Talk:George V/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

older entries

In the City of Worcester, England, there is a public Museum and Art Gallery.

There is a stone inscription that the building was opened by The Duke of York in (1896? 1897?).

I had not realised until now that that person was later King George V.

Hopefully, once this is checked for date and wording the page could have added a note that his former title is preserved in stone in that building.

Does anyone know of any building opened by him as Prince of Wales where an inscription is readily viewable?

Songwriter 18:53 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Succession box

Could someone who knows about succession boxes change it please? I tried to but got lost. It was wrong before: It says his title as "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was succeeded by new style (before listed as King of Great Britain and Ireland but now correctly changed to King of THE UNITED KINGDOM of Great Britain and NORTHERN Ireland), then goes on to say the new style was preceded by Edward VII!!! This can't be so if it was a NEW style as it wouldn't have existed under Edward VII! I tried to change it so it read "preceded by New Style" but couldn't move Emperor of India -- could someone help me out? Cheers.

I've played with the boxes a bit—is that what you were looking for? --Mackensen (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep thats perfect thanks!

Lake George, Uganda

Somewhere in this article it should be mentioned that Lake George in Uganda is named after George V. — mark ✎ 15:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...and also other things named after him, like King George V DLR station and George V Paris Métro station. 217.208.26.177 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted to deal with a George V of the United Kingdom spammer

Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is [http:// kinggeorge rules it/ King-Emperor George V Tribute Page]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
• User:A. B./To do list#Abusers

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 06:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

GRI

Can someone please introduce "Georgius Rex Imperator" somewhere in the article and redirect here? I stumbled upon it whle collecting the "GRI". `'mikkanarxi 00:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Date of coronation durbar?

Wasn't the date of the coronation durbar in Delhi Dec 12, 1911? Is the article only implying that they travelled to India on Dec 11, 1911? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.130.136.219 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Kaiser and Tsar v. Emperor

I'm not up on all the intricacies of Wikipedia's policy on royal titles, but why does this article use "Emperor" instead of "Kaiser" or "Tsar" when (to me, at least) it seems appropriate? "Emperor Wilhelm II" made me second guess myself and actually click on the link to make sure it was who I thought it was; is there a reason those non-English yet more familiar titles aren't used? Is there a technicality I'm missing? Kafziel 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that usage is so overwhelmingly dominated by one way that there is any demand to do one thing or the other. I do agree that "Emperor Wilhelm II" seems odd. "Kaiser Wilhelm II" or "Emperor William II" seem more appropriate. But, to be honest, it doesn't really matter. john k 05:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any good reason not to use Kaiser, the term English-speakers are familiar with for the German Emperor? I will wait 24 hours to make a change. -Rrius (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Princess May

The article metions that he marries "Princesses Mary" but then goes onto refer to her as 'May' is this correct or a typo? I don;t know enough about the subject to just go and change it.

HSH Princess Victoria Mary Augusta Luisa Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes of Teck was generally known as "Princess May" before her marriage. - Nunh-huh 18:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Her name was actually Victoria Mary, generally known as Mary of Teck. She was only called May within her family; nobody ever referred to her as Princess May outside her family, and inside the family they just called her May. When she became queen her husband wanted her to use just one name, and neither thought Queen Victoria would be proper for obvious reasons (Victoria had only been dead nine years) Therefore she decided to be called Queen Mary. RockStarSheister (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Article under attack from HarveyCarter IPs SP

Revert all sock puppet additions in this 92.8 to 92.12 IP range.

~ WikiDon (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The bronchitis edit looks genuine, but I take it that it is not. What's the story? -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the evidence is that these IPs are being used by User:HarveyCarter, but if they are then all edits may be reverted on sight, without explanation, under Wikipedia:Banning policy.

Typically, this is because although the edits may look genuine on the surface, they may not be.

Anyway, regardless of the above, if the information was correct we have actually mentioned George's increasing ill-health and the diseases he suffered from already, so we don't really need to repeat them. DrKay (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definite. Compare contributions from these known sock-puppets:[1] [2][3] with the contributions of the IPs: [4][5]. DrKay (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Vinyl

I have found an old vinyl of "King George"'s (I believe V) speech from 1928. It is in excellent condition and holds the official royal seals! Would this item be of interest to the wikipedia archives? I can't find it in the National Archives, AMICUS? Any hints? Could someone help me in trying to find a reference to this? Also, if there is there an interest to have one of the first audio recording of King George in this article? If so, I'm willing to go pick up this item, but I would like to receive some compensation for the purchase. Do you think Wikipedia could cover some of the expenses of the direct cost of this item? --99.240.196.9 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the recording you are most likely talking about. It's at the National Archives of Canada, but is not and is available to the general public. It shouldn't cost anything to consult. When consulting the audio, the archives should have the appropriate machinery to listen to it. You may copy the audio. Since it's copyright licence has expired you could then release your work under GFDL. Please see this link for more details. --CyclePat (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction. I just checked with archives Canada. I was right the first time. The audio document is not available to the general public. Your copy may be the only one available. --CyclePat (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue

Can we not do the issues section like this?

Name	Birth	Death	Notes
Edward, Prince of Wales Later Edward VIII	23 June 1894	28 May 1972	later the Duke of Windsor; married Wallis Simpson; no issue
Prince Albert, Duke of York Later George VI	14 December 1895	6 February 1952	married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon; had issue (including Elizabeth II)
Mary, Princess Royal Later Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood	25 April 1897	28 March 1965	married Henry Lascelles, 6th Earl of Harewood; and had issue
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester	31 March 1900	10 June 1974	married Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott; had issue
Prince George, Duke of Kent	20 December 1902	25 August 1942	married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark; had issue
Prince John	12 July 1905	18 January 1919	Died from seizures

Name	Birth	Marriage		Issue	Death
Edward, Prince of Wales	23 June 1894	3 June 1937	Wallis Simpson		28 May 1972
Prince Albert, Duke of York	14 December 1895	26 April 1923	Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon	Princess Elizabeth Princess Margaret	6 February 1952
Princess Mary	25 April 1897	28 Febuary 1922	Henry, Viscount Lascelles	George Lascelles Gerald Lascelles	28 March 1965
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester	31 March 1900	6 November 1935	Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott	Prince William Prince Richard	10 June 1974
Prince George, Duke of Kent	20 December 1902	29 November 1934	Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark	Prince Edward Princess Alexandra Prince Michael	25 August 1942
Prince John	12 July 1905				18 January 1919

I would prefer to reduce the amount of information given in these tables, rather than increase it further. The tables dilute the biography by turning the article into nothing but a repository of genealogical information of very little importance to George's actual life. Most of the people mentioned in it are not relevant to an understanding of George's place in history. It also duplicates material given elsewhere, in the individuals' own articles. DrKay (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Crown with "Maltese" Crosses: What Crown is this?

