Talk:George III of the United Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | |
 |
George III of the United Kingdom is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do. |
 |
George III of the United Kingdom appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 16, 2004. |
"...342 crates (24 cups) of tea" <-- Am I missing something? (I may well be) BaHaReep 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Vicki! I'm sure the Canadians appreciate being remembered ;-) JHK
john stopper is nameber one he will be ruler
- T'wasn't me! Arnojohn stopper go to rollens-11.Blinks.com and put any kind of picter mostley nude
-
- With the same logic shouldn't there be several dozen pages for the US? Wetman 03:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed... "and all of George's successors have been usurpers" if the 2nd marriage was bigamous, because George III didnt have children from the first. Muriel 17:56, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
-
- Uh uh, I've put this back . Firstly you don't know if they were any children. Secondly, if George was still married to Hannah, then the question of Hannah's children is irrelevant. His second marriage to Charlotte was null and void and his 15 children from that marriage were without claim to the throne. This has implications today. Since the Queen is descended from Edward, Duke of Kent (George'e fourth son by Charlotte) she would be disqualified from being Queen of England if George was indeed still married to Hannah when he married Charlotte. Arno 04:57, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- See additions to the page. George could not have been married to Hannah at the time he married Charlotte, because Hannah was dead. -- Nunh-huh 03:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- In addition, Hannah Lightfoot was married to another man, Isaac Axelford. I do not believe that Quakers are typically bigamists.
What do people mean when they say "the spirit of king george III"?
- When do they say it?
William Iv: shouldn't that read "no legitimate issue"? "Had issue" is confusing. Wetman 17:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- "Had issue" is a standard genealogical phrase and to be honest I'd support it being changed too because not everyone that reads this is going to know what it means... -- Graham :) | Talk 17:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- He did have two daughters, but neither liked nor cared for himSuperscript text.
Contents |
[edit] Enclosure Acts
How about we add something about the Enclosure Acts? Quite an important development during his time as King.
[edit] 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."
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] New and better version of Hanoverian Royal Standard
Please have a look a this image/article:
Image:Hanoverian Royal Standard.png
Thank you.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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.
