish Free State. The title remained in use until the Republic of Ireland was created in 1949, so George VI was indeed the last King of Ireland. -- Arwel (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also remember that with the Act of Union of 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland did not cease to exist. True the two countries of Great Britain and Ireland were unified under a Parliamentary system (the Irish House of Commons and Lords being abolished and MPs and Peers being represented at Westminster). However the country of Ireland itself continued to exist as a separate identity (otherwise the title of the Union would have been: the United Kingdom of the British Isles, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Ireland). This is why the crown was represented at Dublin with a Viceroy of Ireland. And this is why, although the United Kingdom Peerage came into effect in 1801, a separate Peerage of Ireland continued to exist, with Irish Peerages continuing to be created as separate idnetities until the end of the nineteenth Century. Ds1994 (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Please also remember that with the Act of Union of 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland did not cease to exist"-er, yes it did. Also, constitutionally speaking; Edward VIII was the last 'King of Ireland', not George VI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ds1994, Ireland did cease to exist, legally, with the 1801 Act of Union. There was no Kingdom of Ireland after 1801, just as there is no Kingdom of England or Kingdom of Scotland now, although they have administrative law status, hence different law systems in both countries BUT legally, as witnessed by the accreditation of ambassadors, and membership of international organisation, they are one state, the United Kingdom, which Ireland was subsumed into (like England and Scotland) before independence and partition. Ats71 (talk) 3 April 2011, 3.27am UTC

Given that the issue is debateable, as the Irish Free State did not recognise him as King of Ireland, I think it's best to remove this from the lead. It is too nuanced to cover adequately, and is given undue prominence when mentioned in the first paragraph. DrKay (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Irish Free State continued to recognise him as Head of State in external matters until 18 April 1949. (92.20.39.232 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
 * No, they didn't. DrKay (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes they did. George VI continued to officially represent all of Ireland in foreign affairs until Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949. And even if some politicians objected, the fact is that he did not legally cease to hold the title "King of Ireland" until 18 April 1949. (92.20.39.232 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Not quite true: it was actually 1948. The Irish Government (still Saorstát Eireann—Irish Free State) mandated George to carry on appointing diplomatic representatives, as long as she was a member of the Commonwealth, in the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936. Her The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 repealed the 1936 Act, and presumably George's responsibility for external relations with it as the Irish Presidentr was given the job. (The Act also changed the name of the state.) When George gave assent to Britain's Ireland Act, 1949 he acknowledged that "Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty’s dominions." As suggested, this is all too much for the lede, and possibly too detailed to include anywhere in full. Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the King in the Constitution of Ireland 1937 ? I see only a President mentioned. DrKay (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The south could not become a republic until George VI ceased by law to be Head of State on 18 April 1949. Without any question George VI was the King of Ireland until 29 December 1937. (92.20.39.232 (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC))
 * You have performed more than three reverts in the last 24 hours, and are thus in breach of our rules. You must undo your last revert, or you may be blocked from further editing. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should just say he was the last King of Ireland (which he undoubtedly was on his accession to the throne). If we are to question whether he was really the Head of State in Ireland we might as well question whether Henry VIII was either. Certainly by law George VI continued to hold the separate title "King of Ireland" until 18 April 1949. (92.20.42.182 (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
 * You have again performed four reverts in the space of 24 hours. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Should Edward VIII's article be amended to say that he was the last King of Ireland? (92.20.42.182 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
 * It doesn't belong in either article because if you look in most biographies of George and Edward, it isn't mentioned. Articles should treat each aspect of a subject with a weight appropriate to its significance. We should follow the example of others, and discuss each aspect of their lives in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Because most summaries of George and Edward's lives omit it, so should we. In particular, mentioning it in the first paragraph of the lead gives it far too much prominence. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article but it isn't even mentioned in the body of either article, so it certainly shouldn't be in the lead. DrKay (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if we accept that the Irish Free State became a republic in December 1937, George VI was still King of Ireland for the first year of his reign. Therefore he was without doubt the last King of Ireland. (RichardElden (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC))
 * It's not sourced and it's not relevant, and whether he was is disputed. Stating it as a fact in the article introduces trivia, misunderstanding and bias. DrKay (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly relevant since it demonstrates the decline of Britain during his reign as a result of World War II. There is no disputing the fact that he was King of Ireland at the time of his accession, that he still represented all of Ireland in international affairs until 1949, and that he did not formally relinquish the title until the country left the Commonwealth. Therefore I think the introduction should at least mention that George VI still represented Ireland abroad until 1949, since it was not formally a republic until then. (RichardElden (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC))
 * The decline of Britain is in the article already. DrKay (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Arms
I've added to the arms section George VI's arms in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. India, Pakistan, and Ceylon were left out only because I can't find any arms for those states when they were Dominons/Commonwealth realms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

In a monarchy; the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same, because the monarch is sovereign; legally speaking, they 'are the state'; as opposed to a republic where the people as a whole are sovereign, hence the arms of a republic are those of the people as a whole. Hence why a armigerous President of a Republic will possess personal arms that are absolutely different to those of the state. So, the arms of George VI in Canada would have been his arms in right of his being King of Canada, the same goes for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland de jure until 1949. India and Pakistan and Ceylon did not have arms during his reign in them, but Pakistan and Ceylon did adopt arms during the reign of his daughter, Elizabeth II. I would suggest whoever added Canada's arms to also add those of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland, as they would be absolutely correct to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.136.244 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Even assuming good faith, I can only take that as a Canadian perspective, because it is simply not how it works in the other realms, constitutional theory or no. 06:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This certainly doesn't hold for all monarchies. The arms of the state and the arms of the monarch are different in Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, and the Vatican. Liechtenstein and Sweden have lesser arms that are state arms and greater arms that are both national and royal. There are solid sources for Britain and Canada's arms being royal and state arms, but we don't have sources saying the same for the others. DrKay (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

King's Speech (1)
"As a result of the training, the Duke's opening address at Australia's Federal Parliament at Canberra in 1927 went successfully,[23]" in the text. Was this not the opening in Melbourne? The linked article says that the address was in Canberra which the linked article attributes the QE2. 124.176.49.207 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


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

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

Did you not see the actual movie? George did not even become King until 1937! WWII started in 1939. In the movie, they set it up in 1925 at the British Empire Exhibition where the Duke Of York was to give his first speech on behalf of his father. He could speak at little engagements but this was the big test. He was horrible. Lional and his son were present at the stadium. Then he started visiting Lional in roughly 1935/1936 and it carried forward from there. Lional was present at the coronation in the King's box, third level. They had a strong friendship by the time of the coronation. It did carry through the war. The Abdication crisis did give Bertie the fits but he knew that a very solemn duty was about to come his way, even though he truly was reluctant to take it on. It produced a severe stammering time for him but with Lional's help, he managed to get through it. -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, George's therapy with Logue began in 1926. The following year, he gave a speech at the dedication of the Australian parliament building and then read the Throne Speech for the opening of the first session of parliament in the new building. The Duke wasn't perfect, but he spoke normally. The film eliminates this fact for the sake of dramatic effect.Sydney Morning Herald: "King's voice coach calmed a nation" -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Why no son?
Clearly (1) Money was no object to having more children (2) A male heir would have been desirable. So why did they stop at two daughters, and not continue having children until they got a son?

