Talk:Edward VIII

Changes

DrKiernan disrespectfully self-reverted all my changes. I restored these and will give an explanation here:

1. "there is only one book written by him listed, therefore it is not necessary to disambiguate." - it is necessary because by itself it is not even clear that "The Duke of Windsor" is the author - it could just as well be a book about him. By adding the book title, things are made clear.
2. You are reverted (without explanation) the changes to the bibliography section, which nonsensically places Edward and Wallis under "Windsor".
3. "Pages is abbreviated "pp." not "p."." - Not necessarily. Disambiguation between "pages" and "page" is unnecessary as the numbers speak for themselves.
4. "Fullstops are unnecessary." - Everything must end in a full stop. They are quite necessary.
5. ""Empress Frederick" not "Empress Victoria"" - To speak of her as "the German Empress Victoria" is perfectly acceptable, even if that was not her formal title after her husband's death. Sometimes formal title (e.g. Princess Royal) will be totally misleading.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I deny that the edit was disrespectful. The edit was fully explained in the edit summary. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the double full-stops from refs. 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the fact that it was a blanket revert and that the explanations in the edit summary were highly apodictic that made it disrespectful.

Double full stops were not created by me but by employing pointless templates. However, the text contains a few double dots (not actually full stops). These should be corrected (and will) into the typicall "..." for a hiatus. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect as the reference I added from Speer's book is even acknowledged in the next few paragraphs:

Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[70] It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings.

If you are going to remove that quote, then you may as well remove and reedit Edward's World War II section in its entirety. Quoting Hitler directly, which is what Speer does, essentially confirms these suggestions by historians and even Churchill's suspicions that was also noted in this same article, that Hitler did have a use for Edward. In several alternative history novels written by various authors where the Nazis do win the war, Edward is the King of England. Eman007 ^(talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I introduced that material, so you pointing it out to me is somewhat redundant.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The quote from Speer confirms that Hitler thought that had Edward been King instead of George VI before the war his conquest of Europe would have been easier, not that he's going to reinstate him. The supposition that Hitler plotted to restore Edward comes from authors writing after Speer's death, such as Michael Bloch (see Operation Willi#Further reading) and (the now utterly discredited) Martin Allen (see Talk:Edward VIII of the United Kingdom/Archive 1#Section: World War II). This article is about real history not the alternative kind. DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I never said anything about, nor did Speer apparently say anything either, about Hitler reinstating Edward VII had he conquered the UK. I said and I quote: Hitler had pinned his future relations with Britain on Edward. Which is true. You are incorrect about Hitler & Edward. Hitler wanted Edward VIII on the throne so it would have not only made conquering Britain and the world much easier, but forming an alliance with the UK which is something Hitler actually preferred than fighting Britain as he admired the British Empire. This is well known and not alternative history.

Quoting Speer who quotes Hitler, in the page right before the quote about Edward's abdication:

"Hitler was pacing back and forth in the garden at Obersalzberg. "I really don't know what I should do. It is a terribly difficult decision. I would by far prefer to join the English. But how often in history the English have proved perfidious. If I go with them, then everything is over for good between the Italy and us.""

And again later on that page:

"The decision must be taken in terms of the long view, he said. He spoke of his readiness to guarantee England's empire in return for a global arrangement-a favorite idea of his, which he was to voice often."

And the whole quote in addition to what I had posted.

"Whereupon he would launch into remarks about sinister anti-German forces who were deciding the course of British policy. His regret at not having made an ally out of England ran like a red thread though all the years of his rule. It increased when the Duke of Windsor and his wife visited Hitler at Obersalzerg on October 22, 1937, and allegedly had good words to say about the achievements of the Third Reich."

So, it doesn't make sense to put in: "Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany, saying "His abdication was a severe loss for us."[62]" (and yes I must point it out to you to make you understand) and essentially paraphrase what it seems to be is your point of view, rather than to put in the entire quote which is all I did and shore up and make sense the latter half of this article, as well as the general consensus made by historians that Hitler did in fact intend to use Edward as a puppet monarch, or at least had he stayed King, used him to sway over the UK under his control and not reinstate him which is what you claim and speculate later in the article. Eman007 ^(talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how or why you think I'm trying to impose my "point of view", or that I am "incorrect about Hitler & Edward". Please expand on exactly which of my comments is wrong, and exactly how I am trying to impose a viewpoint which is my own personal interpretation.

I'm confused because your comments here are apparently contradictory:

You agree with me that Hitler did consider Edward to be friendly towards Germany, but then you say that my comment "Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany" "doesn't make sense".

You say "Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain...Speer...essentially confirms these suggestions by historians" but then you say "I never said anything about, nor did Speer apparently say anything either, about Hitler reinstating Edward".

If the insertion of the comments mislead me into thinking something that is untrue then a less informed reader will almost certainly make the same mistake. Hence, the need to rephrase to avoid such misunderstandings. DrKiernan (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

the introduction to the article says "Edward VIII (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David; later The Duke of Windsor; 23 June 1894 – 28 May 1972) was King of the United Kingdom and the British dominions, and Emperor of India from 20 January 1936 until his abdication on 11 December 1936." it repeats the date "1936" and I doubt he started his reign as emperor lasted only a year, if this is the case, at least specify the months in between which this happened--Angry Mushi 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Mushi (talk • contribs)

Honorary military ranks

It seems rather unlikely that Edward was promoted from the naval rank of lieutenant to captain in 1919 unless it was an honorary promotion. Likewise, his promotion in 1939 to major-general. The "military" sub-section in the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section implies otherwise. Greenshed (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the British Royalty style guide, I think the honorary military section should be for things like Honorary Colonelcies of regiments. So, I've moved the substantive ranks to a single section. DrKiernan (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It still seems odd that he dropped three ranks in going from field marshal in 1936 to major-general in 1939. Generally, British field marshals retain the rank for life. Greenshed (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He was a Field Marshall, Admiral of the Fleet etc ex officio because, as King, he was commander in chief of the armed forces and as such held the highest possible rank in each service. Once he ceased being King then his rank (presumably) reverted to whatever rank he held prior to 1936 or (more likely) he ceased to hold any rank whatsoever until granted one by George VI 86.128.82.79 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Does abdication as Monarch expunge all previous honours, held before accession? Would he have been entitled to wear the medals he held in his own right from his WWI service, post-abdication? Field Marshalcy and Fleet Admiralty are indeed for life in every other circumstance - and those titles are only granted 'ex-officio' of certain military assignments and positions - yet undoubtedly persist thereafter unless specifically revoked. This probably falls under the theory that the British Constitution only means what people can get away with, and if he didn't wear the rank, it's possible that he 'abandoned' it or somesuch sophistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CR1670 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is true that he reverted to his previous rank, why did he not become an admiral, general and air chief marshal, which were the ranks he held before he became king? Greenshed (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

His seniority in rank at that stage would have reflected his position as 1st in line to the throne. Post-abdication he was merely a Royal Duke and a much lower-ranking royal than the Prince of Wales. 195.200.159.2 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

King of Great Britain, Ireland - inappropriate wiki links

I know this was touched on before, so sorry if I repeat stuff, or misunderstand things. I think one has to distinguish how titles are written, and what political entitles one actually has authority over.