This article says that in a procession a "Maltese" Cross fell off of the "Imperial Crown". Other articles on the Internet state that the crown which lost some pieces (the uppermost crown and the orb under it) was the crown on top of the coffin. Being on top of the coffin then it would most likely be the Imperial State Crown, which has been the crown on top of a Monarch's coffin on other occasions. Another less likely possibility is the Imperial Crown of India. But according to photos neither of these two crowns has any Maltese Crosses. Can someone clarify this?64.131.188.183 (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

I think from the description "composed of a sapphire and 200 diamonds" in the footnote, that we can assume it was the cross-pattée on the Imperial State Crown (picture here). I don't know why it says Maltese. That could be a mistake, perhaps made by the Duke of Windsor's ghost writer. DrKay (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank DrKay for agreeing with me. 64.131.188.183 (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Actually, this is interesting: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/144438/97008/The-British-Imperial-State-Crown

It shows an older picture with a different cross on it. DrKay (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But the crown in the photo cited above is not the Imperial State Crown. Not only does it bear no general resemblance to the Imperial State Crown, and bear every resemblance to the Coronation ("St. Edward's") Crown, but the Black Prince's Spinel (a.k.a. "Black Prince's Ruby") is not boldly front-and-center as it has always been (through various re-makings and refittings) in the Imperial State Crown. I do not know what might move brittanica.com to errantly caption the crown. There is another picture of this crown that shows up in google as the Imperial State Crown, but if you actually inspect the page

http://www.etoile.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5136

you will find that each photo belongs to the caption above it while Google's web-crawler or search-engine thinks the photos belong to the captions beneath them, and so incorrectly represents that the caption belonging to the Imperial State Crown belongs to the Coronation Crown pictured above it. Once that apparent error on the www.etoile site is explained as Google's mistranscription, britannica.com seems to be totally alone in its puzzling conviction that a crown which everyone else says is the Coronation Crown is the Imperial State Crown. 64.131.188.183 (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Ah yes, you're right of course. Now that you've pointed it out, the Britannica picture is obviously St Edward's Crown! I've a made a change to the text, removing "Maltese cross" and adding "State" [6]. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

George V, Czar Nicholas II Resemblance

>>It is often claimed that at the wedding, many people were confused as to who was King George V and who was Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, because they superficially looked alike. In fact, the two cousins resembled each other only insofar as their beards and dress were concerned. Otherwise, their features were quite different.<<

Then, in a later paragraph: >>The two men were almost identical in appearance. According to legend, Nicholas was mistaken for George at the latter's own wedding reception.<<

References to appearance are basically opionion(in my opinion, the second statement is closer to the truth than the first, particularly regarding their height, high foreheads, noses, and even eyes---see photo: http://www.firstworldwar.com/photos/graphics/nw_nicholas_george_01.jpg ). Regardless, this is subjective commentary and should be removed and left for readers to decide. That fact that there are two contradictory statements in the same entry only highlights this fact.

The idea that the two men were similar looking is a very common one - I'm sure we could find reliable sources mentioning this. It is famous that the two have been thought to look alike. I think we should mention that, without actually saying that they did look alike, if that makes any sense. john k 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added an original source from the day after the wedding, when The Times reported that the "extraordinary likeness" of the Tsarevitch for the Duke of York "may have contributed to secure for him additional cheers." I do however still think that we should keep in the sentence saying that they were not alike. Their eyes are totally different, and we can use the evidence of our own eyes to know that this is true. DrKay 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

They weren't identical, certainly, but they did resemble each enough that their similar beards made them hard to distinguish. That seems to be the fact of it. john k 13:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmn. I agree with your previous comment that we need to come up with a well-turned phrase that covers both aspects. DrKay 14:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Do the two men in this image look the same to you? If so, you are a racist and a ageist and a hairist who thinks all middle-aged white men with beards look the same! (Even when one has brown eyes and the other protruding blue ones?) As a middle-aged white man with a beard I object to your discrimination and demand that it be stopped!!! DrKay 07:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how serious you're being, but yes, they do look alike to me. Certainly one is not surprised to learn that they are first cousins. They have similar noses, for instance, and the shape of their faces is similar, as well. Obviously they are not identical twins, but there is definitely a distinct resemblance. john k 17:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Gordon (naval historian) writing in Rules of the Game:Jutland and British naval command, p. 217 talks about the differences between the royal princes Eddy and george, who concern the book because of Royal influence in the doings of the navy, and says:

It has been suggested that in fact they may have only been half-brothers, George's natural father being the Russian Grand Duke Nicholas. this disgraceful idea grates with everything believed about his saintly mother Alexandra, but is circumstantially possible, for in September 1864 when George was conceived, the Walses were at Elsinore in denmark meeting Nicholas, who was getting engaged to Alexandra's sister dagmar (who actually married the grand duke alexander after Nicholas' sudden death). To have been fathered by Nicholas would have made george a double first cousins of the future Czar Nicholas II, of whom he appeared to be an identical twin: their mothers being sisters and their natural fathers being brothers. Do you trust gordon as a source? of course, he carefull side-steps stating whether he beelieves the paternity thing, but does state they were identical. Sandpiper (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of hooey. Dagmar married Alexander not Nicholas. If you look at the eyes of George V and Nicholas II and their fathers, you can see a clear resemblance between Nicholas and his father, Alexander III of Russia—both have inset brown eyes—whereas if you look at George he has the same protruding blue eyes as his father (Edward VII of the United Kingdom). DrKay (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

well, my laziness for sticking in a .... I have inserted the entire text where i left out the dotted bit. There is also a footnote citing Mark Kerr, the navy in my time, published 1933, which presumably says something about their meeting. I would guess, his memoirs about being on the trip and escorting them. Sort of thing you might be able to prove by genetic testing...but then they did that, didn't they, to try to identify the Romanovs remains? I am tempted to say that my looking at a picture would be original research and inadmissable on wiki, whereas quoting someone who wrote a book about it is entirely proper. Not that i am a great stickler for rules, nor would want to further rumours. Gordon is clearly stating the question exists and has been raised historically, which is entirely proper for him or us to do. he passes on the entertaining story without coming down one side or the other. My own opinion of the photo you post above is that the two faces are quite similar to the limits of the image resolution. I don't see the eye colour, myself. Both men seem to have a more open left eye than right. probably due to the lighting, unless it is an inherited family trait? The guy on the left looks to have a finer nose and for my money is the more handsome. But the nose could be a trick of the light: the two are turned slightly towards each other thus shadowing the nose of the guy on the left. (nicholas, I think. Personally, i know someone who looks an awful lot like george's son david, but i doubt they are related....though his mother was adopted from whereabouts unknown. Yes, looking at the original image on wiki as per the article, I would definitely say my friend looked more like george than Nicholas. So i guess i agree they are not identical. Which however doesn't solve the issue. They are definitely similar and they are all European royalty, virtually by definition related. Sandpiper (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just spotted the link to the pic on the net, which is higher resolution. It is clear to me from that one, that some of the differences are definitely areas of face obscured by shadow. Nicholas' allegedly non-protruding left eye is definitely in shadow, thus masking it. I think I would say Nicholas looks a bit like prince albert (the one who married queen victoria).Sandpiper (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

• 
  By Lance Calkin, circa 1914
• 
  By Solomon Joseph Solomon, 1914

Dcoetzee 10:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal styles

I really think that advice on how to address orally a King, (and in particular a dead King) are not appropriate material for a serious encyclopedia.Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, why include the versions of his name in German and Danish? I know his mother was Danish and he had German relations, but does that justify it? He also had Russian and other relations. It might make more sense to include his name in languages spoken by significant numbers of his subjects e.g. Welsh or Hindi. PatGallacher (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Clever vandalism

