Talk:William IV/Archive 1

Explanation of reversion
As a policy, Wikipedia prefers the use of names rather than titles to refer to specific individuals.--Theo (Talk) 16:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Re use of titles
Remobed all titles of HRH and Majesty because they are unnecessary - they are reserved for living people as they are forms of address and in an encyclopedia to keep referring to them as "His Royal Highness and His Majesty" looks superfluous and zealous and unprofessional - PLUS this is not done on pages of Henry VIII, Charles I etc.

merging
I've added merge tags to get the articles on his daughters (Charlotte and Elizabeth) merged into this one. One died on the same day she was born, the other only lived a year. Neither was significant or was capable of doing anything significant. (And I love that Charlotte's article has sections titled "Early life" and "Later life" when she lived less than a day--someone was using a template!) Tocharianne 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose- at least for Elizabeth as she was expected to ascend as Queen and was in the direct line of succession. And if you didn't like the section names, it would probably be better to rename or remove them rather than propose redirection. Plus, the move should not have been made until there was more discussion. Astrotrain 16:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record someone else moved the articles, not me. At any rate, we'll hold off on moving Elizabeth until having a discussion here. Tocharianne


 * Support I don't think that just being born into the royal family is sufficient to get an entire article, especially when there's nothing that can be added to rescue an article about an infant from stub-hood. She was third in line for the throne for a grand total of only 3 months, so I think it's exaggerating to say that she was "expected to ascend as Queen". Tocharianne 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If she had lived she would have succeeded in place of Victoria. Note that many infant Royals have their own page. Astrotrain 00:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But the point is that she didn't succeed, she died as an infant. Another point is that there isn't anything that anyone can add to fill out the article. It's a permanent stub. She was born, was third in line for three months, then died. All the information there (date and place of birth/death) are already duplicated in the table on her father's page. Tocharianne 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By that way, which other infant Royals have their own page--I'll try to merge them too >:) Tocharianne


 * Support It was I who moved the articles - because I agree thoroughly with Toch's sentiments. – DBD 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Self-evident with Charlotte. And should imo to be done also with Elizabeth - her presumed heiress-ship does not give sufficient encyclopedic content to the article about her. Mere genealogical things are not worth a biography article, because they are as easy and relevant to be given in father's article. The situation would be other only in case of her having actually succeeded to the throne, imo. Maed 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Unless there were a significant number of articles and other sources available to sustain their own articles.  I note we have an article on Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, the son of JFK who died in 1963 at the age of two days.  If there was significant coverage of Elizabeth, then I might change my mind.  Good luck finding it.--Wehwalt 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Astrotrain has made some additions to Elizabeth's article. Take a look at them and see if you change your mind on the merge. Otherwise we can go ahead with it. Tocharianne 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to redirect Elizabeth's article here but user:Astrotrain has reverted me twice claiming there is no consensus, which I think she is misinterpreting to mean unanimity. Does anyone have any idea what to do next? Tocharianne 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Duke of Clarence's position on abolition
There's a sentence in the article that reads: "He also spoke in favour of the abolition of slavery..."

This appears to be in error. The Duke of Clarence was one of the opponents of abolition, not in favour of it. Refereces: (1). BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/parliament_article_03.shtml (2). BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/content/articles/2007/02/22/abolitionists_linda_ali_feature.shtml (3). Clarkson: http://books.google.com/books?id=aFwSAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA202&lpg=RA2-PA202&dq=%22duke+of+clarence%22+abolition&source=web&ots=4I-EFt6l6a&sig=MMGoJrsFTy27Wc5NEP-h69fzG7U#PPP12,M1

...Roy 66.156.105.87 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got to check my references, which would be Zeigler's bio of William and "The Royal Dukes". I think it was a bit more nuanced than the bald statement.--Wehwalt 02:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My addition to this section is to add details to this far too laudatory page about Clarence's vocal and unshaking proslavery views. Hochschild has many more details about Clarence's debauched conduct during his brief time in the West Indies. Previous version treated this important fact -- that he was a well-connected spokesperson for slave owning plantation owners -- too lightly. johnpdeever

Constitution of Hanover
The article states that after William IV's death, the new King of Hanover revoked the constitution which had been introduced without his consent. However the King of Hanover's (Duke of Cumberland's) own article says that he then passed a patent which passed the same laws. I think it needs clarification whether the Duke was just objecting to his consent not having been asked. or whether he made a substantive changes to the constitution brought in under William IV. Dudleymiles 17:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the changes, based on biographies of Ernst and William. The bottom line is, King Ernst revoked the consitution, but said the laws that were passed while the constitution was in force remained valid.  A patent is the instrument by which King Ernest revoked the constitution.--Wehwalt 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Three miscarriages
I don't see any mention in the article of the three stillbirths. DrKay 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll put them in. But to put sill births in the issue section is very over the top.--Wehwalt 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Patriline
Do we need a 36 generation patriline in this article? I really think it clutters things up.--Wehwalt 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like it personally, but User:Mark J has been adding them to all the British kings. DrKay 08:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

William IV- the oldest person ever to assume the throne?
"When George IV died in 1830 without surviving legitimate issue, the Duke of Clarence ascended the Throne, aged 64, as William IV - the oldest person ever to assume the throne."