86.189.10.3 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of your points is clear, the second especially so. DrKay (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) Most people limit their families due to economics - I would assume that this is not a constraint on royalty. (2) Though constitutionally possible, a woman inheriting the crown was pretty rare (Mary, Elizabeth, Mary [of William and], Victoria - 4 in 800 years: were there any more?) - it would surely have been regarded as more satisfactory to have had a male inherit? It just strikes me as rather odd they stopped at two girls - did Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have some gynaecological problem perhaps? 109.144.211.20 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


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


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

Constitutionally Bound?
The article says that George was constitutionally bound to support Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. I just read Hitchens' article- he says that the monarchy intervened to support Chamberlain before Parliament had given its assent and quotes an expert saying that it was a flagrant abuse of power without precedent- that George very much actively supported Chamberlain. Given Edward VIII's controversial attitude toward Hitler, it would not be surprising; however, I'm not saying I just take Hitchens' word for it.  Maurizio689 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to quote John Grigg for this interpretation rather than Hitchens directly. I've pinched a bit from Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon's article (and a different Hitchens piece) and inserted it. DrKay (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, the specific charge was that George intervened before Parliament heard Chamberlain and therefore I was questioning the term "constitutionally bound;" he may have been constitutionally bound to support it after Chamberlain went to Parliament, but was actually constitutionally discouraged from assenting beforehand.Maurizio689 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that bit of Hitchens' argument. There wasn't anything for George to give assent to; the Munich agreement wasn't a bill and he must follow the advice of ministers, as long as they command a majority in the house. Chamberlain did command a majority, and on the 28th, one or two days before the agreement was signed, the House of Commons had already given Chamberlain an ecstatic ovation when he announced that he was to go to Germany for talks. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Monogram
I added the King's monogram, however it was removed by DrKay, who claimed it wasn't the same as this photo http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/image/47605031 but as you can see, it IS the same. He said it's not the same crown, but it is, they're both a Tudor Crown, just one's a stylized graphic, the other is a metal relief on a gate. Unless he can give another reason for it not to be included, or anybody has any objections, I ask that it remain on the page. Fry1989 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The color version is original research; I can only find monochromatic examples. It is misleading to show the 1949 version as if it was in use in his early reign; it was not. Why is it relevant? Images should be integrated with the text; this one is just inserted as miscellaneous information. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We show Victoria's cypher with the royal arms, so it's appropriate to show George's. Clearly, once George had ceased to be Rex-Imperator (King-Emperor), with the independence of India, Pakistan & Burma, a new cypher had to be used, so I think both versions should be shown. (Does George VI's cypher differ from his father's, which needed no numeral when there had been no previous Georgius Rex Imperator?) The watermarks on British postage stamps show different monograms and styles of crown (but, unlike coinage, not that gothic or black lettering), so perhaps a printed or on-line stamp catalogue can be used as an indicative, if not definitive, source. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC) ¶ Now that I see where the  Royal Cypher is presently placed, I suggest we follow the example of Queen Victoria and move it down to the Arms, Titles & Honours section, to show it there with the GRI cypher -- either as part of the Arms subsection or in a separate one for the Royal Cypher. [The number of Coats of Arms images may increase as, when and if George's arms as King of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other dominions are added.] —— Shakescene (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem with DrKay. He removes these monograms for the most trivial reasons. He says the crown isn't the same, but it is. Then he says the colours are wrong, but that's something that can EASILY be fixed. He says it's "original research", but how is that, when he already have a JPG of it, and this is just a vectorization? Also, per another monogram, he claims a coin and a book cover as his sources against it, saying neither match the vector. However, the Coin matches the vector exactly, except in colour(yes, he actually tried to argue that since the coin doesn't have colour, that's proof that the vector is wrong), and in any case, the coin and the book cover show two very different things! For all these reasons, i don't trust his arguments against placing monograms on the pages of those people they represent. He has no clue what he's talking about. Also note, he admits that the Jpeg on the right WAS King George's monogram after 1949, so what is his problem with using a vector of it??? Fry1989 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for a pre-1948 version of the Royal Cypher (GRI) to accompany the 1949 one, and found the 1937 Coronation Medal (taken from Canada's Dept of Veterans' Affairs) on Wikipedia (at King George VI Coronation Medal. However, the attached fair-use/rights notice cautions that other uses, including on Wikipedia, may be restricted. While Googling "Royal Cypher George VI", I ran across a Great War Forum thread that said that both Georges V & VI used GRI as their cypher (too complicated, I suspect, to say they were the 1st and 2nd Georges to be emperor but the 5th and 6th to be King). I also ran across this discussion elsewhere (quoting from the Royal Household site) about the crowns used on the cypher: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-badges/crowns.htm#cyphers. Anyone like to follow this up (e.g. by cropping or converting the image, or pursuing further research)?—— Shakescene (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one other note. DrKay claims to have "corrected" the caption, by altering it to say that it wasn't in colour. IDK if he's blind, but the JPEG that he supports is blue, and last time I checked, blue is a colour. And once again, he fails to understand that BOTH the JPEG and Vector use a Tudor Crown. He clearly has no clue what he's talking about. Fry1989 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He also just tried to alter it once again, from "not coloured" to "monochromatic" to escape my above criticism. Fry1989 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comment of 08:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC) above. DrKay (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You tried to change it AFTER my above criticism. Whether it was a typo or not, you tried to cover it up. Also, agian, because the file is vector, the colours can easily be changed, and that is not a reason to remove the file altogether. Fry1989 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment is exactly the same as it was at the time I wrote it, and it quite clearly says "monochromatic". Please comment on the content not the contributor. This page is for discussing the article, not other editors. DrKay (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That you've contradicted yourself, is relevant to this discussion, as it regards whether or not your arguments can be accepted or not. Fry1989 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it featured?
Is this one of the old featured articles? Because it has too many paragraphs without a single source. --Lecen (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

World War I/II or First World War etc
I noticed that the American usage of 'World War I' is present throughout the article. Perhaps this is pedantic but since this article is about a British topic, shouldn't the BE First World War/Second World War be used instead? Michaelphonic (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The terms World War I and II are used in Britain. DrKay (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

World War I should always be used for the 1914-1918 conflict. The first world war was the Seven Years' War. (92.20.42.182 (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

Errata
In 1952 I'd just arrived at school when the headmaster announced the death of King George VI and he was sending us all home as a sign of respect and mourning. When I got home my mother was in tears, the only time I ever did see her in tears so there was genuine sadness at the loss of the king.