Be on the lookout for clever vandalism, such as this. A bad piped link, combined with a constructive edit. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Passed GA standard

I've just reveiwed and passed this article for GA standard. It's informative and accurate, well referenced and quite well illustrated.--Cailil 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, awfully one sided. His famous dislike of all his son's (excepting the later George VI who was thought to be too ill to take centre stage) and particularly the eldest, his famous remark that he felt that "the throne would be safe in the hands of his beloved Lillibet" which turned out to be true beyond his wildest dreams, his tendency to assume that World affairs had a place for the enthusiastic amateur which, on occasions caused him to do much more harm than good, the fact that his abandonment of his German styles and titles did seem to be rather late in the war (one could feel he waited to find out who was going to win) just as examples. Shakespeare said that "The good men do lives after them, the evil lays oft interred within their bones". In Wikipedia's case this is too true. Now we have all grown up and no longer think of the "divine right of Kings" AIUI George V was simply a fairly ordinary chap trying to do his best with the unusual hand life dealt him. He certainly doesn't need or warrant canonisation.

Drg40 (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can produce proper citations to support what you say, then put it in! I assume your misquotation from Julius Caesar is ironic. Myrvin (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't have read the article, as his dislike of Edward, favoritism of Albert and Elizabeth, abandonment of German titles, and his ordinariness is already covered extensively in the article. DrKay (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this an inconsistent sentence?

Not wanting just to change an article that is a featured article - let me point this out first. George was the second son. OK. But there is the sentence "Six weeks after the engagement was formalised, Albert Victor died of pneumonia, leaving George second in line to the throne." Should this rather be "first in line to the throne"? DonToto (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, His father was still Prince of Wales and his Grandmother still Queen.(94.0.120.36 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, I missed that. I re-read the sentences around that again, and noted that the line of succession was mentionned 4 times in about as many sentences. "Second in line to the throne", "likely to succeed after his father", "eventual heir", and "he was now directly in line of succession". So I felt it was OK to replace "eventual heir" with "her grandson", which reinforces the idea of "second in line to the throne" which I missed, and maybe others will. A long explanation for a small change. It's a great article, so I tread very lightly when making this change. I trust it's an improvement but it can always be reverted, of course. DonToto (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

The final paragraph of the lead and the material on the New Zealand visit is beset by peacock terms and patronizing language more suited to the 1930s and 1940s than the twenty-first century.

The claims that a speech delivered by the King determined the direction of Britain's Irish policy and that the result of a single election determined the political changes of the 1930s are overplayed. The history of Ireland and world politics of the 1930s are more complex than these simplistic statements imply. DrKay (talk) 11:54, 9 August 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)

Epsom Derby on 4 June 1913

There is absolutely no coverage of the Epsom Derby on 4 June 1913. And the collision with Emily Davison. I will nominate for FAR if no attempt is made to remedy this.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

She was of no consequence at all though. (92.12.43.182 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Another image for consideration

The following was just uploaded to commons, and may be of use in this article:

The description is rather long, so I'd encourage you to just click on the image and read it if you're interested. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Order-in-council

In this section the article now states that "George appeased British nationalist feelings by issuing an Order-in-Council" to change the name of the royal family to Windsor, in July 1917. In this sentence, the word 'George' should be changed to 'the government.' Though Orders in council nominally come from the monarch, they are an action of the government. Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Functions makes this clear: "Orders-in-Council, which are drafted by the government rather than by the Sovereign, are secondary legislation and are used to make government regulations and to make government appointments." EdJohnston (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I noticed that mistake in August last year, but forgot to change it. Now corrected to "royal proclamation". DrKay (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

French colonial empire

I am surprised that my edit was reverted, since during WW1, the French colonial empire was almost at its peak and certainly did not fall following this war.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to restore your edit! Not all reverts are justified; some may just be based on the biased opinion of a single editor. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:22, 8 May 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) 06:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not euthanasia

If is death wasn't for his own wish, I don't think it can be considered as euthanasia. I highly doubt the king George V, who was a Christian, would have wanted to die that way, if he had a saying in the matter.Mistico (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

George V has tattooes?

A few days ago this article had the following note:

"King George V was a very short and slender man, although in movies and television he is often portrayed as a tall and intimidating man. Though his true height was a "state secret," it believed he was no taller then 5 feet 5 inches. The King also had a few tattoos on his arms which he had gotten done during his days in the navy. After becoming King, he would never allow them to been seen in public again."

About his height, I remember the photo taken with King George and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia side by side, as you can see in this site:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Windsor;action=display;num=1093459758

They seem to had the same height and I know that the Tsar had 1,67 m, so King George had about the same!

---

King Geogre V has tattoes from many different parts of the Empire?!

Is that true? If so, thats hilarious.--129.12.200.49 09:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There was an incident related by his official biographer, Harold Nicolson that when on a tour of the Botanical Gardens in Barbados George smelt a large lily which resulted in his nose being powdered with yellow pollen. A journalist mistook this for a permanent mark and cabled home saying that the Prince had been tatooed on the nose. Obviously, he had not been. DrKay 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

From Kenneth Rose's biography (King George V London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983 p.13): "In Tokyo each spent three hours under the needle acquiring elaborate dragons of red and blue on their arms. Further designs were added in Kyoto and in Jerusalem. George Burchett, the doyen of British tatooists, was many years later able to inspect the ornaments which Prince George continued to carry for the rest of his life. 'I was honoured', he wrote demurely in his memoirs, 'to be called upon to make certain improvements to them which the King instituted on Queen Mary's suggestion."

DrKay 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My grandpa, a WW1 veteran, was inspected by the King and it seems his lack of height was a source of amusement to the men. "We thought he'd be a great big man, and he were (sic) only a little man" as he put it. It may of course be that he was of average, or just below average, height, but not the giant of a man suggested by his public portraits (this used to be not uncommon in public figures - Stalin being a classic example). In one TV series he was played by Tom Hollander, whose shortness is often used to comic effect.Paulturtle (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Grandchildren

I would like to see this section removed. It duplicates material already given in other articles as well as further up the page in the {{House of Windsor}} template. The names of his other grandchildren could be added there. -- DrKay (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Is there any reason why some of his grandchildren are missing from the list in the House of Windsor template? Specifically, the children of the Princess Royal? --Hagi2000 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

-Yes; they're not members of the House of Windsor; according to the 1917 Order In Council creating the House.92.3.130.26 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture

I have a photograph of a sign which was fixed to the railings of Buckingham Palace on 1 December 1928, detailing the condition of the King during his illness of that year. However I'm confused as to a) whether it would be suitable (in the opinion of the community) to be used on the wikipedia page for King George V, and b) how to upload and share it on this talk page for general review. If somebody could somehow let me know, I would be most grateful! Cglew (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Morganatic marriage

I have found a news report about his morganatic marriage and two children from this marriage. Should it be added? See link, Egeymi (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

His successful suit for libel is already in the article. This is one of the problems with your style of working: you shouldn't be using these discredited primary sources. You should be using secondary sources which analyze and correct the false newspaper reports. DrKay (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your judgement. However, as you can see I did not use the report, just ask. I wish you might have just said, "no, it is not a reliable source" or something like that rather than providing me your subjective thoughts regarding my choice of sources. Egeymi (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that you took offence here, Egeymi, but DrKay's response seems OK to me. As I said once befoee, before bing fobbed off with a load of grandiloquency, this kind of gossipy stuff does not belong in a NPOV article. Arno (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

1928 H.M. King George V R.I. opens the Tyne Bridge

Excellent series of pictures avaialable at -

http://www.retronaut.com/2010/09/construction-of-the-tyne-bridge-c-1927-1928/

203.129.63.66 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in article needs resolving

At the beginning of the article (and in the 'box'), it says:

George V (George Frederick Ernest Albert; 3 June 1865 – 20 January 1936) was King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, and Emperor of India, from 6 May 1910 until his death.