Regardless of how his titles were written, I understand Edward VIII literally was the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not the king of Ireland. It is only ok to use the text "King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, and Emperor of India" *if* we keep it in quotes, and do NOT wiki link the parts. I think it's technically wrong and misleading to link to Ireland (in this context) as this implies we're saying he was King of Ireland. The link to Great Britain sends the reader to an article, which shows Great Britain is (since 1801) just a geographical component of a larger political entity (note the infobox doesn't identify the current monarch). I understand we're using certain text to match what was written on official documents, but if we don't put text in quotes, we're stating it as fact, inappropriately.

To make an analogy, George W. Bush is "President of the United States of America", but he is not President of the United States of America. --Rob (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He was King of Ireland. Ireland didn't become a Republic until after World War II. DrKiernan (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry, and thanks. --Rob (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

His title (for all his realms including Ireland) was "of Greatbritain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India, Defender of the Faith". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"various prime ministers"

What does this mean? He had only 1 PM, Baldwin. 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he had six: Baldwin plus the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland. DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference may be clear to folks in Britain, but I, too, was taken aback by "various Prime Ministers". I understand what was meant -- now that it has been explained -- but I believe the average reader may better understand if the language was modified to something like "prime ministers of his various dominions"

Crystal Palace

No connection beyond the timing, but The Crystal Palace burnt down less than two weeks before the abdication. (Factoid for quiz-setters) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth

I found "making him the only monarch of Britain, and indeed any Commonwealth Realm, to have voluntarily relinquished the throne". Has there ever been a monarch of a commonwealth realm who was not also monarch of Britain? If not is the second part of this sentence really necessary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that couldn't happen because the monarchy is shared between those countries. In that sense (and in that sense only) the crown is still indivisible. The title for every commonwealth realm is Of X, and all other realms King (or Queen). That can only apply to one person at the time.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It technically could happen; there's nothing to bind any one realm to have the same monarch as any other except for voluntary adherance to an agreed upon convention that was only ever written out in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster. Thus, because Ireland didn't pass its abdication act at the same time as the other countries, Edward VIII was, for 24 hours, King of Ireland while his brother was King of all the other realms.

If all the realms shared Edward as king, doesn't that make the first part of the sentence redundant? --G2bambino (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If that happened the realm involved would stop being a commonwealth realm I think. The new King of that realm could not be "of X and all the other realms and territories King". The reference to the other realms would have to go. Also, if Edward VIII was King in Ireland still after he ceased to be King in Britain and the other dominions, there would have been two people that day bearing the title "Of GB, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, King". Since that was the title for Ireland as well at the time.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right that once a realm ended up with a different monarch to the others they would cease to be a Commonwealth realm. But, in the case of Edward VIII they, except for Ireland for a very short period, didn't end up with different sovereigns; Edward abdicated in all his realms, and so, thus, became the first to do so in each country. I figured that Britain was separated out in this instance because the history of its monarchy is so much more lengthy than the others. --G2bambino (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Irish law was made valid retroactively. The notion of two seperate monarchs for different realms or dominions did and does not exist. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What about rulers of the Indian princely states and the Kabaka of Buganda? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms refers specifically to states within the Commonwealth which share the same monarch as the United Kingdom, such as Canada and Australia, rather than states within the Commonwealth with separate monarchies, such as Malaysia and Lesotho. DrKiernan (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of throat cancer?

I was going through fixing links to disambiguation pages, here, and ran across a link to the disambiguation page throat cancer. Although I was semi-suprised to find that as a disambiguation page, it can apparently refer to either Esophageal cancer or the more general Head and neck cancer. Do we happen to know which link would be more appropriate? -- Natalya 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

and New Zealand, having never even heard of Mrs. Simpson before, vacillated in disbelief from the 07.08.08. The meaning of this phrase is not unclear, however it sounds rather amusing to my ear. "New Zealand" is of course meant to stand for '"His Majesties Government in New Zealand" but this brings to mind the image of an entire bewildered country staggering in the light of Wallis Simpson. --Francis Burdett (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Would New Zealanders not have been reading about Wallis Simpson in the newspapers just like the people in England? 86.166.25.149 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Only after the news broke in early December. DrKiernan (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that in Britain news of the developing situation was largely kept out of the papers by agreement with the proprietors, so ordinary people didn't know much about it until almost the 11th hour. (It was an open secret among the upper crust, though, but the two circles didn't intersect.) So it wouldn't be surprising that far-flung corners of the Empire such as Australia and New Zealand were kept in the dark for a long time. No such restrictions applied to US papers, and they all knew what was going on long before many parts of the Empire knew. Over and above all this, I'd be surprised if His Majesty's (not Majesties, btw) governments weren't apprised of developments that never made it to the local newspapers. Hence, if anyone in NZ was "vacillating in disbelief" (whatever that's supposed to mean), it would have been ordinary NZ citizens, not members of the NZ government. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bradford p.187 says: "[New Zealand] havered on the brink on condemnation, their Premier never having heard of Mrs Simpson."

Broad p.178 says: "When the news broke the people had not so much as heard of Mrs. Simpson—an ignorance they shared with Bishop Blunt and Mr. Savage, the New Zealand Prime Minister." DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I live in NZ, so if you'd like i'll ask my 95 year old grandmother whether the NZ public had prior knowledge of the situation as was the case in the U.S. My grandmother was 21 when this all happened. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Arms

A few months ago there was a discussion concerning the blazon of the charge on the label of the arms. I have found an online source that describes the charge. Since the article is FA and I am a new user, I am posting here before I edit in case discussion is desired. If anyone wants to check the reference Flags of the Royal Family,United Kingdom

sorry... i didn't sign the above Tide rolls (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where this source says whether the crown is gold or proper, but I think Burke's as a source for the latter is fine (you mentioned it in the prior discussion). So if your edit will be to say "proper", I say go for it. -Rrius (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

After executing the edit I went to my source to copy and paste the relevant text here,but could not locate it. In putting the cart before the horse I have mis-referenced the change. I am working on finding the proper link now :o\ Tide rolls (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was there..I missed it in my panic and haste: "In the 1950 Book of Flags Campbell and Evans wrote, 'On the centre point of the [Duke of Windsor's] label is now an Imperial Crown in token of his former rank as King Edward VIII; it appears on the Royal Arms, for he has not yet been granted a flag.' This is repeated in the 1969 edition, only three years before he died." Tide rolls (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edward knew, re fall of Baldwin government

Point well taken, re revert of my last; (I have not read the source). But, I was guided by this fact: it is already reported in the article that Edward knew of the huge implications --including the likely fall of the Baldwin government-- if he married without abdicating first. I think it valuable to recapitulate --in three words-- the fact here; i.e., to record this knowledge was part of his final deliberations and decision-making.--Jbeans (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Senile" reference in Later Life section

