Talk:George I of Great Britain

The earlier part of this discussion was moved to Talk: Names of States on the British Isles (Archive) to make more space here for more people to contribute. Hope everyone is happy with that.

Then every monarch before 1801 needs to be changed. And all of the pages that link to them need to have the correct terminology. -- Zoe

23, 2002 (UTC)

From the US Constitution: "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." So yes the article for the Presidents should be at President of the United States of America since that is the name of the country. Rmhermen 18:25 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

If you knew an elementary amount about British history, which you obviously don't, you'd know that whereas places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc were governed by the United Kingdom, they were not judged part<i> of the UK. Ireland, Scotland and Wales, were, which is why they had little things called MPs, and why the union flag consists of St. Patrick's Cross (Ireland), St Andrew's Cross (Scotland) and St. George's Cross (England, including Wales). And which is yet one <i>more reason why there is no such thing in law (and has not been since 1707) as a 'english' king or queen.

I'm sorry for pushing this and I assure you I do not mean any offence and hope you will not take anything personally. Perhaps you isunderstood me, while your point would be valid if this was a debate on the name of the nation, it is an article on the title of the British monarchs. Yes Canada was not part of the UK but the king of the UK was also King of Canada, Emperor of India etc. The comparisson with the American presidents is a bad one, a better one would be whether the article should be titled Greece, or the Hellenic Republic. Hellenic Republic is legally correct on on their embassies etc., but far more people, including experts, use Greece. I would argue to be an accesible encyclopedia Greece is the better option, you may disagree. Also you seem to be ignoring my evidence that pretty much all historians refer to them as George I of England, and Anne of England. I have so far found one academic source that refers to George I of Great Britain, and many that refer to him as George I of England. Do you have electronic access to journals where you are? You can quickly see that most experts use 'of England.' (One thing is no one refers to him as George I of the United Kingdom, so we can both agree that option is a poor one) -SimonP

 ----

Again u are incorrect, Simon and COMPLETELY missing the point by a MILE, and your use of the Hellenic nonsense shows it. The issue in Greece is one of name: are we the Hellenes or Greece. It is only a subtle point about name. But what we are arguing about is NOTHING TO DO WITH NAME. NOTHING. You seem to think that England=GB=UK; they are simply three different ways of saying the same thing. They are three DIFFERENT STATES, not three names for the one state, and the monarchy had DIFFERENT powers, functions and roles in each of the different states, hence the different titles to define themselves. England refers to the a state that covered approx 2/3 of one of the British Isles. Great Britain refers to a state that covered the ENTIRE ISLAND. The United Kingdom refers to a state that originally covered the ENTIRE BRITISH ISLES, and now covers one and a quarter of the main two isles. They had different constitutional systems, different parliaments made up of different people (England's - all english; GB: English + Scottish + Welsh. UK: English + Scottish + Welsh + Irish.) Laws differed. The UK was a parliamentary democracy, England at best a parliamentary monarchy. And that's the central issue: we have DIFFERENT states, with DIFFERENT names, DIFFERENT geographies, DIFFERENT territories, DIFFERENT governments, who had only TWO sets of continuity - a monarchy whose title changed as the states it governed over changed, and an Anglo-centric system of government that owed more in terms of continuity to England than any of the other states, but which still WAS NOT ENGLAND. And each new state as it emerged, with a new landmass, adopted a new title, which is the whole point of this ludicrous argument. And all that then shaped the monarchy, because, while the person who was king was a descendant of earlier monarchs, what they were king or queen of was CONSTANTLY CHANGING, which directly changed their offices.

