This is an archive of past discussions about George III. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think the American War of Independence section needs some tweaking or changes. The American colonies were difficult to manage. England had been concerned with domestic and European affairs and ignored that the American colonists were becoming more wealthy and powerful. Lord North was viewed as pro-George III, in wanting to keep the colonies. The war at first was a civil war from 1775 to 1778, until the French got involved, it became a world war. Smuggling in the American colonies apparently was rampant. These are just a few suggestions. Any thoughts on the matter? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Something like this introduction: "The British-American colonies, over the Atlantic, had always been difficult to manage, while England was concerned with domestic and European matters."Cmguy777 (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Sample three: "The American War of Independence was a civil war from 1775 to 1778, until the French allied with the Rebel colonists."' 05:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I added the above information blending into the article's original narration. I believe the additions give more clarification and context. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I have never seen the American War of Independence described as a "world war". I thought we'd only had two of those, with the first one beginning in 1914? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 29
August 2021 (UTC)
The terms civil war and world war are uncapitalized. I was only going by the Wilcox & Arnstein source. The French did fight the British I believe at Saratoga. Also, the French Navy was used. It is not considered a major world war. I think there was a possible invasion of England by the Spanish, but that never came to fruition. As far as I know, there really was not decisive battle to end the war. The British just did not want to continue the fighting. There was an official alliance agreement between the French and Rebel colonists. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
At the time Britain, France, and Spain were involved. These would be major powers involved in the war. The modern definition is "most" major powers involved in a war. It certainly was a minor world war. It was not a major world war like WWI and WWII. WWII fits the best definition of what a modern world war is. The American War of Independence was not a modern World War, by any means. The word "minor" could be added to the text. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Historians call it a "world war" for multiple reasons: 1) vast geographical coverage around the world; (2) direct involvement of four of the largest powers; and the 4 largest navies (3) major impact on world history in creating USA a large new nation; (4) largely destroying the largest empire (the "First British Empire") --Briain responded by building a very different Second Empire and (5) setting as model for resisting imperialism and monarchy. (5) see Larrie Ferreiro, "World War 1776 - how the American revolution touched off one of history's first global conflicts" Military history now 14 November 2016
I kept the term "world war" but add "minor" so as not to confuse the reader with WWI and WWII. There is one aspect of the American War of Independence that might get overlooked. German troops Hessians landed on British-American soil and were fighting American Rebels. It was not just British Regulars fighting. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks like "minor" was taken out. That is fine with me. I just put it in for a compromise. My initial edit was correct. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Historians: 1) Daniel Marston Professor, SAIS, Johns Hopkins: The American Revolution 1774-1783 (2003) states: "fanned the flames of a local insurrection into a world war". (2) see title and contents by David Allison and Larrie D. Ferreiro, editors The American Revolution: A World War (Smithsonian Institution, 2018).--on Am rev as a world war essays by 17 historians from eight countries (museum curators, public historians, historians of science, historians of the Anglo-American colonial and revolutionary periods, and naval and military historians of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, India, and the United States). see excerptRjensen (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
We can add John Adams, who as a diplomat at the peace conference in Paris wrote in 1783: "a complete history of the American war is nearly the history of mankind for the whole epic of it. The history of France, Spain, Holland, England and the neutral powers as well as America are at least comprised in it." [Quoted in . Allison & Ferreiro p 3] Rjensen (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Wilcox and Arnstein, The Age of Aristocracy, 1988 call AWOI a civil war (1775-1778) pg 161 and world war (1778-1783) pg 167. French intervention made this a world war or was the primary cause. You don't have to agree with Wilcox and Arnstein, but the authors are a reliable history book source. The war extended from India to the Caribbean. Spain joined France in 1799. The French had improved their navy to rival Britain's dominance on the sea. The British navy was unable to maintain a blockade in European waters due to the increase in the number of ships. In fact, Pitt recommended the blockade to keep other European nations from joining the war. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
You added "The British Navy was unable to blockade the French Navy in the Mediterranean, from bypassing the Straights of Gibraltar, headed for North America." I'm not quite sure what you mean. I can't see the Wilcox and Arnstein (1988) source to check what is says. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Why remove a photo of a victory for George III at Charleston? Painting 100 years later? There were no cameras in 1780. There is no evidence that the painting is an inaccurate representation. The photo adds neutral context. Give credit where credit is due. The British won the battle. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It was relevant to the artist who painted it. It also displays a victory for the King's Army. Any victory is relevant. The Loyalists were inspired. This is being nitpicky. Every edit should not be scrutinized, especially the addition of a photo. Also, the photo adds artistic value to the section. It looks better than just a bunch of words. There were no photos in the section before. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It may well have been relevant to Alonzo Chappel when he painted it in 1862, although it must have been quite a feat of imagination (and it currently doesn't even appear at his own article), but I'm not sure that makes it relevant for a Wikipedia article about George III being written 160 years later. I agree with you that an image may be useful in breaking up the text, but to "add artistic value" I think it must also be relevant. I don't think that's being "nitpicky". There are many other battles and notable individuals linked in that section, perhaps an image of one of those might be a possibility? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Unless there is some source that says the Chappel painting is inaccurate, there is no reason to deny its inclusion in the article. The British victory inspired Loyalists. That is significant and relevant. It is perfectly appropriate to show a battle scene in a war section of the article. Editors should be freely allowed to edit in what is believed to be the best interest of the article. Why should there be approval of every photo in the article? There is no controlling editor, like at a magazine, at Wikipedia. I am willing to work on the issue, but do not feel I need to get approval by other editors for any photos added to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Per MOS:IMAGE, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context". I don't see how a mid-Victorian depiction of a battle which George never saw, had no involvement in and only heard about weeks or months after it ended is especially significant to a biography of George III. Such an image would be pertinent in a discussion of the historiography of the American revolution. Also, articles should be predominantly text. It is not necessary to have an image in every section, particularly in an article already plentifully illustrated in other sections. If an image is desired there are other options such as a portrait from the year or a fanciful depiction of statue destruction. DrKay (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The article says George III wanted to wage war against the Rebel colonists. I am sure George III would have been extremely happy over the Charleston British victory. Too bad certain editors are opposed to British victory being portrayed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
No French and Indian War states: "The British offered France the choice of surrendering either its continental North American possessions east of the Mississippi or the Caribbean islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, which had been occupied by the British. France chose to cede the former." Guadeloupe and Martinique were FRENCH sugar-slave islands that the British Navy seized in the war. The British Army seized Canada. France had a choice at the peace conference and picked the islands, which produced a big profit. Rjensen (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Guadeloupe's and Martinique's (slave plantations) release was George III's decision. That is the whole point. The article says it was George III's decision. That makes sense since Canada and the islands were controlled by Britain it would be King George's decision. I am just going by what the source said. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Always (to this day) British treaties are made in the name of the King, not the nation. Thus "Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, for the Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Signed at Washington, June 15, 1846" re Queen Victoria. Likewise declarations of war. All the letters of GIII to his prime minister and closest advisor Lord Bute are in print, and cover lots of diplomatic issues but he never mentions Guadeloupe. see https://archive.org/details/lettersfromgeorg0000geor/page/202/mode/2up?q=+GuadeloupeRjensen (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
"Sizable garrisons were also stationed in the West Indies to guard the few sugar holdings Britain had left at the end of the Seven Years' War in 1763. In carving up the Americas after the fighting stopped, King George III had decided to cede a few of his Caribbean sugar islands to France in order to secure a sizable chunk of North America." Whipps (June 02, 2008) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Whipps also mentioned the British lost the American War of Independence because the British "military was busy protecting its sugar islands, many historians have argued."Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"In swapping sweet and profitable Guadeloupe for the barren, sugar-free wasteland of Canada, plus most of the land east of the Mississippi River, many Englishmen thought the King got a raw deal." Whipps (June 02, 2008) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Whipps is not a recognized historian of George III-- "Heather Whipps writes about history, anthropology and health for Live Science. She received her Diploma of College Studies in Social Sciences from John Abbott College and a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from McGill University, both in Quebec." You need an expert on George III to chatacterize his decision Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
There is real scholarship on the issue--the king was not directly involved. Race did play a role--one influential pamphlet argued for Canada: "If we have an Universal Empire on the Continent of North America , we can take the sugar islands when we will. A northern colony is preferable to a southern, being healthier and more suited to the development of a white race." [p 740] The Elder William Pitt and Ben Franklin played major roles. On the HUGE debate in England see William L Grant, "Canada Versus Guadeloupe, an Episode of the Seven Years' War." American Historical Review 17.4 (1912): 735-743 online free. There is a large scholarly literature and it does not seem to mention the king as making the decisions. Rjensen (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
--There is good coverage in Max Savelle, The Origins of American Diplomacy (1967) ch 19 online free -- with only a one mention of the King p 490 as not interested. Also see Fred Anderson, Crucible of War (2000) for even more detail pp 504-6. Rjensen (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. But who made the decision on trading the islands for Canada? Are you saying GIII had no powers as King and Pitt and Franklin made the deal with France without GIII's consent? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Couldn't one argue that any decision made by the Pitt government had the ultimate backing of George? You know, if one had an agenda to promote the claim that George III was personally involved in the slave trade, for example. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I read the Grant source. I don't think the King was mentioned. Whipp says that King ceded the islands. Let's say Pitt and Franklin negotiated the deal. Would not the King have to give final consent or authorization? Would not the King have to consent, or royally affirm, the treaty? In essence, Pitt is a representative of the King, but GIII gave the final royal approval, either by signature or proclamation. Whipp seems to maintain GIII made the final decision. Even the Treaty of France (1783) says the King gave permission for the colonies to be independent. I think the best thing is to find the original treaty that ended the French Indian War and find out if the King is mentioned in the treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Here is the Treaty of Paris (1763): "VIII. The King of Great Britain shall restore to France the islands of Guadeloupe, of Mariegalante, of Desirade, of Martinico, and of Belleisle; and the fortresses of these islands shall be restored in the same condition they were in when they were conquered by the British arms, provided that his Britannick Majesty's subjects, who shall have settled in the said islands, or those who shall have any commercial affairs to settle there or in other places restored to France by the present treaty, shall have liberty to sell their lands and their estates, to settle their affairs" So GIII restored the islands. I think we could say in the article GIII restored the profitable sugar slave plantations to France, in exchange for Canada, in the slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Primary source inline. Contradicts the immense scholarly literature, and popular works easily accessible, that say Bute and his government negotiated the peace. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Not sure we'd need to link France or Canada. But more fundamentally, all international treaties in that era (and well after) were signed "in the name of the monarch" as the figure head of the nation. He wasn't actually involved in any meaningful way? That source calls him "his Britannick Majesty, the Most Christian King" - would you advocate using that description in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Support I believe the issue is significant enough to be in the article. The treaty ended that Seven Years War. The primary source Treaty of Paris (1763) was to verify in the discussion GIII restored the Islands to France. GIII's name is specifically named in the Treaty. The Treaty was a legal document too, not just a primary source. Is there any disagreement that GIII restored the sugar-slave islands to France? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
oppose there were LOTS of provisions in the very complex treaty. The King had only the nominal role of having it in his name (like all treaties). The cabinet made the decisions for His Majesty's government. Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Response We are not discussing the treaty in itself, such as negotiators Pitt or Franklin. Is there a source that says George III was the nominal King of England who had no powers? We are discussing that King George III's name is on a very important treaty that traded, in essence, profitable slave-islands for Canada and lands east of the Mississippi. Whipps article brings this issue up. I don't see how she is an unreliable source. How much GIII was involved in the treaty process is irrelevant, in this case. I am not for using the original language in the document. I have been told countless times how GIII's name must be in sources. Now I am told he was just a nominal King and his name does not matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
GIII's name is on the contract, basically a treaty is a contract between nations. A sports athlete puts their name on a lucrative contract can't back out of the contract by saying their name is just "nominal" and the contract does not count. Putting GIII's name on the treaty makes the treaty legal and enforcible. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Treaties have a very well-established place in international law, and almost no one ever mixes them up with contracts signed by baseball players. Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but then why is George III's name meaningless in the 1763 treaty? His name is in international law, it should be in the article. This was a trade for wealthy slave sugar plantations for American land. In Wikipedia readers should be informed. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
His name is not "meaningless". It was required by international protocol. But this is not the same as him being personally involved in drafting or negotiating the treaty and being present when it was signed? The article infobox shows: "Signatories: Kingdom of Great Britain" etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Whipps the source I used put the responsibility on GIII for turning over the slave island for Canada. Do you disagree with Whipps? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
As Rjensen says above, Whipps is not an expert on George III but rather "writes about history, anthropology and health for Live Science." She's not sufficiently notable to have that view attributed to her. Perhaps there are other professional historians who hold the same view. I don't know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. It looks like yet another weak attempt to push a barely-supportable agenda. We shouldn't select content from one online blog when it contradicts 'real scholarship' (quoting Rjensen) and an 'immense scholarly literature' (quoting DrKay). Celia Homeford (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Real scholarship? The treaty backs up what Whipps is saying about the trade of the islands for Canada. GIII restored the prosperous slave-sugar plantations to France for Canada and land east of the Mississippi. Is it required by Wikipedia that all sources be male, smoke tobacco pipes, have a Ph.D., and live in an Ivory tower? I am jesting a little here. I am not pushing anything here. The Treaty of 1763 should not be controversial. I can look for other sources There is no evidence of unreliability by Whipps as a source. Is there disagreement that the islands restored by George III were not prosperous sugar-slave islands? That is the whole point of this discussion. Basically restoring French slaves for land. Is that too controversial?Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you're being disruptive. Your behavior is classic 'refusal to get the point', even though it's been explained to you several times by several editors. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research by synthesis, nor does it favor poorer sources when they disagree with multiple better ones. DrKay (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not being disruptive, nor do I desire to be. I have gotten the point. I have not used Whipps. I used Wilcox & Arnstein (1988). There has been no original research. Wilcox & Arnstein is the better source. I have used the word "Britain" rather than "George III". This discussion has been helpful. My opinions on the talk page are not statements of fact, just opinions, not intended to be in the article, nor intended to be original research. I respect Rjensen and other editor opinions. Upon further review of Whipps, I am more in agreement with Rjensen. Whipps tended to overvalue Britain restoring the slave-sugar plantations to France. Britain came out the better in the Seven Years War and received enormous concessions. Whipps undervalued this. I don't think Whipps is unreliable, but she is not as accurate as she could be. Her article is informative and I don't think should be outright dismissed only because of her Bachelor's degree in Anthropology. In using Wilcox & Arnstein (1988), I hopefully have achieved editor consensus. I also value historical information from both female and male historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Even having a Bachelor's degree in History, does not make one an Historian, let alone an expert on 18th-century Europe or on George III specifically. But a Bachelor's degree in Anthropology? Really? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I used Willcox (two Ls) & Arnstein (1988), not Whipps in the article. A historian is considered an authority who writes on and studies the past. Did Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) have a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy)? Nothing wrong with incorporating science in history, such as Anthropology does. I don't think Live Science would use Whipps to write an article if she was not considered an authority on the matter. But, again, I did not use Whipps in the article. I complied with editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The slavery section was abruptly and unfairly removed without discussion. So there was no slavery during George III's reign? I readded the section lower in the article, but it should be part of the article. Any issues with the section should be brought up on the discussion page. There is no need for an edit war on this. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The prose is bad. The first and third paragraphs are virtual repeats: "During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement." ... "During George III's lengthy reign, George III and his sons were pro-slavery". Same thing said twice. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
But George didn't introduce slavery? His approach to slavery was no different to his Hanoverian predecessors? He never really spoke out about slavery? So there was no drinking of coffee during George III's reign?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Roberts in his recent (2021) book George III: The Life and Reign of Britain's Most Misunderstood Monarch claims that George III was passionately anti-slavery in his youth, but did not intervene publicly on the question later when king, remaining neutral, unlike his sons George and William who were for and Augustus who was against. George III did not own slaves. Starple (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the revision, but I think the section could stand alone. It looks awkward just under William Pitt. Wasn't George III just practicing the slavery policies of his predecessors? I think it important to know British slavery was practiced long before George III's reign, starting in 1619. I am all for improving narration. I don't think sources need to mention GIII's name in every sentence to be considered valid. American presidents have their own section on slavery. GIII had more than one prime minister. Something should probably be mentioned about West Indies slavery. Somewhat contrary policy of settling British freed slaves in Nova Scotia, but keeping slaves in the West Indies. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
"I think it important to know British slavery was practiced long before George III's reign, starting in 1619.! Well maybe you do. But what has that to do with George III?? I think the perspective of American presidents is vey different. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I am speaking solely from a narration point of view. The slavery section under "William Pitt" looks awkward. Pitt was not the only prime minister under GIII. And yes, this is historical biography. Giving the reader a little backdrop information on when slavery started in the American colonies adds to the article. I mentioned the American President articles, again, only for narration purposes. Rather than adding bits and pieces to an article on slavery, or a subsection, in their respected articles, slavery has its own section. As far as slavery and GIII, more focus from a British perspective should be on the West Indies sugar plantations. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it looks out of place because it's shoe-horned in. Two of the paragraphs are supported by sources that don't mention George III. That's the same problem we've been talking about for 3 weeks: summary style articles shouldn't detail topics that are not explicitly linked to the article subject. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Right. I think the shoehorn is awkward and slavery should be its own section. In part, I agree, such as with the source on statistics on the slave trade. That could just be put in as an article link. The years in the source do not completely match GIII's reign, so that information could be removed. In my opinion, background information on slavery, that does not mention GIII, I think is alright for the article, to add a historical perspective, such as when British slavery began in the West Indies and in America. Wikipedia, as far as I know, only requires a source. Is there a specific Wikipedia requirement that all sources must mention GIII or the biographical figure? A majority of the text sources, of course, should mention GIII. What are the sources that do not specifically mention GIII? Is there any objection to removing the Pitt shoehorn? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Addition of Bristol is fine. It is a well-documented slave port. Some might ask why. The "British Constitution" of 1688 that said white males can't be enslaved, may have empowered the slave trade of Africans. British subjects were considered "free-born". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The whole idea from the source I gave, Madge Dresser, is that Christian whites believed they were empowered by rights, whereas according to racist slavery advocates, Africans had none, and could be enslaved for life. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
George III and slave ownership?
Did George III personally own slaves? For that matter, how many African slaves were in England during George III's reign? George Washington, on the other side of the Atlantic, owned slaves, by comparison. It would be informative to know whether African slaves attended King George III. Are there any sources that verify George III owned African slaves or was attended by African slaves? Were there African slave quarters on the palace grounds? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Roberts in his recent (2021) book George III: The Life and Reign of Britain's Most Misunderstood Monarch claims that George III was passionately anti-slavery in his youth, but did not intervene publicly on the question later when king, remaining neutral (not, as is often stated, anti-abolition), unlike his sons George and William who were for and Augustus who was against. He also says that George III did not own slaves. So Roberts would say that the sources cited in this Wikipedia article stating that George was anti-abolition (e.g. Bitesize BBC) are simply repeating inaccurate presumptions. Starple (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
In Georgian Britain, I believe the children of black slaves were occasionally "kept" as novelties, in the role of a pageboy or valet etc., see e.g. this from Erddig. But slavery itself was kept well hidden away from polite society. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
"The history of British slavery has been buried. The thousands of British families who grew rich on the slave trade, or from the sale of slave-produced sugar, in the 17th and 18th centuries, brushed those uncomfortable chapters of their dynastic stories under the carpet."Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know. I have not read the book but found it on a Google search. The Guardian article mentions there was some sort of conservative effort or cover-up to hide and trace slavery in England. The manor houses were not just architecture, but symbols of wealth and property, including slaves. Unfortunately, there may not be a lot of sources. I can't find any yet that mention George III owned slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
From this discussion and sources, I gather most of the slaves were held in the British West Indies. Slaves were in English Manor Houses. Did George III own slaves in the West Indies and in England? It may be difficult to find any sources, but I imagine there would be some African slaves at the palace grounds attending the King. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Those are interesting articles. Was George III a racist? I could not find his name mentioned in the Queen Elizabeth II article. I believe mentioning a cover up on British slavery would be good for the article. That way the reader would know there is not a lot of information on slavery in England nor at Royal Palace of George III. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Topics not found in reliable sources or that are not mentioned in reliable sources in relation to George III do not belong in the article. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
George's support of the slave trade is considered by Prof. Brooke Newman at Virginia Commonwealth Universityhere. That looks a perfectly reliable source to me. It might be used to expand the small section on slavery in the article. But there is nothing to suggest the King himself ever owned any slaves. Of course, he didn't need to. He didn't need any "business interests." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The article by David Olusoga (July 11, 2015) is saying that 17th and 18th-century slavery in Britain has been covered up and not well documented. Expanding on the slave trade would be good. I think the article needs to tell this to the reader. We may never know if George III had black slaves. My view is that if the slaves are in the country manors they could also be at the palace. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
"During the lengthy reign of King George III, from 1760 to 1820, Atlantic slave uprisings and a multiracial coalition of abolitionists transformed the British public’s view of the slave trade at the same time the Crown supported its continuation. The pro-slavery views of the king and his sons bolstered the efforts of the London Society of West India Planters and Merchants to delay the abolition of the British slave trade for nearly two decades."Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I think Lord Dunmore proclamation should be mentioned freeing American slaves. The British Navy protected the freed slaves from recapture. Apparently George III had no objections. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The Dunmore Proclamation freed about 20,000 American slaves who fought for the British. Apparently George III had a secret army in Virginia from 1772 to 1776. The British Navy protected the freed slaves giving them a colony in Nova Scotia. This might help George III reputation concerning slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I added information on freedom proclamations during the American Revolutionary War for Patriot slaves who fled to the British. For the record, were the British Army and Navy, under the King's Cabinet? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The article is a biography of George III, not a history of the American Revolution or slavery. Topics not directly related to the life of George III do not belong in the article. DrKay (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Quite agree. That might be in a new article on "George III and slavery". But there's certainly not enough material for even a stub on that. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The information was brought into balance the article. The article says over 1 million slaves were imported during George III reign. Almost 20,000 freed by the British during the American War of Independence. It is about slaves being freed and fighting for George III. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
If he personally freed them, by some kind of declaration, that may be worth mentioning. But then he didn't personally "own" any to begin with? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I can reduce the information. Dunmore was appointed by George III and represented the Crown. Clinton was George III's General. The whole point is that freed slaves were loyal too and fighting for George III. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I reduced the information. Is there a source that says George III did not know about the freed Rebel slaves fighting for the British? The whole point is that the freed Rebel slaves were fighting for the British and that the slaves were freed by British proclamation. There is nothing to indicate George III objected to the freed Rebel slaves fighting for the British or the British freedom proclamations. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
INSERT: Dunmore's Proclamation mentions "Majesty" many times. Clearly, Dunmore is representing King George III in the proclamation that sets the slaves free. Dunmore is using the King's authority to free slaves and indentured servants. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
INSERT: Clinton's proclamation protected slaves from recapture and reselling, ensuring their freedom. There is no specific mention of George III, but Clinton was Commander in Chief of the King's Army, therefore he represented George III on the battlefield. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that the topic is much larger than the scope of a bio article. We have an article on Slavery in Britain that could use improvements. While slavery had legal limitations in England, it was used extensively in Scotland during the 18th century:
"For nearly two hundred years in the history of coal mining in Scotland, miners were bonded to their "maisters" by a 1606 Act "Anent Coalyers and Salters". The Colliers and Salters (Scotland) Act 1775 stated that "many colliers and salters are in a state of slavery and bondage" and announced emancipation; those starting work after 1 July 1775 would not become slaves, while those already in a state of slavery could, after 7 or 10 years depending on their age, apply for a decree of the Sheriff's Court granting their freedom. Few could afford this, until a further law in 1799 established their freedom and made this slavery and bondage illegal.[1][2]" Dimadick (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I've marked the new material as both contradictory and unverified. If George III did own slaves it would be documented and historians would have commented on it. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The "Blood" article said the Royal Family profited from slavery. The Wikipedia article does not say George III owned slaves. We don't know if George III owned slaves. The whole point of the "Buried" article said there was a cover up of slave ownership. British slavery has not been well documented, but rather buried in History. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Newman directly mentions George III in Newman's article. "Royal Family" is specifically mentioned by Newman. The Stuarts were not the only Royal Family to reign in England. The reader needs to understand the history of slavery 17th and 18th Centuries in England has been buried. That is just what the Olusoga article says. I am not suggesting that George III helped bury it. Don't put words on the talk page I have never said. The whole point is that we don't know the extent of slavery in England. It was covered up. George III reigned in the time period in the article. Newman says George III supported the slave trade. The DOI even criticizes George III for his involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. Was Newman suggesting he profited from the slave trade? George III was head of the Royal Family. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
That was a question, not a statement. I think your argument here is tending towards WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Sure "the reader needs to understand the history of slavery 17th and 18th Centuries" - but they should go to History of slavery; if you think something about England is missing over there, you should add it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I made changes to the section. Separated sources. No mention of the Royal family profiting from slavery. Sometimes negative statements can be disguised in a question. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Pulling Down the Statue of George III by William Walcutt (1854)
Yes, the gilded lead sculpture was by British sculptor Joseph Wilton and had been dedicated, on 16 August 1770, at Bowling Green, at the southern tip of Manhattan. It seems William Walcutt did another painting of it's toppling in 1857: [2]. The collection seems to be Lafayette College. However, comparing with the image at Commons of the 1854 painting File:William Walcutt statue George III.png, it looks like it may have been reversed. There are two other examples here and here which have the sculpture falling to the right. Perhaps it doesn't matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This painting could be more accurate. George III is not equestrian. He is standing. More realistic, slaves were pulling the statue with what appears to be rope. Also, it was created earlier: [3]Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
IIRC, Carretta says the engravings of the event are inaccurate. What source says this picture is more accurate? What sources say that the statue was not equestrian? I don't see how we could balance those against all sources that say it was e.g. "The Statue of King George III in New York and the Iconology of Regicide" by Arthur S. Marks. Also note Marks' comment on page 74: "A glance reveals that Habermann's engravings [which is the same as the one attributed to Leizelt -- as can be seen in Fig. 7] are pure fantasies." Perhaps you would care to provide a source saying that Leizelt/Habermann is more accurate? DrKay (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I was less concerned about "historical accuracy". All painting of this era will have a degree to subjectivity; they are not photographs. I was more just concerned with the correct date and the correct orientation of the painting by Walcutt. At least these should be correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. Balthasar Friedrich Leizelt is also a notable artist.
Is there a source that says the George III statue was equestrian, such as Walcutt (1854)? Leizelt earlier artwork shows a less romantic view. Slaves are doing the heavy work. Most of all onlookers are men. No women. No Romance. The streets seem to be a more accurate view. A square intersection. A source that could confirm George III's statue was equestrian would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
To quote from Marks again, "Not only is the architectural and topographical rendition of New York inaccurate, but in the specific print showing the statue, it can be seen that the designer has erroneously represented the king not as an equestrian but as a pedestrian." Are you proposing that the section of tail preserved in the collection of the New York Historical Society was actually part of the king and not a horse? DrKay (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no need to mock me on a talk page. Just having a conversation. But the question of slaves has not been answered. Did slaves do the heavy work, of course, forced to by their white American masters. That sounds more like a scene in 1776. Ironic American slaves forced to pull down by American slave owners a symbol considered tyranny of King George III. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Both sources explicitly mention soldiers. Read the sources. They are not difficult to come by. You mock me by saying "Wikipedia goes by sources, not editor opinion". but all we've had from you is your opinion. You're using your original interpretation of a known fake image to bolster your own personal view that is not supported by any reputable source. DrKay (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, so there's a "King George III Meme"? I assume you mean this article? I see no mention of slaves there. The image of similar to the Walcutt. And it says "... the tail of the horse that the King had been seated upon is housed in the New York Historical Society." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. The Leizelt artwork depicted slaves pulling down the statue. The Walcutt realism photo does not depict slaves pulling the statue down, although one slave may be depicted in the artwork. The meme article confirms the Equestrian statue of George III. The accuracy of the Walcutt artwork is in question in my opinion. Leizelt shows a 1776 slave society in New York. Walcutt does not, except possibly one slave. The accuracy of the Walcutt photo is in question. Who actually pulled down the George III statue, slaves or white people? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The image by Walcutt is a painting (oil on canvas) not "a photo." You're saying that the accuracy of Walcutt's painting is in question because it has no slaves in it?? So presumably you have a reliable source that describes slaves being involved in pulling down the statue? If so, could you please provide it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
DrKay's already provided two sources that mention soldiers pulling it down. I think we're all a bit bemused by your attitude here. It is very clear that the statue was equestrian. It shouldn't have taken this long for you to grudgingly accept that one source confirms it. (The Meme article actually uses Marks as a source, by the way -- it's listed at the end.) It is obvious that the Leizelt artwork is incorrect as the square where the statue was erected still exists, as does the iron railing that went around it. This is easily discovered within literally seconds of searching on the internet (or if you're near New York, you can go and look for yourself). You can't possibly use this image as evidence for your slavery theory. How do we even know that these figures are supposed to represent slaves? That's our assumption because the figures have a dark skin colour and are half-clothed. However, they might be an inaccurate representation of native Americans. Since the artist didn't know what anything else depicted actually looked like, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the artist also didn't know what a native American looked like. And before you say, I don't have any sources for that (which I don't), there aren't any sources for your view either. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
No one is claiming that a mid 19th-century oil painting can be a 100% accurate record of an historic event that happened in July 1776. It's more a question of which is the most accurate, or least inaccurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The Marks' article mentions several persons, but does not specifically say, the soldiers pulled it down. Unlikely too because Washington did not give orders to pull the statue down. Did several persons include slaves? Apparently that is unknown, except for the Leizelt artwork. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
It says this: "... the Declaration of Independence was read to a crowd of American troops and colonists; the document formally severed the colonies from Great Britain and clearly cast George III as the "Royal Brute of Great Britain” with twenty-six indictments against him. Passions inflamed, the group marched to Bowling Green where ropes were used to bring the statue down." Those were troops, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Again the statement says "American troops and colonists". The troops may have watched and not participated. It is unlikely the troops would have participated with Washington there. Washington did not give orders to pull the statue down. The statement says "where ropes were used to bring the statue down" There is no mention of who "used" the ropes. Possibly slaves? There is no direct statement that says the colonists or the American troops pulled the statue down. We know troops and colonists were there and ropes were used to pull the statue down. But who did the pulling? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure we could all imagine possible scenarios that might suit our preferred view. If other people, apart from "troops and colonists", pulled it down, I'm really not sure why they aren't mentioned. Especially slaves, which surely would have been extremely notable. I think your reasoning is becoming ever more tenuous. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Then Leizelt artwork clearly shows slaves pulling the statue down. Why not mention slaves, because United States was a slave society. Not a good thing when you are fighting for liberty. I suggest Artist interpretation of event be added to the caption. It was me who added the photos to the artical. Your welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The Leizelt artwork "clearly" shows something that probably never happened. The depiction of the statue is definitely wrong. "Why not mention slaves, because United States was a slave society."? That's quite a novel approach to history. You seem to have an agenda in search of some edits. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an agenda, just my opinions. I put in the Walcutt (1854) artwork in the article. I don't like to be bullied in the talk page. Please stop making me the subject of your conversation. No need to stir the pot any more. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not "bullying" anyone. I'm not "stirring any pots." I know you put the Walcutt (1854) artwork in the article, as I thanked you for doing so. It seems that we can now all agree that the Leizelt artwork would not be an appropriate addition to this article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree Leizelt should not be put in the article because the statue is not equestrian. The GIII statue was equestrian. The Leizelt artwork suggests slaves pulled the GIII statue down. Slavery in NYC was real, not a fantasy. "A Short History Of Slavery In NYC" article says starting in 1711, Wall Street was a slave market, up until 1762. By 1774, there were 6,800 slaves legally admitted to NYC by prominent NYC families. It would not be unreasonable that slaves would do the heavy work pulling the statue down. The slaves may have worked erecting the statue, dedicated in 1770. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The traditional view is that it was pulled down by 40 soldiers and sailors under the command of Captain Oliver Brown.[4][5][6][7][8] Even if you are able to find a citation saying slaves tore it down under the direction of the colonists, which you haven't provided so far, we still shouldn't selectively filter material based on editors' opinions that contradict multiple citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. the original source referenced by Bob Ruppert is: Pennsylvania Journal and The Weekly Advertiser, July 17, 1776; Horace Edwin Hayden, "A Biographical Sketch of Captain Oliver Brown" (Wilkes-Barre, PA: Privately Printed, 1882), 10. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Rev Horace Edwin Hayden says this: "The reading of the Declaration of Independence, occurring that day, aroused the American soldiers to the height of enthusiasm. Excited by the events which had already occurred, and in which he had so largely participated, and by the known proximity of the British forces, which landed at Long Island on the 22d, he had already determined to remove the statue of the King. The Declaration of Independence added firmness to his resolution. Selecting forty men on whose courage he could rely, one-half of them sailors, and providing them with ropes, Brown marched them secretly that night to a dark alley opposite the statue. Several sailors mounting the figure of His Majesty, securely fastened the ropes to his body, when the united strength of the entire party was exerted for his overthrow. But so firmly had the statue been fastened to the marble base, that the ropes broke at the first effort. Success, however, crowned the second attempt; the statue was pulled down over the fence, and the image of George III. lay humbled in the dust. ... The deed was not known until the next day, when the news spread rapidly through the American Army." I think that's pretty clear? Difficult to accurately paint a scene at night time! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
All I was doing was questioning the accuracy of the Walcutt (1854) artwork depicting the event, not establishing editor opinion. The Leizelt artwork clearly depicts or suggests what appear to be slaves pulling the statue down. Sailors fastened the rope to the statue. That is clear. Who was the other half? There were 20 sailors. It took two attempts to pull the statue down. Who were the other 20? Slaves, colonists, or soldiers? Were more people added to pull the statue down on the second attempt? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The eyewitness does not say who the other 20 people are. Slaves, colonists, or soldiers? Were more people added to bring the statue down the second attempt? Also, there is no direct statement of who pulled the statue down. We know several sailors mounted and roped the statue in the first attempt to pull the statue down. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
As the 'Biographical Sketch' shows, Captain Oliver Brown was an Officer in the Revolutionary Army. As such he commanded soldiers, and in this case also sailors. Hayden mentions no slaves. Why would more people have been added for the second attempt? Again Hayden makes no mention. I read that source like this: "Brown selected 40 of "his men", about 20 of these were sailors. He marched them all down to the stature at night. A few sailors (not enough room for 20) climbed up to tie on ropes and then climbed down. All 40 men pulled together to bring the statue down. It took two attempts." The Leizelt artwork may "clearly depict" something. But that something may have been purely in his artistic imagination. He may have been striving to make a satirical or political point. But, without any written sources, we are just guessing.Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It says quite clearly, "the united strength of the entire party was exerted for his overthrow".
There's an image in the article that clearly depicts Napoleon standing in the palm of another man's hand. Apparently, if we employ Cmguy777's reasoning, we are to believe therefore that Napoleon was only six inches tall and we should add this to article. We should not do so unless the majority of reliable sources state unambiguously that he was indeed six inches tall. Similarly, we should not add anything about the statue unless the majority of reliable sources state unambiguously that it was so. Wikipedia should not publish original interpretations of artworks. DrKay (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hayden never directly says who pulled the G III statue down. Maybe more people could have been added because of the weight. More ropes more people. We can agree it took two attempts. Does the Walcutt (1854) painting show sailors? I gave three sources that clearly established slavery was an institution in New York City. Right now I am just trying to establish if the Walcutt (1854) painting is historically accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The figures doing the pulling are so small and/or so obscured by the plinth of the statue that it's not possible to determine what they are wearing and whether they are solders or sailors. And please don't reply "in that case they might be slaves" or even "this painting can't be historically accurate because it doesn't show any slaves." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
There is only one possible slave in the Walcutt (1854) and possibly only one sailor shown. It also looks like only a few are pulling the statue down, not 40. No broken ropes either. I still think "Artistic Interpretation" should be in the photo/painting caption. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
No midwife, no gas and air
.
Sheesh. Only one possible slave, hey? But the possible slave and the possible sailor are both shown? What a relief. Maybe we can get their names. Yet we all know that William Walcutt was an artist, not a historian? All paintings are "artistic interpretations"? I thanked you for the addition of the image to the article, saying it was a "real improvement". Now I'm not so sure, as it has been the cause of prolonged disagreement, recrimination and general wild goose chasing. Maybe it's time to bin it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
When I put in the Charleston victory for King George it was removed, claiming the artist was not there. There seems to be a double standard. Walcutt was not there, but his painting is alright. There is one more issue with Walcutt. The woman in the extravagant dress with child. That seems very unlikely and added by the artist for scenic purposes, or artistic license. Artistically the painting is very good and should be kept. I don't want the Wulcutt (1854) photo/painting removed. I have no more issues. Let's move on to other things. Thanks.Cmguy777 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The significance of an artwork may lie less in it's exact historical accuracy and more in the fact it was created at all, i.e. it demonstrates the notability of the event? That said, the range of possible images can be compares for some degree of accuracy. We have some kind of responsibility to choose the least misleading. Whichever painting was chosen to illustrate this event, we know it actually happened at night time. So some degree of artistic licence it unavoidable. Meanwhile, my original questions over the date and the orientation of the Walcutt painting remain unanswered. But perhaps it doesn't matter in this context. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a different picture. Note the differences, such as the dogs in the foreground. I think the image was widely distributed as a print and I suspect the image on commons is an engraving derived from the original: that would explain the reverse image and the loss of some details. DrKay (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Marks dates the original painting to 1854, as do other sources, such as the 'Meme' article in Scientific American, so there's obviously dispute over when the original was painted. Obviously, any derivatives will be later. DrKay (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for clarifying. So maybe it's a mis-dated, coloured (or colourized) engraving. A quick search on GoogleImages suggests there are no other copyright-free alternatives. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It's already on commons, and has been for over 5 years, along with the original painting from 1859 (or 1852/3, depending on the source). DrKay (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
You complained earlier about mockery, but there are two types of mockery. The unjust kind where someone is mocked for a disability or skin-color, and the just kind, such as when a satirist exposes a politician for saying something inane. This latter type of mockery is justified when someone sets themselves up as an expert and then proves through actions or words that they are no such thing. Such as when an editor claims to have a degree in history and to be an educator and then demonstrates that they are incapable of performing simple research, fail to comprehend logical arguments and have no access to scholarly resources. DrKay (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I can perform simple research. I never set myself up as an expert in British history. I am a fan of JRR Tolkien. I have access to scholarly research at JSTOR. Let us have peace. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a talk page. Not a place for personal attacks. Please save it for another time. My opinions are not meant to be statements of fact. You are just angry for me disagreeing. