Talk:George III/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Enclosure Acts

How about we add something about the Enclosure Acts? Quite an important development during his time as King.

Ministries

I think the list of ministries is too confusing and not formatted well. I would prefer if these ministries were specifically discussed in the article, rather than being merely listed. I will incorporate information on the ministries and their relationship with George III into the article, and, if consent is had, remove the list. -- Emsworth 00:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I'd better remove it now. (It may be reinstated if improved.) I observe a greeat number of inaccuracies (no offence to the compiler); these include: failure to match w/ both Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the 1911 EB, mentioning the "Earl of Townshend" (a peerage which seems to have never existed), mentioning the "Marquis of Rockingham." -- Emsworth 00:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A tabulated and complete list will eventually be required, not just for George III, but for all the monarchs since. I've done my clumsy best. The list will need to be improved certainly. Merely to erase it is juvenile. Wetman 02:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The removal was merely temporary, until a better list could be created and agreed upon. In any event, I would disagree that the list is necessary. The various ministries are, I think, adequately covered in the article. The rest could perhaps be addressed in Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I think. -- Emsworth 03:00, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's also peculiar that all mention of Hannah Lightfoot has been expunged. It is important to provide accurate information about widely-reported myths. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Emsworth, there is no need for a useless list of minsiters who served under George III. This is an article about the King, not a list of ministers, which serves no use to anyone. There is no need for mentioning Hannah Lightfoot as well, because it is complete nonsense. If you must mention it in a footnote, not the main article Astrotrain the Great
Of course it's worse nonsense to maintain that Hannah Lightfoot is appropriately dealt with by expunging all mention from the article, footnote or non-footnote, though this seems to be the current approach : both have been removed. - Nunh-huh 20:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've restored the Hannah Lightfoot notes, NH. The timing was coincidental; I did not see your notes here until after I restored it. Arno 04:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Marquis" is the traditional spelling of "marquess."
No, one's French, the other is the English spelling.

Reference format

I've removed the "Retrieved ..." portion, because I believe that it unnecessarily clutters up the section and because I find it unnecessary. But otherwise I agree with the form Jdforrester has employed. Netoholic claims that I am straying from the "standard" format, but I'm afraid that in this case, there is no universally accepted standard format. If anything, I'm using the same form used in some other articles on monarchs. -- Emsworth 16:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He and His Granddaughter

It is mysteriously interesting that George III and Queen Victoria passed away at almost exactly the same age as each other.

Indeed, George III died at eighty-one years, seven months, and twenty-five days old, while Victoria died at eighty-one years, seven months, and twenty-nine days old. I don't know if this is significant enough to include in the article, though. --Matjlav 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Gloucester

Was the 2nd Duke of Gloucester in succession to the Hanoverian throne(His mother was the illegitimate granddaughter of an earl.)? --Anglius 03:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"Nothing happened today"

In the sentence originally

" On July 4 1776 (American Independence Day), the colonies declared their independence from the Crown; marked in George's diary as: Nothing of importance happened today.. "

I have removed the "nothing happened..." clause as irrelevant and misleading. There is no way he could have been expected to know what happened that day in the transatlantic colonies because he had no e-mail account and no satellite phone (someone neglected to invent them until 200 years later), and news took several weeks to arrive by ship. By the way, did he even keep a journal, or is this just some apocryphal nonsense anyway? --StanZegel 06:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This has been mentioned a number of times. I think the point is exactly as you've said it... he could not have known without satellites and e-mails etc. but obviously something of importance happened.
I think the story originally involved Louis XVI of France and the storming of the Bastille (the word was "rien"). Someone must have thought it was a good anecdote and appropriated it for George IV, without worrying too much about the fact that here it would make no sense at all. Eixo 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What the...

about this

was by the Italian engraver Benedetto Pistrucci, who was unable to engrave it from life since the King was insane. The design was met with such public hostility that it was withdrawn.

why does it say insane can some one fix this?

Sir, what do you mean? He was considered to have been insane.--Anglius 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

what is encylopedic?

Long lists os honorary attendants are superfulous and divert the reader from the main points of the article. They wer copies from the old EB 11th edition which was under the patronage of the King in 1911 and reflects a sensibility that has long vanished. Rjensen 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give information which will be wanted by readers. For example, baptisms were relevant back then - some readers might want to know who his Godparents were. It is also relevant who his mistress was. Etc, etc. I would also point out that, with that information included, this became a featured article - so it doesn't appear that the FA team agreed with your concerns. Nor does anyone else seem to; indeed, you may have jeopardised this article's FA status. Michaelsanders 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No the names of the celebrities at baptism are not relevent here or in any articles on kings. Much more important is that George was involved in major wars--that was left out of the summary and has to go in. He did not have a mistress and we say that--there is no need to name the people who were not his mistress. The reason all that junk was in there was that the 1911 edition of Ency Brit was dedicated to the King of England. We don't have that issue with Wikipedia. Of course his serious biographers do NOT mention any of that stuff. Thus the DNB simply says of his baptism: George was born in the duke of Norfolk's house in St James's Square, on 24 May 1738. He was privately baptized by the bishop of Oxford at 11 p.m. on the day of his birth as there were doubts whether he would live; he was publicly baptized George William Frederick at Norfolk House on 21 June. Rjensen 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"No the names of the celebrities at baptism are not relevent here or in any articles on kings" - so facts are not relevant in encyclopaedia articles?! I'm putting it back. If you want to jettison that many facts because YOU think they are not relevant to the article, you will need a consensus. Michaelsanders 23:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
A look at the biographies shows that there are a thousand pages of facts that are true. We get maybe 15 pages so selection has to be made, and has to be made with historical judgment and the needs of users in mind. Rjensen 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no space constraints. But it's simple - get some support. But I see no reason why you should be allowed to tear a Featured Article to pieces, removing relevant facts about the person that readers will want to know, because of your sole opinion. Michaelsanders 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: George III of the United Kingdom

I appreciate that some of the information you have been removing is not as relevant as other parts. But it is relevant, nonetheless, and there are readers who will want to know these things. I therefore am asking you, politely, to not revert it back, or remove information from that article on that basis. This is particularly important because of the FA status - first, the article had all that information in it when it was passed as an FA (meaning that nobody saw any problem with it), and second, its FA status may be jeopardised if it is removed. I thus suggest that you formally raise the issue on the article discussion page, and go through it point by point - try to get editorial support from other contributors. This issue needs careful consideration from all concerned, rather than our unilateral decisions. I hope you will not make any such major changes to the article for the time being, and will be willing to try to get support. I don't want an edit war - I do want to prevent the article being damaged. Michaelsanders 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes let's think it out. Wiki DOES have space constraints. We are not allowed 500 pages like a book-- we get a max of something like 15 or 20 pages of text (say 10,000 words). But the issue is more subtle: a 20 page article with 15 pages of trivia is a bad article. (That is NOT this one!--i'm being hypothetical). Quality is what we want, not number of "facts." What were the names and titles of the people in the wedding party? Names of the pall bearers at the funeral? Names of proxies at the baptism (that IS in there!!) Wiki editors have to select the 1% of the information available that makes for the best article. As for FA status, that is my goal: an article deserves FA status if it covers the most important topics. It for example needs a good bibliography (which I added). So let's try this: I will add new information and not remove any. But let's think about dropping names of people that had minimal connection with George III. Rjensen 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rjenson Changes

Point by point of each change.

  • Lead - justified. The porphyria and arsenic ideas should be mentioned in the body of the article, but are unnecessary for the introduction. The replacement sentence, mentioning the wars with France, was also a good change.
  • Baptism - your removal of information regarding whom he was baptised by was unnecessary. It wasn't a long section, it was entirely factual and relevant to the baptism, and it is information that the average reader may want to know.
  • Change to paragraph beginning "George II and the Prince of Wales had an extremely poor relationship..." is poor - you imply that he was immediately created PoW, which wasn't the case.
  • Sarah Lennox and Hannah Lightfoot - if history says he wanted to marry a woman other than the Queen, it should be included. The Lennox claim seems true; the Lightfoot suggestion has been the subject of marked controversy for over a hundred years, and it is ludicrous (and dishonest) not to include it.
  • The changes to the first paragraph of 'American Revolution' are unhelpful - it aids the reader if a brief summary of the Proclamation is given in this article. You have changed Later that year, the British government under George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that placed a boundary upon the westward expansion of the American colonies. The Proclamation's goal was to force colonists to negotiate with the Native Americans for the lawful purchase of the land and, therefore, to reduce the costly frontier warfare that had erupted over land conflicts. The Proclamation Line, as it came to be known, was incredibly unpopular with the Americans and ultimately became another wedge between the colonists and the British government, which would eventually lead to war. to In 1763 the King issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that hemmed in colonial expansion, and proved highly unpopular with the Americans. The latter seems to falsify the issue (you claim the measure was unpopular because it limited expansion, the former claims it was unpopular because the colonists had to pay for new land). Also, the crown had to pay to defend the colonies, from both Native American attacks/defences, and from foreign aggression. You have removed the latter part, claiming the crown had to pay only for its military adventures.
  • Also, some brief that Fox and North held recently created posts is appropriate.

Please justify the removal of this text. Michaelsanders 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Two unclear phrases

In the first paragraph there was this sentence: "This baffled medical science at the time, although it is now generally considered that he suffered from the blood disease porphyria, along with other British monarchs." This is ambigious and, I think, misleading. I don't believe any other of the British monarchs suffered from the disease. I have removed it. (The last part, that is...)

In the first paragraph of the section "Later life" there is the phrase "(thus encouraging seaside holidays)". Does this mean that seaside holidays became popular in Britain as a result of George's frequent visits there? Or merely that the doctors encouraged George to take holidays?

Maerk 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Seaside vacations became popular after 1789 when GIII and his family started visiting Weymouth every year. According to Brooke, p. 542. I'll add in the reference. I'm surprised that the Wiki entry doesn't make more use of this interesting biography. AmericanEnglish 22:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Early life

"Prince George of Wales was born in russia at Norfolk House"

...? Don't know the correct information, but seemingly someone needs to be shown the "Humour" page. 91.125.169.191 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can we semi-protect this page? Just look at the edit history and you will see why. --Drahcir my talk 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

of Wales

George III was born HRH Prince George of Wales. If the London Gazette did not call him by that every single time they mentioned him, that does not change anything. I am fairly confident that no one calls the current second-in-line His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales each and every time one refers to him. Honestly. 24.95.249.32 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that titles like "of Wales" and "of York" or "of Clarence", etc. were not in use at this time. They were adopted later. DrKay (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If that is to be accepted, someone better make sure that all other pages to which it applies are updated accordingly. And someone should probably give a more precise idea of what period of time this applies to. Certainly, Queen Victoria was called Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent, right? 74.12.105.60 (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to note, if the "of Wales", etc. is incorrect for people from a certain period, then we will have to move a bunch of people from of Wales to of Great Britain. i.e. Augusta of Wales to Augusta of Great Britain. 74.12.105.60 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed mention of the regency from the Infobox. We're only concerned with the Monarch's reign. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

New file File:George III by Henry Meyer.jpg

Recently the file File:George III by Henry Meyer.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. I wasn't sure whether or not it was better than the existing image for the later life section (File:Courtprivatelife- George III.jpg), which is a better portrait but worse quality. Dcoetzee 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Nicholson assassination attempt?

This article currently doesn't mention the attempt to assassinate George III by Margaret Nicholson. Did this actually occur? I found an illustration depicting it (right) and I'm surprised to not find it mentioned. Dcoetzee 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned: "His humane and understanding treatment of two insane assailants, Margaret Nicolson in 1786 and John Frith in 1790, contributed to his popularity.[77]" DrKay (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Madness and Farming

Madness: Is the attempt to ascribe King George's madness to a physical disease (porphyria etc) based on the assumption that the King couldn't simply be mad? Surely Ockham's razor suggests he was suffering from mania. (A similar assumption is made with Van Gogh).

It is a theory first suggest in the 1970s. It seems unlikely that MacAlpine and Hunter had a strong belief in the impossibility of royal insanity. Jamesofengland 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
(see my note re Garrard under Porphyria below). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Farming: My understanding is that he was called Farmer George not because of his character alone but because of his (manic?) ventures in agricultures.--Jack Upland 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite right (excepting the suggestion that it was likely the product of insanity). George III was a key figure in the Agricultural Revolution, with a particularly keen interest in the selective breeding of animals. The Enclosure Acts are noted above. Jamesofengland 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Porphyria

The porphyria article says the porphyria diagnosis is speculative, and that no attempts to verify it have been successful. This article says, "it is now generally thought that he suffered from the blood disease porphyria." One of the articles is wrong. Jon the Geek 13:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard rumors that his death may have been instructed by English Freemasons sympathetic to the American cause during the Revolutionary War; the King may have been slowly poisoned so as to destroy his mental faculties and make him unfit to rule... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.44.161 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the statement that it is now generally thought that King George III suffered from porphyria.
The porphyria hypothesis was first proposed by Ida Macalpine and Richard Hunter in the 1960s. Their findings were hotly debated in the medical press at that time, for example Geoffrey Dean (Royal malady.G. Dean Br Med J. 1968 April 27; 2(5599): 243–244.). This hypothesis remains unproven, though it has been popularised by the 1994 film the Madness of King George, and by postings on numerous web sites.
Somewhat surprisingly the King George porphyria hypothesis is not attributed to the original source (though one of Macalpine and Hunter’s publications is cited under the further reading section) but to a publication (Röhl, John C. G.; Warren, Martin; Hunt, David (1998). Purple Secret: Genes, "Madness" and the Royal Houses of Europe. London: Bantam Press. ISBN 0-593-04148-8.) that does not present any concrete evidence to support this supposition. This book is not peer reviewed. It attempts but fails to substantiate the hypothesis through genetic studies conducted on grave samples attributed to one of Queen Victoria's Granddaughters – Duchess Charlotte of Saxe-Meiningen.
This debate is interesting to a point, but proving or disproving the hypothesis at this point in time will not influence those events that were influenced by the prevailing views of the time. BABAFUZZWUZZ (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
In the current issue of “The Psychologist” magazine, Peter Garrard, Reader in Neurology the University of Southampton, writes:
“Thanks to a widely publicised series of articles by psychiatrists Ida MacAlpine and Richard Hunter (1966), it has become widely accepted that King George’s bizarre behaviour was due to acute exacerbations of the inherited metabolic illness porphyria. An exhaustive analysis of historical records, however, has revealed that this claim was based on spurious and selective interpretation of contemporary medical and historical sources (Peters & Wilkinson, in press).”- Garrard, P., (2010), “Literature, history and biology”, The Psychologist, Vol 23, No 3, March 2010, pp 262-263. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Added. DrKay (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Messed up portrait

I've changed the full body painting to a former version. The brighter updates are all busted. Check the mouth, somebody must have played around with MS Paint (lol). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schtolteheim (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pastor07, 8 June 2010

The Colonies declared war on England on May 3, 1775

This fact would be appropriate for the discussion here as shown in brackets:

"The American Revolutionary War began when armed conflict between British regulars and colonial militiamen broke out in New England in April 1775. [The Colonies declared war on England on May 3, 1775, and a]fter a year of fighting, the colonies declared their independence from the Crown as "free and independent States" in July 1776, and listed grievances against the British King, legislature, and populace."

under the subtitle:

American Revolutionary War

Pastor07 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so certain. You've not provided a source, and declarations of war are sent from one nation to another not from the citizens of a nation to their government. DrKay (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that *is* uncooperative....

Per the article,

Chatham refused to cooperate, and died later in the same year.

This should be reworded, of course, but I'm not going to do it myself. It's too beautiful as it stands. --Trovatore (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah, very good stuff! Jmlk17 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

move

the page should be moved to George III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.220 (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of young princes

I have just taken up the matter of wrong identification of the princes in this portrait, with the National Portrait Gallery, London. They are looking into the matter and will have their website corrected ASAP. Amandajm (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Natural rights?

In the "American War of Independence" section, it says: "The King thought he was defending Britain's constitution against usurpers, rather than opposing patriots fighting for their natural rights." Natural rights? Sounds very PoV. I'm changing this to: "believed they were fighting for their natural rights." Is that what they thought? Because I checked the supposed source, and it didn't say anything about natural rights (which is subjective). Tommkin (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's problematic. It's probably better to use a quote if we're going to push a particular opinion. DrKay (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I added a quote from Brooke on his reputation. The Americans said they fought for the rights of Englishmen--and many leaders in Britain agreed they had a case. The problem as biographer Brooke says is the king could "conceive of no middle way... between independence and unconditional surrender." (p 287)Rjensen (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

King of Corsica? [#1]

Should we add the dignity of King of Corsica to the list of G III's titles? He seems to have ruled the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom or is the claim a tad too dubious? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

He never held the title. If Corsica was under British control, it was just like any other occupied territory in war--not a separate kingdom. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
But, it had a constitution ([1]). -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What?!? Yes, he was! A corsican kingdom was created under the auspices of the british in 1794, and lasted until 1796. According to it's constitution, it's King was George III, as 'Giorgio III' as 'King of Corsica.' Lookee here: http://www.pasqualepaoli.com/english/royaume.htmJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Final public appearance

I think it's notable that George III did have a brief recovery in 1811 and made his last public appearance on 12th May. This is mentioned in Beckles Willson's biography. (92.7.26.253 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

It's disputed by more modern sources. May I also suggest that you tread carefully, as your IP range matches that of a banned sockpuppeteer who often targets that particular section of this page. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A banned sockpuppeteer? I think they mean the King's last public appearance for an official event was on 25th October 1810 for his Golden Jubilee celebrations. He made an informal appearance outside Windsor Castle on 12th May 1811 when his mental health seemed to be improving. (92.7.26.253 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom

The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801 at least technically. So wouldn't it be be better to redirect this article to George III of Great Britain and Ireland since he wasn't crowned as King of the UK and reigned for forty years as only being King of Great Britain and Ireland and sovereign of Hanover, not king of the UK? --FDR (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

King of Corsica? [#2]

When and how was he King of Corsica?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a section above this one, with the same heading, that explains it a little. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
delete it. Britain seized the island only briefly and George was never crowned & never called king of Corsica. Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if the title "King of Corsica" was itself used, and George III was certainly never "crowned", but the Corsican constitution (transcription her, as linked to from Anglo-Corsican Kingdom) clearly refers to the "King" (in Italian), and is subscribed to by the British plenipotentiary in George III's name. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
Incidentally, I have now appended a number to both "King of Corsica?" sections on this talk page. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

I think the expansion of the succession boxes is creating problems. These titles are really not well-known and I'm not convinced that they deserve mention as notable offices, or even that George used these titles, or that when they were adopted, recognised internationally, or abandoned can be dated in the way that they have been. DrKay (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion that there are too many succession boxes. However, I think it is much more important to note that George was a ruler of several states and illustrate how he acquired those states and to whom they passed than to have a box for the title of Duke of Edinburgh. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a fair comment but there are lots of reliable sources (primary, secondary and tertiary) saying George was Duke of Edinburgh. There don't seem to be any saying he was Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg or Duke of Bremen. DrKay (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think succession boxes should be used when there was no succession(maybe not in all cases, but certainly in this one). It should be mentioned in the article though. I am not sure "King of Corsica" was ever added to the Royal style, or that the arms were ever used. The kingdom existed less than two years, so he was probably only referred to King of Corsica in Corsica. Of course the way it is now suggests that he inherited it from Theodore. I think the main issue to consider here is that this was a short-lived state created in the middle of a war, with limited recognition. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

-well; looking at the constitution of Corsica; it would appear that George III was only styled 'King of Corsica' in Corsica. 'King of Corsica' wasn't added to the royals title in Britain. But that doesn't follow that Corsica shouldn't be included. The phrase 'King of Hanover' wasn't used in the British style either (it was in Hanover however), but no-one is arguing he wasn't King of Hanover.

As for the fact that he was never crowned King of Corsica, he wssn't crowned King of Hanover either. A monarch doesn't need to be crowned to formally become monarch-he/she (in most instances, apart from elective monarchs) becomes monarch on the decease/abdication of his predecessor. Edward VIII, for example, was never crowned King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions and Emperor of India, but nobody would ever argue he never held any of those titles. The point is, he was constitutionally, de facto and in every way legally King of Corsica. The 'Anglo Corsican Kingdom' effectively controlled its territory during its short existence, and the fact the Kingdom was short-lived is pretty much irrelevant. Shortness of reign doesn't mean a reign shouldn't be included; there's plenty of monarchs (Lady Jane Grey, Edward VIII, Umberto II of Italy, Friedrich III of Gemany, and so on) whose length of reign was much shorter than that of George III as KJing of Corsica, but they still have articles on wikipedia and are still (usually) included in King lists.

As for the lack of recognition of the Kingdom of Corsica, there are plenty of territories/states (especially during wartime) that are not recognised by the majority of states but nevertheless de facto exist. No-one is arguing, for example, that the Independent State of Croatia did not ecist, or that Aimone, Duke of Spoleto/Tomislav II was officially its King, but the majority of states world-wide did not recognise it, only the axis powers did. You could say the same about Manchukuo too. Similar wartime; hazy situation as well.

Having said all that, the succession box does need to be changed so it doesn't look like he immediately succeeded/inherited the throne from Theodore von Neuhof. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Titles in Pretence

User DrKay keeps deleting the template for titles held in pretence. See talk pages for George I, George II and Anne. On those pages, there has been no engagement from DrK on this topic for over 2 months now. That should have been enough time for him to find solid evidence to back up his POV. Yet he has not posted it if he has it. Not withstanding this, he has reverted the restoration of the template. The claim is true, sourced and verifiable. There is no evidence that it is untrue. There is no source that says he recanted, reneged, disavowed or otherwise gave up the claim. What he believed in his heart about the claim is unknowable. It suffices that he made the claim for the template to be validly included. Unless proof to the contrary can be provided, I propose to insert the template and to keep re-inserting it until DrK's bizarre POV reversions desist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the George III article. It should not be used to discuss other articles or other editors. DrKay (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

-I agree with DrKay on this issue. Titles in pretence shouldn't be included in the succession boxes, both for reasons of clarity, and because the monarch was never effectively monarch of that particular territory; even if he claimed to be, as opposed to the above discussion regarding Corsica.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

Pretender

As DrKernan & I are now at two reversions each, etiquette demands that we take it to the talk page. So, what's your beef with the wikilink to Pretender? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already covers the material with due weight and with an appropriate source that supports the current version. The source does not use the term pretender, the use of which is controversial, nor does it say that George III made a personal claim to the throne of France. DrKay (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is it "controversial" to describe George's claim to the title of King of France as a title held in pretense? It is a statement of fact, no more. It is an uncontestible description of the situation. He made the claim in his coronation oath; the claim was risible; he abandoned the pretense at the first available opportunity. Had there been any substance to the claim, he would not have abandoned it. It had no substance, was unsupported internationally, yet he swore on oath that it was true at his coronation. Which is to say, the title was held in pretense. What's so "controversial" about that? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No response? Perhaps it's our Edit Counts; they don't impress. See below on Lewis Namier citation. 36hourblock (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
There's no response because this editor has been told the same thing multiple times by multiple editors on multiple talk pages. There is little point in repeating ourselves endlessly. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
There's no response because The Guardian of The Page has run out of valid arguments and hopes that silence will supplement for reason. An endlessly repeted bad argument is stil a bad argument. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
My thanks, Laurel, for your support. I must insist, however, that in future, you perform a spell check on your comments before posting them. 36hourblock (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Character profile of George William Frederick by James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave

At 264 words, I doubt that the profile by Lord Waldegrave is "too long". On the contrary, it is concise and informative. That's undoubtedly why English historian Lewis Bernstein Namier included the text in its entirety.

If you feel that the introduction is "convoluted" or "verbose", you are welcome to edit it to suit your requirements.

Let's leave it up for the time being, so others can enjoy Lord Waldegrave's insights - an intimate and confident of George William Frederick before he was king. 36hourblock (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's too long. It takes up one whole section to itself. DrKay (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It is a subsection, with these "===", identifying it as such and a qualifying portion of the "Early Life" main section. If you like, include it in the main section, if you don't want it to have "one whole [sub]section to itself."

Kindly provide evidence that the passage is "too long" according to wiki rules - here is the passage. And please point out the portions of Namier's comments that are "verbose" and "convoluted".

English historian Louis Namier in his essay King George III: A Study in Personality[1] wrote “Lord Waldgrave, who had been Governor to the Prince of Wales, 1752-56, wrote in 1758 a character sketch of him so penetrating that it deserves quoting almost in full.” The sketch describes the Prince in his mid- to late teens.

His parts, though not excellent, will be found very tolerable, if ever they are properly exercised.

He is strictly honest, but wants that frank and open behavior which makes honesty appear amiable…

His religion is free from all hypocrisy, but is not of the most charitable sort; he has rather too much attention to the sins of his neighbor.

He has spirit, but not of the active kind; and does not want resolution, but it is mixed too much with obstinacy.

He has great command of his passions, and will seldom do wrong, except when he mistakes wrong for right; but as often as this shall happen, it will be difficult to undeceive him, because he is uncommonly indolent, and has strong prejudices.

His want of application and aversion to business would be far less dangerous, was he eager in the pursuit of pleasure; for the transition from pleasure to business is both shorter and easier than from a state of total inaction.

He has a kind of unhappiness in his temper, which, if it is not conquered before it has taken too deep a root, will be a source of frequent anxiety. Whenever he is displeased, his anger does not break out with heat and violence; but he becomes sullen and silent, and retires to his closet; not to compose his mind by study or contemplation, but merely to indulge the melancholy enjoyment of his own ill humour. Even when the fit is ended, unfavorable symptoms very frequently return, which indicate that on certain occasions has Royal Highness has too correct a memory." [2]

36hourblock (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DETAIL, WP:UNDUE. The insertion is over-detailed and presents one view only. Encyclopedia articles do not generally contain long quotes from single sources; such a practice does not follow wikipedia style in a summary article of this type. It's not Namier who's verbose and convoluted; it's your opening sentence and Waldegrave. DrKay (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to correct my opening, please do so. I suggest you refrain, however, from correcting Lord Waldegrave's memoir entries. I checked the WR, and I don't see that they preclude these additions. Perhaps you can cite a passage that supports your objections. 36hourblock (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The detail is apt, to the point and more revelatory than most of the official tosh in the rest of the article. It should stay. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
By verbose introduction, I mean you could ditch "English historian Louis Namier in his essay King George III: A Study in Personality". It's out of place and unnecessarily specific. I might accept a single sentence quote with a simple introduction, such as 'Lord Waldegrave, Governor to the Prince of Wales from 1752 to 1756, wrote of the teenaged George, "He has great command of his passions, and will seldom do wrong, except when he mistakes wrong for right; but as often as this shall happen, it will be difficult to undeceive him, because he is uncommonly indolent, and has strong prejudices." ' DrKay (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you try to be a little less condescending please. While your position as self-appointed Guardian of the Page gives you certain rights, they do not extend to total ownership and so it is not for you to say whether or not a single sentence quote was acceptable or not. That's for the community to decide. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Namier, 1962, p. 155-168
  2. ^ Namier, 1962, p. 160-161

Debate of Lawfulness

What was unlawful about what King George III did to the British Colonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.113.53 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was unlawful. In fact it wasn't him that was even taxing the colonies. His ministers and Lord North were taxing the colonies. King George III did nothing to the colonies exept for the Royal Proclamation of 1763. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.34.177 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Speeches

I am surprised that my edit including two quotes by George III were reverted. George's words in his accession speech ("I glory in the name of Britain") are probably his most famous and I am very surprised it has not been included in the article already, especially as this is a featured article. His words during a performance of Cato are also notable and have been included in the Oxford University's Dictionary of National Biography, a standard reference work. They both should be included because George III was the first monarch since Queen Anne to be born in Britain and the first native English speaking monarch since Anne too. George I and II's Hanoverian connection and foreignness was much commented on (and criticised) and George is thereby signifying he is a British monarch.--Britannicus (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you also provide the article with some third party analysis supporting the statements above to place the quotes in context as to why they are included in the article? Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the quotes themselves are fine; certinly the accession speech quote is quite well-known. I agree with Active Banana that they need to be placed more clearly in context. Just sticking some quotes into an already existing article without any explanation in the text of why they're there is not a great idea. john k (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hear hear. Jmlk17 22:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone with access to the Brooke biography confirm that it actually says "name of Britain" and not "name of Briton", which is how I've always seen it? "Briton" would of course make more sense, since George actually was a Briton and therefore could be so called, whereas he was factually not the largest island of the archipelago off the northwest coast of mainland Europe. (If someone wants a reference for "name of Briton", the most recent place I've seen it was Fred Anderson's Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754–1766. It's on page 510.) Binabik80 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have Brooke's biography and it does indeed say "Britain" instead of "Briton". The speech was written by George's Lord Chancellor and in George's hand there is an insertion of the relevant quote into the speech. George wrote the word "Britain" not "Briton".--Britannicus (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

King George the Third Religion

King George the Third was not Anglican but was the head of the Church in England

-the Church of England...which is part of the anglican communion, so.,.Anglican, then.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War

British writers prefer the name "American War of Independence"; isn't this an article that should be using the British variant? It should be as easy as a quick find/replace. (Apologies if there has been debate over this before.) - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be correct if it were an ENGVAR issue, but if it's an ideological difference over how the war is viewed, then the matter is more complicated. --Trovatore (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK it's just an EngVar issue. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I actually don't think so. I think it's an ideological difference. The precise content of that difference has never been completely clear to me, I concede. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't say I've ever read anything that has to suggested to me an ideological difference (but I'm hardly well read on the topic). If there were, the lead to American Revolutionary War would probably be in error. Not to mention we'd have a much greater problem with this article and trying to remain neutral, naturally. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
In the United States, we usually refer to that war as simply the "Revolutionary War," without the qualifier American in front, because it's understood what war is being referred to. But there's no ideological offense taken to whatever term is used in other parts of the world. If the British prefer "American War of Independence," well, that's what it was, wasn't it? Jsc1973 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, we Americans don't have to call it 'American' since that's where we are. However, we also do refer to it as the War of Independence. More so even since this whole politically correct crap. Despite my feelings on political correctness, I think as an encyclopedic article the American War for Independence is the best description to be used here. --- Now I do want to add something about this since we're on the Revolutionary subject. To say that Americans claim George a tyrant and only saying Americans had a list of grievances, is putting it way too mildly and sounds biased on the English side. If we want to include the "tyrant" title, I think we should also include more information as to why that particular term was used. For example, a very important missing fact is that Americans were being taxed more than the English were and it was only because they were American; hence tyrannical behavior. I'm not complaining mind you, I just think a bit more information is needed there. Not an article's worth, but perhaps a paragraph on the subject. Cheers to you all! MagnoliaSouth (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
You will need very solid sources for that because all those in the article are unanimous that the Americans were taxed much, much less than the English. DrKay (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically "American Revolution" and " American War of Independence" aren't the same thing. "American Revolution" encompasses a wider field of history and includes the political, legal and cultural changes that took place before and after American independence whereas the "War of Independence" is simply the war that started at Lexington and Concorde. Its the exact same difference as between "French Revolution" and "French Revolutionary Wars" 123.243.215.92 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Male monarchs"

Are usually called kings. To me, "male monarchs" is just not a phrase that any English-speaker would naturally use. If it can't be re-phrased, I would prefer it to go. We do have "long life" and "long reign" already. If they don't suffice, then something might be worked around them. He is the oldest king as well as the longest-serving. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to get lost inside a wiki link sometimes isn't it. Please adjust further however you can. But I'd tend not to delete as I think it's notewothy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Starting to change my mind already. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
We escaped the British/gender problem in the "Legacy" section by using the formula: "his life and reign were longer than those of any of his predecessors." DrKay (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That's far more elegant and economical. In that form it might be worthy of staying in the opening section? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't object to inclusion at all, in fact I agree it's of interest. It's just a matter of finding the right phrase. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Your edit has the tremendous advantage of simplicity and non-verbosityness(!), but is it absolutely certain that it's right? The previous wording compared George III only to the post-1707 monarchs, whereas now he's implicitly compared to all of the English and Scots monarchs. I'm not saying it's wrong, just asking. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
Um, are we just trying to say that only Victoria reigned (lived?) longer? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
At the time of his death he had lived and reigned longer than any other previous monarch in Britain. As far as British, English and Scots monarchs go, he was the longest-lived and longest-reigned until 1896. There are some funny, but unclear, potential exceptions: Æscwine of Essex (supposedly reigned for 60 years), Gruffydd ap Cynan of Gwynedd (who may have died aged 82) and Meurig of Gwent (supposedly died aged 90), but I think we can safely ignore them as their actual dates are not known. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I see here that George is now third, behind Victoria and Elizabther II. Perhaps a link to that page might help? But I also see at Queen Victoria that ". she lived three days longer than her grandfather, George III, and thereby became the longest-lived monarch." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to DrKay's last post above: fair enough! Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

"Male monarchs are usually called kings", so then what are emperors, Greek tyrants and sovereign princes or dukes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.92 (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. No consensus on whether dropping "of the United Kingdom" is appropriate or not, with the debate largely being a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC vs cultural bias issue. Number 57 12:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

– I'm actually a bit puzzled here. WP:SOVEREIGN seems to prescribe the "of the United Kingdom", but also says "In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted, because it is unnecessary, against usage or possibly problematic". Six of the nine members of Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom are titled solely by name and ordinal. The exceptions are William IV of the United Kingdom, who is apparently not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for William IV, and these two. These two are established primary topics, since the proposed titles already redirect to the British monarchs. George V is the obvious parallel here; there are other monarchs of that name, but he's a primary topic. Why treat these two differently? --BDD (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. The argument above cites the royalty naming conventions, the primary topic section of the disambiguation guideline and the consistency criteria of the article titles policy. At some of the other requested moves, there were concerns that removing the territorial disambiguator is anglocentric[2] or shows cultural bias in favor of the United Kingdom[3]. Neutrality is a core policy whereas the naming and disambiguation conventions are guidelines. Guidelines do not outweigh core policies, and so the neutrality argument is stronger than the unnecessary disambiguation argument. The article title policy is not a core policy, and so is also less important than neutrality, but in addition the Name Ordinal of Country format is consistently applied for almost all European monarchs, and so the consistency argument in the opening statement fails on the basis that consistency can be argued either way. Consequently, the arguments presented in favor of the move are not strong enough for me to be persuaded that omission of the country in these two cases is more recognizable, natural, precise, or consistent than keeping them. DrKay (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose similarly weak, on the same lines as DrKay. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand the Anglocentricism argument, but isn't that more an argument for moving the other monarchs, or from moving these two away from primary topic? If we're assuming someone who searches "George III" is looking for the British monarch, that's Anglocentric regardless of how we actually title that article. (To be clear, I think George III is a definite primary topic. I'm less certain about IV, though it sounds reasonable.) --BDD (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as being the primary topics. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Along the same lines as DrKay, above. RGloucester — ☎ 07:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Why is the "of the United Kingdom" necessary when there are no other George III or George IV? As was mentioned, six out of nine UK royals (eg Elizabeth II) are already named that way. Besides, it's not Anglocentricism - see Constantine VIII, Dobroslav II, Basil II etc. The country only needs to be added for clarification, e.g., the 500 William II —Wikimandia (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. .... DeistCosmos (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support When a name refers most often to one person, that person is the primary topic. For example, Paul Newman the actor is the most common search item for people of that name and we do not need to add "actor" to the name of the article. But we have 5 other articles, hence Paul Newman (disambiguation). TFD (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You previously supported use of the disambiguator, even when there was a primary topic.[4] I guess we've both switched sides. DrKay (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, "of the United Kingdom" sounds an odd appellation, so we should drop it if we can (and apparently we can, since both of these are primary topics). Wikipedia policy instructs us to ignore guidelines if we can do better without them. And anyone who thinks calling George III "George III" is in some way "not neutral" would appear to have a rather strange view of the world. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I fail to understand the problem with "of the United Kingdom". We're not dealing with the Commonwealth realms, here. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The argument is that "of the United Kingdom" is unnecessary, not problematic. You may still feel the same. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, as pointed out by DrKay, this shows a pro-UK cultural bias. (Or, since it was inspired by the titles of more recent monarchs, an indirect pro-Commonwealth bias.) It says that the kings and queens of other European nations need clarifiers on their articles to say where they're from, but the UK's apparently don't require any. It is unclear why London-based monarchs (Donald III of Scotland, not Donald III) should be the expection. The discrepancy noted with the more recent UK monarchs could be fixed by moving their article titles to be in line with the standard. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the recent UK monarchs should have "of the United Kingdom" restored, but the pro-Commonwealth side, would likely resist. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Which is is silly... because there are just SO many people named Louis XVI and when you hear "Louis XVI" you don't instantly think "France" right? And they are not all that way...Why is it Catherine the Great and not Catherine the Great of Russia? Because there is only one Catherine the Great! Just like there is only one George III and George IV. This is no pro-cultural bias. Wikimandia (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A late comment on a debate I missed

But who are the "lot of other Georges," exactly? More specifically, since the proposed move was to "George III," who were the other George III's? This is already the primary topic, since George III redirects here, but the other George III's are all deeply obscure -- some minor German princelings, a medieval king of Georgia, and a couple of more recent Georgian princelings. The idea that it is somehow cultural bias to say that the long-reigning 18th century monarch of what was then one of the most powerful countries in the world is somehow not clearly more important than some obscure princelings and the 12th century monarch of a small country is ridiculous. Hell, the Georgian Wikipedia has its article on this George III at "George III"! 71.175.252.201 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Golden Jubilee?

On Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in 1887, one old lady attended the event, claiming that she was wearing the same bonnet that she had worn at George III's Golden Jubilee. Is there any record of George's Golden Jubilee (1810), although he was declared permanently insane a few months after this? Valetude (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

http://austenonly.com/2012/05/30/george-iiis-golden-jubilee/ --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015

Add the following to the list of references:

Michael Kassler (ed.), Memoirs of the Court of George III, London, Pickering & Chatto, 2015.

2001:44B8:31D7:D400:8D72:3AA3:98EA:17C (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: We don't add references that aren't being used to a reflist. That smells like promotion of a specific book Cannolis (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Issue

According to Melvin Bragg G3 had 57 grandchildren, but Victoria was the only legitimate issue. Even G3's daughters had illegitimate kids. Makes Charlie Windsor's antics tame by comparison.27.33.242.72 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If Bragg does say that, then he is obviously wrong. Even if we don't count the legitimate children of William IV that died in infancy, Charlotte Augusta of Wales, George V of Hanover and the three children of Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge were all legitimate. DrKay (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Still FA?

There's plenty of unsourced statements across the article, too much images sandwiching the text and totally disconnect from the context, and in a personal opinion, the article is more about his feelings and opinions than his governments or politics. Frenditor (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Year of Abdication Draft

Hi what year exactly did King George III draft his abdication speech? Uhlan talk 04:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Collection Trust tentatively dates it as 28 March 1783?. The document reference is RA GEO/MAIN/5367.Baldwin Clere (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw it, but the BBC had quite a good programme on last night, originally broadcast in January. It looked at some of his letters, including the draft speech, from the archives. He was meticulous about dating, even timing, his correspondence. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Father's Death

I'm confused, it says his fathe Frederick, Prince of Wales, died from a head injury while it says on his bio that it was apocryphal, but died of a lung abscess- Philip Kinscherf

He died of an abcess, I'm fairly sure. john k 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In RA GEO/MAIN/4 (George III's memoirs of accession, 25 October 1760) George, writing as he typically did in the third person said that an accident had happened to the King. Baldwin Clere (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Templates

This article is missing the template boxes at the bottom, see George IV of the United Kingdom for an example. 203.213.125.186 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

They are there, but you have to click on the little link on the right-hand side that says "show". Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George III of the United Kingdom. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Collector

This page is locked for editing, so I can't do this, but how about adding him to Category:British book and manuscript collectors and Category:British art collectors? In addition, there isn't currently a scientific intrument collector category, but I think it would be a good idea, as a subcategory of Category:Collectors. 121.45.117.23 (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2018

Under See Also - Cultural depictions of George III, change "film based on the play by Nicholas Hytner" to "film based on the play by Alan Bennett" 174.7.111.136 (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: The former was the film's director, while the latter was the play's writer and the film's screenplay writer. In order to have an economy of mentions, each individual was given one mention per item.  spintendo  06:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Religion

His religion is listed as protestant. HE must have been CoE to be King. The word protestant to me conjures up Lutheranism, Methodism, etc. CoEs are essentially just renegade Catholics, and Cromwell saw it that way.14.203.207.166 (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Church of England does not submit to Rome - or Greek Orthodoxy - therefore it is Protestant. The Prayer Book is most certainly not Roman Catholic - and the church's mirror in the U.S. - the Episcopalians - is a Protestant church. Quite a bit has changed since Elizabeth I's days. 50.111.51.207 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

the November 2018 release of George's medical records ...

People magazine stated that these showed he had bipolar disorder - but doesn't this conflict with the colour of the urine testimony? Anyway ... https://people.com/royals/palace-releases-hamilton-king-george-iiis-mental-health-records/ 50.111.51.207 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

George is King of the UK

So on the page it says he was King of Great Britain and Ireland from 1760-1820. While this is correct, it could be better, because on Anne, Queen of Great Britain's page, it says she was Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, then a new section of occupation as the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. Shouldn't there be two jobs for him too, the King of Great Britain and Ireland and then the King of the United Kingdom? Thanks. Hiitsmebobby (Here's bobby's talk page) February 27, 2017, 21:17 (GMT)

It was the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", which is much the same as "Great Britain and Ireland". The detail is in the first sentence of the lead and the first footnote (linked from the infobox). DrKay (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Well they are similar, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a different state to Great Britain and Ireland. The UK is one whole sovereign state, while Great Britain and Ireland are two separate states. Hiitsmebobby ( Here's bobby's talk page) 19:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The infobox should contain only one succession parameter because: (1) The infobox is very long. Infoboxes should be simple and succinct. (2) It is unnecessary to have four succession parameters, when one suffices. It has always been so, since this article was first written, though the title has changed from "King of Great Britain and Ireland, and later the United Kingdom" to other variants. (3) Extending the infobox is a bold new edit. When a bold edit is reverted, it should not be reinstated until consensus is demonstrated to have changed. (4) Reliable sources do not break up his tenure into separate reigns. They say he reigned continuously for 60 years, which he did. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Crowding the infobox?

With all due respect @Surtsicna:, your changes to the infobox content has made it quite crowded. But, I won't revert & will instead allow others to review it. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that @DrKay: & @Colonestarrice: have also weighed in (via edits/reverts). IMHO, the infobox was alright before today. But, I'll let yas all work it out. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My view hasn't changed since my post on this talk page an hour ago, or indeed since my comment before that in February 2017. DrKay (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I removed the 'brackets', as they were an eye sore. The note pointing out the merging of Great Britain with Ireland (in 1801), will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The infobox now says he was king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1760. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed in 1801. DrKay (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I was concerned by that too but it is correct if interpreted as referring to two kingdoms, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
That's true as long as the piped link for the full style remains <nowiki>[[British monarch| [[List of British monarchs|</wiki> or similar and isn't broken up into component parts linking to different states. DrKay (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

King George III of great Britain actually met King Louis XV at a Ball, they had a rivalry, they would always compete against eachother, Ishipdabestshipsincampcamp (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Penguin?

Quote from article:

He is also remembered, to a lesser extent, for his tendency to repeat himself and to say "Penguin" at the end of almost every sentence.

Is this right? It sounds suspiciously like a Blackadder reference to me. The only sources I can find on the internet (some of which are openly based on an earlier version of this article) say he repeated himself and said "What? What?" after each sentence.

On further investigation, it seems this change only happened a couple of days ago. I am reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.129 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? I was about to ask if that line was vandalism, not knowing anything about George III but knowing the stereotype that English people say "wot wot." Is George's tendency the source of the stereotype, and if so, is it worth mentioning in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.0.39 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I always thought George III never spoke English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazyitis (talk • contribs) 15:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hazyitis, the very first paragraph of the article says this: "He was a monarch of the House of Hanover, but unlike his two predecessors, he was born in Great Britain, spoke English as his first language, and never visited Hanover." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

New and better version of Hanoverian Royal Standard

Please have a look a this image/article:

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allard (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

George III son Governor of Barbados?

I've been told that one of George III son's was sent to Barbados during his rein to governor that island. Does anyone know which of the Prince's this was? Roberta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akerim (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

Proposed edit to the last sentence of the section “Africa and the slave trade” - currently reads: ‘...1.6 million slaves were transported out of Africa to British colonial possessions.’ Better would be ‘...1.6 million Africans were transported to a British colonial possessions to be sold into slavery.’ Since they were not slaves at the time of their capture and removal from Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:85d0:7830:3010:efe1:5bf1:dc5a (talk • contribs)

Not done. That would be incorrect. They were enslaved in Africa. DrKay (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sons listed before daughters by convention

In Debrett's Peerage, Burke's Landed Gentry, and most genealogical sources males are always listed first - because in the era of primogeniture, still in effect for UK peerage titles, the male lineage was of principal importance as far as the title is concerned. Following long-standing convention when dealing with peerage topics/ historical royal family. That may be different for the royal family of today, now the rules have changed. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly not a genealogical publication, however. As far as an online encyclopedia is concerned, listing sons before daughters is just sexism. Listing children in order of birth is more informative, their sex being evident from their titles. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"More informative" of what? When trying to trace descent of titles on wikipedia it can be very time-wasting not having all sons listed together. OK for modern celebrities etc, but not logical in era of male primogeniture when female issue was generally excluded from inheritance. Listing of issue is a genealogical process, so should follow standard convention, I suggest. Can be confusing where daughters have a "unisex" name, i.e. "Christian" was a common name for girls in England in 17th c., now altered to "Christiana". If no title, no way of knowing if boy or girl. Also, "Shirley" can be a boy's name, after Shirley family presumably, but now more common as a girl's name.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Per Template:Infobox royalty, children are listed "in order of birth". This is the standard and consistent style on wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
On what basis was the wikipedia template order determined? I'm questioning that.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
We list children in order of their birth. It's got nothing to do with sexism, at all. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Listing them the other way would have to do with sexism, however. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Sexism is a modern concept which cannot be retrospectively imposed on history. We should list children in order of birth regardless of sex in the case of say a Hollywood celebrity. But for a historic monarch or the holder of a peerage title, hereditable via male primogeniture, surely the children should be listed in order of succession? Thus male gender is the important factor, date of birth has secondary relevance. It's a polically incorrect fact that female issue in those days were very much secondary players, so why list a whole load of daughters before the son and heir? This is not an issue concerning sexism. It can be time-wasting when trying to follow descent of a title through a list of sons and daughters mixed together.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
We don't use the infobox's offspring section for the line of succession to the throne, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Archaic. Do virtually all sources do this? If not, don’t. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

On what basis was the wikipedia template order determined? I'm questioning that.Lobsterthermidor

We decide things on Wikipedia by consensus. See Wikipedia:Consensus. If it is felt that an established format, such as listing the order of birth of royalty, should be changed, we can be bold and unilaterally change it, or - preferably if such a change might be contentious - we start a discussion. If we are bold, and then someone reverts our edit or questions it, then a discussion should take place to establish the merits of the bold change (as is happening here). What we should not do when using the bold approach is force our opinions on others without an appropriate discussion. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Be aware, Lobsterthermidor, that repeatedly ignoring advice (or warnings) about editing inappropriately will likely lead to sanctions. You have a formal warning for edit warring logged against you: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive408#User:Lobsterthermidor reported by User:DrKay (Result: Warned) - that warning was specifically for reverting on Charles II of England, so technically this revert wasn't a violation of that edit; however, it is expected that when someone is given advice or a warning on one article that they will take on board what they are being told and modify their behaviour on all other articles. In case you are not yet clear on this matter, on Wikipedia we mainly use reverting for vandalism or disruptive/inappropriate edits. We do not revert to force our way of thinking on others. See WP:STATUSQUO. I hope this is the last time you inappropriately revert. SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@SilkTork:, thanks for that advice, I wasn't fully aware of that, I thought one could revert up to three times, with explanations given in the edit summary. The warning you referred to related only to that article as far as I can see, and at the start of the section I was called a "highly established editor(s), clean record(s), no 3RR vios". That's after 9 years of editing on wikipedia. I'm proud of that record, but always keen to improve if I get something wrong.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support continuing to list children in order of their birth. Showing succession order in an infobox separate from issue order could be considered, though I would not be in favour as showing succession order of a title on an individual's infobox would not be appropriate as the succession, though related, is a separate issue as it relates to the title not the person, and is complex and changeable according to various births and deaths. What is appropriate, and what we do, is to show Predecessor and Successor of any titles that an individual holds. SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support retaining chronological order. I fear that the proposer, for all of their good intentions, misunderstands what Wikipedia is, at least as it pertains to this case. Burke's Peerage and the other books the proposer cites are all genealogy books. In fact, they are more specific than that: they are peerage books, devoted to tracing the descent of specific titles or land holdings. The decision to order men before women in those books was a stylistic choice -- arguably a sensible one given their purpose, though obviously one which reflected an inherently sexist system.
Wikipedia, however, is not a peerage book (or a genealogy book) so there is no need for us to adopt the stylistic choices of one. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia and this article is a biography. Readers who arrive at this page will do so with many intentions. Some will not be interested in finding a list of all of the children of King George III, but some of those who are so interested will probably want to know what chronological order those children were born in, because that is of interest to people reading a history of a person's life. It makes more sense to list children by order of birth not only because it is sexist not to, but because this article is not about the children or the title: it is about George III and his life, and it is told, as is conventional, in a chronological order. To resolve any doubt, succession to his titles is indicated through the use of succession boxes; it will no doubt be mentioned in the body of the article and the infobox and be evident in the list of children regardless of order and it can always be mentioned in case it is not clear. In short, listing children by gender serves one narrow purpose and audience; Wikipedia has a plurality of readers and intentions and pushing one over the rest does not fit into our aim to be a general-purpose encyclopedia. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC).
I withdraw my query, it seems to have little support. Thanks to all for your input, I will in future list offspring by birth order.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox gives a coronation date in 1761 under the heading King of the UK and Elector/King of Hankver, but he wasn't king of Hanover until 1814, so I have separated them to remove this ambiguity. Richard75 (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

George II was never king of Hanover yet there is a coronation date under "King of Great Britain and Ireland, Elector of Hanover". It does not seem like an issue to me. The infoboxes do not say in what capacity they were crowned (and neither did the presiding prelates, as far as I can tell). Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. I note no disagreement with the Support’s COMMONNAME, CONCISE, and PRIMARYTOPIC claims and, in fact, no policy basis whatsoever among the opposition arguments. —В²C ☎ 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

George III of the United Kingdom → George III – Since "George III" already redirects to this page, what about moving the article's name to simply "George III"? M. Armando (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

– Relevant discussion: Talk:George IV of the United Kingdom § Requested move 30 August 2020. ItsPugle 06:38, Thursday, September 3, 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as George III is already considered the primary topic based on the redirect here. There is no need for WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION here. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. Clear primary topic. JIP | Talk 22:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support without a doubt. Interstellarity (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minimalism gone silly, it helps nothing and will do some hurt. There are other topics at George III (disambiguation), and increasing the ambiguity increases the likelihood of mislinking, and the difficulty of detecting and fixing mislinks. No one looking for King George III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland will be in any way waylaid by the offered title continuance "of the United Kingdom", and it definitely helps to be sure that this, among the many George III ... titles, is the one wanted. And that's just the search / java title-complete issues, more importantly a good title is not so terse, considering that this is a reference work not a newspaper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. George III already links to this page, and in George III (disambiguation) this one is already shown up as the primary one. No need for disambiguation. Impru20talk 11:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. No reason given for change. My objections to this weird wave is already given out in Talk:George IV of the United Kingdom. These conversations should be combined. Walrasiad (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
*Support as per nominator explains it is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME for all George III articles. 180.242.45.27 (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Strike sock !vote.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself from the other talk page, that's not a reason. You are removing information from the title that gives clarity and improves search. What exactly is the purpose/gain? Walrasiad (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a perfectly good reason. In fact, following our article naming policies is usually considered the best reason to move an article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
So basically no reason. If you expect someone to support a change, at least pretend to try to provide a rationale. Walrasiad (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel like you aren't even listening to what I'm saying. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am not sure you're actually saying anything. I see the drawbacks to the change, but no one has yet said what the gains are exactly. That's what I'm looking for when I ask for "reason". Walrasiad (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Requested move discussions are supposed to be centered around Wikipedia's article titling policies. The people in support of this move have cited multiple article naming policies that support this move. It is you who is not making any policy-based arguments against the move. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very aware of the policies. And more besides. But we evidently have a different interpretations of how they apply here. So I'm bothering to explain. It would be nice if you did too.
But if you want to play narrowly, let's play, since "George III of the United Kingdom" is used precisely as the example in WP:SOVEREIGN. Where the instructions are (I replicate here):
"*kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}"."
The exceptions for "common name" are all non-ordinals, or to quote:
"*If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it: William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Peter the Great, Henry the Fowler, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gustavus Adolphus, Eric of Pomerania,"
And the ordinal exception relevant to here (a very recent policy change, which I disagree with, and is currently causing great damage across Wikipedia IMO, but anyway):
* If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Ivan V, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION."
which is clearly not the case here, as there are clearly plenty of other George III's: George III (disambiguation). And, to reiterate once more, "George III of the United Kingdom" is used precisely as an example in WP:SOVEREIGN.
Besides WP:SOVEREIGN I could also quote WP:PRECISION too. So if you don't want to bother with providing explanations in discussion, at least be aware of the relevant policies.
Walrasiad (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for actually making a policy-based argument. As far as WP:SOVEREIGN is concerned, it does say that monarch titles "normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". But then goes on to say that if the country is not necessary because there are no other monarchs of the exact same name then not to use the country, as doing so would go against Wikipedia's general article naming policies. Unfortunately, WP:SOVEREIGN does not explicitly address what specifically to do when there is a monarch that is the primary topic, as is the case here. In that case, we should fall back on our general article naming policies (as WP:SOVEREIGN suggests) such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE when one monarch is the primary for that name, as WP:SOVEREIGN is not meant to go counter to our general policies, but merely meant to compliment them. And I think it has already been stated why "George III" is the most common English name for this monarch, and it should be self-evident why "George III" is a more concise title than "George III of the United Kingdom". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It says it clearly "no other monarch". And I'm not sure what you're hand-waving about. WP: SOVEREIGN is precisely intended for articles like this, so much so that "George III of the United Kingdom" is used as an explicit example.
If you have a different interpretation of how policy applies, well that is why I was asking for your reasons. But apparently you did not deign to give them. So now I'm giving you another chance and waiting to hear them.
And, oh, I don't want to hear "Britain matters more" again as you said in the other talk page.(read: WP:BIAS, WP: GLOBAL) Walrasiad (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:BIAS/WP: GLOBAL is merely an essay, not official Wikipedia policies or guidelines, so I have no intention of reading it, as it is irrelevant to this discussion. And I stand by my previous statement that the English Wikipedia is for people who can read the English language, and therefore British monarchs are going to be "more important" (i.e. the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) than Georgian monarchs, as Britain has many more English speakers and readers than does Georgia. And I laid out above very clearly that WP:SOVEREIGN does not specifically address this situation where one monarch is the primary topic, so we must rely on our general article naming policies at WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to reach a proper conclusion here. Perhaps you should go read what I have already written, because having me retype it again seems like a waste of my time. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
(ran into edit conflicts)
Asking you to be mindful of bias is not irrelevant - particularly since you have evinced it yourself.
It is irrelevant for a move discussion, because move discussions are about our article naming policies. Being mindful of bias is important to keep in mind when dealing with article content, but not titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
As for the rest, you've really said nothing. Things are laid out pretty clearly in WP:SOVEREIGN, and it is the norm pretty much across all pages dealing with monarchs. Not sure why you're trying to reinvent the wheel.
If you could expand with reasons, that is, explain what is gained by forcing an exception to the norm, I'd like to hear them and take them into consideration. For now, I see only drawbacks, and don't really see any gain. Maybe there are some I'm not seeing. But since you continue to refuse to give a rationale, I am afraid the only conclusion I can come to is that you really haven't given this any thought at all. Walrasiad (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This is not an exception to the norm. The norm on Wikipedia is that articles are titled at their most common name in English, unless some type of disambiguation (preferably natural disambiguation) is required. If there is only one article of a particular name, then no disambiguation is used, because it is unnecessary. And if there is a primary topic, then the primary topic does not use disambiguation, but all other articles of the same name do. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, you're trying to reinvent the wheel. WP:SOVEREIGN has already sorted that out for you (indeed quite recently, and what you're proposing was not accepted - as you very well know, since you participated in that discussion). Walrasiad (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Walrasiad, for an user who self-identifies as "no longer very active on Wikipedia" you seem much engaged. Quite a stamina for debate. Why don't we go ahead and add "of the United Kingdom" to Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II so people won't get too much confused or even offended by our bias? M. Armando (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Because I'm an educator, and I don't like seeing damage being done. Walrasiad (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
And I suppose then we are being educated by you. Thank you, our very own Socrates. M. Armando (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an educational function, so when you're proposing to remove clarity and usefulness to students and the general public, and make things obscure, more difficult and even spread misinformation (e.g. insinuating there is only one "George III") or bias (e.g. "Britain matters more"), it is detrimental to to the educational mission of an encyclopedia. If your change furthers that educational purpose, I'd be all for it. But I really don't see it, and you're not even bothering to explain how it helps. Yes, I take education seriously. Do you? Walrasiad (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I can just as easily argue that having the article titled "George III of the United Kingdom" causes damage because it can mislead readers into thinking that that is the monarch's actual title when it is, in fact, not. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
That is an argument. But the point of article titles is usefulness, not formalism, so you can actually find what you're looking for. It does not pretend to be his official title - none of them do. If they did, all Swedish monarch articles would be titled "X of Swedes, Geats and Vandals" rather than "of Sweden". ;) Maybe it's not ideal, but it's functional, accessible, understandable - certainly a heck of a lot more functional and less misleading than merely "George III". Walrasiad (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONCISE and WP: PRIMARYTOPIC and literally just common sense. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The consise name is an invitation for confusion and wrong internal links. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
George III already redirects here, so how could that be an "invitation for wrong internal links"? Impru20talk 12:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I miss those days, when the monarch bio articles were so neat, in their Name # of country form :( GoodDay (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
You mean like a month ago? It worked well for over a decade. Not sure how this happened, but it is causing a lot of damage across Wikipedia - and predictably so. Just reducing recognizability for no good reason. Walrasiad (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A month ago? Try a decade ago. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was moved to Elizabeth II way back in 2010. Stop acting like moving monarch titles to their actual common name rather than a made up Wikipedia format is somehow something new and unprecedented. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Not comparable. She's a current well-known celebrity, pretty constantly in the news, TV and gossip magazines, and is treated as a BLP. The others do not have anywhere near that degree of recognizability. The changes began happening a month ago. You know that, so stop being disingenuous. Walrasiad (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh really? The changes began happening a month ago? What about George VI (moved in 2014), Edward VIII (moved in 2011), George V (moved in 2014), Edward VII (moved in 2014), and Queen Victoria (moved in 2010)? The consensus for this shift in article naming has been happening for a very long time. I'm not the one being disingenuous here. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Outside of Queen Victoria (which has its own rationale), the rest are relatively inconsequential 20th Century celebrity royals, probably moved by royal gossip-loving fans, moves not worth educators and historians fighting over. There's nothing more exhausting on Wikipedia than trying to preserve articles from being walled off and ruined by mobs of feverish fans and/or ridiculous nationalists. I've learned to pick my fights long ago. There's a reason I stay away from 20th Century articles. There's a reason I am semi-retired.
Outside these tribal preserves (which no sensible person would dare to wade into), the norm was very clear, has been so for over a decade, and was explicitly spelled out in WP:SOVEREIGN until last month.
That said, again you're being deceptive, since you are perfectly aware of the recent changes, how they began with Elizabeth a couple of months ago, and the resulting nationalist sweeps in French, Spanish, etc. articles, and, of course, the change in WP:SOVEREIGN as you participated in that RfC yourself. You know very well what the norm was. Please stop feigning ignorance. Walrasiad (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
First you accuse me of being disingenuous and now you are accusing me of being deceptive, when I am being neither. You should really read over Wikipedia:Assume good faith. And you know, because I have made you aware of it, that WP:SOVEREIGN is silent when it comes to what to do when one monarch is considered the primary topic for a name shared by multiple monarchs. And there was indeed a RfC on whether or not to add a global provision saying that the primary monarch should not have the country disambiguator added. And that provision failed as no consensus, which means there was neither consensus to add it nor consensus against adding it. Which means we default to the situation we have here where each article must be looked at and discussed on a case by case basis, which is exactly what we are doing here. But if this whole process is too irksome for you, then perhaps you should think about going back into retirement. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. Given you know the result of the RfC, and know that was precisely one of the items discussed (item No.3), and you know it wasn't approved, it defaults to the prior norm, not the one that wasn't approved! That's some sheer illogicity or Orwellian doublethink you are going through ("there was no consensus to change, ergo that means there is no consensus not to change..." ?!?!). If there is no consensus to change, things remain as they are. The result is written in WP:SOVEREIGN as clear as day - no other monarch. You are trying to force by barrage what you couldn't obtain by RfC.
If you're interested in discussing on a case-by-case basis, I'm happy to indulge. Indeed, I have been begging you, pleading you, to discuss rationales and reasons, on this page as well as the other one, so we can take them into consideration. Instead, you have consistently refused to provide reasons, defaulting to a stubborn formalism. Well, now that the formalism works against you, now you want to talk?
Fine, you know what, let's talk. Let's lay all this nonsense aside. I'll "assume good faith". Lay out your arguments. You know mine already. Explain to me exactly what is gained by this change? How does it improve this encyclopedia? How does it make it better and easier for the audience which Wikpedia serves? Walrasiad (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
There was/is no prior universal norm for monarchs that are the primary. See all the examples above that go contrary to what you keep claiming is the universal standard that clearly is not. The RfC was about trying to set a universal standard. It failed to do so, so we are back to case-by-case basis. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You have been given many rationals and reasons above. You are the one choosing to dismiss them as unpersuasive, as I dismiss yours an unpersuasive. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You want me to explain to you the rationals for why on Wikipedia we title articles their common name, and why we give primary topics top billing without a disambiguator, and why we make titles more concise as opposed to more verbose? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you the rationals for why Wikipedia article naming policies are what they are. Just go read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Now, why don't you explain to me why you don't think "George III" is the most common English name for this monarch and why this article is not the primary topic for "George III". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You want me to explain to you the rationals for why on Wikipedia we title articles their common name, and why we give primary topics top billing without a disambiguator, and why we make titles more concise as opposed to more verbose? I'm not going to waste my time doing that. Just go read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Now, why don't you explain to me why you don't think "George III" is the most common English name for this monarch and why this article is not the primary topic for "George III". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
[@Rreagan007: I've taken the liberty of putting your various comments together at the end. I'd prefer you not break up my reply and insert your comments in the middle of my reply, since it makes it confusing and hard for others to follow who is writing what. Just add your comments together afterwards.]
Of course it isn't. First off, there is no indication in the term "George III" that this refers to a monarch at all. It could a sequel of a children's movie, a rapper with a funny spelling, George Foreman's third kid, etc.
In readings for general audiences (not specialist works, general works, which is Wikipedia's reference point), introductions to George III always add some additional indicator he was a monarch, and usually a specifically British one, e.g. "King George III" or "George III, King of the United Kingdom", "British king George III", or something along those lines. Nobody, except perhaps specialists talking to other specialists, introduces the name "George III" cold. They always mention "King", "British" or both when introducing his name. No competent editor would let you get away with that in a general publication, and should you try dropping that name in a classroom or public lecture you will be certain to draw blank stares. So you are removing a very important plank of Wikipedia criteria for article titles: recognizability.
You assume (wrongly) that everyone (British, Indonesian or otherwise) knows who or what "George III" refers to. They don't. I assure you. You have to have some indicator at least of king. Even something as straightforward and brief, say, the Hamilton musical playbill, bothers to write "King George III", not "George III" in the character list. So, no, your primary assertion about common name is wrong.
Now Wikipedia article titles don't allow the monicker "King" in article titles, so that necessary qualifier for recognition cannot be added here. Which leaves us with "of the United Kingdom", as the only way to retain some recognizability in the title. Perfect? No, it really should be "George III, King of the United Kingdom" (like Britannica uses). But since we're advised not to go all the way there, it leaves us with "George III of the United Kingdom" as the best way to make the article recognizable and useful for our audience. Walrasiad (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I see. So what you're saying is that you think every Wikipedia article title should have some kind of descriptor. Therefore, the George Washington article should be moved to "George Washington, President of the United States" because some readers might be confused about whether an article simply titled "George Washington" was about the president or an aircraft carrier. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
George Washington is known as George Washington. King George III is known as King George III. Says so on the Hamilton playbill. He's not George III - Ayeayeaye is not his last name. Walrasiad (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Now that's just plain nonsense. Roman numerals are not read as such only if the subject is titled king nor are they otherwise read as letters. George III is called just that by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and by several biographical works cited in this article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Given there is no indication they are monarchs in the article title, how are they to be read? There is no more reason for a searcher to assume "George III" refers to a British monarch than it is to assume "Rocky III" refers to a King of Sicily and "Malcolm X" to a King of Scotland.
Now you may have royals on the brain and know that, but most people don't. If they know him at all, they'll know him as "King George III", which is the common name, not "George III". There is nothing indicating "George III" should not be read as "George Three" or "George Ayeayeaye".
You may know the digit III is not a surname, it's a half-title. It means the "third king of Britain of that name". Notice what I said there? "King", and "of Britain", which is how people commonly refer to him. But there is no indication or even insinuation he is a monarch in the article title. The reason we use the norm Name # of country is precisely to imply a monarch without having to explicitly use the term "King" in the article title. It was a compromise to avoid the longer "George III, King of the United Kingdom" (like Britannica does, and we do with non-ordinals like "John, King of England").
This proposal is removing useful information, making the article title less recognizable, and consequently less accessible. What is the gain, exactly? Walrasiad (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
A name that is never used in reference works (George III of the United Kingdom) is not more recognizable than the name that is commonly, if not predominantly, used in reference works (George III). Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You've been citing British-oriented works or works of narrow interest. To general Anglo-American audiences, "King George III" is the common name, e.g. Spartacus, NPG, RCT, PBS, etc. And to global audiences, outside Anglo-American bubble, there is even less recognition unless specifically noted to be British monarch. Please be mindful of who the audience for Wikipedia is. Not everyone is British and not everyone is into royal kitsch. You are removing information that provides some (if not perfect) recognizability, and substituting it with something that helps none at all. Walrasiad (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not British and I am not into royal kitsch. The man is commonly known as George III, and WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. The present title is hardly used outside Wikipedia and the move proposed here would thus be an improvement. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hm. Your edit history seems to suggest you have a rather unusual interest in royals, aristocrats, princes & princesses. Whatever you want to call it, your awareness of royals is certainly far, far superior from a general audience. I urge you to keep that in mind. The man is commonly known as "King George III", not "George III". If you don't want to include "King", then you need another indicator that he is a monarch and not a TV show. That's what "Name # of country" norm was devised for. You claim "improvement", but I don't see how it improves. Walrasiad (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's the Google Ngrams of "George III" vs. "King George III".[5] It's clear that "George III" is more common than "King George III". And as I have pointed out to you before, per WP:CONCISE, we title articles with "sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area", not to someone unfamiliar with the general subject area. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
That's rather silly double-counting. The "George III" results include all "King George III", as well as any "George III, King of Britain", etc. And of course, all instances in a text after King George III is already introduced in title or at beginning.
As to "familiarity", that's ambiguous. I write and teach economic history. I cover a lot of this period, often quite in detail. Is that part of the general subject area? Yet trust me when I tell you most students would not recognize a monarch by cold name alone.
If we go down a couple rungs, to, say, Marcia Johnson, the 10th grader from Illinois who just watched Hamilton, is she unfamiliar? She will likely merely remember him as "King George" and that he was British, and if you press her for the number, she will probably not remember, and maybe not even know there was more than one. Now, Marcia may not be the best-read person in Illinois, but she is pretty representative of the audience for Wikipedia - a global audience with diverse educational and geographical backgrounds. She won't click "George III" when it comes up in a search, because it doesn't indicate he is either king or British. She'll likely assume its the third season of some obscure Australian TV show and keep looking. She's got a class presentation tomorrow, why are you making life complicated for her?
Again, there's no gain to this change. You are merely removing information that is helpful to a lot of people and making it less recognizable. You still haven't explained what the gain is.
And please don't slip back into pointless formalism. We know this change violates WP: SOVEREIGN stipulation of no other monarch. You asked for an exception. So I would like to hear something more substantive about the positives of this change. Surely you have some positives in mind, don't you? Walrasiad (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The "double counting" is easily corrected for just by subtracting the hits for "King George III" from "George III", so if results for "George III" are more than double that of "King George III" then you know that "George III" is more common than "King George III". And this change absolutely does not violate WP:SOVEREIGN, as it does not specifically address what to do when one monarch is considered to be the primary for a given monarchical name. And the gain is that the article title will be moved to the WP:COMMONNAME, so it's the exact same gain as any other Wikipedia article being located at its common name. I'm not going to waste my time trying to justify to you what is gained from Wikipedia's article naming policy of titling articles at their common name. It's explained at WP:COMMONNAME, so you can just go read the policy justifications there for yourself. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
(caught in edit conflict)
No it's not. You're still double counting all iterations identifying him as monarch, e.g. "George III, King of United Kingdom", "British monarch George III", etc. And moreover you are also spuriously counting legal citations (all British parliamentary acts & laws are cited as "Regnal Year Monarch Chapter" - you know that, right?).
Yes, it does violate WP:SOVEREIGN, it specifically addresses the matter, and it explicitly requires no other country. And of course this violates it, as we have King George III of Georgia, etc. Now, you may say Georgia is just some piddling country no one cares about, or imperialistically assert only Britain matters, but I don't think it advisable to enter into a nationalist pissing contests on Wikipedia. They are very acrimonious. These are the kind of things the WP:SOVEREIGN guideline exist to to prevent.
Any big country is going to naturally outweigh any small country in references. That doesn't mean it trumps. Otherwise Wikipedia will be simply the Encyclopedia from the view of United States, Britons, and some other Big Countries. If we were going by your blind criteria, the US state of Georgia would be the primary article for "Georgia", and the sovereign country in the Caucasus can go jump in the lake. I know you said you don't give a damn about "essays", but I will still urge to remind again,WP:BIAS and WP:GLOBAL. This is, after all, a global encyclopedia we are building.
You asked for an exception to WP:SOVEREIGN. I indulged it. I invited you to lay out the positives to weigh against the negatives.
Negatives are clear to me: your change is promoting an error (not commonname), removing recognizibility to general audiences, making access and usability more difficult, promoting misinformation (insinuating only one George III), promoting bias (Britain matters more than Georgia) and overall reducing the educational value of Wikipedia. That's the negatives I see and have outlined.
The positives... well, you have none, or at least feel like you don't have to provide any. So I should conclude there are no positives? Or that you are not taking this very seriously? Or have not really thought it through?
I don't see enough reason provided for an exception to WP:SOVEREIGN. I have assumed good faith, I have asked, you've refused. I don't know more to say. Walrasiad (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If you think that "King George III" is a more common name than "George III", then you should be advocating that we move the article to King George III. But I'm sure even you would have to acknowledge that "George III of the United Kingdom" is NOT the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
No it is not. But it is better than the proposed change. We decided long ago not to clutter article titles with "King" (with some exceptions, e.g. Queen Victoria). But we still needed a way to retain recognizability as a monarch and avoid nationalist pissing contests, and that's why the "of country" norm was adopted. It may not tick all the nice boxes, but it has been perfectly workable for decades and the best solution under the circumstances. Walrasiad (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
So instead of cluttering the article title with "King" you prefer to clutter the article title with "of the United Kingdom". Honestly, I'd prefer to have the title be "King George III", if that was truly the most common name, because at least that is a title that is actually used, whereas "George III of the United Kingdom" is not a name that is used at all, but is rather a Wikipedia constructed natural disambiguation. Disambiguation in article titles is fine when necessary, but it just isn't necessary in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Months ago (if not longer) when this trend away from Name # of country began gathering steam, I proposed using Name # (country) for those monarch bios with the same name & regnal # as other countries. This proposal was made to 'try' & keep the monarch bios as close to neatness/sameness as possible, but was rejected. If adopted? we would've had George II (Great Britain) & George II (Greece) for examples. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Going from natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation is worse, in my opinion. Where disambiguation is needed, the natural disambiguation is perfectly fine. Where disambiguation isn't needed, whether because there is primary topic or because there is only one monarch of that name, then just don't use any disambiguation. This is the norm across Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
It’s the norm, but it’s stupid. It hurts recognizability. It throws consistency to the wind. It frequently fails PRECISE. It misread CONCISE, concise is about information density, discarding information for shortness is called “brevity”. It begs for linking errors, and makes them harder to detect. What is the advantage? My working theory is the people obsessed with titling are typically obsessed with algorithms to the exclusion of the reader. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
It does not hurt recognizability to move an article from a title never used to a title commonly used. Surtsicna (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course it does. Short of being too long to comprehend in a glance, the naming of the Kingdom definitely helps. Hiding the kingdom name will cause some (including me) to suspect that this is some other topic, like a recently released song or movie. George III is such a superfamous person, for the long reign, the peak of the empire, that a huge proportion of references to him are already in-context. Books are titled with brevity because authors and publisher know that in libraries and bookshops the book is going to be placed in the section for English monarchy. Also, for superfamous topics, it is a marketing device to be ambiguous and familiar to hook the browser. These things are at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. And again, where's the benefit? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The benefit is the exact same as not titling the George Washington article "George Washington (president)" or "George Washington, president of the United States", or not using overly specific and unnecessarily disambiguated titling on literally thousands of other articles across Wikipedia. Now, if you don't think that's a good enough benefit, then you should be trying to change our article naming policies at WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Good luck with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I most certainly do try to change PRIMARYTOPIC, but I encounter lethargy and inertia in circular arguments ("this is what is done" on one side, and "this is what the guideline says" on the other, swap glibly between the two) and slippery slope arguments like yours. Parenthetical is discouraged, so "George Washington (president)" doesn't work. "George Washington, president of the United States" exceed the one line title space (~42 characters) and so is immediately suspect on that count for being wordy, and I would agree. You've not actually stated a benefit of stripping "of the United Kingdom", but have given a rhetorical evasion. WP:COMMONNAME is well worded ad understood. It doesn't say "most" COMMONNAME, and does have something alluding to reliable sources. WP:CONCISE is also good, but some people misread it as brevity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
If you don't like some of the article naming policies, that's fine. And I can see your point of view in why you don't think some of them (such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) are beneficial. But as long as the policies are what they are, I think they should be applied evenly. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:08, 8 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.


Poor move decision

A poor decision, a bad decision in violation of WP:SOVEREIGN, and ruinous to Wikipedia. If the closer notes "no disagreement" about COMMONNAME, evidently he didn't read well enough. Walrasiad (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Ruinous to Wikipedia"? Seriously? That's a little hyperbolic don't you think? And like it or not, Wikipedia article-naming policy was on the side of this move, and the move request had 2/3 support. And even though it's not a straight vote count, 2/3 support is generally going to be deemed consensus for a move request, especially when policy is on the side of the supports. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Walrasiad: Seek a move review if you think there were serious, consensus-changing oversights; don't just go on here to complain about the fact that the result wasn't in your favour. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
These naming policies must've changed over the last few years. Wonder what the next trend will be. Perhaps have some monarch article titles coloured in purple? GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

How did this move ever get passed? Have the adults left the room? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: It all began with the WP:COMMONAME crowd, which changed articles like William I of England to William the Conqueror. Now, it's the WP:PRECISION crowd, who are pushing for changes to articles like Louis XIV of France to Louis XIV. The result? we've gotten monarch article titles which are out of sync with each other. If this were a hard cover encyclopedia, an editor-in-chief would be peeved. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Good grief. When common sense goes out the window then we need something more basic like a hierarchy of rules (i.e "in the event of a conflict between rule A and rule B, then Rule A shall have primacy"). Wiki is looking less and less like an encyclopedia for adults and more like a make-encyclopedias-great-again home. A MEGA pain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
If you don't like Wikipedia's current article-naming policies, you are free to propose changes to them. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not the policies, it's knowing how to apply them. Evidently some editors get lost in the weeds are unable to see beyond their narrow reading of one rule, to the detriment of other rules, and hit it like a hammer everywhere, oblivious to common sense and regardless of consequences. One of the most hilarious I saw was in a recent RM, where scholarship proved that a person's name was actually a mistake carried over in publications for several decades, yet some editor still insisted that was "COMMONNAME" regardless of it being factually inaccurate, and therefore we must perpetuate that mistake too. Policies exist to improve an encyclopedia, not to ruin it. That's why we have WP:IGNORE. Walrasiad (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:IGNORE still requires consensus. In this particular case, the consensus of the RM discussion was to apply the generally accepted article naming policies to this article's title. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No it wasn't. You're confusing your stubborn insistence with consensus. There is a policy WP:SOVEREIGN which was thrown aside. I assumed good faith to discuss improvement of the article, which you did not. Not only was that criteria not agreed to, but what you identified as COMMMONNAME was if anything regarded by others - and even you, at one point! - as an error on your part. The closer certainly did not seem to take anything to consideration. Walrasiad (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure exactly what you're talking about here, and I don't think it's really beneficial to keep going around in circles with you. You made your case in the RM discussion and I made mine. More people agreed with me than with you. That's how it goes sometimes. But I definitely think you're overreacting. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
This has wider repercussions across the board. Besides your being mistaken on COMMONAME (as you basically admitted), you refusal to even defend how the change improved the article was a pretty strong indicator you didn't give this much thought. And the closer didn't seem to give it any thought at all, or even read it. You both seem to be on a mono-maniacal mission to cutting article titles on very narrow and thoughtless criteria, with little or no understanding or care, which is quite ruinous to Wikipedia. Walrasiad (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"yet some editor still insisted that was "COMMONNAME" regardless of it being factually inaccurate" Commonname typically means that we use a widely known name/term that does not match the official name or title. Editors have been complaining for years that such names are inaccurate, with no actual change in the policy. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to a simple straightforward case in a recent different RM - where someone's name was actually "James Doe" and not "John Doe" (as mistakenly reported in many sources). Our proverbial antagonist insisted on sticking with the mistaken "John Doe" because his obsession with COMMONNAME criteria trumps factual accuracy. And you think it is not damaging to Wikipedia? Walrasiad (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

What an appealing vista.Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this was a poor decision for several reasons:

  • WP:COMMONNAME is complicated by context because if for example someone is writing an book about the American War of Independence then any mention about "the government of George III" naturally disambaguates by context to "the British government of George III of Great Britain", so a simple count of usage in reliable sources does not really help to indicate usage. Usage in other encyclopaedias is more useful. Not for the style of disambiguation that is use in other tertiary sources, but to see if such tertiary sources disambaguate (because Wikipedia has its owen in house style of dismbaguation in WP:SOVEREIGN).
  • This type of move from a name based on the rules of WP:SOVEREIGN introduces a form of systematic bias particularly when viewed in categories.
  • WP:CONSISTENCY is not being given the weight it should. WP:SOVEREIGN came into existance because in the early days of the Naming conventions (later renamed Article Titles) the policy was to survey all sources (not just reliable ones) which lent weight to popular names "Bloody Mary" "Virgin Queen", "Winter King", etc. and the rules developed in WP:SOVEREIGN used a system that in most cases was considerd to be a fairly typical academic style. Now there are a few cases where I think such rules that give consistency should be overwritten by COMMONNAME the best example of which, (leaving aside the cognomen exceptions which was part of WP:SOVEREIGN for a long time) is Gustavus Adolphus. However I do not think that this article title ought to be an exception to the consistency introduced by the naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) of which WP:SOVEREIGN is a section.

-- PBS (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth II under issue

Elizabeth II is listed as a descendant of Prince Edward (which is correct) and also Prince Adolphus...Felipe of Spain is also listed twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.116.99 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Funeral

Surprised that the word "funeral" did not appear in the article until I added it earlier today. And still surprised there are no details of any kind. Here is an online blog source with some background. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

George III diagnosis

Is there any modern diagnosis of what George III suffered from, as far as "mental illness" is concerned? I am not sure the section says what he actually suffered from. Was it hereditary? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The porphyria diagnosis seems to be misleading or fraudulent. Should the article say George III was "bi-polar" or suffered from "mania" or possibly "dementia"? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Since we never say it was porphyria, and mention mania and bipolar disorder, and Peters' 2010 article is cited, I see no particular reason to change anything in the article. DrKay (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There's likely no way to diagnose his illness, now. Medical records from the late 18th to early 19th century, were difficult to get. GoodDay (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This article lead clearly says: "Although it has since been suggested that he had bipolar disorder or the blood disease porphyria, the cause of his illness remains unknown." And the article body says: "He had a mental illness characterised by acute mania, which was possibly a symptom of the genetic disease porphyria... although this has been questioned..." Bipolar disorder was linked; I have now also liked mania. I also don't see any reason to change anything else. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Has anyone read the link I gave the article above? I am using that as a source. The article said the porphyria diagnosis was misleading or fraudulent. It also gives the dates of his illnesses. The article says he was bipolar. He may have had dementia. He suffered from mania. What has been questioned is the porphyria. I don't think there is any disagreement on mania and bipolar diagnoses. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The porphyria diagnosis has been seriously contested. George III suffered from 4 to 5 episodes of bipolar disorder. The article above gives the dates of his maladies. That would help this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
George III's mental illness did not start in 1810. He suffered from acute mania in 1788. The regency was almost imposed. Regency was also discussed in 1765 over a depression episode. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, looks a good source. As Richard Alfred Hunter is also notable in his own right, this might be worth a brief footnote. Note he also crops up at Prince William of Gloucester#Health. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It makes sense. Sounds like George III's mental illness went into a type of remission period, then again back to mental illness, several times. There are drugs today for bipolar disorder. I don't think they had anything back then to alleviate his illness. Was there any treatment for King George's illness back then? It might be good to explain what a regency is in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a link to regency in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. But what is a regency for the reader to know, like a brief description. Who decided who would be the regent? What powers did a regent have? Things like that. Did the regent make decisions in place of the King? Was the regency Parliamentary rule? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Um, that's why we have a whole article called Regency era? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Right, but the reader can be told simply that his son rules as a proxy. But did George III have a son old enough to rule in 1765 when Regency was discussed? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I just added George IV so the reader will know the regent was George III's son. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The 1765 Regency Act, named either his wife or his mother as regent, backed by a council, in case the king died or unable to performs his powers & duties. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
This is all already in the article. DrKay (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the article needs a better timeline for George III illnesses starting in 1765. The reader may think he just got sick in 1810. That is not the case. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how a reader can be misled, given the large paragraph on the illness in the William Pitt section. DrKay (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There could be an addition, "The Kings illness returned..." That would link the two sections together. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The above article says that the porphyria diagnosis was either fraudulent or misleading. That goes beyond just being questioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_III/Archive_1&oldid=1168087808"