The BBC History magazine also claims that in his later years George VI was daily consuming large quantities of brandy. Combined with his chain smoking this must have seriously undermined his health.

Both Edward and the future George VI had both suffered from Mumps at some time on military service. Could this be why there were so few royal children.

American scources state that the former Mrs Wallace Simpson had undergone a hysterectomy before marrying Edward. There couldn't have been any children from the union. This would have still made Elizabeth the next UK sovereign but at the age of approx 45 rather than 25.AT Kunene (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It was widely speculated that the Duke of Windsor was incapable of having children. (92.7.27.185 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Early education
Do we know anything about the future king's early education? I presume there's no truth (or is there?) in the claim I've just removed here, that he and "his relatives" went to school in Broadstairs.--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature?
Why was the signature of King George VI removed from this page? The file containing the signature was, obviously, deleted - for what reason? Who was foolish enough to do that?? --Krawunsel (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, signatures are eligible for copyright in the UK.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 06:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Reign length
Please add his reign length after the years of his reign (similar to his predecessor's pages). I've calculated it to 15 years 56 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.175.103 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, except it's actually 15 years and 57 days (fortunately, we have a template to do the calculations for us). Favonian (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.63.16.82, 3 June 2011
A photo caption starts with this: "George VI, grants Royal Assent to laws in the Canadian Senate," The 1st comma (just after "George VI") should be removed.

128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Favonian (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Firma del Rey George VI.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion
The pending deletion is nonsense. Signatures are ineligible for copyright! --Krawunsel (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I believe it is the PHOTO of the signature that may be the copyrighted work? HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Emerging edit war over a capitalization dispute ("Apartheid" versus "apartheid")
I really don't understand how this is controversial. Just as terms like New Deal, Great Society, and War on Drugs are routinely capitalized, so is the 1948-1991 South African policy of Apartheid. In most instances, the term "apartheid" is a common noun (just as "deal," "society" and "drugs" ordinarily are), but not in this particular instance, where its not merely being used as an ordinary common noun, but rather as the name of a formalized policy, and hence functions as a de facto proper noun. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "the new government instituted a strict policy of racial segregation." DrKay (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with it per se. Its just less informative.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the "New Deal" analogy, but I haven't found a citation to back it up. Further to my rather terse edit summary earlier: the OED, in addition to using the headword specifically uncapitalised, gives fourteen quotations, all except one without capitalisation.  It's fair to point out that the odd-one-out fits exactly the circumstance—the policy of Dr Malan—mentioned by User:KevinOKeeffe. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that the OED is in agreement with my usage in the article (unless I'm misunderstanding you). So...shouldn't that be sufficient? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: Citing other WP articles is never conclusive (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) but even in Malan's own article the lower case "a" is used. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting that South_Africa_under_apartheid does not capitalise the term. Barnabypage (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really accept the New Deal analogy, because it is more common to say "the New Deal" or "the War on Drugs" rather than "the New Deal policy" or "the War on the Drugs policy", but we never say "the Apartheid" on its own. (On gbook searches, there are 900,000 books using "the New Deal", compared to 1,500 using "the New Deal policy".) Similarly, thinking of other loan words that describe the policy of a foreign government, such as glasnost and perestroika, they are more usually written in lowercase. So, for both "the glasnost policy" and "the apartheid policy", one out of the first thirty gbook hits uses a capital. But again, my main point is that in both cases it is more usual to just say "glasnost", or "perestroika" or "apartheid", without adding "the" and "policy" to it. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Its as if you're saying that since many people in this society are sloppy about failing to capitalize properly, we should follow their errant lead here ("Glasnost" and "Perestroika" SHOULD be capitalized, by the way, and back during the 1980s, when such terms were in frequent use, you can rest assured that they were capitalized, as was Apartheid, not incidentally). Wikipedia should, in so far as these matters are concerned, be about upholding time-honored standards, not pandering to the transient vulgarisms of the present day.  Should we permit edits written in texting lingo, too? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "...the OED is in agreement with my usage": No it isn't. It's quoting The Guardian from 13 July 1949, to illustrate the then-current "transient" usage, without comment as to whether or not it's appropriate. The OED is descriptive of usage, not prescriptive, and its choice for capitalisation of the headword is where it has made its editorial choice, reflecting the accepted usage. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speeches by George VI
The crown copyright on all those speeches have expired and because his coronation was the first televised coronation, it is an important event for which the footage and audio should be hosted, next his wartime speech is also important because it was made during tough times and was broadcast throughout the Empire and considered an influential speech. Does anyone know where we can get these files? —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 10:16pm • 12:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a PD Newsreel of his coronation: —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 10:50pm • 12:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move redux

 * Please see below for a properly formulated multiple move request.


 * : → ?

– 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC) timestamp for RM bot Per the reasoning given in the request above:

"Reasons for making the break between "Name Number of the UK" and plain "Name Number" after Victoria:


 * Consistency is not being harmed by this, since there has to be a break anyway, given what has been decided about Elizabeth, and the fact that we probably can't drop the mention of UK from all UK monarchs, since (it is felt that) William IV of the United Kingdom is not the primary topic for plain William IV
 * All the UK monarchs after Victoria are primary topics for the plain "Name Number" expression, so there is no need to add UK other than some desire for consistency (for which see above)
 * Victoria's article needs to be discussed separately, and almost certainly needs changing - whatever is decided, it won't have the same form as the other monarchs (no numeral), so a natural break in the naming sequence will already exist at that point
 * The same arguments apply as to Elizabeth - these men are not normally referred to with the "of the United Kingdom" epithet, and indeed they were kings not only of the United Kingdom, but of other independent states also, as well as being Emperors of India (a far larger realm and "higher" title)
 * Apart from Edward VII (oh, and George V initially), these kings were not even officially titled "of the United Kingdom", and for deliberate reason (the situation with Ireland).

I hope this won't turn into another bad-natured debate like the Liz II one did - this isn't aimed against the overall naming convention for monarchs (see WP:NCROY), but just aims to make an exception for these four articles, like the other exceptions that already exist."

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

—  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 10:16pm • 12:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As, ahem, beautifully reasoned above, I still support dropping the misleading and unnecessary "of the United Kingdom" from these four article titles. Particularly now we have become comfortable with dropping it from their predecessor's article as well as their successor's.--Kotniski (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1. There was a similar discussion comparatively recently, it is unhelpful to re-open discussons in this way.
 * Oppose For reasons which have been gone over before, among them:-

2. It is probably impossible to avoid inconsistency completely. However, if we move these, what about e.g George III and George IV of the UK, both already primary meanings? There are umpteen monaarchs who are already the sole or primary meaning of a name + number comination, some of them quite obscure e.g. George VIII of Georgia, Robert III of Scotland, several French Louis's and English Henrys and Edwards.

3. Let's not pre-empt any move disussion in relation to Victoria.

4. Previous decisions to treat someone as a special case e.g. Napoleon have tended to be on the grounds that they are a historically major figure.

5. This is anglocentric since it assumes that recent UK monarchs are a special case. PatGallacher (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel tempted to suggest that this should be speedily rejected as an incompetent move request, it is not clear what it is proposed to move to what, it does not come up properly on the move request page. PatGallacher (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The recent UK monarchs are a special case, as they were monarchs of multiple, genuinely independent realms; are rarely referred to as "... of the UK"; and were pointedly not referred to as "...of the UK" in their official titles. Wikipedia is basically playing neologistic games by titling these articles as we currently do; and since consistency is not much helped, I don't see any reason at all to continue to do this.--Kotniski (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a moot point when the Commonwealth realms became "genuinely independent", this could be a process of evolution, but if we do identify a specific point it could be the Statute of Westminster 1931. William IV is the most recent UK monarch not to be the primary meaning, but this is not because of changes in the position of the UK, it is because he is a rather unimportant figure as UK monarchs go and there is an important Dutch stadtholder of the same name.  It would be rash to claim that the stituation with recent UK monarchs is completely unprecedented. PatGallacher (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, even if it isn't in fact unprecedented, if we can find other situations where the same circumstances apply (i.e. the title in use is unrelated to what sources call the person and to their actual title, and there is no need for the disambiguation), then we should do the right thing in those cases as well. Wikipedia simply has no business making up names for people (or dragging up names from a small minority of obscure sources) just for compliance with an imperfectly formulated internal convention that admits the possibility of exceptions anyway.--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see below for a properly formulated multiple move request.--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per PatGallacher's points #1, 2 and 4, and per NCROY Point #3 under "Sovereigns". FactStraight (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would wish to move this to the new move request section below? But 1. the previous discussion was a year ago and produced more support than opposition; 2. there is inconsistency either way so that really isn't an issue; 4. these kings are just as historically major as Elizabeth II; and NCROY#3 specifically states (if it even needed to) that there are exceptions. Can you not address my points as to why the current titles are wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia?--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol
When the king died we were all given a day off from school. At the time the story was that he'd learned to smoke heavily while on naval service.

Another story,a the time, was that he was consuming a bottle of brandy a day.AT Kunene (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2011 - George VI
Under the Birth and Family section in the first paragraph, the link for King Edward VII actually links to Edward VIII.

58.175.19.62 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Well spotted! Favonian (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Illness section
George VI was not a heavy smoker. According to the biography I read he only smoked 20-25 cigarettes a day. (92.7.9.96 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Does that not designate a heavy smoker? I read here at this link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/31289.php) that 15 cigarettes a day is heavy, and on Wikipedia's Health effects of tobacco page, under the Influenza section, it says that 20 per day is heavy. Archimedes In Blue 06:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes
Slight problem here; granted, George VI did not have a separate title for each dominion; and it could be arguaed that his separate kingship of each Dominion is covered under the title '..and the British Dominions beyond the seas', BUT he was not King of them all at the same time, some becoming independent later than others, and some becoming republics prior to his death. In other words:

He was King of the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa 1936-1952, but he was King of Newfoundland 1936-1949, of Pakistan 1947-1952, Ceylon 1948-1952, and of India only from 1947-1950. As such, I think the succession boxes should be altered to reflect this.

I appreciate constructive comment on thisJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He was always King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions. It is correct, simple, easy and sufficient just to say he was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions rather than list each territory independently Dominion separately. DrKay (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC). Amended 08:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

-But he wasn't King of them all at the same time, like his father and brother were. They were also all sovereign, independent countries after the Statute of Westminster too. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He was King of the Dominions throughout his reign, like his father and brother were. DrKay (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

-Yes; well, in the sense that he had the words 'and the British dominions beyond the seas' were part of his official title, but not only does that a.refer to the colonies as well as the Dominions, but b. It doesn't inform the casual viewer of the page of the fact that George VI was King of these independent states separately from his status as King of the United Kingdom.

George V was head of state of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and in 1922 became head of state of the Irish Free State. So was Edward VIII. George VI was never head of state of the Irish Free State due to adoption by Ireland of a new constitution, he ceased to be King of Newfoundland in 1949 when it became part of Canada, he became head of state of both India and Pakistan in 1947 when both became independent, but he ceased to be head of state of India in 1950 when it became a republic, and he became head of state of Ceylon in 1948.

Same could be said for Queen Victoria and Edward VIII: Victoria was only head of state of Canada from 1867, and only head of state of Australia from a month before her death. (without; note, the words 'and the British Dominions beyond the seas' in her title.) Similarly, Edward VII was only head of state of Newfoundland and New Zealand from 1907.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Arms (Part 2)
It was raised earlier on this talk page that the arms of the Dominions (that is, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland (de jure), South Africa, India, Pakistan, and Ceylon) should be added to the 'Arms' section, because George VI was monarch of each dominion in a separate capacity from his role as King of the United Kingdom.

It was then pointed out by user:DrKay and other users that it does not follow that the arms of each dominion/realm and the King are one and the same. It was then found (via verified sources) that the arms of the monarch and the state were indeed one and the same for Canada, but sources have not been found for any other realms so far in relation to this.

However, in law; in a republic the people are sovereign. Hence the term 'republic' from the latin 'res publica', 'peoples concern' or 'public concern' So the arms represent the people as a whole. Hence why, for example, a President of the United States, or any republic for that matter, may bear arms that are completely different to those of the state itself.

This is not the case with a monarchy. In a monarchy, the monarch is always sovereign. Hence the term 'monarchy' (from the greek monos archos -'rule by one'). Power derives from the monarch, (as is the case in black and white with each and every commonwealth realm that has a constitution.) and any government is always in the name of the monarch.Therefore, unless all the other commonwealth realms have suddenly removed all sovereignty from the Queen in right of each realm, and the governments have ceased to be carried out in her name, then the arms of the monarch and the state are one and the same because she is sovereign.

John Brooke-Little states in his 1983 revision of Boutell's Heraldry (p. 222): "Royal Arms, or Arms of Dominion, are inseparable from the rank and office of royalty." regarding the commonwealth realms; he states (p.240): "While for convienience one may refer to the arms of a dominion or colony, strictly the arms appertain to the government and not the territory in general."

He also states in his book 'An Heraldic Alphabet' under 'Arms of Dominion': "These, which are also termed 'Arms of Sovereignty', are those borne by a sovereign in respect of the territories he rules rather than his own family arms. The royal arms are arms of dominion; the Queen's arms of descent would be those of her branch of the House of Saxony. Arms of Dominion do not follow the ordinary rules and conventions of armory, but are settled ad hoc by the monarch, usually, of course, with ministerial and heraldic advice."

So; the arms of the Queen in respect of the United Kingdom are not just her personal arms as such, but the arms of the United Kingdom as well. So to say that the UK arms are merely her 'personal arms' is a nonsense because they are one and the same. Also; as a government in a monarchy is always carried out in the name of the monarch, they are still legally the arms of the monarch, albeit by delegation. The use of lesser arms of a monarch for use by the government has a long history as well, for example the lesser arms of the Geman Monarchy were often used de facto as the arms of the government.

Mention was made of the government and the monarch of Sweden, Norway, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Although distinction is made in these states between the arms 'of the stete' or 'of the government'; in reality the government is using a lesser version of the Royal Arms. for example, the three crowns of the arms of the Danish government are found in the greater royal arms. The lion gules and barry wavy field of the Luxembourgois government are found in the greater coat of arms of Luxembourg, and so on. Even the British government uses a lesser form of the Royal Arms of the UK.

The Vatican is an exception to the rule, but it must be noted that even in medieval times, the arms of the Papal States and the arms of the Pope were different. Presumably, this reflected the ecclesiastical nature of the polity, and perhaps the fact that the Pope was considered to have special place amongst the medieval countries of Europe, but this is just speculation on my part, but certainly, the Vatican is the only monarchy where the arms of the monarch and the state have no charges or elements in common: there is no way the arms of Benedict XVI could be considered to be a lesser version of the arms of the Vatican City State. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Arms are already given undue weight. Most biographies ignore them completely, and none given them the amount of coverage we do. We should follow the sources: the article should be about the man not about the arms of his governments. DrKay (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is very true; but most articles on monarchs detail their arms and formal styles, even if only in passing.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was Move per request. The "x of the United Kingdom" format is not the most commonly used format to refer to the persons implicated in this move discussion, and the articles indicated are the primary targets for the proposed titles. Wikipedia's naming conventions for royalty and nobility state that "it is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English," and that corresponds with the proposed titles. Neelix (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

– Reformulating this move request properly. See recent thread above (and older thread way above) for detailed arguments. Briefly, the longer titles are not needed for disambiguation (these are all unique or clear primary topics), they do not reflect what these men are normally called, they mislead substantially as to what their actual titles were, they do not increase consistency (they come between two reigning queens whose titles do not include the name of any realm), and for wikilawyers, they are not needed for compliance with WP:NCROY (which allows exceptions in such cases). Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * George VI of the United Kingdom → George VI
 * Edward VIII of the United Kingdom → Edward VIII
 * George V of the United Kingdom → George V
 * Edward VII of the United Kingdom → Edward VII

We have Robert III of Scotland, James IV of Scotland and James V of Scotland, already the primary or sole meaning, not their official title, they were "King of Scots". Albert II of Belgium is officially "king of the Belgians", there are also the kings of the Hellenes, the kings of Sweden had a peculiar official title. It's dangerous to argue that because there are a handful of special cases we throw all consistency to the winds. Are Edward VIII, who only reigned for a few months, or Edward VII, who nnly lasted about a decade, really as important figures as the present Queen or Victoria? As has been pointed out before, there is the serious possibility that we could have a Queen Victoria of Sweden soon, so we will have to re-examine what we call the UK queen. This is problematic enough, but it gets even more problematic if several other titles have been decided by analogy with Victoria's article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't by analogy with Victoria; it's by analogy (if anything) with Liz, but we should do the right thing here whatever analogies may or may not be present. If there are other kings that we are calling by names that no significant numbers of sources use, then we should change those articles' titles too. These scare arguments are really not worthy - clearly we are not "throwing all consistency to the winds", we are just proposing changing from one solution to another that offers about the same amount of consistency, but is otherwise vastly better in all the terms that we normally use to decide on appropriate Wikipedia article titles.--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Sadly, many non-Europeans do not know which kingdom is in fact the united one. So the proposed titles are certainly less confusing. This is from a charter: "GEORGE the SIXTH by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith" So "of United Kingdom" does not seem to be official. I'd go all the way with the Queen Victoria analogy: "King George VI", "King Edward VIII", etc. Kauffner (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; unnecessary disambiguation. Powers T 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NCROY advises against using obscure but official titulature, like King of the Hellenes; it is neither recognizable nor natural, and is (as such) contrary to our general policy and practice on article titles. It should have no bearing here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – I'll be honest. I don't see a strong case for an exception, as it would apply to George III and George IV]] (note which articles those redirect to). Then it becomes hard to justify dabbing the first six Edwards, which are also redirect targets. John is already an exception as John, King of England, and Stephen is Stephen, King of England, so then we might as well make it Richard I, since the redirect goes there. At that point, we'll have all of the English, British, and UK monarchs who don't need to be dabbed undabbed. From there, pre-emptive becomes difficult to justify anywhere. Since that's what I want, I support the move. -Rrius (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every encyclopedia has its own style guide and I don't buy into the line that because many non-Europeans don't know the difference between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom that we should drop the territorial designations. People come to Wikipedia to learn more, not learn less. Seven Letters 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely. So why teach them something that's not true (that these people were called "X of the UK" when they were not)?--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're going to sway to pedantry we'll need to renamed every single peer and remove ordinals, surnames in some instances, etc. See the problem? Seven Letters 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't see the problem with these royal articles - here, the solution couldn't be more straightforward. There may be more of a problem with peers in some cases, but that needn't cause us to do strange things here.--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ALSO The person responsible for this move request should make note of it on all the talk pages of the articles concerned. Seven Letters 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to have been done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Has it not? the bot usually does that. I'll take a look.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Turns out the bot had only placed the message on one of the other pages, for some reason. I've done the others manually.--Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the whole. This is a drastic, and genuinely anglocentric, change of practice; we call all monarchs {Name Numeral of Country} with a handful of exceptions where (as with William the Conqueror) something quite different is close to universal usage in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And something quite different is universal usage in English in all of these cases. The forms with "of the UK" are hardly ever used, compared with the forms without. I really don't understand the purpose of sticking to a convention that works pretty well in most cases, when we can see that it isn't appropriate in these cases. --Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as there was a George V of Hanover & also, the Elizabeth II article should be moved back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose to trouble you for any kind of reasoning would be too much to ask?--Kotniski (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdon, is the country these monarchs are most closely associated with. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But "X of the United Kingdom" is not what they are called (except very rarely), and we have no reason to specify a country they are associated with, so why do it? --Kotniski (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see these proposed moves, as merely an attempt to justify the current monarch's article title. Furthermore, there was a George V of Hanover. Also, Queen Victoria should be moved to Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom or back to Victoria of the United Kingdon. I'm much opposed to making related article titles inconsistant. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently being "inconsistant" with the way the rest of the world refers to these people doesn't trouble you?--Kotniski (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see any reason to treat these monarchs differently than their contemporaries. The cases of those mentioned in the move request are no more different than those of Frederick IX, Christian X, Frederick VIII, Christian IX, Frederick VII, Christian VIII, Frederick VI and the rest of the Danish kings down to the earliest Oldenburgs. Juan Carlos I, Alfonso XIII and Alfonso XII are the three most recent Spanish monarchs and could all do without "of Spain" (so could Ferdinand VII and Ferdinand VI but there are monarchs between them who couldn't). Harald V, Olav V and Haakon VII are the three most recent Norwegian monarchs who do not need "of Norway" (the line of uniquely-named kings continues with the rulers of Sweden-Norway and Denmark-Norway). Carl XVI Gustaf, Gustaf VI Adolf, Gustaf V, Oscar II, Charles XV, Oscar I, Charles XIV John, Charles XIII, Gustav IV Adolf and Gustav III are all Swedish monarchs who do not need "of Sweden" and there are no monarchs between them that do (thus the line remains unbroken). There are more examples. If there is a problem with the titles of these articles, why not come up with a solution for all (e.g. de.wiki's method)? Isn't that better than having British monarchs stand out as if they were more significant and thus more worthy of the name-only privilege? Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a privilege, really. But British monarchs are arguably different, in that "X of the United Kingdom" (or even "of Great Britain", less so perhaps "of England" and "of Scotland") is not common idiomatic English. If it turns out that "Oscar II of Sweden", say, is not used in the real world either, then I think we certainly ought to address that issue in the same way (and if it turns out we need disambiguation in such a case, we can use something that looks clearly like a disambiguator, e.g. "..., King of ...."). But I don't buy this "we mustn't do the right thing in this case, because then we might be forced to do the right thing in other cases" argument.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, Elizabeth II should be moved back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is that we should do the right thing and the right thing is not to be Anglocentric. Obviously, "Oscar II" and "George VI" are both significantly more common than "Oscar II of Sweden" and "George VI of the United Kingdom" respectively. Assuming that the reader will immediately associate George VI with the United Kingdom (though there are other men called George VI) but not associate Oscar II with Sweden (though there was no other Oscar II) is what looks like Anglocentrism to me. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out, "of the United Kingdom" is an anglocentric title to start with, given that these men were kings of other countries, and indeed emperors of a much larger one. And I'm not insisting on retaining "of Sweden" if there's some problem with that. But we are English Wikipedia, and we are supposed to reflect usage in English - so a certain amount of what might appear on the surface to be anglocentrism is justified and inevitable, if we are not to make ourselves into linguistic revisionists. (Cf. Falkland Islands vs. es:Islas Malvinas - both clearly the right titles in their respective projects.) --Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ...of the United Kingdom is fine, as these monarchs are most closely assocated with that realm. Need we remind folks, that the UK is 'alone' among the 16 Commonwealth realms, when not having a Governor-General. That -for example- Edward VII to Elizabeth II, haven't exactly resided often or a long time at Rideau Hall or any of their other 'official residences' outside the UK. Please, let's not condem these 4 article titles to the fate of the article about the current British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that if it were necessary to disambiguate these people somehow, then the fact they were monarchs of the UK is probably the thing to mention. But it isn't necessary in these cases - and in the cases where it is necessary, we shouldn't imply that some title is the way to refer to someone when it is neither a common name nor their official title nor even the way other reference works would list them. This is the main problem for me with these titles - they are largely a Wikipedia invention, and they don't even follow normal Wikipedia article naming principles.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Name X of country was the best solution for the monarch article titles. Now they've been disrupted over the last year or two, with foolishness like Robert the Bruce, William the Conquerer, Gustavus Adolphus & Elizabeth II. Consistancy has been completely disregarded in favour of personal views. Let's not continue with it. GoodDay (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support At least for George V through George VI. Those three individuals were sovereigns of more independent states than just the United Kingdom. Someone earlier described removing "of the United Kingdom" as "Anglocentric". I'd say adding only "of the United Kingdom" after the name of a man who was king of about a half dozen different countries is what appears more like Anglocentrism. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The disambiguation is unnecessary. Jenks24 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NCROY, also we call all monarchs {Name Numeral of Country} with exceptions based upon an overwhelming renown (i.e. a super-majority, not a plurality]] by a cognomen or alias. Omission of the realm of primary association is, in these cases, unjustifiably inconsistent and unnecessary historical revisionism. FactStraight (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Revisionism?!? And you voted "oppose"?? Surely revisionism is using a name that few historians or anyone else ever uses (i.e. the current title), rather than using the name that everyone else uses (i.e. the proposed title). --Kotniski (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Current titles are unnecessarily disambiguated.  Proposed titles are more concise, and generally meet our naming criteria much better.  Just say no to pre-emptive disambiguation!  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


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

There was a consensus to move to George VI? GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah! They managed to keep this one quiet, didn't they?  Very crafty! Deb (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

George VI - Edit request on 16 May 2012
In the Legacy Section, add a sentence at the end. "On television, James Wilby portrayed George VI and his family life in the 2002 Masterpiece Theatre feature, "Bertie & Elizabeth: The Story of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth."

208.76.113.2 (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no more notable than the other portrayals listed at Cultural depictions of King George VI. DrKay (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

