Talk:George VI/Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014
THERE IS AN ERROR in article on KING GEORGE VI regarding his previous royal titles - at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_VI

At the bottom of the page of Wiki article, KING GEORGE VI, it shows his "Previous Titles".

Here is Wiki text that is incorrect: 9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Wales

This is not correct, because it was his older brother, EDWARD (who eventually was crowned KING EDWARD VIII) who was the Prince of Wales - not George. The Prince who is next in line for the throne is always the PRINCE OF WALES. Edward became King and then abdicated. And George VI became King.

Even though GEORGE VI became King, he never held title, "PRINCE OF WALES".

(I believe the error comes from the fact that GEORGE VI's father, GEORGE V was Prince of Wales.)

Here is article on George's brother EDWARD VIII which Wikipedia shows that Edward was THE PRINCE OF WALES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII

PROOF of ERROR: For citing purposes, here is article from the UK Government which shows all previous men who were titled PRINCE OF WALES. http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/titles-and-heraldry/previous-princes-of-wales

Thank you, C. Sue Palmer

72.241.99.178 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no error. It's a title similar to Prince William of Wales and Prince Harry of Wales. DrKiernan (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

CONTRADICTIONS
Beginning with the change in titles of George V the word "United" was dropped. However, Wikipedia inline claims and the boxes on each page style the King with a title he never had. Someone needs to go through all of these articles beginning with George V and rework the titles texts of each one both inline and the inset boxes. AndthebeatGOES (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Accusative pronoun
This edit adjusted the case of two pronouns. Here, the subject is the speech, and him  is the indirect object: "for him", not "for he". (The verb "to be" takes a complement only for direct objects.) I suggest a revert to the accusative case: "for he" to "for him" (etc.). My recollection of my far-distant lessons in parsing and grammar may be letting me down, so no WP:BOLD edit just yet: second opinions needed! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed by User:JackofOz. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) I've fixed it. It's not so much about the verb 'to be' - or any verb, for that matter.  It's about the preposition 'for', which takes accusative case, no matter whether its object is one word (such as "for him") or a whole phrase ("for him and the listeners").


 * A similar case is the often-heard "between you and I", which should of course be "between you and me". Any and all pronouns governed by the preposition 'between' take accusative case.


 * This is surely easy to understand for you, me, him, her, us and them. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Very simple: object of a preposition. "Him" is the objective (accusative) case; "He" is the subjective case. American In Brazil (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The King's Speech
@DrKay

With all due respect to my (presumably) British cousin, I am unable to find the reference to the film "The King's Speech." Even if it is there, a sentence about it with regard to George VI's most serious stammer would be appropriate in the body of the article. Not only was this the most successful independent British film in history (see fn. 3 in the film article), it movingly chronicled the heroic struggle of the King to overcome his handicap. I believe its great American success was due not so much to a royal story but to the individual struggle of a very human king. Be that as it may, a reference in the article is necessary to round out this important aspect of the King's life. It is also a convenient way for the reader to link to the article about the film rather than searching for the reference. American In Brazil (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article, and it forms the final sentence of the main body. There's no need to mention it twice, particularly when it is already placed in so prominent a position. DrKay (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sheila Chisholm
Some refs I've been able to find re her affair with George: The King Maker, Charles & Camilla, We Danced All Night: A Social History of Britain Between the Wars, Queen Elizabeth: The Queen Mother. It seems that George's dukedom hinged on his leaving Sheila, and that their affair was to be kept secret, which might explain the lack of coverage. Sheila seems to have understood this. One article reads: "She was, however, extremely discreet. Her memoirs say very little about Prince Albert, for instance, the man who was to become king following his brother Edward’s abdication and with whom she almost certainly had a long-running affair." Here she is pictured with George and Edward. Another pic, this one of "The 4 Do's". - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources, which include George's own letters, are not at issue. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in this article whatsoever about "Shelia Chisholm," whomever she was nor Evelyn Laye, said to be George's lifelong love. Where on earth do you people get this information from?66.67.32.161 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Name
Albert Frederick Arthur George or Albert Frederick Arthur George Windsor? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