It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT that individual historians when talking in general terms interplaced the terms 'england', 'GB' or 'UK'. In many cases they were english historians who like so many english people tend to put themselves at the centre of the universe (which is why the Welsh, Scottish and the Irish tend to hate the english so much, because they tend to imagine as though the history of the last couple of hundred years on these islands is 'english' history when it isn't.) In other cases, they aren't arguing about the technicalities of statehood but about policy issues. But the whole issue here we are dealing with its precisely that, statehood. Who governed what entity covering what land area under what title? And on that, the answer is clear as crystal. And you don't have to do a google search. You only have to look at the titles by which monarchs were proclaimed. They were either proclaimed monarchs of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, each title indicating that they ruled over a different set or combination of parts of the British isles in a different timeframe. Until I corrected it, this site had the wrong titles against the wrong monarchs. Queen Anne couldn't have reigned over the UK because it didn't come into existence until nearly a century LATER. She reigned TWO kingdoms, not one, over a different landmass, with a diffferent political elite and set of law. (The 'united kingdom' reference in the 1707 Act of Union isn't a name of a state, it is a discription of what they hoped GB would become, a united kingdom.) It is irrelevant whether one historian or a hundred calls George V 'King of england'. His title is contained in the Royal Titles Act and in the Act of Union that defines the state he governed, which was the UK, which is different to the states his ancestors Henry VIII (england) and George I (GB) governed. And his state was different in turn from the one HIS father reigned over, because whereas under Edward VII, the british Isles was one geopolitical unit and kingdom with one government, under George V it was two states (a smaller UK + the Irish Free State), with THREE of 'His Majesty's Governments' (UK, Northern Ireland local parliament, and the Irish Free State), three sets of laws, a differing royal roles in each state, and a far different relationship to that of his father's day.

Simply because some people and a dodgy web search throw up a wrong name in a particular context is irrelevant. And again, I go back to the 'president of America' analogy. Just because a lot of people call George Bush that doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Our job is to get the title right. And that is perfectly straightforward. Pre 1707 Kingdoms of England, Scotland. 1707-1800 Kingdom of Great Britain. 1800-1920s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1920s-present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is that simple, that straight-forward, a perfect case of right or wrong. And anything other than those names by those dates is wrong. JTD 08:14 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

A rebuttal:

Again u are incorrect, Simon and COMPLETELY missing the point by a MILE, and your use of the Hellenic nonsense shows it. The issue in Greece is one of name: are we the Hellenes or Greece. It is only a subtle point about name. But what we are arguing about is NOTHING TO DO WITH NAME.

It has everything to do with name, while throughout history other names were more correct the monarchs were refered to as 'of England,' rather than their legal title. Wikipedia rules state the most common usage should be the name of the article, and I think we should follow those rules.

NOTHING. You seem to think that England=GB=UK; they are simply three different ways of saying the same thing. They are three DIFFERENT STATES, not three names for the one state, and the monarchy had DIFFERENT powers, functions and roles in each of the different states, hence the different titles to define themselves.

The Hellenic Republic before its new name was also a different state with a different constitution, the name change was a change in constitution just as drastic as the Acts of Union.

England refers to the a state that covered approx 2/3 of one of the British Isles. Great Britain refers to a state that covered the ENTIRE ISLAND. The United Kingdom refers to a state that originally covered the ENTIRE BRITISH ISLES, and now covers one and a quarter of the main two isles. They had different constitutional systems, different parliaments made up of different people (England's - all english; GB: English + Scottish + Welsh. UK: English + Scottish + Welsh + Irish.) Laws differed. The UK was a parliamentary democracy, England at best a parliamentary monarchy. And that's the central issue: we have DIFFERENT states, with DIFFERENT names, DIFFERENT geographies, DIFFERENT territories, DIFFERENT governments, who had only TWO sets of continuity -

Not really, the King of England still ruled Ireland long before the United Kingdom was proclaimed. The changes in names were not changes in much besides administration. Changes like the arrival of parliamentry democracy etc. had nothing to do with the Acts of Union. The Acts of Union did not bring about geographic and population changes of what was under the monarch's control, they were an administartive reform to rearrange the governing of those areas already controlled. Your average person would not have considered the Act of Union to be terribly important.

a monarchy whose title changed as the states it governed over changed, and an Anglo-centric system of government that owed more in terms of continuity to England than any of the other states, but which still WAS NOT ENGLAND. And each new state as it emerged, with a new landmass, adopted a new title, which is the whole point of this ludicrous argument. And all that then shaped the monarchy, because, while the person who was king was a descendant of earlier monarchs, what they were king or queen of was CONSTANTLY CHANGING, which directly changed their offices.

