Talk:George III

Enclosure Acts

How about we add something about the Enclosure Acts? Quite an important development during his time as King.

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."

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

(see my note re Garrard under Porphyria below). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2010 (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)

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)

New and better version of Hanoverian Royal Standard

Please have a look a this image/article:

Thank you.

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)

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

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also disagree with the statement that it is now generally thought that King George III suffered from porphyria.

The porphyria hypothesis was first proposed by Ida Macalpine and Richard Hunter in the 1960s. Their findings were hotly debated in the medical press at that time, for example Geoffrey Dean (Royal malady.G. Dean Br Med J. 1968 April 27; 2(5599): 243–244.). This hypothesis remains unproven, though it has been popularised by the 1994 film the Madness of King George, and by postings on numerous web sites.

Somewhat surprisingly the King George porphyria hypothesis is not attributed to the original source (though one of Macalpine and Hunter’s publications is cited under the further reading section) but to a publication (Röhl, John C. G.; Warren, Martin; Hunt, David (1998). Purple Secret: Genes, "Madness" and the Royal Houses of Europe. London: Bantam Press. ISBN 0-593-04148-8.) that does not present any concrete evidence to support this supposition. This book is not peer reviewed. It attempts but fails to substantiate the hypothesis through genetic studies conducted on grave samples attributed to one of Queen Victoria's Granddaughters – Duchess Charlotte of Saxe-Meiningen.

This debate is interesting to a point, but proving or disproving the hypothesis at this point in time will not influence those events that were influenced by the prevailing views of the time. BABAFUZZWUZZ (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the current issue of “The Psychologist” magazine, Peter Garrard, Reader in Neurology the University of Southampton, writes:

“Thanks to a widely publicised series of articles by psychiatrists Ida MacAlpine and Richard Hunter (1966), it has become widely accepted that King George’s bizarre behaviour was due to acute exacerbations of the inherited metabolic illness porphyria. An exhaustive analysis of historical records, however, has revealed that this claim was based on spurious and selective interpretation of contemporary medical and historical sources (Peters & Wilkinson, in press).”- Garrard, P., (2010), “Literature, history and biology”, The Psychologist, Vol 23, No 3, March 2010, pp 262-263. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Added. DrKiernan (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

of Wales

George III was born HRH Prince George of Wales. If the London Gazette did not call him by that every single time they mentioned him, that does not change anything. I am fairly confident that no one calls the current second-in-line His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales each and every time one refers to him. Honestly. 24.95.249.32 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that titles like "of Wales" and "of York" or "of Clarence", etc. were not in use at this time. They were adopted later. DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is to be accepted, someone better make sure that all other pages to which it applies are updated accordingly. And someone should probably give a more precise idea of what period of time this applies to. Certainly, Queen Victoria was called Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent, right? 74.12.105.60 (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to note, if the "of Wales", etc. is incorrect for people from a certain period, then we will have to move a bunch of people from of Wales to of Great Britain. i.e. Augusta of Wales to Augusta of Great Britain. 74.12.105.60 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed mention of the regency from the Infobox. We're only concerned with the Monarch's reign. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

New file File:George III by Henry Meyer.jpg

Recently the file File:George III by Henry Meyer.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. I wasn't sure whether or not it was better than the existing image for the later life section (File:Courtprivatelife- George III.jpg), which is a better portrait but worse quality. Dcoetzee 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Nicholson assassination attempt?

This article currently doesn't mention the attempt to assassinate George III by Margaret Nicholson. Did this actually occur? I found an illustration depicting it (right) and I'm surprised to not find it mentioned. Dcoetzee 04:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned: "His humane and understanding treatment of two insane assailants, Margaret Nicolson in 1786 and John Frith in 1790, contributed to his popularity.[77]" DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

King of Corsica? [#1]

Should we add the dignity of King of Corsica to the list of G III's titles? He seems to have ruled the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom or is the claim a tad too dubious? -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

He never held the title. If Corsica was under British control, it was just like any other occupied territory in war--not a separate kingdom. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But, it had a constitution ([1]). -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What?!? Yes, he was! A corsican kingdom was created under the auspices of the british in 1794, and lasted until 1796. According to it's constitution, it's King was George III, as 'Giorgio III' as 'King of Corsica.' Lookee here: http://www.pasqualepaoli.com/english/royaume.htmJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Messed up portrait

I've changed the full body painting to a former version. The brighter updates are all busted. Check the mouth, somebody must have played around with MS Paint (lol). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schtolteheim (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pastor07, 8 June 2010