He was only ever a Prince (of the United Kingdom) or King-and therefore had no need of a surname. More to the point; 'Windsor' wasn't adopted as a surname for the male-line descendants of Queen Victoria until 1917.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Stress
The stress of war is mentioned. George the Sixth seems to have done very little fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead image
Over the last 10 days, the lead image has been swapped between these two images nine times, seven times by the same Sheffield-based Talktalk IP range. Please select one or the other and stick with it. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marriage
There was an RFC at the marriage template addressing end dates in marriages, please respect it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and Manual of Style/Infoboxes, contents of infoboxes are determined at each individual article. Consensus at this article is not to duplicate material twice in the infobox.
 * Besides, the RfC you mention only really addressed the syntax to be employed ("her death" v. "died") by the template. The question in the opening comment there as to whether to always include an end date even if it duplicates information twice in an infobox was only commented on by four people, two of whom opposed the idea. So, the status quo still holds at the template: only the spouse's death date should be given. DrKay (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

euthanasia?
According to this somewhat morbid article about funeral planning for the now-elderly QE2:
 * “The King’s life is moving peacefully towards its close,” was the final notice issued by George V’s doctor, Lord Dawson, at 9.30pm on the night of 20 January 1936. Not long afterwards, Dawson injected the king with 750mg of morphine and a gram of cocaine – enough to kill him twice over – in order to ease the monarch’s suffering, and to have him expire in time for the printing presses of the Times, which rolled at midnight.

This might be something to research further and use in the article. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong king. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Doh! Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

King George VI was the last King of Ireland from 1936 to 1949.
King George VI was the last King of Ireland from 1936 until 18 April 1949, when the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 came into effect.

This needs to be included in the succession box. - (101.98.104.241 (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC))
 * The Dominions are already included in the succession box. DrKay (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He didn't cease to be king of Ireland on 6 February 1952. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  17:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The last King of Ireland was George III in 1800. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George VI. 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/20091030064730/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.06-e.html to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.06-e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927024852/http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/about-st-georges/royal-connection/burial/burials-in-the-chapel-since-1805.html to http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/about-st-georges/royal-connection/burial/burials-in-the-chapel-since-1805.html

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) 22:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

William Branham
I wondering if someone can get hold of a copy of the letter or letters that King George VI wrote to William Branham it may add credibility to a post on the topic of King George VI seeking healing by prayer. Unless the idea is to keep the page on King George VI completely secular. It's interesting the King's physician Dr John Weir practised homeopathy. The reference to King George VI on William Branham's Wikipedia page suffices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Branham#CITEREFWeaver2000 Weaver, C. Douglas (2000). The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (A study of the Prophetic in American Pentecostalism). Mercer University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20221-5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistos101 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC) (K. Brookes (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC))
 * The content of the article should reflect the relevant literature. Since no biography of George VI mentions Branham, it doesn't belong here. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While I would generally want to follow the biographies, I could be persuaded to include material from other reliable sources if there were a compelling case to be made. Does anyone other than Branham himself mention this? Greenshed (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward VII which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

ISBN 978-0-9560933-8-7
ISBN 978-0-9560933-8-7 is Volume of Valour, which is a privately-published and -printed book written by Granville Stacey Angell and released in 2017. It wouldn't count as a reliable source anyway, because wikipedia doesn't accept self-published sources. Consequently, it cannot be used as a source here. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Freemasonry
"Albert was a keen Freemason, as was Edward VII, and Edward VIII. He was initiated in Navy Lodge, No. 2612, (London, England) in 1919; joined Middlesex Masters Lodge, No. 3420, (Staines-upon-Thames, Surrey) and was Master thereof 1933–1934; was Provincial Grand Master of Middlesex, 1924–1937, Senior Grand Warden 1923–1924 of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), Provincial Grand Master Mark Master of Middlesex, 1931–1937, and Past Grand Master of UGLE 1937. He was a Knight Templar joining St George's Preceptory, No. 6, in 1930 and St Michael's Preceptory, No. 164, and was Preceptor (Master) thereof 1930.

In 1936 he became an Affiliate Member of Glamis Lodge, No. 99, which is located near to his wife's family seat, Glamis Castle, Scotland. On 30 November (Saint Andrew's Day) 1936 he was installed as Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Scotland."