I don't think this is accurate. At least some popes were older than him when they assumed the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Put in English or British. Obviously there have been older kings when they've assumed the thrones of other nations.  I think it is implied, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He is the oldest person assumed the throne in British, English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.123.244 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * True. We're getting near the point where Chuck will be older if he succeeds his mother, and we may want to put a footnote if there's sufficient numbers of people adding that.  But I'm not in a hurry about it.  Liz seems in good health, and judging by her mom's age could be good for another fifteen years.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible additinal references
A search on the London Gazette for "Duke of Clarence" (restricted to his lifetime) returns 144 hits, for "Prince William Henry" 16 hits. Amongst these should be some of his Royal Navy promotions, his original creation as Duke of Clarence and so on. David Underdown (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No doubt, no doubt. I'd also suggest citing directly to the Zeigler biography, and to the Fulford book, "Royal Dukes" about him and his brothers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that the Gazette is the definitive record for the types of things I mentioned above. David Underdown (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, for sure! I just meant for other things that will have to be refed if this article is to keep FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Propose we try to make this FA of the Day
I suggest we try, once we are within a month, to get in to propose making this FA of the Day on August 21, William's birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Too long
This article was already long. It has been extended by a further 20% in the last few weeks. The article is beginning to lose focus as discussion of some individual events, which were already covered in general terms, are extended with details. I would like to plea for more moderation in adding material, and potentially a removal of less relevant material. DrKay (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is fine, I will work on it. Judiciously.  I don't plan to add anything more, and I've cut it back about seven percent from the peak.  Feel free to cut anything you feel needs cutting.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be edited by reducing redundancy of detail repeated elsehwere. I removed "the title "Mrs" being assumed at the start of her stage career to explain an inconvenient pregnancy[30] and "Jordan" because she had "crossed the water" from Ireland to Britain." since in this context the name is enough; if the fact that she had a previous pregnancy is important to this article it could be said more simply, and the 'explanation' of the choice of Jordan is not needed at all.  Perhaps replace with a 'see main artcile' instead?193.61.220.3 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought. I think a minimum of biographical detail on a woman William lived with for twenty years and by whom he had ten children is not misplaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hess-Castle (not)
Could you guys please have it out on talk page about the Hesse-C(K)assel thing? I'm not quite sure what the issue is, but it would be good if it were resolved, because I want to suggest this for Today's Featured Article for Aug 21 (William's birthday) and I would hate to see any unresolved disputes when people start looking at the article. What's up with this?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hess-Castle" is much better. I say we switch to that. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Suits. Shall we link to Hess Corporation?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As this stupidity is still continuing I suppose I better make a sensible reply: I do not comprehend why it is necessary to insert a piped link which goes to a redirect. The editors making those edits need to explain their rationale. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Numeral Dispute - Incorrectly numbered monarch
William IV is incorrectly named. He is not the 4th William to reign over the United Kingdom, he's the 1st. England has had 3 kings named William previously (I, II, & III) and Scotland has had one, yet he is still widely, officially and wrongly known as William IV, just as Elizabeth II is also incorrectly named.[]. AllanHainey (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have good reliable sources that say that the British government are incorrect in determining his number? Surely they have the right to decide that the English numbering system is continuous with the United Kingdom.  Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Factually it is incorrect as the United Kingdom is different from England and Scotland. Identifying a monarch as the 4th of that name for the UK gives the incorrect impression that his 3 predecessors also ruled over the UK, which they didn't.


 * There is no explicit statement in the Treaty of Union on the numbering of the monarch, though it does make reference to Scottish peers (subjects not being worth mention then) having the same rights and priviledges as English peers & any peers of Great Britain. There is also the general principle shown in many places that the 2 countries are equal partners in the new Great Britain (later UK) & this implies that one not be given precedence over the other by having its line of monarchs elevated over the other by the transfer of an English (or Scottish) system of numbering monarchs to the UK, which is a new creation and should have its own numbering system.