The Colonies declared war on England on May 3, 1775

This fact would be appropriate for the discussion here as shown in brackets:

"The American Revolutionary War began when armed conflict between British regulars and colonial militiamen broke out in New England in April 1775. [The Colonies declared war on England on May 3, 1775, and a]fter a year of fighting, the colonies declared their independence from the Crown as "free and independent States" in July 1776, and listed grievances against the British King, legislature, and populace."

under the subtitle:

American Revolutionary War

Pastor07 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so certain. You've not provided a source, and declarations of war are sent from one nation to another not from the citizens of a nation to their government. DrKiernan (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War

British writers prefer the name "American War of Independence"; isn't this an article that should be using the British variant? It should be as easy as a quick find/replace. (Apologies if there has been debate over this before.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be correct if it were an ENGVAR issue, but if it's an ideological difference over how the war is viewed, then the matter is more complicated. --Trovatore (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it's just an EngVar issue. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I actually don't think so. I think it's an ideological difference. The precise content of that difference has never been completely clear to me, I concede. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever read anything that has to suggested to me an ideological difference (but I'm hardly well read on the topic). If there were, the lead to American Revolutionary War would probably be in error. Not to mention we'd have a much greater problem with this article and trying to remain neutral, naturally. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, we usually refer to that war as simply the "Revolutionary War," without the qualifier American in front, because it's understood what war is being referred to. But there's no ideological offense taken to whatever term is used in other parts of the world. If the British prefer "American War of Independence," well, that's what it was, wasn't it? Jsc1973 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we Americans don't have to call it 'American' since that's where we are. However, we also do refer to it as the War of Independence. More so even since this whole politically correct crap. Despite my feelings on political correctness, I think as an encyclopedic article the American War for Independence is the best description to be used here. --- Now I do want to add something about this since we're on the Revolutionary subject. To say that Americans claim George a tyrant and only saying Americans had a list of grievances, is putting it way too mildly and sounds biased on the English side. If we want to include the "tyrant" title, I think we should also include more information as to why that particular term was used. For example, a very important missing fact is that Americans were being taxed more than the English were and it was only because they were American; hence tyrannical behavior. I'm not complaining mind you, I just think a bit more information is needed there. Not an article's worth, but perhaps a paragraph on the subject. Cheers to you all! MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 10:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You will need very solid sources for that because all those in the article are unanimous that the Americans were taxed much, much less than the English. DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically "American Revolution" and " American War of Independence" aren't the same thing. "American Revolution" encompasses a wider field of history and includes the political, legal and cultural changes that took place before, during and after American independence whereas the "War of Independence" is simply the war that started at Lexington and Concorde. Its the exact same difference as between "French Revolution" and "French Revolutionary Wars" 123.243.215.92 (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that *is* uncooperative....

Per the article,

Chatham refused to cooperate, and died later in the same year.

This should be reworded, of course, but I'm not going to do it myself. It's too beautiful as it stands. --Trovatore (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah, very good stuff! Jmlk17 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Speeches

I am surprised that my edit including two quotes by George III were reverted. George's words in his accession speech ("I glory in the name of Britain") are probably his most famous and I am very surprised it has not been included in the article already, especially as this is a featured article. His words during a performance of Cato are also notable and have been included in the Oxford University's Dictionary of National Biography, a standard reference work. They both should be included because George III was the first monarch since Queen Anne to be born in Britain and the first native English speaking monarch since Anne too. George I and II's Hanoverian connection and foreignness was much commented on (and criticised) and George is thereby signifying he is a British monarch.--Britannicus (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you also provide the article with some third party analysis supporting the statements above to place the quotes in context as to why they are included in the article? Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the quotes themselves are fine; certinly the accession speech quote is quite well-known. I agree with Active Banana that they need to be placed more clearly in context. Just sticking some quotes into an already existing article without any explanation in the text of why they're there is not a great idea. john k (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Jmlk17 22:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with access to the Brooke biography confirm that it actually says "name of Britain" and not "name of Briton", which is how I've always seen it? "Briton" would of course make more sense, since George actually was a Briton and therefore could be so called, whereas he was factually not the largest island of the archipelago off the northwest coast of mainland Europe. (If someone wants a reference for "name of Briton", the most recent place I've seen it was Fred Anderson's Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754–1766. It's on page 510.) Binabik80 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have Brooke's biography and it does indeed say "Britain" instead of "Briton". The speech was written by George's Lord Chancellor and in George's hand there is an insertion of the relevant quote into the speech. George wrote the word "Britain" not "Briton".--Britannicus (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Debate of Lawfulness

What was unlawful about what King George III did to the British Colonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.113.53 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Nothing was unlawful. In fact it wasn't him that was even taxing the colonies. His ministers and Lord North were taxing the colonies. King George III did nothing to the colonies exept for the Royal Proclamation of 1763. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.34.177 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

move

the page should be moved to George III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.220 (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of young princes

I have just taken up the matter of wrong identification of the princes in this portrait, with the National Portrait Gallery, London. They are looking into the matter and will have their website corrected ASAP. Amandajm (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Natural rights?