I think there are 5 problems with the above section, added yesterday:
 * 1) It's poorly written. Before I copy edited, it was even worse, just an unformatted list of incorrectly punctuated sentence fragments.
 * 2) It's a very boring, dull and repetitive list of titles held, which could just easily be shortened to 'He was an active Freemason between 1919 and 1937.'
 * 3) The citations are all about freemasonry, not George VI. That indicates that the content may be of interest in an article on freemasonry but is not usually mentioned in biographies of George VI.
 * 4) Three of the citations are quite poor quality: they are written by freemasons, published by freemasons and it seems the books are sold only to freemasons because they are not available generally. The isbn links lead nowhere.
 * 5) It's overly detailed. As Calderwood (the one reliable source) says, biographies of the royal family contain only a brief mention of freemasonry. So, our biography should similarly contain no more than a brief mention. Celia Homeford (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"General Lyon" in Malta etc.
This NatGeo episode claims that George was referred to as "General Lyon" when visiting North Africa and Malta during Operation Loader. Agents Garbo and Freak reported to Germany that the King visited troops near Dover, indicating that invasion would come at Calais. Also, the King was reported to be "north" (Fortitude North), sending off the fleet to the invasion (to Norway). Reportedly, George took active part in reading intelligence with Churchill. Based on papers by Alan Lascelles. TGCP (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Syntax
"The King was constitutionally bound to support Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.[10][61] However, when the King and Queen greeted Chamberlain on his return from negotiating the Munich Agreement in 1938...".

The adverb "however" is used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously. So this makes no sense.

--88.68.41.88 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph / preview of the article.
I'm not sure if I should edit this page, but I noticed that the article's preview and first paragraph has some terrible and barely comprehensible sentences. However, I'm not sure if I should just edit it. Can someone please revise it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.190.162 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC) ‎
 * There was some vandalism at 3:06 (UTC), which has been reverted since. DrKay (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

References section
I read the article and noticed the "References" section uses "Bibliography". This was also noted at Talk:Thomas_Blamey with the reasoning that a better choice of words like "Sources" or the equivalent might be considered. Many other articles use different styles and MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications"). Otr500 (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hardship - what a joke this article is
"The king and his family remained in London during the Blitz, and his popularity soared as he shared the hardships of the common people."

Well, some wiki editor is having a good laugh at everyone's expense. The idea that a reigning monarch living in a palace shared the hardships of the common people living in bomb shelters (emerging to their slum dwelling in the morning, if it was still standing) and living on rations is laughable.
 * sorry for providing new ideas to an unwelcoming mind. Rjensen (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Is "new ideas" a synonym for bullshit? This sort of ignorant editing is everything which is wrong with Wikipedia. You know nothing of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.33.7 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous editor. The wording suggests that George experienced the same hardships as the "common people", which is very unlikely. It also seems to be in the lead only. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "the King and Queen narrowly avoided death when two German bombs exploded in a courtyard at Buckingham Palace while they were there.[77] ... The royal family were portrayed as sharing the same dangers and deprivations as the rest of the country. They were subject to British rationing restrictions, and U.S. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt remarked on the rationed food served and the limited bathwater that was permitted during a stay at the unheated and boarded-up Palace.[79] In August 1942, the King's brother, the Duke of Kent, was killed on active service.[80]" DrKay (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not sound quite the same. The section says they were "portrayed" as sharing the same hardships as the common people, while the lead presents it as a fact. I don't think anyone could object to the wording in the section. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If the IP can find a better (more NPOV) way to write it up, provided with reliable sources? then go for it. During WW2, the British media tended to always put the British royal family in a positive light, likely for the morale of the British people. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * The Royal Family did not actually remain in London during the Blitz. Also the RAF had already bombed cities in Germany for months before the Luftwaffe began bombing London in September 1940. (MorgenthauPlan (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Yes, we know. Although the British raids were in response to the Nazi invasions of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, the Netherlands... Let's not forget who the bad guys were. DrKay (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The royal family used the same ration books as everyone else--eating the national bread loaf on gold plates, as Eleanor Roosevelt notes after a visit. Rjensen (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * France had invaded Germany in 1939, and the British invaded Norway first in 1940 under Plan R4. Operation Wilfred had begun by the time the Germans arrived. (MorgenthauPlan (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC))
 * You're gradually revealing yourself as a Nazi apologist. It's not a good look. DrKay (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which country was occupying half the world by force from 1939 to 1945 - Britain or Germany? If we had been in the right Ireland would not have remained completely neutral, nor would Gandhi have opposed the war throughout its course and launched the Quit India movement which Germany supported. In any case my grandfather said people only thought of Churchill as a war leader, few even cared about the Royal Family. (MorgenthauPlan (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC))