The British monarch often adopted new titles, such as King of Canada or Emperor of India. Why do we not include this in the title of the article? For instance George III title was: Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc. The titles were constantly changing, but for sake of simplicity and continuity the entire world has stuck to calling them Kings and Queens of England.

It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT that individual historians when talking in general terms interplaced the terms 'england', 'GB' or 'UK'.

Many of these were pretty specific discussions of the monarch in question?

In many cases they were english historians who like so many english people tend to put themselves at the centre of the universe (which is why the Welsh, Scottish and the Irish tend to hate the english so much, because they tend to imagine as though the history of the last couple of hundred years on these islands is 'english' history when it isn't.) In other cases, they aren't arguing about the technicalities of statehood but about policy issues.

I hope you are not letting politics and nationalism affect your judgement on this issue. I could get quite annoyed about how people like you think the monarchs are all about the British Isles they tend to imagine as though the history of the last few hundred years of these monarchs is 'british' history when it isn't. It is Canadian, and American, Indian, and Australian history as well. So why aren't we mentioned in the title of the article? Perhaps that is why we colonials have long felt so ignored and undervalued.

But the whole issue here we are dealing with its precisely that, statehood. Who governed what entity covering what land area under what title? And on that, the answer is clear as crystal. And you don't have to do a google search. You only have to look at the titles by which monarchs were proclaimed.

The titles they were proclaimed under were awfully long, I think most people would prefer not to use these titles.

They were either proclaimed monarchs of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, each title indicating that they ruled over a different set or combination of parts of the British isles in a different timeframe.

They were also proclaimed Emperors of India, why isn't this mentioned?

Until I corrected it, this site had the wrong titles against the wrong monarchs.

It still does, no King or Queen was ever proclaimed under these titles.

Queen Anne couldn't have reigned over the UK because it didn't come into existence until nearly a century LATER. She reigned TWO kingdoms, not one, over a different landmass, with a diffferent political elite and set of law. (The 'united kingdom' reference in the 1707 Act of Union isn't a name of a state, it is a discription of what they hoped GB would become, a united kingdom.) It is irrelevant whether one historian or a hundred calls George V 'King of england'. His title is contained in the Royal Titles Act

and this act certainly doesn't call him King of the United Kingdom, his title is far more elaborate. Also different parts of the empire have different Royal Titles Act, i.e. Canada calls ERII: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Is the UK act more important than the Australian one or the Canadian one? (Well yes because the monarch lives in the UK and spends the vast majority of her time dealing with UK business, of course the same could be said of England.)

and in the Act of Union that defines the state he governed, which was the UK, which is different to the states his ancestors Henry VIII (england) and George I (GB) governed. And his state was different in turn from the one HIS father reigned over, because whereas under Edward VII, the british Isles was one geopolitical unit and kingdom with one government, under George V it was two states (a smaller UK + the Irish Free State), with THREE of 'His Majesty's Governments' (UK, Northern Ireland local parliament, and the Irish Free State), three sets of laws, a differing royal roles in each state, and a far different relationship to that of his father's day.

Simply because some people and a dodgy web search throw up a wrong name in a particular context is irrelevant. And again, I go back to the 'president of America' analogy. Just because a lot of people call George Bush that doesn't mean Wikipedia should.

But most articles do refer to people by their most common name, I believe that is wikipedia policy not to pick their legal name. If the New York Times called him Dubya, and google showed that 'President Dubya' far outranked 'President Bush' I think wikipedia should call him that. We call him 'Muhammed Ali' and not 'Cassius Clay,' and we call the Hellenic Republic Greece. It doesn't matter what the constitution states, or the Royal Titles Act. Wikipedia naming policy is that the common option trumps all.