Near the end of the Later Life section, there's a sentence that begins, "Increasingly senile and frail, the Duchess died 14 years later..." This use of the word "senile" is rarely used anymore (at least in the United States), because it inaccurately, and to many people offensively, implies a close or causative relationship between age and dementia. "Senile" has largely been replaced (in the U.S.) with the word "demented". I would have liked to replace the word "senile" with the word "demented" in this section, but I see that the page is semi-protected. Also, I've been informed that in England, the word "demented" is not used this way. In any case, since there seems to be so much controversy over the historical character involved, maybe a blander word or phrase would fit better here. "Confused" would work, wouldn't it? Or maybe someone else has a better suggestion. At any rate, I strongly suggest removing the offensive word "senile". Sylvia A (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. In the UK and elsewhere in the anglophone world "demented" is as touchy as you say "senile" now is in the USA, notwithstanding clinical use of the term "dementia." "Demented" in international English -- surely this is also the case in US English is it not? -- has mildly droll connotations which it would be inappropriate to import here. The Duchess, as is amply documented, in a vegetative state in her latter years; in common use "demented" surely suggests lunacy rather than senility, and the latter is more accurate. Masalai (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Do verifiable sources exist for any of these terms in reference to the Duchess? Tide rolls (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Masalai, I do get that we can't use "demented" since it has comical and insulting connotations in some places. However, I don't agree that "senile" is more accurate. The word does not refer to any actual specific disorder. It's a vague term often used to mean one of several dementias, none of which is actually caused - as the term implies - by age. If the Duchess was in a vegetative state, surely "senile" isn't the most apt word for this. If she was, in fact, demented or "senile", and if there are reliable sources for this, they won't use the word "senile", they'll surely use a more meaningful and accurate term. If there are not reliable sources for it, can't we just remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviaa (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is FA shouldn't we consider properly sourcing any changes? Tide rolls (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Since both "senile" and "demented" have pejorative meanings, I've changed it to the more clinical "senile dementia" PhysicsR (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Title

Sorry to go back to basics, but:

Can I ask on what grounds this man is referred to as King Edward VIII? Unless the Coronation is merely a tourist event, it is on that occasion that the heir apparent is recognised as head of the Church and State and the Lords and Commons together swear allegiance. Until the coronation he/she remains the heir apparent. I draw a parallel in that President Obama did not formally become President until one of the US courts said he was. In the case of David Windsor he was never ever remotely likely to become King, not least because it was extremely unlikely that the Commons would have permitted the Speaker of the House to swear allegiance on their behalf. Indeed it was Stanley Baldwin (then PM) who was instrumental in giving the silly and unpleasant man his marching orders. For those who doubt the supremacy of the Lords and Commons in this matter I refer them to history, particularly, but not only, the selection of William and Mary as joint King and Queen. Although Mary had a some right of succession, William had none. I recognise that in deference to the current Queen and, bearing in mind the great difficulties David caused the Windsor family, we might in kindness gloss over the issues by generally referring to him as Edward VIII for clarity; but the truth is that he never was, and was never likely to be, King.

Drg40 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He became king immediately on the death of his father. Hence, "The (old) king is dead. Long live the (new) king!". DrKiernan (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but, that speech is made by Garter King of Arms (?) very soon after the death of the monarch, and certainly without the formal authority of the various organs of state. It might seem terrific, but it merely records the continuity of the monarchy, not necessarily at the individual level. In other words a great piece of typically British theatre. If you don't believe in the "King by divine right" (and I'm afraid I don't), but rather that the monarchy is a most convenient and effective way of selecting someone in whom the separation of powers is vested, then he wasn't King. Remember we fought a civil war because the Charles I thought he had divine rights - amongst other reasons. I am aware that he (David) had some strange view that he was King by God's hand and also believed that some of the roles of the democratically elected government should no longer be discharged by those elected but returned to the Monarch (the determination of Foreign Policy, for example). One suspects this, he hoped, would enable a rapprochment with Herr Hitler. But just because he wished it so, doesn't make it right. After all, although the media of the time worshipped him and so, as a result did most of the British people, it's difficult to get round the fact that many people who knew him well (including particularly his mother and father) thought him to be a deeply unpleasant man. As I read it it was only sycophants like Mountbatten who poured all this nonsense into his head (whilst participating and encouraging him in his sexual extravaganzas) who were responsible for egging this feeble man on. He wasn't ever going to be King until they poured oil over him, pushed orb and sceptre into his hands, clapped a crown on his head and bowed (or curtsied) low. And we didn't. Drg40 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The succession is governed by statutes laid down by Parliament. By law, the heir becomes monarch on the death of the incumbent. This did not happen in 1649 because Parliament passed a new law (since revoked), making it unlawful. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help. I have a feeling that matter will be tested sorely in the not too distant future, but perhaps we shall have to wait and see. 80.58.205.99 (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr Kiernan is dead right about this. Edward became king at the moment of George V's death, by law. The coronation is essentially a side show, having no bearing whatsoever on whether the person is king or not. Edward VIII was never crowned at all, but he was most definitely a king. There are other pieces of ritual, but all they do is confirn what has already happened. The government of the day could decide that the new monarch is not suitable, but if they wanted him to be no longer king, they'd have to introduce a law to have him deemed no longer king, but that would be subject to the wishes of the parliament. The government does not decide who is king or not, the law does, and the parliament is the body that has sole right to change the law. If such a law were passed, the person would have been king from the moment of the previous king's death until the law was passed. If Edward VIII had not been king to begin with, the entire question of abdication could not possibly have arisen. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a couple of minor points to which JackofOz alludes to.

1) Quite right the Heir Apparent or Heir Presumptive immediately becomes Sovereign at the death of the previous Sovereign. If Officers of State and the Heir Apparent/Presumptive are present at the moment of death all bow to the new Sovereign and the hand is kissed in sign of fealty. 2) An Accession Council is immediately convened in which the new Sovereign is acknowledged and the new title of the Sovereign is announced first in the public square of St James's Palace. This Accession Council is made up of the principle members of the Privy Council (senior members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and senior members of the Royal Family). Parliament as a body HAS NO SAY WHATSOEVER IN THIS ACCESSION COUNCIL. However, if there are any questions to the suitability of the new Sovereign, this is the Forum where any issues may be discussed. The Accession Council has the authority, if it deems necessary, to block the accession of the Sovereign and pass the Crown to whovever it feels is fit to govern. The Accession Council must meet, agree to the Accession of the new Sovereign, and declare the new Sovereign at the Courtyard of St James's Palace, within three days of the death of the previous Sovereign. 3) The new Sovereign, although Monarch, may not wear the Royal Regalia until they are actually crowned. So at the State Opening of Parliament, if the Sovereign has not been formally crowned, they may not wear the Imperial State Crown. Edward VIII duly did not wear the Crown at the State Opening in November 1936: instead he wore a uniform of the Admiral of the Fleet, and carried an Admiral's hat with him into the Chamber of the House of Lords. 4) There are only two instances in English and British history where the Sovereign has not been crowned: King Edward V (1483) and King Edward VIII (1936).Ds1994 (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of what has been discussed in this thread is beside the point. What is relevant to specific constitutional issues is not relevant to naming practices. See my post below 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia articles were meant to use the subject's most recent title upon death which would have been Edward, Duke of Windsor. So it seems sensible that the article should have that emboldened first and then say ruled as King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom etc from Jan-Dec 1936. 92.26.137.49 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is titled according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereigns #7. We usually start with the most important thing about a person, which in this case I would say is being a King-Emperor. DrKiernan (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh you raise an interesting point. Was him being King and Emperor the most important thing about him. Surely if you ask anyone about Edward VIII the most important thing they would remember was his abdication and secondly the fact that there is evidence to suggest he was a Nazi Sympathiser when he was known as Duke of Windsor. I'm not going to change the article again but it's food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.137.49 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He should not be referred to as Edward the VIII as he was never crowned. Once a monarch abdicates he is only known by his monarchical title if he was crowned. This is why the current uncrowned heads of the previous ruling European houses are known as - say - Prince of Prussia, rather than German Emperor & King of Prussia - as just one example. Had Edward been crowned he wouldn't have been Duke of Windsor after he abdicated, he'd have remained Edward VIII in the same way Constantine II of Greece and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg have. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Constantine never abdicated so people still refer to him as King (even if the Greek govt doesn't recognise this). Grand Duke Jean was given this title after abdication. Other former monarchs lose their title upon abdication and are given new ones, i.e. HRH The Duke of Windsor, HRH Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, etc. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether he was crowned or not doesn't come into it. People who have never been monarchs (like the Prince of Prussia) are obviously not called King or Emperor but that is an unrelated issue. In some monarchies abdicated monarchs keep their title (they don't get it after abdication) and in some monarchies they don't. There's no rule of thumb in these matters. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Cause of his abdication