Later in the article under 'titles' it says this:

His full style as king was

"His Majesty George V, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India"

Then it says this:

...until the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, when it changed to

"His Majesty George V, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India".

Surely the opening line (and box) should either include the change, or it should not state anything until the titles section.AndthebeatGOES (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead-up to WWII

I have removed the phrase inserted at the end of the article "(And World War II started three years later)." I think the editor was right to point out that George's distrust of the Nazis should be mentioned in the article, probably in the reign section between the sentence on the christmas broadcast and the silver jubilee, and that it is an important part of his later reign which is currently not covered. However, the phrase looks a little out-of-place, as if stuck on as an afterthought, and deserves to be better integrated into the body of the text with an appropriate citation for his anti-Nazi attitudes. DrKay 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they were already talking about a possible WW2, and he more-or-less turned his face to the wall. Valetude (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding smaller sections

I added a bunch of smaller sections to the "later life" section. Most of his reign was dismissed as later life." Not good or encyclopedic."Ericl (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Per wikipedia's Manual of Style, each paragraph should not have its own sub-heading. Per the featured article criteria, in wikipedia's best work, of which this article is one, the system of hierarchical sub-headings should not be overwhelming. Per the guidelines on section headings, headings should not redundantly refer to the topic of the article ("His Majesty") or be prefaced with "The" or a date. In line with the biographies style guide, deferential honorific titles such as "His Majesty" should not be used; refer to people by name rather than by style. DrKay (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

War Injury?

At www.firstworldwar.com it says "King George thrown with horse whilst inspecting [on the western front on 1915-10-28], and somewhat seriously injured." I don't understand what "somewhat seriously" is supposed to mean, but the question is whether this injury merits a mention in the article, and if anyone has more detail on that event. The website gives its source as "Chronology of the War (1914-18, London; copyright expired)" --BjKa (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

He fractured his pelvis, IIRC. It is mentioned briefly in the "Declining health and death" section. DrKay (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks. (I wonder why I missed that line...) Anyways: This site claims: "During one visit to France in 1915, he fell off a horse and broke his pelvis, an injury that plagued him for the rest of his life." Maybe these details should be included, if a valid source can be found. --BjKa (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"he was thrown from his horse which had been alarmed by cheering soldiers"

"his horse rolled over him, fracturing his pelvis and giving him pain the rest of his life."

"The king suffered two fractures of the pelvis and had to be hospitalized."

Source: https://privatelee.com/search/?q=king+george+pelvis+1915 --BjKa (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Retort

When H. G. Wells wrote about Britain's "alien and uninspiring court", George famously replied: "I may be uninspiring, but I'll be damned if I'm alien.

Let's give this as a retort to all those David Icke "Reptilian conspiracy theory" nonsense! Patchman123 (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Last words

There were reports (eg The Times) at the time that his last words were "How is the empire?". Even if this pious thought is false, it was thought to be true at the time. (Its inclusion would also have helped me with today's Guardian crossword) Myrvin (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is from Baldwin's speech on 21 January. He did not actually say that they were his last words. He said that the King was lapsing in and out of consciousness and during one of these periods (not the last one) he asked "How is the Empire?". DrKay (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I bow to your greater knowledge, but various sites say that it was The Times that reported it - rather than reporting it as in Baldwin's speech. The Oxford quotations says it's from a letter by Lord Wigram and quoted in Our Times, but "on the morning of his death".

The last time I talked to the King [George V] on the morning of his death, Monday 20th, he had The Times on his

table in front of him opened at the “Imperial and Foreign” page and I think his remark to me, “How’s the Empire?” was prompted by some para. he had read on this page

Letter from Lord Wigram, 31 Jan. 1936, in J. E. Wrench Geoffrey Dawson and Our Times (1955) ch. 28

The Penguin quotations gives them as his last words. as does the Routledge. Myrvin (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wigram's letter agrees with Baldwin's speech in that they both fit a scenario where "How [i]s the Empire" were the last words said to his secretary on the morning of his death. However, Wigram wasn't present at his final conscious moment, which was later that evening, whereas Dawson was. So, there is no discrepancy between Dawson's account of George's very final words in the evening and Wigram's account of George's final remark to him in the morning. Penguin and Routledge are evidently not aware of, or have chosen to ignore, Dawson's first-hand account of the King's very final moments. Oxford Quotations (2004) also give Wigram's letter as a source for "How's the Empire?", but is careful to say it was on the morning of his death, and does not say they were his actual final words. DrKay (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So was Baldwin quoting the Times or someone else? Wigram says it was said to him.

I found the BAldwin quote difficult to read with quotes within quotes - so I've put it in blockquote. I hope I did it properly.Myrvin (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I've just seen how you might be confused. There are two Dawsons: Lord Dawson of Penn, who was at the death and was the King's doctor, and Geoffrey Dawson, who was the editor of the Times.

The King said "How's the Empire" to Wigram, who told Baldwin in person, and Geoffrey Dawson by letter. Baldwin used the quote in his speech, which was reported in The Times. Wigram's letter to Geoffrey Dawson only became public knowledge in the 1950s.

The King said "God damn you" to the nurse, and Lord Dawson of Penn recorded it in his diary. The historian/biographer Francis Watson discovered Lord Dawson's diary in the 1950s, when he was writing a biography of Lord Dawson, but only revealed what was in it in 1986. DrKay (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Myrvin (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

His last words were damning his nurse. InsultedElephant (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Order of the Dannebrog

Take care with citations! I notice his award of Grand Commander of the Order of the Danebrog is cited to an illustration taken in 1897. However, the List of Grand Commanders of the Dannebrog indicates he only became Grand Commander of the order on 9 May 1914, a date I have added here, but after the citation as to put it in front would be anachronistic. In 1897 he could only have been wearing the insignia of a junior grade of that order.Cloptonson (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Marriage template

It is unnecessary to repeat George's death date twice in the infobox. Infoboxes should be simple and should not contain duplications. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010073614/http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1158_lafayette/popup.php?img_id=418 to http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/1158_lafayette/popup.php?img_id=418

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

World War I

The fact that George pressed the government to declare war on Germany needs to be mentioned, as it shows he was not as anti-war as he claimed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10991582/Revealed-how-King-George-V-demanded-Britain-enter-the-First-World-War.html (109.146.224.58 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

Could you please elaborate. Is the meeting being talked about the meeting between Grey and the King on the night of the 1st August in which the King drafted and then sent a telegram to the Kaiser? If so, then this meeting is recorded and most sources would treat it differently to the way portrayed here. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The King had an unrecorded meeting with Grey on 2 August as well. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:CD24:CB54:A3F9:4FE0 (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC))

Since the meeting on the 1st lasted one and half hours, I don't think it's clear that these are separate meetings as opposed to the same meeting that has become confused in the retelling. I think you need at least another corroborating source. At present, you have a single newspaper report and an event that is otherwise 'unrecorded'. If it hasn't been recorded anywhere else then it shouldn't be included in a summarised biography like this one. Our short biography of George should include the events and discussion that are usually included in biographies of the king. Events and claims that are usually not included should not be included here. There are many causes of World War I and George V is not usually listed as one of them. It seems to be against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view when you try to present George as a warmonger. That doesn't seem fair or proportional when there are so many other far more discussed causes of the war that are being excluded. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If the meeting was unrecorded, how would anyone outside of the participants know about it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Campaign medals

@Cloptonson and Ian Rose: Should sourced campaign medals (such as [7]) be added to the military appointments section? I'm aware of [8] and [9] but maybe sourced campaign medals under the military appointments heading rather than the honors section would be a compromise? DrKay (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi DrKay, tks for the ping. I don't believe campaign and service medals belong anywhere in the current structure -- they're not high honours or decorations, nor are they appointments. You don't often find them mentioned in Commonwealth military articles because everyone who served in the relevant war or campaign for a certain period of time (say a month) received them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Rumours of alcoholism

I read in the official biography that George V was widely rumoured to be both a bigamist and an alcoholic in his early reign, and that children in London would often be instructed to pray for his poor wife and children. (92.12.126.195 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC))

I cannot the following comments on drinking to the page as the sources I recall reading are not to hand now, but the king was rather abstemious and he proclaimed an abstinence campaign in WWI to not only encourage less drunkenness among the military/civil population but also to release cereals used in beer production to more essential uses. He has not been reported to have been on public duty drunk. Heavy private smoking was more his vice, which contributed to his death. The 'bigamy' could be dismissed as fabrication, the responsible journalist was done for libel.Cloptonson (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Death

Murdered by his Doctor?

Why is the euthansia bit in a footnote... seems like main text information to me. Pcb21| Pete 09:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[2] It has recently been alleged that King George was murdered by his court physician, Dr. Watson. The King, in great pain, was resolute and strongly resisting passing while on his deathbed. According to some sources, Dr. Watson injected the king with a lethal combination of cocaine and morphine the night of his death so that he would not survive into the morning. Dr. Watson's excuse was to speed the king's death and end suffering and also so that his death could be reported in the morning edition of The Times.

"According to some sources" - what sources? Mintguy (T) 10:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a number of these sorts of allegations and rumours creeping into English royalty pages. Queen Victoria's page is similarly afflicted. I'm very tempted to start taking these things out -they seem to be giving the articles a gossip column flavour, and they certainly don't seem very NPOV to me. Arno 00:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with this statement - - we have to purge out gossip and hearsay. While the sources cited below seem to be impeccable, the suggestion that the "lethal dose" was administered at the behest of George V's wife Mary is calumny - Anon

The source of this story, which is closer to established fact than "gossip", is Lord Dawson of Penn's (Watson's) own diary, the contents of which became widely known in the 1980s when his biography was published, and the diary was used as a source. In terms of online sources, there is this article in the British Medical Journal, which states that Dawson "administered a lethal combination of morphine and cocaine at a time when the king was already comatose and close to death. His action remained a well kept secret and the truth came to light only 50 years later when his private diary was opened, Dawson having died in 1945.". The diary also contains the rationale for the euthenasia, which is correct as stated in the article. - Nunh-huh 22:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Further references:

Kelleher MJ. "Arranging the death of a king." Crisis. 1998;19(1):6-7.

Ramsay JH. "A king, a doctor, and a convenient death." British Medical Journal. 1994 May 28;308(6941):1445.

Watson F. "The death of George V." History Today. 1986 Dec;36:21-30.

Lelyveld J. "1936 secret is out: doctor sped George V's death." The New York Times. 1986 Nov 28;:A1, A3.
-- Nunh-huh 22:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So its Dawson. Not Watson. Well I'm glad I asked. Mintguy (T) 22:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) I've got him pinned down now. He was Bertrand Edward Dawson, 1st Viscount Dawson of Penn

[The Doctor administered drugs] to end the King's suffering, and perhaps hoped the monarch would die before midnight so that his death could be announced in the morning Times

I don't dispute that King George was administered drugs which might have hastened his death, such things happen relatively frequently at the end of life. What surprises me is the allegation that 'perhaps' this was done deliberately for the sake of newspaper coverage. Such an act would be legally regarded as murder; is there a credible source for the fact that King George was murdered in this way? (a primary source, not mere repetition of a rumour). All facts, especially controversial facts, must be credibly referenced - I'm sure we all know this. The doctor 'perhaps hoped', well did he or didn't he? Is there actual proof of this other than hearsay and innuendo? Xdamr 01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Though George was apparently euthanised by injections of morphine and cocaine (ironically the very drugs his son the Duke of Kent was addicted to and made to go on cold turkey from), what exactly was the terminal illness from which he was dying? Lec CRP1 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Emphysema. DrKay 07:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's over-simplistic. A more accurate diagnosis would be Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, which includes all the illnesses that he suffered in the years leading up to his death, including pleurisy, bronchiectasis and bronchitis (and emphysema). All of which are, of course, caused by smoking. The final illness he suffered in the winter of 1935-6 was acute bronchial infection. DrKay 09:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Added more detail about his health problems. The horse accident was the start of many health issues for him. Corrected the fact that all his sons and his wife deputized for him on many occasions while he was ill, not just the Prince of Wales. Gwenchick (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

it should not be covered up. Secret is out for more than 30 years by now. InsultedElephant (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Regicide

His end was hastened by his physician, Lord Dawson of Penn, who gave him a lethal injection of cocaine and morphine to ease his suffering and also that the news of his death could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper.

ref. Francis Watson, The Death of George V In: History Today (1986) vol.36, pp.21-30

I see this allegation has come back (bold text). Given its serious nature I think that the exact nature of the History Today article needs to be explored. Is is mere repetition of a rumour, or is is a piece of original research or scholarship? I'm not sure that History Today fulfils the requirements of WP:RS, but it depends what the assertion is. It really requires a pretty watertight source to provide conclusive evidence of the doctor's motives; if History Today provides this evidence, fine - if not then an allegation like this hurts the credibility of the article as a whole. Xdamr^talk 12:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The only source has already been discussed above. It is Lord Dawson's diary as quoted by Francis Watson in his article in 'History Today' (he discovered the diary during his research for his biography of Dawson published in 1950). The quote from the diaries is repeated in other respectable journals, such as the British Medical Journal: "Dawson frankly admits in his diary..<snip>..to ensure that the announcement of the king's death should appear first in the morning edition of the Times". It is only one of the reasons mentioned: Dawson devotes more lines to discussing the strain the family was under, the dignity of the King, and that the King would not regain consciousness. He admits that it was his sole decision and action (although he says the Prince of Wales told Dawson that Edward and Queen Mary did not want the King's life to be prolonged unnecessarily). That December Dawson spoke out against the legalisation of euthanasia in the House of Lords, on the basis that such an important decision should be left in the hands of professionals rather than bureaucrats. You can read the article online for a fee at http://www.historytoday.com :DrKay 08:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds reasonable enough. Perhaps this could do with better explanation in the article itself? Coming across this allegation, I took it to be part of the regrettable modern tendency to make discreditable insinuations against past figures on flimsy evidence or mere rumour. Noting in the main text that the inference in question comes from Dawson's own diary would eliminate this suggestion.

Xdamr^talk 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and have made the appropriate changes. DrKay 08:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the cite and therefore will not change the article, but I read that the reason he was given the fatal injection was that if he had lived another twelve hours and then expired, the death would have been originally reported in the less auspicious afternoon papers. By speeding up the process when he did, the doctor guaranteed that the King's death would be initially reported in the more highly respected morning papers. Like I said, I may be wrong and have no cite, so I'm not putting it in the article. It's just something I read once. RockStarSheister (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In the PBS video, "The Windsors: A Royal Family," the statement is made that Lord Dawson of Penn wanted the King's death to be reported in the Times rather than in the "lesser organs of the afternoon." The video continues by saying that Dawson instructed a nurse to inject the King with cocaine and morphine. The nurse, to her credit, refused to participate. So Lord Dawson committed the vile deed himself. The video concludes the segment by stating that this act of royal euthanasia went unreported for 50 years after the King's death.

John Paul Parks (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is already in the article, and the detail can be found in the two references given there (Francis Watson's original article, and J. H. R. Ramsay's later commentary). DrKay (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. So there is primary evidence that Dawson "hastened" the King's death. Wikipedia's article on Lord Dawson elaborates on that, and there are several sources; Dawson's own diary contains the admission. So, the King was indeed murdered by Lord Dawson (as to the qualification of this fact as murder, one has to keep in mind that Eutanasia wasn't legal; Dawson acted on his own; no one authorized it; British law prescribes that the killing of a King constitutes the crime of high treason, etc). So, why not indicate in the article that this fact, if known at the time would have been regarded as regicide, as high treason? The article itself mentions that Dawson's motives had to do with the King's death being announced in the morning papers, and not in the less important ones that circulated in the afternoon. The article itself mention that the dying King cursed when he saw that he was being injected with drugs. So why not call this murder what it was? Why the ambiguity? This is not a debate about the morality of Eutanasia when it is legal and done with informed consent. In this case, there was no informed consent and no legality: on the contrary, the law classifies this as an act of treason. So, why not call a murder a murder?--189.4.208.67 (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

All information on wikipedia must be from a reliable source rather than the original opinion of its contributors. DrKay (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But this is not original research. There are reliable sources that corroborate that the King was murdered by Lord Dawson. And there are reliable sources that corroborate that such an act amounted then, and amounts now, to high treason under the law of the UK.--201.33.30.202 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The information in the article should accurately reflect the sources cited in the article. Those sources do not use the word murder and make no mention of high treason. It is original research by synthesis to do so. See WP:SYNTHESIS. DrKay (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It would only be murder if (a) he was charged with murder and (b) was convicted of that charge. It's too late now, because he's dead. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense. If it was murder, it was murder - even if he had been indicted acquitted of the charge. If it was no murder, it was no murder - even if he had been found guilty of the charge in a court. Truth is one thing and what courts decide another, though one ought to try not to make the two things diverge too much.--2001:A61:20F5:2B01:20F5:4773:8583:21E6 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Euthanasia

Why are people removing that this king has been euthanised. It was admitted by his doctor, and caused a lot of controversy in 1986. It is described in article Bertrand Dawson, under title euthanasia. If you remove it from here, why not remove it from there? The guy was perhaps even murdered (his last word were damning his nurse as his lethal injection was forced, presumably), that might be controversial, but euthanasia is absolutely not contested. So stop removing that, its ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanboid456 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Kanboid456, Whatever happened there at the death of George V wasn't euthanasia. Euthanasia is a basically an act that brings about the death of a patient that is suffering unbearably from his disease, at the patient's own request. That is not what happened here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Says who? Is it your original research? The NYT article clearly refers to this as euthanasia (so does wikipedia page of the doctor). It refers to this as euthanasia 7 times.[10] So which credible source do you have for this NOT being an euthanasia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanboid456 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is any mention of the episode, it should be more balanced and it should have it's own section I think. And I don't think that Dawson of Penn is a reliable source in this matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As it turns out the episode is mentioned in the article (as it stands) thusly: "By 20 January, he was close to death. His physicians, led by Lord Dawson of Penn, issued a bulletin with words that became famous: "The King's life is moving peacefully towards its close."[99][100] Dawson's private diary, unearthed after his death and made public in 1986, reveals that the King's last words, a mumbled "God damn you!",[101] were addressed to his nurse, Catherine Black, when she gave him a sedative on the night of 20 January. Dawson wrote that he hastened the King's death by injecting him with a lethal combination of morphine and cocaine. Dawson noted that he acted to preserve the King's dignity, to prevent further strain on the family, and so that the King's death at 11:55 p.m. could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper rather than "less appropriate ... evening journals" ". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's already in the article. DrKay (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Note though that his last words were to the nurse administering a normal sedative. The king was beyond talking by the time Dawson gave him the later injections, which the nurse refused to perform. The last words and the lethal injections are not related in that sense. DrKay (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• In the NYT article, what happened was clearly referred to as EUTHANASIA. No way around that. You have no credible sources for this not being euthanasia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanboid456 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"You have no credible sources for this not being euthanasia." Are you even serious about what you wrote there? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have me confused with someone else as your reply is not related to my statement. DrKay (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a famous case of euthanasia, that was described at the time of discovery even as murder. It was popularised by list25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT6SUj9L1-A See also contemporary notes from 1986 in NYT, Chicago tribune http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-11-27/news/8603290225_1_windsor-castle-euthanasia-lord-dawson, Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/1986-11-28/news/mn-15949_1_mercy-killing etc InsultedElephant (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The term euthanasia was first used by the actual perpetrator who is in now way imaginable a reliable source for the accuracy of his own wording. All others are dependent on the language used by him. This won't fly! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

By wikipedia rules only reliable sources count, not your opinion. The reliable sources, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, medical community at the time, all describe this as Euthanasia. What you say is just your opinion. There is no way around reliable sources, and they all call it euthanasia, mercy killing or even convenience killing. InsultedElephant (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in section 9 previously on this page apparently.InsultedElephant (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And it's already in the article. Find consensus for further changes you or your friend want to make. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There are many opinions on this expressed above, however one fact that is sure, no Doctor can be predict when a person shall die, the King died at the hands of his Doctor, who administered fatal injection, he may have survived far longer, it was Regicide. --Pennine rambler (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Regicide category

I have doubled checked this now, this was a Regicide if you read the article about this you will see Mary Queen of Scots and Charles I listed. --Pennine rambler (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I presume this comment relates to my removal of the category? The category is for people who kill monarchs not their victims. George V did not kill a monarch, and is therefore not a regicide. That is why Mary, Queen of Scots, and Charles I are not in the category. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Must admit not a word I often use, if ever, I think you are right, what on earth is this called then, 'High Treason'?