 * Also it states "And that all Peers of Scotland, and their successors to their Honours and Dignities, shall from and after the Union be Peers of Great Britain, and have Rank and Precedency next and immediately after the Peers of the like orders and degrees in England at the time of the Union, and before all Peers of Great Britain of the like orders and degrees, who may be Created after the Union, and shall be tryed as Peers of Great Britain, and shall Enjoy all Privileges of Peers, as fully as the Peers of England do now, or as they, or any other Peers of Great Britain may hereafter Enjoy the same " Extending the principles of Peers to Monarchs this seems to support the view too, in that the line of naming/numerals is an honour and dignity (in the phraseology of the time) and relates to rank and precedency too, and placing one line of naming/numbering (English in this case) over another (the Scottish) is removing the 'honour and dignity' and 'rank and precedency' of the Scottish in favour of the English. AllanHainey (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The numbering of the bulk of English/British/UK monarchs is far too well established for us to change. Churchill said, at the time of Elizabeth II's accession, that a monarch should take the higher of their Scottish or English number, and that if Britain ever had a King James or Robert they would take their Scottish number. PatGallacher (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do we not take the London Gazette's report of William's proclamation as authoritative?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Churchill, while generally well respected on constitutional matters has no authority in this. In any case I'm not suggesting we unilaterally change the numeral of William, only that we note that there is a dispute over his naming and that it is misleading.
 * Personally I wouldn't take the London Gazette as being indicative of anything other than the opinions of monarchy itself & its agents, which at that time would have considered themselves more English than anything else (English & British being practically synonymous in the upper classes at that time and Scottishness being quite looked down on). AllanHainey (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not 'incorrect'. A monarch can give himself whatever number he or she wants; that is part of the Royal Prevogative.

To illustrate: there have only been seven Kings of Sweden called Carl, yet the current King of Sweden is Carl XVI.The first modern King of Italy was Vittorio Emanuele II despite the fact there wasn't a Vittorio Emanuele I of Italy. There's only ever been one Queen Elizabeth of Canada, yet the current Queen is the second of that name. There were seventeen King of France who ruled over France, yet the last one was Louis XVIII; and so on.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Royal Navy Privilege
Has there been any discussion of including William's granting the Royal Navy the privilege of drinking his health sitting? This may seem trivial, but the reason he did so was his own experience as a naval midshipman and officer of trying to stand in the restricted space of even a large man-o'-war's mess to drink the monarch's health. This seems to me a character indication of his willingness to learn from experience and to use his authority to pur that experience to practical ends. There are numerous literary sources for this action (C. S. Forester among them), but I have no scholarly sources at this time, and no date. Originalylem (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there has been some discussion, but there were questions raised both as to historical accuracy and whether it is rather trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The tradition is also accredited to Charles II and George IV. For a reliable source see http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheet_loyal_toast.htm DrKay (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Surviving"
Accidentally hit ENTER while typing my edit summary for removing "surviving", so here's an expanded form of what I was going to write — We read that "Since his two older brothers died without leaving surviving legitimate issue, he inherited the throne when he was sixty-four years old." No errors here, but it's odd wording: why do we need "surviving"? If William's nephews and nieces died before William's brothers did, the brothers didn't leave any issue. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but it conveys to the reader that they did have children (actually one child) who did not survive them. As the death of Princess Charlotte is important to the article and to William's life, I'd rather have seen that left in.  Not a huge point, but I'm not sure if it really constituted an error, or whether it is purely stylistic, inclined to believe the latter.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

King William's nickname.
As far as I know, he was never nicknamed "the sailor king". He was popularly known as "Sailor Bill", or in rather more elegant terminology (that is reflected in a large number of pub names) "Nautical William".87.115.14.242 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate it, but I've got a set of two books on him called "The Sailor King" to begin with.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but some later author's book title doesn't constitute a nickname. He was known in his lifetime as Sailor Bill. The many pubs called "The Nautical William" were so named during his lifetime or in his honour at his death. I know of no contemporary reference to "the sailor king"84.92.228.21 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, do you have reliable sources showing that this was a contemporary nickname?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How about the note towards the foot of http://www.nicepaintings.org/works/84135; and paragraph 12 of http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2003/4/10/136559.html for “Sailor Bill”?

I can’t bring evidence for “Nautical William”, except that I read about it many years ago in a dictionary of pub names. I might also have seen someting in a local pub called the Nautical William.84.92.228.21 (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1830 Christopher North wrote a new version of God Save the King in William's honour: "Long may King William thence/justice in love

dispense... /God save our Sailor King/great be his flourishing." I can't say that it received wide circulation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Found about a score of this usage in The Times during and after his reign. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the two newspaper references inserted as footnotes 1 and 2 are less than convincing. I do not think they constitute evidence that "our/the sailor king" was used as a nickname. They seem to be a straightforward adjective/noun description. However, I am not going to contest the point further, since I have no further evidence to bring on the subject.87.115.14.242 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This could apply to the later one, but the capitalization and inverted commas from the 1831 use, preserved from the original, seems to indicate otherwise. A report from 1845 of the inauguration of the statue of the "Sailor King" , and others when the phrase is used alone, also seems persuasive. Should I use one of these instead?--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New images
Although this article already has many images, I recently uploaded a couple new ones that may be helpful. Feel free to use or not use. Dcoetzee 11:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Accession of William IV
A plaque in Bushy House, now part of the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington, notes that, when the then Duke of Clarence was woken and had to leave his bed to be informed that his father had died and that he was now King, he replied that he was returning to bed as he had "always wished to sleep with a Queen”.

