Talk:Edward VII of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Edward VII 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
British Royalty 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

Contents

[edit] older entries

What about the scandals that Edward VII was involved in as Prince of Wales. He was named in divorce proceedings and got caught up in a gambling scandal where another player cheated? No mention at all of any of this?

No surprise there- ANY controversial item about any royal of the 20th century or later mysteriously disappear. Be it Prince Philip's controversial comments or Harry's questionable paternity, it disappears. Of course, pretty much anything about Diana, uncited, can be printed and remain. I have a feeling there's an employee of Buckingham Palace whose sole job is to check up on royal wikipedia articles, cleaning up the royal ones and dirtying up Diana's. It happens all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's complete garbage. You obviously haven't read the article because if you had you'd see that the divorce proceedings and gambling scandal is in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something wrong with illustration?

Something is wrong with one of the illustrations - the caption is shown, but you have to click on it to see the picture. Is this intentional? rasmusdf 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link to House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and it redirects you to House of Windsor, which covers both houses, since they only differ by a name change. We are linking to the Royal House, not the place in Germany. I know the House of Windsor didnt exist yet! They changed the name to windsor in 1917. Jiang 08:56 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was a German house which, at times, ruled over not only that Duchy, but also Great Britain, Belgium, Portugal, and Bulgaria. The article Saxe-Coburg-Gotha discusses all that, and I think would be a better link than House of Windsor which is anachronistic. john 17:04 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You should either separate the current House of Windsor article into two, or incorporate any relevant info into it. I elect to do the latter, since we are concered with the Royal House name and not the Duchy. The same royal house exists to this day, just with a name change. The two are not synonymous. We are only concerned about the British dynasty, not the others. The historical origins of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha deserve a mention though --Jiang 17:23 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha article deals with the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha also ruled the Duchy, Bulgaria, Portugal, and Belgium, and is described as such in the article Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. john 22:27 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with John; it's simply more accurate to have the link access Saxe-Coburg-Gotha than Windsor. I do appreciate your keeping the link to the House of Windsor named Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Arno 08:20 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I added lists of monarchs to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha article and made some other modifications. --Jiang 15:03 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Arno 07:52 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What I'm interested in is did Edward have any kind of real power? Did Victoria? At what point did the monarch become a front figure with no real power?

Victoria and Edward reigned as constitutional monarchs. It's hard to name an exact date as to when the monarch became a figureheard because the change didn't occur overnight. Rather, the monarchy lost its power to Parliament gradually over time. For example, before the Commonwealth of England and The Protectorate, British monarchs were executive monarchs. Following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the British monarchs found themselves surrending much power to Parliament. This trend continued after the Glorious Revolution, during which Parliament arguably asserted themselves as a more powerful body than the monarch. The last monarch who withheld royal assent was Queen Anne in 1708.
When King George I took the throne in 1714, the British monarchy took a very odd turn. George I spoke very little English, and in fact spent very little time in Britain. Under his tenure as King, the British "cabinet" took its modern form, ruling Britain in the name of the King during his absence. From this point on, the cabinet (and the Parliament to which it was responsible to) became the main body involved in the day-to-day running of the Kingdom. However, the King retained the responsibility of appointing the "Prime Minister," so he in fact still had much influence over the direction of the government.
This trend continued through the reigns of the "Georges" until William IV took the throne. The "Georges" had a habit of "meddling" in politics, but William IV preferred to stay out of politics, letting democracy do its thing. He was, however, the last King to appoint a Prime Minister contrary to the will of Parliament. His successor was Victoria, who inheritted a liberal, (by 1830 standards) limited monarchy who had very little say over the day-to-day runnings of the Kingdom. Victoria was definitely very conservative and much warmer to the Tories than the Whigs, yet (much to her dismay) she couldn't do anything when the Whigs won majorities in Parliament and she hesistantly allowed the Whig party to form governments.
Victoria and Edward did, however, have the power to advise their governments and influence decisions behind the scenes, much like Elizabeth II does today. They also had the much influence in the international scene, as the monarch acted as a diplomat and intermarriage between European royal families (as Victoria often arranged) forged political alliances. So they in a sense did have *some* power but the amount of power they held was nothing in comparison to the authoritarian monarchies of Germany, Russia, and Italy of the period.
If I made any errors in my quick and probably biased summary, feel free to correct me. Aoi 01:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victoria was actually a Whig, at least when she started. She got on famously with the (very conservative) Whig prime minister Lord Melbourne, and her petulance prevented the formation of a Tory government under Peel in 1839. After Peel did get in, in 1841, she warmed to the Tories, and she never liked Russell, Palmerston, or Gladstone, who ran the Whigs/Liberals for most of the rest of her reign. But I think it should be noted that the Georges had a considerable degree of influence over the government. Prior to the 1832 Reform Act, governments tended not to lose elections - so much corruption was involved that the government could always pull out a majority. As such, the King's ability to pick the prime minister was dispositive. For instance, George III's dislike for the Fox-North ministry led him to first destroy it in the Lords (where his patronage remained important) and bring in Pitt, and then to manipulate the election to allow Pitt's victory. After 1832, this kind of thing was impossible, as William IV saw when he attempted to kick out the Whigs and bring in Peel and Wellington in 1834. (I think you are wrong to say William was uninterested in politics - the only reason he supported reform in 1832 was because there was a general fear of revolution if he did not. His 1834-1835 attempt to bring back the Tories shows where his true feelings lay). The other key date, I think, is 1911. Before 1911, if the Lords opposed something, the only way to get it through was to create more peers (or, at least, to threaten to do so). This required cooperation of the King, and the King was generally reluctant to do this. Which means that if King and Lords agreed, they had an effective veto against a commons majority. After 1911, this was no longer true, and, I think, after 1911. At any rate, throughout Victoria and Edward VII's reign, the monarchs retained a fair degree of influence, especially over foreign policy and military affairs (recall that Victoria's cousin the Duke of Cambridge was commander of the army for most of the second half of the nineteenth century), although this was mostly behind the scenes. I would say that the monarch who made the monarchy what it is today was, in many ways, George V. Both his support of Lords reform in 1911, and his generally character, which led him to avoid actually involving himself in politics to an even greater extent than his father and grandmother. john k 03:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