Our job is to get the title right.

no it isn't its to make a accesible, and factual, encyclopedia.

And that is perfectly straightforward. Pre 1707 Kingdoms of England, Scotland.

and numerous colonies, the Isle of Man, claims to France, etc.

1707-1800 Kingdom of Great Britain.

and the American colonies, and much of the West Indies, etc.

1800-1920s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,

and King of Canada, and Empress of India, and King of Australia

1920s-present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is that simple, that straight-forward, a perfect case of right or wrong. And anything other than those names by those dates is wrong. JTD 08:14 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

getting the title right is no where close to straightforward. George III of Great Britain, it is not correct, it leaves out a lot of areas that consider themselves important. What you are proposing is a shortened version of the official title, cutting off all you don't think is important enough. Most people do not have the hubris to do so. That is why almost everyone uses King of England, yes it excludes the vast majority of the area and people controlled, yes it is not legally correct, but it is also always right because the monarch always did control England, and spent the vast majority of their reigns concerned with English affairs. 'of England' is certainly the most common title, since we cannot include the legal title, we should include the most common. -SimonP

Some rules from wikipedia naming conventions:

• Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature

• As to names of persons, there are two schools of thought: use the most commonly used name, or use the person's full name. After a vote among those interested, we've come down in favor of the former. Names of persons should be the most commonly used name

• In general, use the most common form of the name used in English

• Names of kings and queens of modern kingdoms should include their kingdom This is to differntiate between many rulers with the same name and number. English rulers get "of England" added. No Cognomens (nicknames) in article titles -- they go in the first line of the article.

Since a recent study showed that only something like 5% of Americans knew what the United Kingdom was, and my google search has showed England is the most popular name, I think we should move them to 'of England.' (As the naming conventions already agreed.) -SimonP

Wow! What a lot of fuss over the UK from people who don't even live here! Some of the controversy can be easily eliminated - the title of the article doesn't have to contain all the additional bits and pieces, such as "Empress of India", because they can be mentioned within the article. However, to call British monarchs "of England" would be totally wrong and offensive to a large proportion of British people. The point is that it is foreigners, who are generally ignorant of our internal affairs, who usually use the word "England" when they mean Britain/UK. We use the latter terms interchangeably, although admittedly there are a few ignorant English people who think they are at the centre of the universe. No, it has to be either Great Britain or the UK after 1707. I don't much mind which, but I always thought that "Anne of the United Kingdom" had a very strange ring to it. Deb

Correct, Deb. England is totally wrong for the post 1707 period. Polls suggest that most Americans don't know where most countries in Europe are, struggle to know where Asia is, and haven't a clue beyond that. Maybe Simon would suggest we re-do the map of the world to relocate countries to where Americans think places are. Or replace most of the Republic of Ireland page with pictures of leprechauns, catholic priests and a photo of John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara from the Quiet Man because after all that's what all too many Americans think is Ireland.

Just because such a large proportion of Americans are so ill-informed about the world does not mean that Wikipedia has to drop down to the level of their ignorance. The people of Britain deserve nothing less than to have the pages that refer to their monarchs accurate. And Simon doesn't seem to grasp that we are supposed to use the most common correct name. Just because Americans mostly know the incorrect one, is no justification for using it, anymore than because people call Bush the 'President of America' would justify Wikipedia using that incorrect title, or because in the 1980s, most Americans used the term 'Russia' would mean that at the time Wikipedian should not refer to the 'Soviet Union'. We may disagree on titles, but at least Deb, we seem to appreciate the subtlties of our two islands' histories, and the different meanings involved. According to the index of Norman Davis' The Islands (which is focused on clarifying the technicalities and twists & turns of the history of the islands), he refers to 'Anne, Queen of England', 'George I, King of Breat Britain, France and Ireland', 'George II, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland', 'George III, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, later of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. 'George VI, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. p.1198. (As you know, the 'France' bit was just a claim that was made but never taken seriously, even by the monarchs concerned.) JTD 20:19 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I don't understand why you felt you had to drop to the level of name calling, Jtdirl, it adds nothing to your argument but make you look small-minded. And who in the world ever calls our President "President of America"? -- Zoe