Roy Carter (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info; he succeeded his brother by the way. Most historians I've read (Zeigler, Fulford) discount that story, though they seem to consider it a cute tale.  Not worth including, we have many William anecdotes with far more solid foundations.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the inaccuracy of the story is obvious if it says that he had to leave his bed to be informed that his father had died and that he was now King because William IV succeeded his brother. Am I missing something? Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With the exception of "brother" for "father", it is a fairly widespread tale about William. His biographers consider it doubtful, and as there are tales about him that are more solidly grounded in fact, I did not consider it worth including when I was working over that part of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

William IV's other children
King Billy had illegitimate children, why aren't they in the Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They were at one time, but we have ten of them, for gawd's sake. They are listed in the article, and there is a direct link from the infobox.  Why do you feel more is needed?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I hadn't noticed it. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue refers to all biological children. His illegitimate children are therefore his issue and they are far more notable than his legitimate children who died as infants. There is no reason to link to the article about an infant who died 3 months old while not linking to his children who actually overlived him and had careers. I propose either reinserting William's illegitimate issue in the infobox (so that all his children are listed) or removing his legitimate issue (so that none of his children are listed). Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Issue has special implications when it comes to a king. I question your assertion that the illegitimate children are more notable than two girls who, had they lived, would have deprived Victoria of queenship.  Plus, the way you had it, they were lumped all together.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The illegitimate children are equally notable. Perhaps, it's time to reflect this on the monarchial infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Issue always means issue, whether it is issue of a king or issue of a beggar. "Issue" refers to all of one's biological children. The legitimate child that lived longer died 3 months old. You say you question my assertion that William IV's illegitimate children are more notable than William IV's legitimate children. Princess Elizabeth of Clarence, William IV's legitimate daughter who lived longer than any of her legitimate siblings, is mentioned by 27 books. At the same time, George FitzClarence, William IV's eldest illegitimate child, is mentioned by 598. Now you tell me which one is considered more notable by historians. Anyway, what do you mean by "they were lumped all together"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Political record
At the end of the "Early life" section, it says:
 * William's record was inconsistent and cannot, like many politicians of the time, be certainly ascribed to a single party.

This is ambiguous, and I can't tell what it means. It might be either one of:
 * William's record was inconsistent and, like many politicians of the time, cannot be certainly ascribed to a single party.

Or:


 * William's record was inconsistent and cannot be certainly ascribed to a single party, as it could for many politicians of the time.

Since the source is not online I can't decide based on it, but it'd be nice if someone with access to that book could check it out. (I tend toward the former, but it's better to verify.) 192.91.172.42 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I think User:DrKay wrote that sentence, I think really to balance King George's prediction, you might want to ask on his talk page or refer him here.  Since William had a lifetime seat and no need to please a party leadership, he did pretty much as he wanted in the House of Lords.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Translation
There is no need to translate William's name into German. Next, you'll be translating Victoria's name into Hindi because she was Empress of India. As for "Silly Billy", it is a common misconception (and yes, you can find websites that say it) that this nickname applied to the King. It was much more commonly applied to Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, the King's cousin.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, read George I of Great Britain and George II of Great Britain and you'll see the translation there. As long as they were also Kings of Hannover, a GERMAN state, their names should appear in German too. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw them. There is no translation for George III of the United Kingdom or George IV of the United Kingdom.  Seems to me honours are about even and it comes down to editorial preference, a matter in which you bear the burden of building consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * George I and II were both German-born native German speakers who became British as adults. They were known by their German names in their lifetime. All kings after George II were British-born native English speakers who only used their English names. DrKay (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Last monarch
The introduction should mention that William IV was the last British monarch to execrise political power. No UK monarch since his reign has intervened in politics. (92.10.21.11 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC))
 * What source says that no other monarch has intervened in politics? Surely Victoria intervened during the Bedchamber crisis? Edward VIII is also often accused of interference, and is supposed by some to have been removed because of it. Even the present monarch, Elizabeth II, has come under criticism for appointing ministers without consulting Parliament. DrKay (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

William IV was the last monarch to intervene in politics against the advice of his ministers. Edward VIII had to be forced to abdicate because he wasn't prepared to be a constitutional monarch. (92.10.21.11 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC))
 * No, that is the point of using the Bedchamber crisis as my example. The argument in favour of Victoria's interference goes like this: Melbourne informally advised the Queen to reject Peel's demands but Melbourne had already resigned, so he should not have given her advice. Victoria had already asked Peel to commission a government, but instead of following his advice, she asked Melbourne what to do and he told her. As he was no longer her minister, Victoria was not bound by his advice, and it was unconstitutional for him to proffer it. (See Victoria's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for this interpretation.)
 * The argument that Edward VIII interfered in politics is largely based on his actions with regard to the fascist powers. It is claimed that he opposed the imposition of sanctions against Italy after it invaded Ethiopia, and refused to meet the deposed Emperor, against the advice of his ministers. (I believe this can be found in Philip Ziegler's official biography of Edward.)
 * I still don't see you providing any references, and even if you did so, I wouldn't be comfortable trying to integrate the claim into the article when the issue is disputable.
 * I do fully accept that at no point has the Queen rejected or ignored ministerial advice, and that even during the various constitutional crises of her realms she has always acted on the advice of the legally appointed minister. I say only that she has been criticised for following such advice in the face of opposition. DrKay (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than the IP's proposed statement, which is vague and unsourced, I favour the existing language, which spells out just what William did and avoids arguments like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