--Pennine rambler (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A follow up, maybe add 'the regicide of George V'

--Pennine rambler (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem with using "regicide" in the article text, is that the sources that do use that term use it as part of a discussion, in which they pose the question: was it regicide, euthanasia, murder or mercy killing? And while some sources call it regicide or murder, other sources call it a mercy killing: [11][12] If one emotive term is introduced to describe it ("murder") then we are duty bound under WP:NPOV to include an opposing view ("convenient", "justifiable"). I think it best for wikipedia to avoid using any terms that support or oppose any particular opinion and let the reader decide for themselves. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you have valid point, on reading the article yesterday and sources again I concluded as any reasonable person of sound mind would consider that the Kings death was by an unlawful act, the lethal injections. In the section 'with two consecutive injections of morphine and cocaine. ' I think it should be reworded to 'with two consecutive lethal injections of morphine and cocaine, or use the word fatal instead of lethal, either way the injection were clearly the cause of death as per sources. Do you agree? --Pennine rambler (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. DrKay (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There's two things, the question of fact, and the question of interpretation of given fact. The first is what must be assumed from the sources; the second is a matter of logic. - Assuming then, that what the King's physician has admitted is actually true: Then, under this assumption, there can be no doubt that what happened was by definition murder, was, as the murder of a king, by definition regicide, and was by British statutory definition high treason. Whether it was euthanasia or "mercy-killing" depends on your definition of euthanasia; if you don't include in that definition the express consent of the euthanized person (the Nazis didn't), then it was one; if you do include in your definition such a consent, then whatever you think of euthanasia it wasn't one.--2001:A61:20F5:2B01:20F5:4773:8583:21E6 (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward VII which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arthur Stockdale Cope - George V 1933.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Tartan

There's an alleged quote from George V in the second entry at List of tartans (claiming a particular Stewart/Stuart as his own), but no citation. I'm wondering whether it's bogus, but maybe someone here has materials for this on-hand?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

anarchism

I find the inclusion of this political movement amongst the list of those that rose to prominence during the reign (3rd paragraph of opening section) as somewhat problematic. It did come to greater prominence to a degree, but the sentence listing these various movements then goes on to end '.... all of which radically changed the political landscape'. This is undoubtedly true of the other movements listed but I think it is hard to justify in respect of anarchism this for the UK, where anarchism has never been a significant force in either Parliamentary or extra-Parliamentary politics. It has, for example been much more significant in Russia (in the related form of nihilism) and in France. But in the UK? Sbishop (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Sbishop

I've removed it. It was a new insertion this morning. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Why Russian Empire fell

The revision at line 48 may be simpler but isn't this at the cost of making it simplistic? It now suggests that WW1 was the cause of the end of the Romanov Empire. WW1 certainly accelerated it but there were significant domestic pressures that might well have produced the same result not much later. I think the previous text was more accurate, if slightly longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbishop (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about George V not the fall of the Russian empire. The detail is out-of-place, especially in the lead. What's there is not incorrect. DrKay (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Then how about the text just saying: 'After the First World War, the empires....' Then it would be saying nothing about causation.Sbishop (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Because that would be incorrect. The Russian empire fell during the war not after it. DrKay (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

World War I section NOT about George V in World War I

This article is disturbingly void of serious analysis and reporting on the role of George V in World War One -- despite a section with that title! Instead, that section obsesses over familial ties to various monarchs of the time -- important, but hardly decisive, nor even very significant, as the evolution of the war made utterly, graphically clear.

The article gives the dismissive illusion that George V had no real military impact upon the war, nor even any significant role on civilian life and politics during the war. That is NOT consistent with most of the British and American historical accounts I'm aware of.

His role may not have been as visible, graphic and dramatic as the royals of WWII. But, to trivialize his role in this most decisively pivotal event of his entire reign, seems reckless, and, at best, forms a gaping chasm in the coverage of the reign of the monarch of the one of the five prinicpal combatant powers of the war, the one that ultimately emerged most victorious and dominant in Europe, and throughout the Old World.

This is not the only such example of shallow, superficial coverage of major royal figures in British history and other nations. Too many of these articles appear to have been drafted by a public relations figure in some museum of royal heraldry, and focus too much on geneaology, and far too little on tangible realities and consequences -- to their nation, Empire, and the world -- of their respective behaviors in office.

I urge historians contributing here, and elsewhere on nobility, to focus less on HEREDITY, and far more upon HISTORY. THAT is what gives WP:NOTABILITY to these "nobles."

~ Penlite (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Although these sentiments are perhaps a little strong, I agree with the overall point that more could be said about George V and the actual war. For example, about his visits to the Front; about his correspondence with leading figures (he was in regular and direct communication with Haig, for example) and related influence on senior appointments; perhaps something about his relations with Asquith and Lloyd George and his interactions first with the Asquith government and then the coalition arrangement. His influence was necessarily unseen, but there is relevant material in standard biographies.

Sbishop (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Sbishop

Monarch of the United Kingdom

The below exchange is copied from my user talk page. It’s more appropriate that the discussion takes place here. DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I meant Edward VIII and George V’s titles, at all times was: by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.

What you say is George V held of the UK title for most of his reign, true. I agree.

My edit however, was for Edward VIII and George VI who never in their lives held the title of “of the United Kingdom”. Saying otherwise would be false. Saying they were monarch of the UK is correct. Saying they were Kings of the UK is correct. But addressing them as of the UK is not.

I feel the ordinals pretty much make it clear they were monarchs, no non-sovereign is accorded an ordinal. Factual inaccuracies should be removed.

Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.227.87 (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to revert you. You should be aware that per WP:BRD if you make a change which is reverted, instead of restoring your change you should go to the article talk page and not attempt to restore your change until there is consensus support for your change. You’ll end up blocked for edit-warring otherwise. The reason for reverting you is twofold: (1) the article I reverted you on is George V - Edward VIII and George VI are irrelevant. (2) the formal style is of secondary importance. All three were monarchs of the United Kingdom. This discussion should take place on the talk page of the relevant article. I’m therefore copying this to the talk page of Georg V. Don’t reply here. DeCausa (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the format where one says “Name Ordinal, Title”, it implies we need to use the proper title. All three were monarchs of the United Kingdom, but the last two, Edward VIII and George VI never in their lives held the title “of the UK”. The formal style is of secondary importance, maybe, however, when using a format as I mentioned above, it is imperative to use the correct style.

And GoodDay, please. Yes both nations were called the United Kingdom, but that is not exactly the subject here. The intros to Edward VIII and George VI do mention them as King of the United Kingdom, however, remember 2 things, as per Wikipedia’s official policy, Wikipedia cannot be a legitimate source of information by itself as it is a user-generated source. And what is mentioned there is incorrect too.