Symbol
Churchill was the symbol of Britain's resolve to win World War II. George VI was just a powerless figurehead. He did not even want Churchill to replace Chamberlain in 1940, he actually preferred Halifax who was favourable to Hitler's peace offers. (MorgenthauPlan (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC))
 * None of which is in dispute, either on the talk page or in the article. Although Halifax rejected any idea of peace talks before a full German withdrawal between March 1939 and late May 1940. Halifax was the favorite because he appeared to have more cross-party support. DrKay (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Halifax wanted to use the neutral Mussolini to broker an end to the war in late May 1940. (MorgenthauPlan (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Yes, I know. That's why I said "late May 1940" above. DrKay (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Full name"
The editor who added the so-called "full name" six months ago did not provide a source or a justification. The source that was since added by me does not support the article's current contention that the "full name" is the given names only, in fact, it contradicts it because a surname is clearly given, as it is on other such documents: File:Full marriage certificate of the Duke and Duchess of York 1923.jpg. DrKay (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Same applies to full name parm in infobox at Elizabeth II – have repeated the tags there. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Disputed

 * Previous discussion: Talk:George VI/Archive 2, Talk:George VI/Archive 2 and Talk:George VI/Archive 3

I think Ireland is too nuanced for an infobox and we don't need the complication of listing all the Dominions, and their disputed dates, when the all-encompassing 'Dominions' is used. Infoboxes should be simple and succinct and are not designed to cope with subtlety or complications or differences of opinion between different sides of an argument. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Queen's infobox also mentions her all realms, so that's why I listed the Dominions here, like the way that was followed in The Queen's article. Peter Ormond (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But the Queen has a different title in each realm, so she has 32 different ones. Previous monarchs only had the one style and title, which was used in all parts of the empire. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I think, I should revert the changes. Peter Ormond (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

King of British dominion ?
With the statute of Westminster act in 1931 Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. became unique monarchies separate from Britain so it’s wrong to say British Dominions because they weren’t that similar to how Queen Elizabeth is Queen of those nations starting from 1952 because of the statute of Westminster act Black roses124 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See Style of the British sovereign. Besides, the statute calls them 'Dominions'. DrKay (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Title of King
I propose to rectify the mention of George VI as “King of the United Kingdom” to the correct form “King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions”. The title was changed during the reign of George V and not changed back with some other removals/addition during the reign of Elizabeth II. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We should continue to use "King of the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC).
 * So you’re gonna be uncivil, and now insist we retain all kinds of blasphemous and untrue things? 59.92.227.87 (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Great Britain and Ireland are separate kingdoms. They became so with the establishment of the Irish Free State. The name of the UK and the monarch’s title were changed only later. Northern Ireland opted out and remained part of the UK. His title mentions them separately and back then, the United Kingdom encompassed only Great Britain, as the Irish Free State included Northern Ireland (which later opted out), and the Irish Free State was a dominion. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As explained below, you are confused about this. Ireland and Great Britain weren’t split into separate kingdoms. The United Kingdom continued, but the 26 counties of the Irish Free State left the UK and became a dominion. The 6 counties of Northern Ireland remained in the UK. There was no “kingdom of Ireland”. Under section 2(2) of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, "United Kingdom" would mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland. DeCausa (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Ireland was a dominion and it is already reflected in the phrase "and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King".  Peter Ormond &#128172;  06:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The United Kingdom as been in continuous existence since 1801. There was no “Kingdom of Great Britain” and Kingdom of Ireland after 1927. Between 1927 and 1953 the formal style of the monarch was changed to “of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas…” King/Queen. Before that it was “of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas…” King/Queen and after that it was “of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas…” King/Queen. However, (1) regardless of the formal style, the monarch was still king/queen of the United Kingdom throughout - the United Kingdom was the only sovereign state encompassing Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland. There was no state or “separate kingdom” called “Great Britain” and it’s misleading to use the formal style in this way. (2) The United Kingdom pre-1922 is the same sovereign state as the United Kingdom post-1922 (or -1927 or -1953). The change in nomenclature from “Ireland” to “Northern Ireland” or the reduction in territory to remove the Irish Free State did nor create a new state. It is therefore perfectly sensible to treat the monarch as “king/queen of the United Kingdom” with continuity throughout the 20th century. DeCausa (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - FWIW, the IP who opened this discussion, was blocked for edit-warring & harrassing/entertaining me, at my talkpage. PS: I hope he gets a new pair of pants. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced
The infobox saying he relinquished imperial titles in 1948 and the Empire and Commonwealth section is unsourced. I add source and you remove it, by mistake I feel, alongside the other edit. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was by mistake. Add the source in the section. No need to cite it in the infobox, if cited in article text. Regards,  Peter Ormond &#128172;  07:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a nice source:  Peter Ormond  &#128172;  07:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I chose Belfast gazette as it shows only the required thing; someone trying to verify can find what they want easily. Love. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Head of the Commonwealth inclusion/exclusion
I'me opened up an RFC on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Head of the Commonwealth
One of George's most significant posts was Head of the Commonwealth. Head of the Commonwealth is not a royal title, but an official post in the Commonwealth of Nations, just like Secretary-General of the United Nations. This position is non-hereditary and is therefore not inherited with other royal titles; the Head is appointed by the Commonwealth heads of government. The lead section of the article also states that "George relinquished the title of Emperor of India in June 1948 and instead adopted the new title of Head of the Commonwealth." This change in status should be reflected in the infobox. So, if "Emperor of India" is included in the infobox, then "Head of the Commonwealth" should also be included.