King George VI WWII visit to North Africa
I found this photo amongst my late fathers content with inscription on the back: "King's Parade at Sahatha" May be of interest to researchers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rademeig (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ireland
The lead is presently giving some very misleading information (at the insistence of a certain editor). It speaks about the monarch of Ireland being removed from that country's constitution on the day of George VI's accession, but then later states Ireland became a republic in 1949. That says Ireland ceased to be a monarchy on two dates: one in 1936 and again in 1949. Of course, this is the result of a total absence of any information about the fact that George VI did still have a role in the Irish Free State after his accession as king; an absence my edits were intended to address. Perhaps an explanation is forthcoming as to why they were reverted in their entirety. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the words of : "After the enactment of the 1936 External Relations Act and the 1937 Constitution, Ireland's only remaining link with the crown had been the accreditation of diplomats. The president of Ireland was the head of state. When opposition deputies asked de Valera whether Ireland was a republic—a favorite pastime in the mid‐1940s—he tended to resort to dictionary definitions showing that Ireland had all the attributes of a republic." The British monarch was removed from the Constitution on 11 December 1936, but the question over whether Ireland was a republic remained open because the republic was not explicitly declared until 1949. The lead correctly states that the monarch was removed from the Constitution in 1936, and that the republic was "formally declared" in 1949. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * " Ireland's only remaining link with the crown had been the accreditation of diplomats..." Not entirely the case, but it still by itself affirms the king was not completely absent from the Irish constitution, in contradiction to what you keep restoring to the lead. The Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936, passed on 12 December of that year, stated: "so long as Saorstát Éireann [the Irish Free State] is associated with the [other member nations of the Commonwealth], and so long as the king recognised by those nations as the symbol of their co-operation continues to act on behalf of each of those nations (on the advice of the several Governments thereof) for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements, the King so recognised may, and is hereby authorised to, act on behalf of Saorstát Éireann for the like purposes as and when advised by the Executive Council so to do." The same act even states who the succeeding monarch of the Irish Free State would be after the abdication of Edward VIII. The act was repealed when the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 came into effect. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 is statute law not a part of the constitution. DrKay (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether that's correct or not, he was indirectly referenced in the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936. Section 51: "Provided that it shall be lawful for the Executive Council, to the extent and subject to any conditions which may be determined by law to avail, for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular agents and the conclusion of international agreements of any organ used as a constitutional organ for the like purposes by any of the nations referred to in Article 1 of this Constitution." Article 1 listed the countries that shared George VI as head of state and for which he acted as such an organ as mentioned in S.51. The king's role in external affairs was also cemented in the 1937 constitution.
 * The point remains: the lead of this article reads as if George VI had no role in Ireland past 11 December 1936, which is not true. It also reads as if Ireland became a republic on two different dates, which aslo is not true. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

When the protection placed on this article expires, there will be no need to revive the question about the status of Ireland as a republic. It can be seen from the sources at this article as at [] (per DrKay's last revision), and related articles, that after the accession the law authorised the new king to act instrumentally as requested by the Irish government for the sole purpose of formally accrediting diplomatic representatives to other sovereigns (royal, dominion, republican or soviet), but not otherwise: thus the monarch had been removed from the constitution, and sovereignty in name and fact was assumed by the Irish government as recognised by the king and his governments of the UK and other realms and territories. Whatever hopes and expectations either party (king and Irish government) may have had for the future, the king had no further lawful part of any kind in the government of that country, and its government had no other claim of right upon the king. Certainly, then, it was a republic de facto and, as far as the parties to the arrangement themselves were concerned, de jure. Qexigator (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Direct mention of the king was removed from the constitution. In place was put the clause I quoted above; what was in 1936 the organ "used as a constitutional organ for [the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular agents and the conclusion of international agreements] by any of [the Commonwealth countries]" other than the King?
 * Beyond that, the following day the External Relations Act more explicitly reaffirmed the King would be the person who would appoint ambassadors and ratify treaties for Ireland.
 * There is also the matter of the lead reading as if Ireland became a republic on two different dates. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

--re "last King of Ireland"], there is an absence of any source to show that any official instrument was made at any time in his name as "King of Ireland", and even if not absent, the status of Ireland as republic de facto and de jure described above would remain. The lead is not ambiguous in this respect, and is consistent with the parties having allowed themselves some flexibility with reference to "head of state" for the purposes of diplomatic and Commonwealth practice, and consistent with the description of events in History of the Republic of Ireland, if not in all respects with the section on "Constitutional status", which is lacking supporting sources. Supporting sources are also lacking for the inclusion of George VI as one of the Monarchs of the Irish Free State in the article Monarchy of Ireland, nor is the statement, in that article, that George VI was "the last monarch to reign as king in all of the island of Ireland" source-supported. Qexigator (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

--Two further points, which can be seen as suggestive but not conclusive either way:
 * 1 _The "François Velde" site includes a page "Proclamations of Accession of English and British Sovereigns (1547-1952)". The Introduction mentions that such proclamations are not made "by the king/queen" as all other proclamations are, and that this is one of the exceptions to the principle that proclamations may legally be made and issued only by authority of the Crown. The proclamation for George VI (1936) reads "...George the Sixth by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India: To whom we do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience, with all hearty and humble Affection:..."; and for the Queen (1952), "...Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom Her lieges do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience...". In the 1936 proclamation certain customary words were used: "To whom we [that is, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these of His former Majesty's Privy Council, with numbers of other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord-Mayor, Aldermen, and citizens of London] do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience", but in 1952 other words were used: "...to whom Her lieges do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience...", thus leaving open the determination who such "lieges" may be, and the manner of determination.
 * 2_In letters patent during his reign the king continued to use the customary style "George the Sixth By the Grace of God of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King Defender of the Faith". Qexigator (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

--and consider that by Her lieges could be meant those making the Proclamation of Accession, as persons who had sworn an Oath of allegiance, or could be taken as meaning more generally the people who lawfully owe allegiance by reason of "the tie which binds the subject to the Sovereign in return for that protection which the Sovereign affords the subject"[]? But the mutuality of allegiance would not necessarily have applied to a citizen or national of the Irish Free State in the reign of George VI, after the king's sovereignty there had ceased from his accession in 1936. Qexigator (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

--The passing of the legislation at the time of George VI's accession was intended to change the residual position of the king which had obtained in the latter days of George V's reign and to which Edward VIII had succeeded. It was done because those concerned considered it necessary for the change to be effected and put beyond legal doubt or quibble, such that Ireland could be governed as a republic. It follows that whatever residual constitutional function had passed from George V to Edward VIII on the demise of the crown was not permitted to pass to George VI. In the result, Edward VIII was, for the few months from his accession to his abdication, the last reigning king of Ireland. Qexigator (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

--The Republic of Ireland page seems to have it right: "In 1949 the remaining duties of the King of Ireland were removed and Ireland was declared a republic, with the description Republic of Ireland." i.e. that is when Ireland became a republic. If Ireland had previously been fully a republic, then it would have said so, and wouldn't have felt the need to declare it in 1949. As for needing constititution powers in order to be a true monarch: neither the Japanese nor the Swedish monarchy have any powers at all, and yet the Emperor of Japan is still the Emperor of Japan, and the King of Sweden is still the King of Sweden. Simhedges (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is not incorrect to say "In 1949 the remaining duties of the King were removed and Ireland was declared a republic, with the description Republic of Ireland", but for the reasons given above and below, the inference you have made is not entirely so, and this discussion was to explain that there is no contradiction in the article here, as had been mistakenly supposed by another editor. Qexigator (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

--Motivation (another nail for the deck): In connection with the long history of "the Irish question" and its antecedents, it is not surprising that, if in some respects the legislation was as delicately equivocal as the political circumstances, all principal parties at the time had to be wary of allowing questions of allegiance and loyalty be overstrained when negotiating a settlement for the future government of the people of Ireland after the formation of the Irish Free State and in view of the controversy among republicans about the Oath of Allegiance (Ireland); and to be mindful that such questions are liable to become intensified in time of war with a third country. Qexigator (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