For me,the cause of his abdication remains a mistery.The will to marry Wallis Simpson doesn't explains nothing to me.The English law doesn't had or has nothing against or about a king to marry, with a divorceé.English law is only against the king to marry with a catholic.Prince Charles now is married with a divorceé, Camilla Parker Bowles, without no problems.Well, we aren't living in 1930 decade, but I don't know why he abdicated.i readin many sites that he abdicated, because he was a nazist and when this was discovered, he chose to abdicate to be forgived.Agre22 (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

I am not an expert on this, but it seems to me that the article Edward VIII abdication crisis answers these points. There were certainly religious, legal and moral points argued, but in the end Edward abdicated by his own decision, and none of the legal arguments were put to the test. The case of Prince Charles, though it has parallels, is different, in particular because he already has heirs; and it has been resolved differently by the agreement that the Duchess of Cornwall will not become queen. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

...except that she will become queen. She will become queen at the moment of her mother-in-law's death, just like she became Princess of Wales at the moment she married the Prince of Wales. She can choose to be styled Princess Consort, but will be queen consort nonetheless. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a few sentences and a reference to a Time Magazine cover story published in 1929. Edward was still only age 34, but the article was already speculating about the possibility that he might abdicate. Forthermore they were re-printing rumours that he himself had already discussed his desire not to be king. This article was published almost 7 years before his father died. It is an important part of the story. The abdication crisis was not really an unexpected event but was probably developing for about a decade. I thought it went well with the earlier sentence that his father hoped that he wouldn't marry and have children. Please do not delete without coming to the talk page.Pacomartin (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not verifiable, but it's long been asserted that the Wallis mess was just an excuse: that one or more of the U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies had solid proof that Eddy was not merely a defeatist and a layabout, but a genuine Nazi sympathizer (Wallis, too, in some versions) to such an extent that parliamentary government was not deemed safe with him on the throne. As the tale is told, he was confronted with said proof and took the easy way out, becoming the world's richest remittance man, safely sequestered where he could never become head of a fascist puppet state and with patriotic guards who knew their duty if the need arose. You'll find all sorts of stuff on the Internet about this theory, pro and con. Nobody seems to deny that he found Hitler sympatico on their visit to him; the question is rather how anti-democratic he was, and whether that was actually the reason for his departure from office. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As always, what we rely on here are verifiable facts in reliable sources.Jeppiz (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly concur; but it's no secret that the belief exists and is taken for fact in many circles. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is generally accepted now that King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate by the government because he had made it known on several occasions that he was not prepared to act as a constitutional monarch, and would interfere in politics if he felt it was in the country's best interests. (92.10.25.106 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

But 'generally accepted' is not accepted on Wikipedia. WP:RS. --ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no doubt at all that it was because of his refusal to be the kind of monarch the government wanted and that the Mrs Simpson thing was merely a sideshow. Had his father died in November 1928 then Edward would still have been forced to abdicate. (92.10.25.106 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

There you go again. You may very well be right. On the other hand, you may be putting forward a very controversial and marginal view. Without sources, we can't tell. This is a talk page, so the requirement that everything be sourced does not hold in quite the same way; but making bald unsupported claims does not really advance the discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some, like Alan Lascelles and Alan Hardinge, and apparently even George VI himself, believed that Edward had never wanted to be king anyway. Churchill however noted during World War II that it would have been impossible for Edward VIII to remain the monarch, given his pro-German and pro-appeasement views. (92.11.214.41 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

"Interesting" points but you never mention your sources - simply name-dropping was not enough - you needed to cite the published work of these persons (hopefully with page number) for this to have been considered. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Irish Free State

Hey that's an interesting note, Edward VIII's abdication taking effect December 12. For a few hours, the brothers were concurrently Kings. George VI of the UK, Edward VII of the IFS. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Evidence that the UK had relinquished all legal control over the Dominions by that point in time; Canada even passed its own act of parliament for Edward's abdication as King of Canada (parliament wasn't in session in late 1936). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a tricky technicality here, though. The Statute of Westminster calls for the consent of all Commonwealth Dominions, plus the U.K., to effect a change in the line of succession. Until the consent of the Irish Free State on the 12th of December, that requirement wasn't met. Since the Statute of Westminster was a constitutional document throughout the then-existing Dominions and the U.K., and superseded statute law, there's an argument to be made that the individual acts of succession were of no effect until the relevant parliaments had each approved the change (to meet the constitutional requirement). That would mean that despite the de facto recognition of abdication on the 11th in most of the Commonwealth, the abdication took effect (de jure) on the 12th.

In Canada at least, the Ontario Superior Court and Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the relevant portion of the Statute of Westminster was part of the Constitution and therefore sufficient to prevent a court challenge (on other Constitutional grounds) from changing the line of succession without unanimous consent of the other Commonwealth parliaments. (See O’Donohue v. Canada, in which the judge discussed this abdication in his decision preventing a constitutional challenge of the Act of Settlement.)

There's actually a separate question of whether it is necessary to secure the assent of every parliament as a whole (through statutes), or just of the cabinets (through orders-in-council); the Statute of Westminster would seem to imply the consent of each parliament is required. Accordingly, Canada and South Africa immediately issued orders-in-council, and later followed up with statutes. If the acts were necessary, then for a period in 1936–1937, Edward was still the King of Canada (and arguably the entire Commonwealth) until retroactively dethroned by the act ratifying the order-in-council that acknowledged his abdication as of December 11th.

Of course, it seems that nobody formally expressed any concern about procedural irregularities, and it was therefore assumed that the abdication was effective immediately in each realm.