In the "American War of Independence" section, it says: "The King thought he was defending Britain's constitution against usurpers, rather than opposing patriots fighting for their natural rights." Natural rights? Sounds very PoV. I'm changing this to: "believed they were fighting for their natural rights." Is that what they thought? Because I checked the supposed source, and it didn't say anything about natural rights (which is subjective). Tommkin (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's problematic. It's probably better to use a quote if we're going to push a particular opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a quote from Brooke on his reputation. The Americans said they fought for the rights of Englishmen--and many leaders in Britain agreed they had a case. The problem as biographer Brooke says is the king could "conceive of no middle way... between independence and unconditional surrender." (p 287)Rjensen (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Final public appearance

I think it's notable that George III did have a brief recovery in 1811 and made his last public appearance on 12th May. This is mentioned in Beckles Willson's biography. (92.7.26.253 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

It's disputed by more modern sources. May I also suggest that you tread carefully, as your IP range matches that of a banned sockpuppeteer who often targets that particular section of this page. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A banned sockpuppeteer? I think they mean the King's last public appearance for an official event was on 25th October 1810 for his Golden Jubilee celebrations. He made an informal appearance outside Windsor Castle on 12th May 1811 when his mental health seemed to be improving. (92.7.26.253 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

King of Corsica? [#2]

When and how was he King of Corsica?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a section above this one, with the same heading, that explains it a little. DrKiernan (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

delete it. Britain seized the island only briefly and George was never crowned & never called king of Corsica. Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the title "King of Corsica" was itself used, and George III was certainly never "crowned", but the Corsican constitution (transcription her, as linked to from Anglo-Corsican Kingdom) clearly refers to the "King" (in Italian), and is subscribed to by the British plenipotentiary in George III's name. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

Incidentally, I have now appended a number to both "King of Corsica?" sections on this talk page. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

I think the expansion of the succession boxes is creating problems. These titles are really not well-known and I'm not convinced that they deserve mention as notable offices, or even that George used these titles, or that when they were adopted, recognised internationally, or abandoned can be dated in the way that they have been. DrKiernan (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion that there are too many succession boxes. However, I think it is much more important to note that George was a ruler of several states and illustrate how he acquired those states and to whom they passed than to have a box for the title of Duke of Edinburgh. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair comment but there are lots of reliable sources (primary, secondary and tertiary) saying George was Duke of Edinburgh. There don't seem to be any saying he was Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg or Duke of Bremen. DrKiernan (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think succession boxes should be used when there was no succession(maybe not in all cases, but certainly in this one). It should be mentioned in the article though. I am not sure "King of Corsica" was ever added to the Royal style, or that the arms were ever used. The kingdom existed less than two years, so he was probably only referred to King of Corsica in Corsica. Of course the way it is now suggests that he inherited it from Theodore. I think the main issue to consider here is that this was a short-lived state created in the middle of a war, with limited recognition. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

-well; looking at the constitution of Corsica; it would appear that George III was only styled 'King of Corsica' in Corsica. 'King of Corsica' wasn't added to the royals title in Britain. But that doesn't follow that Corsica shouldn't be included. The phrase 'King of Hanover' wasn't used in the British style either (it was in Hanover however), but no-one is arguing he wasn't King of Hanover.

As for the fact that he was never crowned King of Corsica, he wssn't crowned King of Hanover either. A monarch doesn't need to be crowned to formally become monarch-he/she (in most instances, apart from elective monarchs) becomes monarch on the decease/abdication of his predecessor. Edward VIII, for example, was never crowned King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions and Emperor of India, but nobody would ever argue he never held any of those titles. The point is, he was constitutionally, de facto and in every way legally King of Corsica. The 'Anglo Corsican Kingdom' effectively controlled its territory during its short existence, and the fact the Kingdom was short-lived is pretty much irrelevant. Shortness of reign doesn't mean a reign shouldn't be included; there's plenty of monarchs (Lady Jane Grey, Edward VIII, Umberto II of Italy, Friedrich III of Gemany, and so on) whose length of reign was much shorter than that of George III as KJing of Corsica, but they still have articles on wikipedia and are still (usually) included in King lists.