The preview of the infobox with Head of the Commonwealth included, can be seen here.

And to those who say that infobox shouldn't be too long, adding an important title doesn't make it too long, but rather makes it better and more informative. See the infobox at Sushma Swaraj. Peter Ormond (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The infobox at Sushma Swaraj is preposterously long. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that the less information an infobox contains, the more effective it is. I am not convinced that the headship of the Commonwealth is vital information; if presented with the choice of either dropping the imperial title or adding the headship, I would choose the former. Similarly, the headship of the Commonwealth is not included in the Elizabeth II infobox, which is already shorter than this one here. Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As I've also commented at Elizabeth II, I'd support this addition. Including it in the infoboxe is a good representation of the transition from Empire to Commonwealth (as the Emperor of India designation indicates the transition of India from empire to republic and thus the changing political role of the king) and the role of the monarch from political authority to figurehead. —WildComet talk 08:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion (Invited by the bot) Seems like a significant & important title. Not that the info box is too big, but if it was, there is other much less important info in it...I'd start taking some of that less important info out rather than leave this out.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal. I find the new infobox addition logical, useful, informative, and quite interesting. Cordially, History DMZ (HQ ) † (wire ) 01:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude as it's a position with no reserve powers. Also, it's a post that's not restricted to the British monarch. A president of a Commonwealth republic can also be given the post. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the inclusion. The title might not be a royal one but was on official one and quite significant hence should be included. The preview with the title included doesn't seem that long. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per majority of posts at Elizabeth II. It’s unnecessary clutter. Role is not significant enough to include. DeCausa (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support the inclusion. I wouldn’t characterize the inclusion as “unnecessary clutter” but important information that informs readers the transition of British monarchy through history with who has the title and who doesn’t. King George IV wouldn’t have have it but King George VI does that tell readers how the monarchy has changed and what role it has today. Black roses124 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The RfC is now open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty. Please comment there to generate a clear consensus. Thanks.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  17:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Be careful of WP:CANVASS. BTW, Surtsicna hasn't been around the 'pedia, since August 18, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for alerting me. I have removed the pings.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No prob. BTW, one of the other editors, hasn't been around the 'pedia, since August 17, 2021 & another was just blocked for a week, yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The King Who Fooled Hitler
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * D-Day: The King Who Fooled Hitler
 * Operation Fortitude

Line of succession
In answer to the question by in their edit message: "would daughters (ie females) of George VI precede brothers in line at the time?" Wasn't sure if you meant (1) brothers of George VI, or (2) brothers of George's daughters? If (1), yes, George's daughters would precede George's younger brothers in the succession, and in fact that's exactly what happened. When George VI died in 1952, his younger brother Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was still alive. Elizabeth succeeded because as the late King's daughter, she took precedence over the late King's brother. If you meant (2), i.e. at some point after Elizabeth and Anne were born, George VI had a son, then the son would have taken precedence in the line of succession over Elizabeth and Anne, even though younger. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Margaret, not Anne.  Peter Ormond &#128172;  23:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Quite right! and definitely not Ann-Margret! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The rules of male primogeniture, as was, are confusing. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Smoking
In 2015 retired surgeon Harold Ellis, in a lecture on royal operations, to the Royal College of Surgeons, said: "I think George VI should be on every cigarette packet, because he had severe vascular disease in his legs – 99% due to smoking. He had carcinoma of the lung – 99% due to smoking. [And] he died of coronary thrombosis – 90% due to smoking." I don't suppose this suggestion will ever feature in the article, but George's smoking seems to have been very heavy indeed. If the first two episodes of The Crown are to be believed, he was hardly ever without a cigarette. The article currently has this: "The stress of the war had taken its toll on the King's health, made worse by his heavy smoking." In the light of Ellis's comments, this seems to me to be a rather unsound formulation, based on the single source of Judd (1982). I don't have a copy of that book to see what Judd actually says on page 240. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, The Crown also maintains that George was unaware of why his lung had been removed until this was explained to him, by Clement Price Thomas, when symptoms returned, some months later. In the interim only Thomas and Winston Churchill were privy to this information. Can one assume this was all fully researched rather than just invented for dramatic effect. Perhaps one or more of the biographies cover it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Scanning the online version of Judd (1982) here (which has no page numbers), it seems he acknowledges that smoking was the underlying cause of the King's ill health. No big surprise. During the war he had "cut down" from 25 a day to 15, but after the war his rate of smoking increased again. I think that sentence could probably be adjusted to reflect this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr Leahy
Apparently George also sought treatment for his stammer from a "Dr Leahy" in Piccadilly, who also treated Cecil Beaton and Somerset Maugham for the same problem, but apparently without success. I can find virtually nothing about him except this. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Change Tense
I tried to change the future imperfect mention of the plan for the Queen and Prince Philip to be interred beside him, to the fact that she was laid to rest beside him today at Windsor Castle, but was prevented by the protected status of the article. Hopefully an editor with more seniority than me can do so, as this plan has now been accomplished. 87.210.129.43 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Religion
Should we list religion in his infobox? It is listed for his grandson Charles III, and the arguments that religion should be included for Charles also seem to apply to George VI. He was, after all, the British monarch from 1936 to 1952. Векочел (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If it is done for the pages of other monarchs it can be done here too. BogLogs (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * He was the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, so it strikes me that the religion parameter is as much part of his bio as Head of the Commonwealth and his other titles. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed!  BogLogs (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well if you were to include it. One would think that would include all British monarchs & all English monarchs going back to Henry VIII. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has already been updated. There seems to be no reason to me that the other pages of said monarchs after Henry VIII couldn't be updated as well if they haven't been already. BogLogs (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to me we couldn't list Catholic for Henry VII etc. either. BogLogs (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

Infobox and "Head of the Commonwealth"
This also relates to Elizabeth II and Charles III, where there's also been sporadic discussion of the issue. But this article is the most egregious instance, due to the way the title arises mid-reign. Specifically:- Suggest this be moved lower down the IB, ideally out of the "IB royalty" portion entirely and into some other module. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Head of the Commonwealth isn't a royal title. By design, since the entire point is to allow republics, no the vast majority, as members.  So it's misplaced in the "Infobox royalty" section of this multipart-IB.
 * It's in no sense his primary title or office, so it's given entirely undue prominence in the current infobox-complex.
 * Other "royal" articles (apart from the above two) don't include anything at all comparable, making the format itself inconsistent.
 * It's not an office for most of his reign at all, so still less so, and makes it necessary to footnote it within the IB. Not ideal for something that's being given such prominence.
 * An RFC was held on this matter, 17 months ago & the result was, as you see it. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, a whole monarch (and hence, additional article) ago. And the result (as I indeed see) was "The consensus is to include “Head of the Commonwealth” in the infobox, though not necessarily with the reign parameters."  And not necessarily -- or even with any explicit support at all -- in the place where it is at present anomalously is.  So of no relevance whatsoever to my suggestion.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You would need to open up an RFC covering this bios' infobox, as well as Elizabeth II's & Charles III's infoboxes - concerning where to position the "Head of the Commonwealth" title. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)