Talk:George III of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 16, 2004.
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.
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or 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 quality scale.

"...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.
Hannah Lightfoot died in the same year he is said to married him, so she wouldnt be a bigamist

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)

Comment -->.

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.

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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I agree that it should be. DrKiernan (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)