What is the vandalism alleged here for protecting the page? Astrotrain 21:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

The family name of Edward VII of the United Kingdom is Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Wettin. User:Silverhorse

  • sigh* not again with this nonsense. According to Buckingham Palace (and they should know), the Royal House name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but the personal surname was von Wettin, as estabished when examined by Queen Victoria who was curious what her surname was after her marriage to Prince Albert. In 1917 George V adapted the same name for both. In the 1960s Queen Elizabeth separated them again somewhat, by deciding that some of her descendants, while belonging to the House of Windsor, would have the personal surname of Mountbatten-Windsor. In practice all her children and the children of her sons have used MW as their personal surname, as explained also by the Prince of Wales's office who confirmed that is what Charles uses as a personal surname. Silverhouse seems not to grasp the difference between Royal House and family surname. They are not always the same. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 17:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not entirely convinced haty Buckingham Palace has officially stated those things. Where's evidence (It is not sufficient that someone got someone of BP say something in phone). Arrigo 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should should simply omit the surname for British royality, since they don't actually use them. I am sure QV never used this name von Wettin, even if it was would she would have been after marriage. A seperate article on Surnames of British royality could be created to explain the situation. This would avoid edit wars and disputes. Astrotrain 17:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
It has been reported that Victoria was not happy with the "Wettin". Arrigo 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
If Buckingham Palace says, as do the archives, that a member of a royal family had a particular surname, I don't know we can possibly not use it when giving her personal name. Either we drop the personal name completely (which IMHO is not an option) from the start of the article and only use the regnal name, or we use the full name, which includes the surname. As to it stopping edit wars: that is not the Wikipedia experience. People kept calling the Prince of Wales Charles Windsor, for example. The decision to use surnames was adopted to stop that, on the basis that surnames are going to be added in by users, so it makes sense to get them right. I think it is also useful to know what Victoria's personal surname pre- and post-marriage, and indeed to know such an important bit of information on all public figures with titles. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 17:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Queen's youngest son has useed "Edward Windsor", thus bared of Mountbatten. Generalizations are bad. Arrigo 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Not correct. He is Edward Mountbatten-Windsor according to legal documents issued by him. He uses Edward Windsor as his business name. That is all. It is quite common in business, or politics to use a shortened version of one's actual name. Michael Ancram and Henry Mountcharles are just two of many examples. Ancram is in fact Michael Andrew Foster Jude Kerr while Henry is actually the Earl of Mountcharles. Henry's actual legal name was Henry Coyningham but when planning a political career, as he was widely known as Lord Henry Mountcharles he changed his name by deedpoll to Henry Mountcharles. Edward Mountbatten-Windsor has not officially changed his name. He just uses a shortened version for business. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 19:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be dropped from the start of the article. In the introduction, there shuld be important issues. Non-used surname is not such. Surname issue can be explained in later part of the article. Arrigo 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there is so much ambigiouty over surnames for British royality, that it is not advisable to use them, particuarly in the first line of an article. Prince Charles' wedding certificate to Camilla, had his surname as Prince of Wales, and not Mountbatten Windsor, and others have used different versions depending on events. I doubt QV or EVII ever used von Wettin as their surname. Perhaps we can have their surnames mentioned in the styles and titles section at the bottom. Given we are trying to end the edit wars over styles, I think surnames should also be banished to a less prominent place. Astrotrain 20:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This was all discussed before, and Buckingham Palace were contacted for clarification about surnames. The problem with not stating one up front is that people then add them in anyway, except it is usually the wrong one. The information about the Prince of Wales's surname came directly from his office. That is what they say it is. And he had used it on occasion, for example, for his first banns. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination attempts?