That's all obviously original research, and isn't going to go in the article—so don't worry about that. As far as Wikipedia goes, that sentence about having two different kings for a day isn't attributed to any source (it just cites the Irish act). Finding a source for this would meet the basic burden of verifiability (in contrast to truth), but wouldn't necessarily confirm or repudiate the constitutional questions I summarized above. Finding one that actually discusses those constitutional technicalities would be a far better solution. In the mean time, I'm going to remove that fact from the article, as unreferenced and too simplistic an explanation (dealing with only the Irish question, rather than the Canadian and South African ones). TheFeds 01:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way in which Edward could have been King of Ireland or Canada without simultaniously being King of the UK as well. The titles for all realms were at the time, King of GB, Ireland and the British Dominions (now the style for every Realm is, King of realm X and all his other realms). The notion of a King of Canada or Ireland seperate from being King of the Uk did and does not exist. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

I'll restrain from requesting protection, if the edit spats have ended. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Watching his proclamation

He watched it from his bedroom window in Marlborough House which was his home at the time. From that window he would have had an excellent view of the balcony at St James's Palace where the proclamation takes place. He would not have had anything like such a good view from any window of St James's Palace (where incidentally he was not living). If he had asked to go into St James's Palace it would have caused all sorts of furore, given it wasn't protocol for him to be doing this at all - and he was supposed to be in mourning. I was first told that he viewed it from his window in Marlborough House by a curator on a visit to Marlborough House organised for London Blue Badge Guides. And of course it makes perfect sense. There is some footage of him and Wallace watching a bit furtively from a little back from the window, which was shown in Andrew Marr's History of Britain programme on 25 November - and it's OBVIOUSLY architecturally Marlborough House. So could you either believe me and stop changing it back, or view the footage (probably still available on i-player), or consult curator at Marlborough House, and please stop changing it back. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizduparcq (talk • contribs)

The reference given in the article, the Duke of Windsor's memoirs, says explicitly on p.265: "I arranged...to watch the first ceremony from a room in St. James's that provided a good view of the proceedings". The Duke's recollection of where he viewed the ceremony from is a more reliable source than your original research from watching the footage. With regard to the lack of protocol, that is exactly the point. What he did was unprecedented, and was considered quite astonishing to the court at the time, though it seems very mundane to us now. DrKiernan (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

But does it say in his memoirs 'a room in St James's Palace'? St James's is the area in which both St James's Palace and Marlborough House are located. Maybe he didn't want to be too specific about exactly which room he watched it from. The very clear film footage is NOT my only source. The curator of Marlborough House who showed me and other Blue Badge Guide colleagues round on 15 February 2000 was at great pains to point out exactly where he watched it from. And it is only from Marlborough House that a good view would be possible. And that's where he lived. It simply wouldn't have been possible from St James's Palace with its different design of windows for him to see it without craning out of the window, which he certainly wasn't doing in the footage shown on Andrew Marr's programme last week. And how would he and Wallace have got into St James's Palace when it was so contrary to Royal Protocol? And yes I did of course understand the issue of Royal Protocol before I commented on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizduparcq (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already tried to explain to you that you need to provide a reliable source. What you've provided so far is just hearsay. The fact that you cannot even spell Wallis's name correctly indicates to me that your professed expertise is not as great as you suppose it to be.

Marlborough House is directly opposite St. James's on the other side of Marlborough Road. If you were looking at St. James's from a window in Marlborough House into Friary Court (where the proclamation is read) you would be looking straight ahead. Looking at the footage, Wallis and the shadowy figure who is supposed to be Edward are craning their necks to look directly to their left. So, if they were in Marlborough House, they'd be looking away from the palace, balcony and proclamation towards the park.

I think they're probably in the south wing of Friary Court, looking to their left towards the balcony.

However, in the interests of communal editing, I shall simply remove all mention of the building. DrKeirnan (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being so polite. I hadn't been able for a while to go and check again exactly what all these windows look like, but you will be pleased to read I did so today. The St James's Palace windows along the south side of Friary Court are all quite small casements so these are definitely not the windows from which Edward and Wallis watched. The only sashes are very large ones BEHIND the balcony on the west side. So it's clear that the window was not in St James's Palace. The Marlborough House windows are exactly right and indeed the only possible ones I'm afraid. We can't tell exactly at what stage in the proceedings Edward and Wallis craned to look at something to their left, or what they were looking at, but it could of course have been a guards band striking up, or the gun salute that follows the proclamation (I haven't been able to find out where a proclamation gun salute is fired - Hyde Park as for e.g. birthdays, Green Park as for e.g. Birthday Parade and State Opening, or conceivably St James's Park), or they could simply have been doing what people at big events do all the time - just look where everyone else suddenly looks. The only other clue was that I think the rather bad clip used in the Andrew Marr programme showed a lot of creeper around the window in question. Of course none of these palaces along The Mall have creeper on them now, but it is hard to see how St James's Palace could ever have had creeper around the windows facing on to Friary Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.101.97 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Above was Liz du Parcq again - sorry I was having some Explorer crash problems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lduparcq (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored St James's because from the direction of gaze, the eyewitness account of the Duke and the shape of the window casement and panes, it is clear that the window is the southernmost window on the balcony (with the proclamation being read from immediately in front of the middle window). Compare window far left on Friary Court balcony with Edward stood at the window. Note also the existence of creeper on St James's Palace prior to WWII: [11]. Note that the window cannot be in Marlborough House, because all the windows in Marlborough House are three panes of glass wide (see the front facing Friary Court at File:Marlborough_House_London_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1125749.jpg), whereas the window in which they stood clearly has at least four. DrKiernan (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the current RM discussion (which is now at the location linked above as the previous one has been archived) does not affect this page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

jpg vs png

The investiture medal was redone by the Graphics Lab per MOS on opaque backgrounds. Further the black background was splotchy, uneven and unencyclopedic. "Aesthetically, I prefer..." is not a reason to favor the jpg.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in the MOS about opaque backgrounds, but the image use policy does say to use jpg formats for photos. png format is for screenshots. You may wish also to read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if someone reverts your edit, don't revert the revert: discuss. DrKiernan (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Visit to Chile, 1925?

The article doesn't mention his visit to Chile. In September 1925, the Chilean President Arturo Alessandri received Edward onboard the dreadnought Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre. The visit briefly quelled domestic unrest, and it marked the beginning of negotiations for a British naval mission, which arrived in the following year. pp.393–394.

• Somervell, Philip. "Naval Affairs in Chilean Politics, 1910–1932." Journal of Latin American Studies 16: no. 2 (1984), 381–402. JSTOR 157427. ISSN 1469-767X. OCLC 47076058. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

His extensive overseas tours are covered by Throughout the 1920s Edward, as Prince of Wales, represented his father, King George V, at home and abroad on many occasions. He made dozens of visits. His biographers do not treat the Chilean one as special, and I think long lists of places he visited should be avoided. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A chronology of where he was when would be a useful table, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Parentage details

His father was the second son of The Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and The Princess of Wales (formerly Princess Alexandra of Denmark).