--Royal style (yet one more nail for the deck): In the royal style,  "... of Ireland...King" was used under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, until it was changed under the Royal Titles Act 1953[] to "... of Northern Ireland...Queen" after the accession but before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. As mentioned above, in the accession proclamation for the Queen there was no mention of Ireland, the words used being "...Queen of this Realm...", where for George VI's the words had been: "...of Great Britain, Ireland...". Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

--more: The principal parties were also aware of the need to let themselves sidestep the Tudor Crown of Ireland Act 1542 "that the King of England, his Heirs and Successors, be Kings of Ireland". In connection with the Irish Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 the distinction between the king or other person or body acting "on advice" or "by authority" when appointing diplomatic representatives was explained when the bill was being debated. --Qexigator (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A country's head of state is by definition the functionary that represents the state to the outside world. In whose name treaties are closed with other powers and who ambassadors and other diplomats are accredited too. George VI was that person from 1936 to 1949. Ireland may have had a President since 1936 but became a Republic only in 1949. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Emperor of India
George VI remained Emperor of India until 22 June 1948 when he reverted to being the King of India and Pakistan. His reign as Emperor did not end in August 1947. (92.11.205.56 (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC))

True; although King of both Pakistan and India, he never actually held either the title 'King of India' nor 'King of Pakistan' either. The 1948 renunciation of the Imperial title was, however; deemed to be retroactive however, although the title did appear on some 1948 coins.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if the legislation was backdated George still remained Emperor of India until June 1948. The agreement on Indian independence in August 1947 was that he would give up the title at some point in the near future. (92.11.206.158 (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC))
 * The dates in the infobox reflect when the office of emperor ceased rather than the date on which the title was abandoned. The infoboxes of office-holders almost always use de facto dates, and I think a switch to titular dates would be problematic. DrKay (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Speech ready to declare war on Germany a week before Germany invaded Poland
Is this not worth mentioning? See and, it is said now that Britain was ready to declare Germany before they even invaded Poland.--Windows66 (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't new, see Neville Chamberlain's European Policy for example. Britain was ready to declare war on Germany if Germany invaded Poland not before Germany invaded. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the new script, "An early version of the ‘King’s Speech’ reveals Britain was preparing to declare war on Germany before Hitler invaded Poland." This new bit of evidence shows that Britain was going to declare war on Germany whether they invaded Poland or not.--Windows66 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't. DrKay (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Read the article, this is one of the main headpoints from the article itself. Lets look at some other sources that have shown this speech from him:

"Britain was preparing to declare war on Nazi Germany before Hitler invaded Poland, according to an early draft of the royal broadcast that was the subject of the movie The King's Speech"

"The British Government was preparing to declare war on Nazi Germany even before Hitler invaded Poland"

"An early version of the ‘King’s Speech’ reveals Britain was preparing to declare war on Germany before Hitler invaded Poland"

""It was written before Poland had been invaded but at a time when it was clear we were moving towards war with Germany."

As you can see this is nothing to do with what happened after Hitler invaded Poland but rather before, it shows that Britain was going to declare war on Germany regardless of the Polish situation/crisis. This definitely needs to be mentioned as its newly found and is showing that there was a lot of anti-German feeling and the script portrays Germany as the bully for world dominance and the final clearer version did not mention Germany but rather "our enemies".--Windows66 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are no sources saying Chamberlain was a war-monger who planned an unprovoked attack on Germany, or anyone else. Even if there were, I'm still against adding it because such a fringe extremist view does not belong in an article when it so clearly contradicts the established and almost universal academic and popular consensus. I know from experience that it is pointless to argue with someone with pre-defined views as no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to persuade them otherwise. Suffice to say that the overwhelming consensus view, which is supported by all of your own sources, is that Britain planned against the eventuality of war, but had no desire or intention to start one. DrKay (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First, snippets of journalistic comment are not necessarily historically accurate or so written as to save all readers from failing to see for themselves what is being said. Secondly, those snippets agree with the well established and unsurprising fact that long before Germany invaded Poland, preparations were being made by the UK government for an outbtreak of hostilities. Thirdly, when the British government became aware that an attack on Poland was imminent, the event was anticipated by, among other things, drafting a speech for the King, while the PM was hoping against hope, up to the last moment, to avert the outbreak of war, as explained in the link given by DrK above. An editor could try reading that link more assiduously than the newspaper articles. Qexigator (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not on about Chamberlain or anything to do with George being a war-monger neither. But this is newly accurate evidence that Britain were at least preparing to fight Germany before the even WW2 had begun.

@Qexigator I am showing you points made in the articles that have surfaced this speech/script and posted it as their own. The more clearer version of this does not even use the word 'Germany' but rather 'our enemies' like I have pointed out.

Do you think this newly found speech means nothing? Of course it does - there was quite a high amount of anti-German sentiment in Britain at that time and Britain as a country were preparing to fight Germany - this was not when they were even aware of the invasion of Poland. This script was done NINE days before the invasion and was done to try and somehow tell the nation they were going to go to war with Germany. I am by no means advocating an edit of such "George VI was a war-monger" or ANYTHING of the kind but rather something along the lines of how nine days before the official speech that George was preparing and ready for a war against Germany and to try and explain how to prepare the nation for the war against Germany.--Windows66 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In actual fact, this document means next to nothing that has not long been known to historians, as the newspaper reports, and the link and comments above, have already shown. The interest lies in that a typewritten draft with a handwritten comment on it has become part of public knowledge. There really is no need to read into it more than that, and for the purpose of the article it lacks notability. It is common knowledge that there was much concern at the time about the Nazi German government's actions and intentions, including the contents of Mein Kampf and the need for the British government to prepare for war. Do you believe that this draft adds anything notable to the information in the link given above? Have you considered the significance of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland-London (1939) especially the protocal attached to it naming Germany? Qexigator (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that this bit of newly found script could be added saying that George nine days before the official clear version was given prepared a draft in preparing the nation into war with Germany. I do apologise if you think I am accusing George or Chamberlain as a war-monger as I am not.--Windows66 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that Chamberlain's and Churchill's wartime speeches are notable, but George's seem to have fallen into relative obscurity, and draft speeches are even less notable than actual ones. Recently, a speech written for the Queen in the event of a nuclear war was released, but it isn't something the biographies of her discuss. Because it was never delivered, it becomes an ephemeral news item rather than a biographical landmark. For this reason, I think it would be undue weight to make a point of this speech in the article. The date of the speech (25 Aug) is the same day as the signing of the Mutual Assistance agreement between Britain and Poland, and two days after Britain sent Germany a diplomatic note warning that Britain would defend Poland in the event of an attack. The possibility of war mentioned in the "Early reign" section is sufficient for me. DrKay (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)