Talk:William IV of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William IV of the United Kingdom article.
Article policies
Featured article star William IV 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.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Explanation of reversion

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

[edit] Re use of titles

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

[edit] merging

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

  • Oppose- at least for Elizabeth as she was expected to ascend as Queen and was in the direct line of succession. And if you didn't like the section names, it would probably be better to rename or remove them rather than propose redirection. Plus, the move should not have been made until there was more discussion. Astrotrain 16:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record someone else moved the articles, not me. At any rate, we'll hold off on moving Elizabeth until having a discussion here. Tocharianne
  • Support I don't think that just being born into the royal family is sufficient to get an entire article, especially when there's nothing that can be added to rescue an article about an infant from stub-hood. She was third in line for the throne for a grand total of only 3 months, so I think it's exaggerating to say that she was "expected to ascend as Queen". Tocharianne 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If she had lived she would have succeeded in place of Victoria. Note that many infant Royals have their own page. Astrotrain 00:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But the point is that she didn't succeed, she died as an infant. Another point is that there isn't anything that anyone can add to fill out the article. It's a permanent stub. She was born, was third in line for three months, then died. All the information there (date and place of birth/death) are already duplicated in the table on her father's page. Tocharianne 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By that way, which other infant Royals have their own page--I'll try to merge them too >:) Tocharianne
  • Support It was I who moved the articles - because I agree thoroughly with Toch's sentiments. – DBD does... 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Self-evident with Charlotte. And should imo to be done also with Elizabeth - her presumed heiress-ship does not give sufficient encyclopedic content to the article about her. Mere genealogical things are not worth a biography article, because they are as easy and relevant to be given in father's article. The situation would be other only in case of her having actually succeeded to the throne, imo. Maed 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Unless there were a significant number of articles and other sources available to sustain their own articles. I note we have an article on Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, the son of JFK who died in 1963 at the age of two days. If there was significant coverage of Elizabeth, then I might change my mind. Good luck finding it.--Wehwalt 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Duke of Clarence's position on abolition

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

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

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

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

[edit] Constitution of Hanover

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

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

[edit] Three miscarriages

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

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

[edit] Patriline

Do we need a 36 generation patriline in this article? I really think it clutters things up.--Wehwalt 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it personally, but User:Mark J has been adding them to all the British kings. DrKiernan 08:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William IV- the oldest person ever to assume the throne?

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

I don't think this is accurate. At least some popes were older than him when they assumed the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Put in English or British. Obviously there have been older kings when they've assumed the thrones of other nations. I think it is implied, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible additinal references

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

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

[edit] Propose we try to make this FA of the Day

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