Please refer to the London and Edinburgh gazettes during their accession and you’ll see the truth for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This is gonna shock the pants off of you, but United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are both commonly called United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

PS- Look at the intros to Edward VIII & George VI & you'll see "King of the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW: I'm the editor who put "King of the United Kingdom" into the infobox, next to Edward VIII's & George VI's names. Seeing as this style was done in the infoboxes of the predecessor British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand. But there were changes during George V’s reign. Please refer to the London gazette and you’ll see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

What were Edward VIII & George VI, monarchs of, then? PS- Please sign you posts & be mindful of WP:INDENT. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Edward VIII and George VI were Kings of Great Britain, Ireland and of the British Dominions. They monarchs of an entity called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” but these two lads never had of the UK in their titles. Putting a comma and saying King of UK is incorrect. One can say of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions. This is due to the Irish Free State being separated from the UK but the UK changing name only later. Thanks for the signing post advice. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. They were both "King of the United Kingdom". You'll have to try to convince others of your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not rigid on changing it. If anyone wants to restart this, know I’m in favour. Else, as what GoodDay says is true, I’m gonna leave it here. But please bear in mind that mentioning of the UK separately for Eddie and Georgy would be strange, as they can also be said as Georgy can also be called King of India and so on. But we say of the British Dominions. The point of debate is the Irish Free State. Please do not change the article. End of story. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing the formal style of the monarch and what he was actually “king of”. There was no “Kingdom of Great Britain” - that came to an end in 1801. Just because for a short period the formal style became “King of Great Britain, Ireland” etc doesn’t stop them also being kings of the United Kingdom. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

When Prince of Wales

@DrKay: The Infobox says his birth_name is "Prince George of Wales" but he didn't become Prince of Wales until 1901, when he was 35. Should is birth_name in the infobox be "George Frederick Ernest Albert"? —GoldRingChip 18:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The style “Prince X of Wales” means that the holder is the son of the Prince of Wales, not that he is the Prince of Wales (who’s referred to as “X, Prince of Wales”. For example, before Prince William became the Duke of Cambridge he was known as Prince William of Wales from birth. (And now that he’s Duke of Cambridge, his son is known as Prince George of Cambridge, and so on.) DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Per DeCausa, George V began life as Prince George of Wales, because his father was prince of Wales, at the time of George's birth. Had his father already been king, George would've been born simply The Prince George :) GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah! So it's not like he was "George, Prince of Wales." That makes sense (as much as any of this royalty stuff can). Perhaps you could put a ref there? —GoldRingChip 23:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Do all the sons of the Prince of Wales get styled that way? —GoldRingChip 23:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. When/if Prince William gets the title Prince of Wales? His sons will be known as Prince George of Wales & Prince Louis of Wales, if they haven't already be given titles of their own, by then. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s explained (slightly) here. Basically, in the royal family the father’s title becomes a sort of surname for the children unless they have own their own title. So prior to marriage, Prince Andrew’s daughters were princesses “of York”, William’s children are princes “of Cambridge”, and same applies to children of Princes of Wales. Example here of it being applied to George V in 1872. DeCausa (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. —GoldRingChip 11:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

can someone remove Japanese text

It's confusing and has about DVD Spotter Is Spooky (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Titles and Styles (start date to end date) section missing

Should there be a consistent format for the Titles and Styles section, in line with the entries for Victoria and Elizabeth II? Showing start and end dates of titles for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.189.125 (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Death

The section on his death in the article skirts around the truth, that he was in fact murdered, by lethal injection, surely it should just say it? --Pennine rambler (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The current text reading '.....he hastened the King's death by injecting him, after 11:00 p.m., with two consecutive lethal injections: 3/4 of a grain of morphine followed shortly afterwards by a grain of cocaine.' hardly 'skirts around the truth', it is pretty precise. Which word you might wish to attach to this action is another matter, and a rather subjective one; at present, there is none. Sbishop (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Murder" isn't an appropriate word to use, since that would be Wikipedia drawing a conclusion on a matter of law without there ever having been a charge or a trial, much less a conviction. However, "hastened his death" is pretty ridiculous. Given the LD50 of morphine and cocaine, there's absolutely no doubt that the injections killed him. Plus, in his journal, his physician states his intent to give the king a painless death. -- Hux (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I made a change that I think works better. -- Hux (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian is wrong. It says 'grams', and indeed if it were grams then the doses were enormous. However, they were grains not grams. DrKay (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The original text from Dawson's journal says 'gr.', which is the abbreviation for grains. I've found a better source, so I'll update the text. -- Hux (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi - late to the party. Would some direct clarification in the text that the doses are in grains be helpful? I have encountered frequent mis-reporting, even from medical professionals, regarding massive over-dosing? A footnote or some parentheses: e.g. 1gr.[grains]? William Flowers (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:William Flowers, I’ve looked at this and I’ve corrected it, and also indicated that there was confusion. I’ve also taken the liberty of putting “homicide” as cause of death, seeing as another person deliberately ending another’s life is homicide regardless of context. Cheers. Aubernas (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the article can come down on one side of the debate, if there is one. Most people understand 'homicide' as a synonym for 'murder' and it is not universally agreed to be murder. DrKay (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

From the information in the article it seems the doctor acted without the consent of the patient or members of his family. He clearly ended his life and it could be written that he killed the king. BogLogs (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The Racist and ridiculous nationalist WW1 propaganda Quote must remain

"It has always been my dream that the two English-speaking nations should some day be united in a great cause, and to-day my dream is realized. Together we are fighting for the greatest cause for which peoples could fight. The Anglo-Saxon race must save civilization." George Frederick Ernest Albert about the American entry into World War I.

The ANGLO-SAXON "RACES", the great savior of the HUMAN CIVILIZATION against the primitive German barbarian hordes. It is a ridiculous nationalist and blatant RACIST statement, but clearly depicts the conteporary WW1 beliefs and racist war propaganda of the era. It is part of history. Don't hide it, just because it is unconfortable in the 21th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csataelőkészítő (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Adds nothing and therefore superfluous. The Banner talk 13:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Germans are Anglo-Saxon, so unsure what you think this tells. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons are Germanic, but that time all ethnic group (like English) believed that they belong to a so-called separate race, and of course they represent the peak of civilization. Despite English people are genetically closest to Dutch and Weste German population, they believed that English is a separate race.

The Barbarian Germans, Save the civilization: Poster from the United States, nothing to do with George V

Can you tell me why only positive, i.e. nice and good things can be written about George V? Is the presentation of the real ruler important in this lexicon, or is the creation of an idealized fairy-tale figure more important to you? --Csataelőkészítő (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't publish original research on wikipedia. Primary sources are deprecated, and interpretation of primary sources by wikipedians is inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research for guidance. DrKay (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you label that book in the reference as primary/original source?--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Primary sources. DrKay (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

British Empire 1921.png

Hi @Sbishop, I added {{imagefact}} because File:British Empire 1921.png doesn't have citations to verify the material depicted. It only says "Own work". But what was the reliable source used to draw this map? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose in that sense your addition is warranted. Sbishop (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a reliable source. I found this map but it doesn't show exactly the same situation: for instance Oman and the UAE aren't in the 1921 borders. Britannica's map is closer but doesn't display a precise year. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The Britannica map is more complex in its approach but presumably could not be inserted anyway because it is copyright (though a link could be added to the article). The Researchgate map covers perhaps too great a period of time (though the Britannica map also is not restricted to 1921). Maybe it is best for now to leave the existing map with the annotation and wait to see if anyone else can add to this discussion. Sbishop (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)