William's treatment
Note may be taken with regards to the Court Physicians at HM`s bedside, in that cocaine and opium were administered. The catalogues of Chinese medicines available to the Court(such as Mah Huang or Ephedra Sinica) may have been disregarded, given the climate of confrontation with the Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.110.212.78 (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but William had asthma, especially in June, for many years before his death. I'm sure they tried everything over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Inflation
I've pulled the CPI inflation figures from the coronation values. Coronations are either capital or GDP expenses, and shouldn't be inflated in CPI terms (the relationship between bread for the poor and circuses for the masses itself changes over time. Inflating past circuses in terms of changing bread prices isn't good). I've let the personal allowance for Mrs. Jones stand, the sum is far smaller, and even though she would have been using it to service debts rather than engage in consumer price spending, it is sufficiently close that I feel it could be fairly argued. Could another editor decide if using CPI to inflate the personal allowance or stipend of a defacto of a King is reasonable when she's not purchasing the consumer bundle?

We could get closer to a reasonable measure by using Measuring Worth's UK Purchasing Power series for Average Earnings. This series will get us closer because of the non-CPI expenditures of workers over time. For example, inflating £1000 in 1800 to 2008 gives:
 * £54,100.00 using the retail price index
 * £798,000.00 using average earnings

For the 1830:2008 series there are arguments to be made as to why the Average Earnings series better represents capital, government and GDP share expenditure than the Retail Price Index for prior to 1830. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to leave it without attempting a modern day equivalent; I think it is silly to try and would prefer it if FAC would just leave out the inevitable demands for today's equivalent.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FAC is demanding modern equivalents? Oh dear.  Next time you notice a demand for modern equivalents, feel free to ping me.  They're very problematic.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewers are. Yes, I know it is ridiculous to compare today to a time when ordinary people could hire hot and cold running footmen and think nothing of the expense.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

page move
this page should be moved to william iv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.220 (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) for policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Sorry about the inadvertent rollback.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

12 Illegitimate Children?
The article states " Deep in debt, the Duke made multiple attempts towards marrying a wealthy heiress, but his suits were unsuccessful.[43] However, when the Duke's niece, Princess Charlotte, the second-in-line to the throne, died in childbirth in 1817, the King was left with twelve children, but no legitimate grandchildren."

I know there are the 10 from Dorothea Bland and William who drownded but who is the twelfthLewisdl (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you misunderstand. William was not yet king.  "The King" refers to George III, who has been referred to that way a number of times in the article.  Later, of course, when William becomes king, "the King" refers to him.  I think it's clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ah that explains it, sorry for the confussionLewisdl (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The pages for the two infants, Princess Charlotte of Clarence and Princess Elizabeth of Clarence should be merged to William IV of the United Kingdom. To have an infobox, three sections and a pedigree for someone who lived for a matter of hours, or even months, represents a complete loss of perspective. There is no way that such people are notable enough to merit their own page, which largely represent cookie-cutter templating. ("Early Life" for someone who died the day she was born? or even three months later? Ridiculous.) This is exactly why WP:NOTINHERITED exists. There is more text for Elizabeth, but it appears to be largely WP:OR in non-WP:RS. Proposal already reached consensus three years ago, but was never successfully implemented due to repeated reverts by sole opponent. Agricolae (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection, so long as any text to be added here is discussed. I hate to sideline the narrative to discuss two very brief-lived children more than minimally.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. PatGallacher (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Minimally' is all the text they merit (sort of my point in making the nomination). The goal here is not to dramatically affect W IV, but to eliminate two pages that never should have been made. If a consensus to merge emerges, I would welcome (encourage even) discussion on how much (or how little) to transfer. It looks to me like the brief mention in the main narrative suffices, and I would simply recommend replacing that table of Issue: Legitimate with a one-to-two-sentence bullet point for each. Agricolae (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Better yet, nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that. I only proposed merger over deletion because an argument could be made for preserving the redirects. Still, I would like to see the Legitimate issue table converted to text (particularly since giving both the link and the full name would become superfluous). I never liked tables for children - I just think they look awkward an unencyclopedic: if the information is worth giving, write a bleeding sentence. All the more so here when the legitimate children are tabled and the illegitimate children listed. Were it entirely up to me, I would probably replace the table with:
 * Charlotte Augusta Louisa, born and died 27 March 1819, Hanover
 * Elizabeth Georgiana Adelaide, born 10 December 1820, died 4 March 1821, St. James's Palace
 * but the information on those pages must have seemed important to someone, so I am open to be convinced that more should be included. Agricolae (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I haven't liked to interfere too much with that sort of thing, it seemed relatively harmless.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, given that PatGallacher has already converted the other pages to redirects, I am going to go ahead and make this change. Agricolae (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Political summary for section 0
Hello. I suggest that in section 0, we summarize section William IV of the United Kingdom, because I think political developments are a little underrepresented there.