• Isn't this a little too over-detailed? I appreciate the point is that Edward VII was not yet a king and Alexandra not yet a queen at the times of either George V's birth or even Edward VIII's birth. But for the purposes of simply saying who George V's parents were, could we not simplify it to:

  His father was the second son of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it allows more links to articles where the titles are explained and because it gives their positions at both birth and later, I prefer "He was the eldest son of the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George V and Queen Mary). The Duke was the second son of the Prince and Princess of Wales (later King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra), and the Duchess was the eldest daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Teck, Francis and Mary Adelaide." DrKiernan (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, but having said who his parents were, why do we need to go any further back at all? Or to rephrase it, why stop at Edward VII? Why not Victoria, William IV ........? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed the descent from Victoria was detailed to explain why his name was His Highness Prince Edward of York at birth and not His Royal Highness or Earl of Inverness. DrKiernan (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That is an abstruse matter that the general mass of readers could not be expected to grasp. If the entitlement to a particular style is what we're trying to get across, we should come right out and say it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Well how about: "Edward VIII was born on 23 June 1894 at White Lodge in Richmond, England, during the reign of his great-grandmother Queen Victoria. He was the eldest son of the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George V and Queen Mary), and was third in the line of succession to the throne after his father and grandfather Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward VII). As a great-grandson of the monarch in the male line, Edward was styled His Highness Prince Edward of York at birth." DrKiernan (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Major-General 1939

Can someone provide an official source for his appointment as a Major-General in 1939? I can't find any mention of it in the London Gazette, so to say he was "gazetted" a Major-General seems to be wrong. Opera hat (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Too searched Gazette but couldn't find it. It's in ODNB. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by Pirus12345

Pirus12345 has been attempting to insert bogus information into the article. His edit falsely claims, among other things, that Alan Lascelles' Daily Mail article claims that Edward had affairs with married men, not women, and that Freda Dudley Ward was half-Jamaican, not half-American. Ylee (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone is vandalizing this page, I know for a fact that this

His attitudes towards many of the Empire's subjects and various foreign peoples, both during his time as Prince of Wales and later as Duke of Windsor, were little commented upon in their time but have soured his reputation subsequently.[20] He said of Indigenous Australians: "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys."[21]

seems very odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.20.127 (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability not truth: the reference (reference [21] at time of posting) checks out. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Last Indian emperor/Irish king throughout reign

I think the introduction should mention that Edward VIII was the last British monarch to serve his entire reign as Emperor of India and King of Ireland. It is a significant point, as people often look back at his reign as the last time when Britain seemed like a great world power. (92.10.130.1 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

It isn't mentioned in the biographies, so it is not an appropriate point for the introduction, which should only cover the main points covered by the major sources. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is like describing Louis XV as last King of France under the ancient regime; George VI held both titles as well as ever his brother did; he was the last. (And any discussion of the Kingdom of Ireland in 1937 really must acknowledge the attitude of the Free State.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Source question

"They hosted parties and shuttled between Paris and New York; many of those who met the Windsors socially, including Gore Vidal, reported on the vacuity of the Duke's conversation." The only source for this is Vidal himself, so I'm not sure how you can say "many of those" when the source just refers to one guy's opinion. Keep in mind I don't know anything about this guy but it seems more sources would be needed to imply a lot of people thought that. AaronY (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed [12]. DrKiernan (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. (Message added manually; RM bot seems not to be working.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated information

I might be wrong but information seems to be duplicated in Duke of Windsor. Is there any point in having both articles? 109.158.120.149 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about an individual, Duke of Windsor is about the title. As the title was created for the individual under very unique circumstances, some overlap is unavoidable. A case might be made that Duke of Windsor could be pared a bit but that discussion should take place at Talk:Duke of Windsor. Just my two cents. Tiderolls 05:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bachelorhood

The phrase (introductory paragraphs) that he remained unmarried until "his accession" is surely inaccurate, as in fact he was unmarried until after his short reign. I will rephrase the statement accordingly.Cloptonson (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What would the name on his passport have been?

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.150.22 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt he had one, but his legal name after the abdication was, briefly, HRH The Prince Edward and thereafter HRH The Duke of Windsor. P M C 11:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

While he was King, he would not have had a passport. The current Queen, Elizabeth II does not possess a passport either. In fact she does not have a driving licence either even though she drives because it is she that has the privelege of driving. That I possess a licence to drive is in reality a licence to infringe on her privelege (under UK law someone must always have a privelege to do something for a licence to be issued to infringe that privelege - that is what a licence is). The Queen does not have number plates or a vehicle excise disc on her official vehicles. They are not insured nor are they subject to an annual vehicle test. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Was his dukedom hereditary?

Were the titles granted to Edward VIII by George VI hereditary? I.e. were they meant to descend to Edward's "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten"? Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Life peerages weren't invented until the 1960s. No life peerage above the rank of Baron has ever been created. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. There were life peerages created before the 20th century (for example the Dukedom of Ireland, the creation of Margaret, 2nd Duchess of Norfolk, but their creation was sporadic. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Article title

He should be referred to in the title as the Edward, Duke of Windsor not Edward VIII as he was never crowned. Once a monarch abdicates he is only known by his monarchical title if he was crowned. This is why the current uncrowned heads of the previous ruling European houses are known as - say - Prince of Prussia, rather than German Emperor & King of Prussia - as just one example. Had Edward been crowned he wouldn't have been Duke of Windsor after he abdicated, he'd have remained Edward VIII in the same way Constantine II of Greece and Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg have. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

He was the head of state just like Constantine II and Grand Duke Jean. The uncrowned heads of previously ruling dynasties are just ordinary citizens who have never been head of state. Someone who abdicates was once a king; you appear to have confused that with a pretender who has never been a king. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Protocol appears to be as follows: Constantine never abdicated so people still refer to him as King. Grand Duke Jean was given this title after abdication. Other former monarchs lose their title upon abdication and are given new ones, i.e. HRH The Duke of Windsor, HRH Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, etc. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Honours

These need references!!!

E.g. "Grand Cross of the Order of the Southern Cross, 1933"

The article for that does NOT list Edward VIII as a notable recipient

90.196.111.155 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Added. DrKiernan (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unclear assertion in opening with no followup in the article

The line "Edward knew that the government led by British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin would resign if the marriage went ahead, which could have dragged the king into a general election and would ruin his status as a politically neutral constitutional monarch" is unclear grammatically, and I cannot find further details in the article regarding this "general election" that the king would be dragged into. Is the king himself going to face a general election (e.g. we are going to elect a new king (?!?)) because that is a logical reading of the sentence, or is it a parliamentary election we are speaking of here...please clarify the wording. Twunchy (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is quite sure it is about parliamentary election. But how exactly that does "ruin his status as a politically neutral constitutional monarch"? If his actions cause the government to resign, then he is not neutral? I mean it is the government's choice to make it political, not his own. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the situation seems to be covered in Edward VIII#Abdication section of the article. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

David

Known to his family as David(Coachtripfan (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC))

Yes, that's already mentioned in the "Early life" section. Favonian (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves

• Edward VIII → Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
• Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
• Queen Victoria → Victoria of the United Kingdom

– Prior to Victoria of the United Kingdom, all Wikipedia articles on British monarchs include in their titles "of the United Kingdom" (sovereigns between George III and George VI, inclusive), "of Great Britain" (sovereigns between Anne and George II, inclusive), or "of England" (sovereigns before Anne). The moves requested would help distinguish the monarchs in question from other royalty with their respective names, and maintain consistency with the most-often used Wikipedia titling convention. Today I made moves on pages allowed: (1) "Edward VII" became "Edward VII of the United Kingdom"; (2) "George V" became "George V of the United Kingdom; (3) "George VI" became "George VI of the United Kingdom. The three articles I am herein requesting to change are currently move-protected. Matthew David González 20:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving all these articles-in-question, to ...of the United Kingdom. The UK is the kingdom most associated with these monarchs, according to many sources. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all As explained elsewhere: the disambiguation is (1) unnecessary for Edward and Elizabeth [there are no others], (2) in contravention of COMMONNAME for all three; (3) perceived as insulting/bias to the other realms for Elizabeth; (4) consistent with changes in the royal titles and styles through history [Elizabeth II has 16 different ones]; (5) there are other Victorias of the United Kingdom. See Talk:Elizabeth II/Article title and Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title. I have undone the other moves: per Wikipedia:Requested moves, moves should never be performed unilaterally against prior consensus when there has been any past debate about the best title for the page. The present titles adhere to four of the five criteria at Wikipedia:Article titles; naturalness, conciseness, preciseness and recognizability. The monarchs of the Dominions/Realms (Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II) meet all five criteria, since they are also consistent. (And no, you can't argue they're not consistent because James VI and I, Charles I of England, George I of Great Britain, etc. are all different. The monarchs from different time periods in British history fall within consistent groups but they are not all consistent with one another.) DrKiernan (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In response to your points, I would say that:

(1) It could also be said to be "unnecessary" for Louis XVIII and quite a few other monarchs, including some I listed below, but that is the consistent style Wikipedia uses.

(2) It is consistent with standard consensus for naming conventions for royalty. You could also argue that "Louis XVI" is Louis XVI of France's COMMONNAME – he's pretty well known and there aren't any others – but that is not what his article is called.

(3) The implied primacy of this royal family's not needing a clarifying nation when other royal families do could just as easily be perceived as insulting to or biased against other countries that have or have had monarchies that aren't in union with the UK's. I don't see why a potential insult to Canada, Belize, and Tuvalu should be taken into account if one to Spain, the Netherlands, and Norway is not.

(4) Despite Elizabeth II being queen of several countries, she is generally associated with one of those countries in particular, which also happens to be the one she lives in. Her even visiting the others is apparently notable enough to justify its own article. Acknowledging that is simply ensuring the title gives these facts their due weight.

(4a) The kings and queens from Charles I to William III and Mary II are all "of England" in the title, despite also being kings and queens of Scotland. This also goes to the issue of potential bias.

(5) Yes, but there are also other Annes of Great Britain, which is why the queen is listed as Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Victoria could be listed similarly if that's considered a problem. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are new to the discussion and are under the misapprehension that your comments in points (1), (2) and (4a) are revolutionary and novel. But they are not. We know there is a perception of bias with the English and British monarchs. Why do you think editors have tried to change and successfully changed them? I'm not convinced there is a perception of bias in the other cases you mention in response (3), since no-one has complained about them as far as I know, which is quite unlike the English and British cases where discussion has ranged endlessly over years and pages. On (4) your response is not related to the point I was trying to make. Refer to #4 of my opening comments at Talk:Elizabeth II/Article title for clarification of my opinion. See my previous support as a second choice of the option presented in response (5) at Talk:Queen Victoria/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I reserve my vote for now, but would like to point out that the articles about British monarchs should begin by stating that they are King/Queen of the United Kingdom instead of "King/Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms". DrKiernan brings up an interesting point of constitutional law, that the soveign is not only monarch of the UK, but of every other country, territory, province or state that recognizes him or her as head of state. But that is highly pedantic and confusing. TFD (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Our function is to explain the complex and confusing. Simplifying and abstracting them to the point where they are misleading and biased is the wrong direction. Elizabeth - and her predecessors - are monarchs of more than one realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 July 2014
    • Indeed we can explain that for example, George III was king of the UK, Virginia, Massachusetts, etc., but we do that in the text of articles, not in the titles or first line. TFD (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The British Empire was a different polity to what we have now in these days of independent Commonwealth Reams. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Totally irrelevant to whether or not the Crown in the UK, Virginia, Canada etc. are separate. See the House of Lords decision that explains it.[13] TFD (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have had this discussion before and before and before. Consensus has always been to drop the "of the United Kingdom". It is understood by most, it is made plain in the body of the article, and it unduly weights the UK above all other realms. The long-established situation - in the real world, not Wikipedia - is that the UK is not pre-eminent, superior or imperial in the matter of the various Commonwealth monarchies. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all per DrKiernan. "Queen Victoria" was named as such according to WP:COMMONNAME and the others to avoid misleading, pro-UK, counter-NPOV wording that explains nothing the articles don't make clear in a contemporaneous and neutral manner in their ledes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as always, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all as per WP:CONCISE. Red Slash 05:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support all for three reasons. Firstly, the WP:CRITERIA consistency. Not only with the articles on the previous monarchs in the England-Britain-UK line, but with the monarchs in other countries, even when there aren't any others of that name. (See Louis XVIII of France, not Louis XVIII; Pope Benedict XVI, not Benedict XVI; Juliana of the Netherlands, not Queen Juliana; Felipe VI of Spain, not Felipe VI; Haakon VII of Norway, not Haakon VII; Gustaf V of Sweden, not Gustaf V; Christian X of Denmark, not Christian X; Umberto II of Italy, not Umberto II; Ivan VI of Russia, not Ivan VI; Zog I of Albania, not Zog I.)

Secondly, the Windsors aren't the only ones with a George V or VI. The titles as they stand go against WP:POVNAMING. They are not NPOV in that they make the presumption that not only are the monarchs of this line inherently the primary topic for any regnal name they might choose, they will continue to be so in the future. According to the article on Prince Charles, he hasn't decided on his yet. Currently, Charles III is a disambiguation page with seventeen different Charles IIIs on it. Is it assumed that the prince will not only be the inherent primary topic among all those, he'll be so from the very moment he assumes the throne? Then there's William V to contend with. Better to find a solution now.

Thirdly, I would argue that, rather than avoiding placing the UK above or being insulting to other countries, the current format of just "Elizabeth II" and "Edward VIII" is placing the UK (or all the Commonwealth realms, if you prefer) above other countries. Other country's kings and queens need clarifiers on their articles to say where they're from, but the UK's apparently don't require any. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're rather missing the point here. The problem is that these later monarchs are kings or queens of more than the United Kingdom. This is not the case with (say) George III of the United Kingdom, where the article name is uncontroversial. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

George III was also king of each of the American and Caribbean colonies, and other territories which were not part of the UK. For an explanation, see the House of Lords decision on the divisibility of the Crown.[14] What has changed is that the style and titles was expanded to include the "other Realms and Territories." TFD (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted, the George III article is not controversial in its naming in the way that this one (obviously) is. Saying the situation is the same does not make it so. --Pete (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It is only controversial because you object to it - there is nothing "obvious." TFD (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I refer to the positions of the various editors here in this discussion. Sorry, I thought that was evident. --Pete (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are great points, Egsan Bacon. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(1) As resolved at the previous requested moves, one criterion at WP:AT does not trump policies of neutrality and COMMONNAME nor is one criterion more important than the other four.

(2) They are the primary usage, but they are not under discussion here anyway.

(3) This discussion only applies to the three pages listed. Other articles should be discussed at their own talk pages and the guidelines as a whole should be discussed there. DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no benefit in moving from a title that you find insulting (which I find hard to believe, but anyway) to one that Pete and Miesianiacal apparently find insulting. It is not an improvement to move from one supposedly bias title to another. DrKiernan (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support all per Egsan Bacon. FactStraight (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all. The nominator argues for the moves to maintain consistency and reduce ambiguity. On the first point, the monarchs of the late British Empire represent a special case, and warrant an exception to the usual naming conventions. Comparisons to other monarchs are invalid. Although there have been various personal unions throughout history, there are no historical parallels to the Commonwealth realms (and the dominions which preceded them), where one monarch is separately ruler of multiple countries equal in status (per the Balfour Declaration of 1926). The current queen is separately the monarch of sixteen independent countries, and it would be extremely POV to highlight only one of them (where an alternative to doing so clearly exists – the Charles III case will be more difficult). On the second point, each of the articles requested to be moved is undeniably at its WP:COMMONNAME. "Queen Victoria", "Edward VIII", and "Elizabeth II" are unambiguous for anyone with the tiniest bit of historical knowledge. Their various realms are objectively far more important than that of their namesakes. The body of work on the rulers of the British Empire is far, far greater than that of relatively insignificant queens consort or Caucasian kinglets. IgnorantArmies 04:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Queen is separately monarch of every territory of which she is queen and always has been.[15] When English sailors arrived in Barbados in 1605 they carved on a cross "James, King of England, and of this Island."[16] In addition, other British monarchs were heads of state of other European countries - Scotland, Holland and Hanover, for example. Of the 15 other "Commonwealth realms", her first title in two of them (Canada and Grenada) is Queen of the UK, and in 13 of them their head of state is whoever happens to be head of state of the UK. (See the Perth Agreement.) Furthermore, none of them are actually kingdoms, they are "viceroyalties", states where an overseas monarch who is called king or queen because they are kings or queens of a kingdom and is represented by a governor. Odd that this would be considered a "pro-UK" view. The majority of support for the monarchy in the Commonwealth realms comes from English-speaking Protestants of British ancestry (English Canada, Australia, NZ) - the monarchy has been abolished in all the other large members of the Commonwealth (India, Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria). TFD (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor nitpick; 'TFD', none of the Stadtholders of the Dutch Republic were ever de jure Head of State of it; the States General, as a collective entity was. The Oath of Allegiance taken by the members of the Dutch Army, right up to 1795 (and up to 1813 in exile) was always to the States General and not the Stadtholder. The Stadtholder was only ever Head of the Army, Navy, and of various Provinces (up to 1747 anyway, after which it was always of all of them) of the Netherlands. Stadtholder was not, in law anyway, a position analogous to Lord Protector in the British Commonwealth, or Doge in the Republics of Venice and Genoa, who unquestionably were the Heads of State of the Republics they governed. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support all I appreciate that following the "Disambiguation" guideline there is no need to have a longer title than "Edward VIII" because either there is only one article called "Edward VIII" or it is overwhelmingly what readers expect to find when they type in that name. However it is standard to have both Christian and surnames for articles about people, even if it is clear from their surname whom we mean. For example, we have an article titled "Albert Einstein", even though "Disambiguation" could justify calling the article "Einstein", which indeed is a re-direct page. In the case of UK monarchs, "of the United Kingdom" is the equivalent of a surname. Of course the British monarch is also sovereign in places outside the UK, which was acknowledged by the expansion of title to include the "other Realms and Territories", "of the United Kingdom" most commonly used and also is the only kingdom of which the British monarch is sovereign. Also, should keep existing article names as re-directs until and unless there is reason to turn them into disambiguation pages. TFD (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support all per Egsan Bacon . Darx9url (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• So, let me get this straight: you support on the basis that removing the country identifier is bias against other countries? Then explain how that squares with the opposers' arguments that it is bias against other countries to add it? DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The accusation of bias is coming from two different perspectives: those who want a territorial affiliation attached to Commonwealth realm monarchs look at the matter through a "global" lens, alleging that omitting territories for British monarchs while they are predominantly included for non-British monarchs suggests that Britain's kings are being given a preference in English Wikipedia by the use of given names as stand-alone article titles, compared to other kings who (in English) share those names but are pre-emptively disambiguated by inclusion of the realm with which they are most strongly identified (e.g. George VI vs George VI of Georgia and George VI of Imereti). Those who want no territorial affiliation attached to Commonwealth realm monarchs look at the matter through a "Commonwealth" lens, alleging that including one territory -- the UK -- for Commonwealth heads improperly accords the British monarchy prominence relative to the other Commonwealth realms ruled by the same sovereigns. FactStraight (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

So, your argument is: it is better to be bias against the rest of the Commonwealth than bias against other countries whose monarchs share the same name? There are no others called Edward VIII or Elizabeth II. The Windsor Georges are not proposed for moving, but they are clearly the primary usage. DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The perception of the monarch as a British institution is probably prevalent even in the former colonies that retain her as sovereign. "It is no good monarchists pretending that the Queen is an Australian institution.... Our Constitution decrees that our Queen shall be Queen Victoria and her successors 'in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom'." (Malcolm Turnbull, 1991.)[17] TFD (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The prevalent perception among many is that she is the Queen of England. That does not mean she should be called "Elizabeth II of England". DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to convince each other with our arguments. The end result will always be circular discussion. Best we just accept each others positions. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I retain an open mind. I would change it if the arguments were strong enough. The point is: they are not. DrKiernan (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to your comment that it shows bias against the other realms to refer to her as Queen of the UK, which objection of course has no basis in policy whatsoever. But since you think this is a slight to Australians, I assure you it is not. Many if not most of them see the monarchy as a British institution and most Australians voted for a republic. I imagine most Australians who support the monarchy do so because they see it as a British institution. TFD (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not think that. Read my comments more carefully please. DrKiernan (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not write or rewrite Wikipedia to slight or refrain from slighting nations or groups. We stick with well-sourced facts. The fact of the matter is that Elizabeth II is queen of sixteen independent nations, only one of which is the UK. In the matter of her monarchy, each of those sixteen is equal. It is like seeking to rename the Ice Cream article as Vanilla Ice Cream - even though Vanilla is the most popular and widespread flavour, there are other flavours, and such an action would give the impression that there are no other flavours that matter. The supporters of Chocolate Ice Cream might feel slighted, but that isn't the reason why such a move would be inappropriate. It would be misleading. This is an encyclopaedia, and we try not to mislead our readers. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is, most sources have Elizabeth II being described as the British monarch. That's simply the way it is. Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to 'right the wrongs'. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is, vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream[18]. That's simply the way it is. DrKiernan (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering the 16 Commonwealth realms, the UK is the only such realm to have no governor general, as it doesn't require one. As for Australia, it's my understanding that they're currently in dispute over who their Head of state is - Monarch or Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be logically disconnected from my comment. DrKiernan (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll let other continue trying to convince each other. As I previously said, circular argument. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for Elizabeth II and Edward VII. Inappropriate due to historical, political, and policy reasons. trackratte (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all. And it's all been said. These are the primary topics, Victoria in particular, and the question then becomes where do we draw the line? Elizabeth II is clearly in. George V? Perhaps a better scoped proposal might have a chance, but I'm skeptical even of that. Ain't bust, so can't fix. Andrewa (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Elizabeth II which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the closer we get to true artificial intelligence, the closer we also get to artificial stupidity. That discussion was a duplicate of the discussion above, and was closed as such. Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)