As for the lack of recognition of the Kingdom of Corsica, there are plenty of territories/states (especially during wartime) that are not recognised by the majority of states but nevertheless de facto exist. No-one is arguing, for example, that the Independent State of Croatia did not ecist, or that Aimone, Duke of Spoleto/Tomislav II was officially its King, but the majority of states world-wide did not recognise it, only the axis powers did. You could say the same about Manchukuo too. Similar wartime; hazy situation as well.

Having said all that, the succession box does need to be changed so it doesn't look like he immediately succeeded/inherited the throne from Theodore von Neuhof. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Male monarchs"

Are usually called kings. To me, "male monarchs" is just not a phrase that any English-speaker would naturally use. If it can't be re-phrased, I would prefer it to go. We do have "long life" and "long reign" already. If they don't suffice, then something might be worked around them. He is the oldest king as well as the longest-serving. DrKiernan (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to get lost inside a wiki link sometimes isn't it. Please adjust further however you can. But I'd tend not to delete as I think it's notewothy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Starting to change my mind already. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We escaped the British/gender problem in the "Legacy" section by using the formula: "his life and reign were longer than those of any of his predecessors." DrKiernan (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's far more elegant and economical. In that form it might be worthy of staying in the opening section? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to inclusion at all, in fact I agree it's of interest. It's just a matter of finding the right phrase. DrKiernan (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit has the tremendous advantage of simplicity and non-verbosityness(!), but is it absolutely certain that it's right? The previous wording compared George III only to the post-1707 monarchs, whereas now he's implicitly compared to all of the English and Scots monarchs. I'm not saying it's wrong, just asking. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

Um, are we just trying to say that only Victoria reigned (lived?) longer? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

At the time of his death he had lived and reigned longer than any other previous monarch in Britain. As far as British, English and Scots monarchs go, he was the longest-lived and longest-reigned until 1896. There are some funny, but unclear, potential exceptions: Æscwine of Essex (supposedly reigned for 60 years), Gruffydd ap Cynan of Gwynedd (who may have died aged 82) and Meurig of Gwent (supposedly died aged 90), but I think we can safely ignore them as their actual dates are not known. DrKiernan (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I see here that George is now third, behind Victoria and Elizabther II. Perhaps a link to that page might help? But I also see at Queen Victoria that ". she lived three days longer than her grandfather, George III, and thereby became the longest-lived monarch." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to DrKiernan's last post above: fair enough! Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

Titles in Pretence

User DrKiernan keeps deleting the template for titles held in pretence. See talk pages for George I, George II and Anne. On those pages, there has been no engagement from DrK on this topic for over 2 months now. That should have been enough time for him to find solid evidence to back up his POV. Yet he has not posted it if he has it. Not withstanding this, he has reverted the restoration of the template. The claim is true, sourced and verifiable. There is no evidence that it is untrue. There is no source that says he recanted, reneged, disavowed or otherwise gave up the claim. What he believed in his heart about the claim is unknowable. It suffices that he made the claim for the template to be validly included. Unless proof to the contrary can be provided, I propose to insert the template and to keep re-inserting it until DrK's bizarre POV reversions desist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the George III article. It should not be used to discuss other articles or other editors. DrKiernan (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

-I agree with DrKiernan on this issue. Titles in pretence shouldn't be included in the succession boxes, both for reasons of clarity, and because the monarch was never effectively monarch of that particular territory; even if he claimed to be, as opposed to the above discussion regarding Corsica.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom

The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801 at least technically. So wouldn't it be be better to redirect this article to George III of Great Britain and Ireland since he wasn't crowned as King of the UK and reigned for forty years as only being King of Great Britain and Ireland and sovereign of Hanover, not king of the UK? --FDR (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretender

As DrKernan & I are now at two reversions each, etiquette demands that we take it to the talk page. So, what's your beef with the wikilink to Pretender? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already covers the material with due weight and with an appropriate source that supports the current version. The source does not use the term pretender, the use of which is controversial, nor does it say that George III made a personal claim to the throne of France. DrKiernan (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is it "controversial" to describe George's claim to the title of King of France as a title held in pretense? It is a statement of fact, no more. It is an uncontestible description of the situation. He made the claim in his coronation oath; the claim was risible; he abandoned the pretense at the first available opportunity. Had there been any substance to the claim, he would not have abandoned it. It had no substance, was unsupported internationally, yet he swore on oath that it was true at his coronation. Which is to say, the title was held in pretense. What's so "controversial" about that? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No response? Perhaps it's our Edit Counts; they don't impress. See below on Lewis Namier citation. 36hourblock (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no response because this editor has been told the same thing multiple times by multiple editors on multiple talk pages. There is little point in repeating ourselves endlessly. DrKiernan (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no response because The Guardian of The Page has run out of valid arguments and hopes that silence will supplement for reason. An endlessly repeted bad argument is stil a bad argument. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My thanks, Laurel, for your support. I must insist, however, that in future, you perform a spell check on your comments before posting them. 36hourblock (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Character profile of George William Frederick by James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave

At 264 words, I doubt that the profile by Lord Waldegrave is "too long". On the contrary, it is concise and informative. That's undoubtedly why English historian Lewis Bernstein Namier included the text in its entirety.

If you feel that the introduction is "convoluted" or "verbose", you are welcome to edit it to suit your requirements.

Let's leave it up for the time being, so others can enjoy Lord Waldegrave's insights - an intimate and confident of George William Frederick before he was king. 36hourblock (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's too long. It takes up one whole section to itself. DrKiernan (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It is a subsection, with these "===", identifying it as such and a qualifying portion of the "Early Life" main section. If you like, include it in the main section, if you don't want it to have "one whole [sub]section to itself."

Kindly provide evidence that the passage is "too long" according to wiki rules - here is the passage. And please point out the portions of Namier's comments that are "verbose" and "convoluted".

English historian Louis Namier in his essay King George III: A Study in Personality wrote “Lord Waldgrave, who had been Governor to the Prince of Wales, 1752-56, wrote in 1758 a character sketch of him so penetrating that it deserves quoting almost in full.” The sketch describes the Prince in his mid- to late teens.

His parts, though not excellent, will be found very tolerable, if ever they are properly exercised.

He is strictly honest, but wants that frank and open behavior which makes honesty appear amiable…

His religion is free from all hypocrisy, but is not of the most charitable sort; he has rather too much attention to the sins of his neighbor.

He has spirit, but not of the active kind; and does not want resolution, but it is mixed too much with obstinacy.

He has great command of his passions, and will seldom do wrong, except when he mistakes wrong for right; but as often as this shall happen, it will be difficult to undeceive him, because he is uncommonly indolent, and has strong prejudices.

His want of application and aversion to business would be far less dangerous, was he eager in the pursuit of pleasure; for the transition from pleasure to business is both shorter and easier than from a state of total inaction.

He has a kind of unhappiness in his temper, which, if it is not conquered before it has taken too deep a root, will be a source of frequent anxiety. Whenever he is displeased, his anger does not break out with heat and violence; but he becomes sullen and silent, and retires to his closet; not to compose his mind by study or contemplation, but merely to indulge the melancholy enjoyment of his own ill humour. Even when the fit is ended, unfavorable symptoms very frequently return, which indicate that on certain occasions has Royal Highness has too correct a memory."

36hourblock (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DETAIL, WP:UNDUE. The insertion is over-detailed and presents one view only. Encyclopedia articles do not generally contain long quotes from single sources; such a practice does not follow wikipedia style in a summary article of this type. It's not Namier who's verbose and convoluted; it's your opening sentence and Waldegrave. DrKiernan (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to correct my opening, please do so. I suggest you refrain, however, from correcting Lord Waldegrave's memoir entries. I checked the WR, and I don't see that they preclude these additions. Perhaps you can cite a passage that supports your objections. 36hourblock (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The detail is apt, to the point and more revelatory than most of the official tosh in the rest of the article. It should stay. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By verbose introduction, I mean you could ditch "English historian Louis Namier in his essay King George III: A Study in Personality". It's out of place and unnecessarily specific. I might accept a single sentence quote with a simple introduction, such as 'Lord Waldegrave, Governor to the Prince of Wales from 1752 to 1756, wrote of the teenaged George, "He has great command of his passions, and will seldom do wrong, except when he mistakes wrong for right; but as often as this shall happen, it will be difficult to undeceive him, because he is uncommonly indolent, and has strong prejudices." ' DrKiernan (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you try to be a little less condescending please. While your position as self-appointed Guardian of the Page gives you certain rights, they do not extend to total ownership and so it is not for you to say whether or not a single sentence quote was acceptable or not. That's for the community to decide. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Year of Abdication Draft

Hi what year exactly did King George III draft his abdication speech? Uhlan ^talk 04:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

King George the Third Religion

King George the Third was not Anglican but was the head of the Church in England

-the Church of England...which is part of the anglican communion, so.,.Anglican, then.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)