Sorry, Zoe, I didn't mean to name call. Worl

Absent the name-calling, I have to say I agree with JTDirl. I think that the intervention is appropriate and well-explained. There is a difference between the same man sitting on the thrones of England and Scotland and another man sitting on the throne of Great Britain, a kingdom that spans both. Perhaps (shameless plug) Queen of Canada could shed some light on the situation. - Montréalais

Acoring to a kings and queens book i own which says each Kings and queens authority, George I's was:King of Great Britain and Ireland, then list other things like 12 colines in america 7 main carribean islands, etc. why not move the page tp George I of Great Britain and Ireland[?]?

Sorry, Zoe, I was been sarcastic. The point I was making was that there are minimum standards of accuracy required in our entries, one of the key requirements being getting the name of a state right, particularly when each name refers to a different state, with different boundaries, different political cultures and different histories. I wasn't attacking Americans. I suppose given the size of the United States of America, it is understandable if the they are less knowledgable about the world outside their massive borders. That lack of knowledge is often commented on by non-Americans, who for example, found it hilarious (and joked about it worldwide for months) that George W. Bush had only ever stepped outside the US once before becoming president. Tourists to Ireland often have use in hysterics at their image of Ireland - one American asked me whether people in Ireland used the sort of donkey and cart transport shown in some clichéd Irish postcards. She wasn't sure if we used cars, let alone 'cell phones' (what we call 'mobile phones')!!! (And many presume that everyone is Roman Catholic, none of us are gay, and all white. she should meet my best friend, a black muslim gay Irishman!) It is bizarre to see so many Americans come to Ireland wearing green suits looking to buy aran sweaters which they think we all wear!

Another asked a friend of mine in a tourist office in Atlanta if British people all wore bowler hats and spoke like the queen, or whether French people still wore stripped tops and wore strings of garlic around their necks while cycling everywhere. And you can't blame some Europeans for their stereotypes of gun-totting, gum-chewing, Americans when their exposure to American culture comes via Jerry Springer. At least some of us have the West Wing, Frasier, Six Feet Under, Law & Order, to see a different, much more impressive side of America. I was just being rather bitchily sarcastic. Sorry if I caused offence. (re- 'president of America' - it was used just the other morning on a CNN report, while 'American President' is used almost all the time. ) JTD 22:24 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

It is a fair point. Perhaps we should rename the page to include a reference to 'ireland'. However the Kingdom of Ireland dated back to 1541 so it would involve changing the names of all monarchs back to Henry VIII, which is a big challenge. But I am all for it if people think it is a good idea. I did go into various pages to add in a reference to Ireland.

PS - sorry if I offended anyone. I've got a bad flu, a splitting headache and a big phone bill came in, which made me realise how much time I have spent on Wikipedia. I was in a bad mood, which often leads me to being sarcastic (which I can be sometimes). No offence was meant. I think as they stand the pages are more factually correct and as someone hooked on Wikipedia (hence my phone-bill) I want to see Wikipedia as the best source-book on the net available, user-friendly and accurate, without compromising on either. JTD 22:30 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I don't think that the "of Ireland" is also needed. Page titles should be only as complex as needed in order to correctly distinguish different subjects. Otherwise some people will go insane and add "lord protector etc" and we end up with 20 word long titles which nobody will link to directly. In other words KISS. --mav

Agreed. I originally did the renaming to 'of Scotland', 'of England', 'of the UK', etc. when things started to get confusing with all the Alexanders, in Scotland and abroad. It was only intended as a disambiguation exercise. I didn't realise it would grow all these arms and legs. As far as I am concerned the title should be the minimum necessary to disambiguate the article. I never attempted to give the official title of the kings and queens concerned since some of them were so early that they had no official title and since most of the title is a form of official boasting in any case. KISS sounds good to me. -- Derek Ross 18:58 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)