I know Queen Victoria was targeted in several assassination attempts. I was wondering if there were any such attempts on Edward VII's life. Anyone got any info?

I think sometime in 1900, while Edward was still Prince of Wales, he was shot at by an assasin. However (1901-10) ,I don't think as King,he was attacked in anyway. Does anyone out there, have more info on this topic? Mightberight/wrong 12:54 (AST), 30 October 2005.
In April 1900 he was twice shot at in a train station in Brussels by an anarchist and in August 1902 he was threatened by a young Dutchman in protest against the Boer War who attacked the Prince of Wales instead.--MWAK 15:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This amusing article has a "quote" regarding an attempt on his life.. Scoo 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

Could a better portrait of him be used? Not to be disrespectful to him, but I must admit that he slightly resembles a balloon in the one at the 'top.' --Anglius 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of Saxony

As the son of Prince Albert, the article says he was Duke of Saxony. But wasn't there already a Duke of Saxony? Who would either become its king, or have his descendant(s) do so(I have not felt like looking up this fellows name at the moment)? My thoughts are it has to deal with the German custom of nobility titles, which I'm not familiar with. Any input? Kaiser matias 07:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, he held the title (all male agnates of the House of Wettin held it equally), but didn't reign as Duke of Saxony (his uncle, and later his younger brother, did as Dukes of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, though). As he wasn't a reigning Duke of Saxony, I'm removing him from Category:Dukes of Saxony, as all the other people in it were reigning Dukes of all of Saxony, or at least large parts. smigs 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle of Europe

Tzar Nicholas II was his wife's nephew and Aldonso XIII was his niece's husband.

[edit] Promise of Order of Garter to the Shah of Persia

The article says: "The Shah of Persia, Mozzafar-al-Din, visited England around 1902 on the promise of receiving the Order of the Garter", but does not say who promised the order to the Shah. As it is in the gift of the monarch, did Edward VII offer it then change his mind or did someone else overstep the mark by making the offer? - DavidCane 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jagiello

There is a new precedent being set: the article on Wladyslaw II of Poland got moved to Jogaila, which means that this article would have to be moved to Eduard von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha soon... //Halibutt 08:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind WP:POINT. And remember the not feeding advice before responding. --Irpen 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever my respected friend Irpen suggested above, I'm asking seriously: should articles on all monarchs be moved from their royal names to their, say, private names they were born with? //Halibutt 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
To the serious question, the answer is no. --Irpen 07:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else? Not that I didn't expect Irpen opposing the idea here and supporting it elsewhere, but perhaps more input would be beneficial. //Halibutt 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Edward VII of the United Kingdom has failed for the following reason:

The article does not contain any inline citations and the books listed in the "references" section are limited. Please see WP:CITE for more information on how to properly cite an article. Also, most articles now are moving away from "trivia" sections, as most of the information in these sections can be included into the main body of the article. -- Underneath-it-All 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This article could defiantly use some more references. UK royalty is being nominated as a featured topic, and this page's lack of references is really holding it back. --Arctic Gnome 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daily mirror

no mention of his lying in state pictures published on front page of daily mirror. tali 25/05/07

[edit] Oops.

I'm sorry about deleting the DNB reference; I didn't know what it was. I'm still learning about this.

I deleted the the policy details from the description of the Beresford/Fisher quarrel, because that wasn't relevant to Edward, and should be explained at length in the articles about Fisher and/or Beresford.

--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Those are not punctuation errors - the original quotations do not have commas or fullstops, so the commas and fullstops must go outside of the quotation marks. I have reverted the changes to the Beresford/Fisher paragraph because it is referenced, and the inserted material does not appear in the reference. We shouldn't change referenced comments without adding a reference, or changing the reference to one which is better than the one given. (Middlemas was Professor of History at the University of Sussex, so the reference is already a good one.) DrKiernan 07:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

I understand that Edward VII changed his house from Hanover to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because of his father. But why is this so? After all the current Prince of Wales uses the surname Mountbatten-Windsor but his royal house is (and will remain when he is crowned, unless he explicitly changes it) Windsor. I cant see any differences in the situations...both of these (former) Princes of Wales had queens regnant as their mothers... Thank you for any help! --Camaeron (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, read, thoroughly, House of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor, then come back if you still don't get it... † DBD 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining my copyedits

In my opinion, Edward's reign is not coterminous with the Edwardian period; the period of his reign (one could find other words, but, like Fowler, I find this sort of repetition unobjectionable) is the Edwardian period. In the same way that Elizabeth I's reign is not the Elizabethan age. qp10qp (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can be excluded from wielding. If "wielding" is the preferred word (to me it sounds too active: the monarchy wielded little political power), some other accompanying locution would be more elegant, I think.

These are quibbles, of course. qp10qp (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)