Specifically, I suggest replacing this section 0 sentence:


 * Though William did not engage in politics as much as his brother or his father, he was the last monarch to appoint a Prime Minister contrary to the will of Parliament.

with this paragraph:


 * In 1834-35, William dismissed Prime Minister Melbourne and replaced him with Robert Peel, causing a general election. But Peel's Tory party lost the election to Melbourne's Whigs, preventing him from governing effectively and forcing William to re-appoint Melbourne just four months later. For the first time, a monarch's influence on public opinion had been too weak to turn around an election. William was the last monarch to try to appoint a prime minister against the will of Parliament.

Additionally, I suggest inserting this sentence in section 0:


 * During William's reign, the importance of the House of Commons grew, weakening the House of Lords.

I did make the above changes today, assuming it was covered by WP:BOLD, but it was reverted immediately. The reverter however didn't seem to have specific objections, only telling me to discuss it on the talk page. (?)

Kindly, 84.130.13.221 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of that is already in the article. Does it bear repeating?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct, it is already mentioned. As I said above, I summarized section Legacy. (I guess nearly all of section 0 "is already in the article". I assumed the point of section 0 is to summarize the article.) -- Does it bear repeating? I suppose there'll be different opinions on that ... In my opinion yes, it seems like a turning point. Previously the monarch could appoint a prime minister, now he can't anymore. Seems like a shift of political power significant enough for section 0. --84.130.13.221 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The monarch has the power to appoint the PM, you may recall speculation after the last election that she might have a choice to call upon to try to form a government. At least three times since 1984 the monarch has made her own decision about who shall be PM, with it accepted she (or he) had the casting vote and the party in power unable to decide.  Salisbury in 1885, Churchill in 1940, Home in 1963.  I see it more a part of a process, after all only a few years later, Victoria used her powers to keep Melbourne in office and Peel out with the Bedchamber Affair.
 * I would have no objection to inserting something about William being the last King to dismiss a PM (not counting elections) against his will, with some scholarly comment on it. Something a little more scholarly than Bushy House, worthy location though it be (William found it so!) I could research something if required. I'm not as happy about the Commons becoming more powerful at the expense of the Lords, after all, there was a peer PM through most of William's reign.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Death
Queen Adelaide attended the dying William devotedly, not going to bed herself for more than ten days
 * – Any word on the cause of his death? Sca (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why was he stopped from serving at sea?

 * Why was he stopped from serving at sea, as stated in William IV of the United Kingdom? Are the reasons stated there (i) recent guesses, or (ii) old guesses made by William IV before or after he got the throne, or (iii) known absolutely? I suspect that the real reason may be that, as the years passed, it looked less and less likely that George IV would father an heir, and the Admiralty saw that William would likely become King later, and thus that they better keep him safe on land away from the risks of being at sea, but they did not tell him that, perhaps due to some secrecy rule. And he was steadily getting older. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was any real expectation that William would become king during his active naval career. His older brothers were reasonably expected to finish sowing their wild oats and fruitfully multiply, and since George III was still relatively young for a king, there was no immediate concern.  And George IV did father an heir, Princess Charlotte of Wales, it was her death that left such a mess. But while William was at sea or likely to go, the succession seemed well and truly established, with William somewhat surplus to requirements. I'm traveling and don't have my sources, but William's qualifications for a command in competition with other officers seem suspect to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry table
Policy does not specify how many generations of ancestry this or other articles may include, and the framework of Wikipedia allows up to seven to be displayed. This one was cut down to three generations of William I'V's parentage a year and a half ago, whereas most royal bios on English Wikipedia have long included five. We have been in the process of reasoning this matter out to take into account differing editors' perspectives and the likely interests of readers, deciding through discussion whether essentially only ancestors up to great-grandparents should be displayed, because any more are less likely to be mentioned in published histories as having had discernible influence on a person's life, or whether those who would prefer to see at a glance a generation or two more should be allowed to do so if other readers are not burdened with excess. The "only great-grandparents" standard may be a reasonable default guide for ancestors who get mentioned in prose content in Wikipedia articles, but ancestry tables serve a different and broader kind of informational purpose (in alluding to distinguished individuals, status, nationalities, kinships and trends in recent ancestral generations), being: 1. standard in Wikipedia dynastic bios where ancestry tends to be of unique importance to the subject's historical and political role, 2. offered in a drop-down table, visible only to those who click on the "Ancestry" section, which is thus optimized for less exclusionary criteria than for the prose portions, and 3. compact presentations of allusive, as well as explicatory, information, heavy with links readily available for readers interested in pursuing more data of its kind. William IV is a suitable candidate for display of at least four generations of his ancestry in this format. FactStraight (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FACR criterion 4, featured articles should stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a discussion of this somewhere?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is overspill from Talk:Lady Jane Grey. It'll be an absolute travesty if Flyte35 isn't blocked for edit-warring. Reverting that page 6 times in the space of 2 hours is well beyond reason. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it's all the same question: Should we continue to display five generations in ancestry charts? Most royal bios on English Wikipedia have long included five generations. This one had five generations until DrKay cut it down on 8/20/17 on the (quite reasonable) grounds that it was unreferenced. But now we've included sourcing so it seems to me entirely appropriate to include a standard ancestry chart. But it's not terribly useful to have to have this same discussion again and again. Over at WikiProject: Genealogy it says that the regular template for ahnentafels for ancestry sections in biographic articles "typically overviews five generations of entries." If we want to have a meaningful and productive discussion about whether or not it's a good idea to do that, it would likely work better to have the discussion over WikiProject Genealogy. Flyte35 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added on 3/19/2017 as a "proposal" for "typical overview of four generations". So, 18 months is not long enough for new consensus to form on a local page but 22 months is long enough for consensus at a semi-active WikiProject to be imposed project-wide? WP:CONLEVEL. DrKay (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt there was a discussion that led to consensus. Perhaps it's worth it to try to have one. I found there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9, which might be a good place to move this (and this, talk), FactStraight, DrKay, Wehwalt, Dimadick, Yellowdesk, and Celia Homeford. Flyte35 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"King William IV" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King William IV. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

– All pages of monarchs of the United Kingdom have been moved to suppress the expression "of the United Kingdom" from their titles. I suggest that we do not exclude William IV from this recent trend and do the same for his page. The rationale behind this particular suggestion is consistency and cohesion, based on aforementioned reasoning, as well as recognizing that he is indeed the most notorious of all William IVs. In doing so we should also rename the already existing disambiguation page "William IV" to "William IV (disambiguation)". Let the discussions begin! M. Armando (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * William IV of the United Kingdom → William IV
 * William IV → William IV (disambiguation)
 * Note: the first "new" page title is a page with content and must also be requested to be renamed. This request has been modified to reflect that fact.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 06:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. "William IV" is certainly the WP:COMMONNAME. And looking over the disambig page, I think he is also the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And as the nominator states, he is the last United Kingdom monarch to not be titled at the more concise common name, so WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT also support this move. Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 September 2020
 * Support. Consistent with other UK monarchs, and appears to be primary topic with an order of magnitude more page views than others on the dab page.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 09:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Rreagan007. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 18 September 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.

Slavery
It is incorrect to say that slavery was illegal in the UK, as a reading on the Wikipedia article on the case of James Somerset will reveal.Mikesiva (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does not say it was illegal. It says it was not legal, which is the same as 'Slavery had never been authorized by statute within England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield found it also to be unsupported within England by the common law' (Somerset v Stewart). You said it was "still legal", which is in contradiction to both articles and all the sources. DrKay (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that is absolute nonsense! The ruling by William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield only made it illegal to transport a slave out of England against his will (do read that Wikipedia article as well, especially the last two paragraphs on the sub-section "Somersett's case", where the following sentence appears: "This was not an end to slavery, as this only confirmed it was illegal to transport a slave out of England and Wales against his will."). Slavery itself continued in England after 1772. Mansfield himself clarified that ruling in later judgments, especially the 1785 Thames Ditton case. If you read "Black Ivory" by James Walvin, one of Britain's leading historians on British slavery, he makes that clear too. Also in the Wikipedia article, other historians such as Kenneth Little, Gretchen Gerzina, Folarin Shyllon, and Mora Dickson point out that slaves continued to be bought and sold in the British Isles after 1772. Primary sources such as Granville Sharp himself, newspaper clippings from the National Archives, and Carl Wadstrom provide evidence to show that slavery continued in England, and therefore continued to be legal.Mikesiva (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I imagine that the focus of the debates was on colonial slavery, perhaps it would be best to delete the allusion to slavery in Britain.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt (talk), I totally agree with that suggestion.Mikesiva (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I directly quoted from the article in question, word for word. So, I've clearly read it. DrKay (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant the parliamentary debate, not the article. No offense intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to have mistaken my reply to Mike as a reply to you. I thought your suggestion was to remove the seven words 'although not legal in the United Kingdom' from the "Service and politics" section. I am now not clear what you are suggesting. On the face it, it looks like you are suggesting a more substantial cut, which I think would lead to the article lacking comprehensiveness as the paragraph about the parliamentary debate is the only part of the article dealing with slavery except for two brief clauses in the lead and legacy sections. DrKay (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting removing the seven words in the manner you stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

TFA appearance
Usually, the following note is left on the FAC nominator's talk page but Emworth is long retired and many other editors are involved in it: This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 20, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/September 20, 2021.—Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Naval service
The article says that William never received a command after being promoted to flag rank, as do his Royal Naval Biography and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entries. However other sources such as Michael Phillips and Rif Winfield  say that he raised his flag on HMS London for a period in 1793 with Richard Goodwin Keats as his flag captain. Does anyone have any other sources that can corroborate this and should it be mentioned? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

On a related point, could you please explain your edit summary:. The source at the end of the sentence says he was the rear admiral of the Valiant. The article now reads to me as though he was captain of the Valiant and then promoted from that position to an unconnected post as a rear-admiral. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * He didn't serve as rear-admiral on Valiant, he was captain of Valiant when/just before he was promoted to rear-admiral. He commissioned Valiant in May 1790 to serve in the Spanish Armament and she was paid off in the same year. He was promoted to rear-admiral on 3 December 1790 (all per Winfield). This uses the Winfield information to create a pretty accessible table of Valiant's captains, showing he left the ship six days before being promoted to rear-admiral. I don't think I have access to the source used by this article, could you perhaps provide a quote from it? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "in 1788 and the next year was appointed the Rear Admiral of HMS Valiant." DrKay (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright that's fair enough, but I'd suggest that that source simply misunderstands the situation, being as it is not written by a naval historian. I think the work of John Knox Laughton is safer on the subject. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Addition: per the Dictionary of National Biography "In the following May the prince was appointed to command the Valiant in the fleet got together in consequence of the dispute with Spain relative to Nootka Sound. The Valiant was paid off on 27 Nov., and on 3 Dec. the Duke of Clarence was specially promoted to be rear-admiral." Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Taking this opportunity to also question the infobox and associated assertations that his last "active service" in the navy was as a rear-admiral. Firstly I'm not sure that stipulating his last rank in active service is relevant considering the majority of naval officers would be on the active list until the day they died - the notion of active service certainly wasn't the same as it was today. More importantly however, in April 1814 he raised his flag on the frigate HMS Jason as the commander of Louis XVIII's escort back to France - does this not count as active naval service? He was by this time Admiral of the Fleet. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * says that London was in refit when he was appointed to command her, but this was cancelled when he made a speech criticising Pitt the Younger for going to war. Heathcote also says (p. 259) that Clarence's 1814 flagship was HMS Impregnable (1810), which is briefly mentioned in our article on that ship. Heathcote also reports an incident in 1827 (or thereabouts), when Clarence appropriated a squadron of ships at Portsmouth and went to sea with them for ten days, without the Admiralty knowing where they had gone. Alansplodge (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The ten-day joyride is in the article, dated to 1828 (per ODNB, which says 10 days starting on 31 July 1828). DrKay (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed
In the Relationships and marriage section, there is a quote that reads: Mrs. Jordan is a very good creature, very domestic and careful of her children. To be sure she is absurd sometimes and has her humours. But there are such things more or less in all families. That direct quotation is presented without verifiable citation. As this is a feature article recently highlighted on the project’s main page, I am hesitant to append an inline template to the passage and thus categorize the article as amongst those needing additional citations for verification. What should be done about it? I would take care of it myself, but whatever book it is from would be one to which I would have no accesss. Thoughts? Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  14:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 UPDATE : I just searched, but to no avail. Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  14:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably in Fulford but I can't lay my hands on my copy at present so I've added a cite to another bio.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  10:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Active service rank
Hi, I know this has been discussed in part before, but I thought I'd start afresh. I believe that it has been determined that William did not actively serve as a rear-admiral, albeit getting very close to doing so. Thus, if one does not count his later escapades as admiral of the fleet, surely his last rank in active service would be post-captain? I would also question why the article provides his supposed last active service rank instead of just his last rank? I'm not sure I've ever seen an article take that path before. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove the rank parameter. It's not completed on the other monarch's articles and they all held the final rank of commander-in-chief, which is part of being of head of state. DrKay (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What about Scotland?
William IV is only William IV in England. in Scotland, He is William III. Make it William IV/III or something like that. 68.1.40.169 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He was known as William IV in Scotland too. It is a question of the Royal prerogative.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See the section on use of ordinals in England and Scotland in the wiki article on Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Sbishop (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles, style, honours and arms
I bring it to you that in the above mentioned section, the following text is to be displayed, as to be consistent with most other British monarchs and for simplicity of reading a list of the titles that were held by William IV:-

"Titles and styles

 * 21 August 1765 – 16 May 1789: His Royal Highness Prince William
 * 16 May 1789 – 26 June 1830: His Royal Highness The Duke of Clarence and St Andrews
 * 26 June 1830 – 20 June 1837: His Majesty The King

As King, William used the following title: "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, King of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg" "  WiltedXXVI (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Consistency is not an issue, nor a reason to keep material in an article. The information was removed because it was a chunk of uncited information in a Featured Article. I see you're adding references now, so won't comment further. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Condensing of infobox
Would it be possible for the section regarding William’s reign as King of Hanover to be incorporated into his concurrent reign as King of the UK and simply include who succeeded him in each kingdom? (Succeeded in the UK by Victoria, and in Hanover by Ernest Augustus). 163.47.164.210 (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

William IV was Anglican
He held Anglican beliefs, he was baptized in the Anglican Church, these articles are so damn inconsistent! TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)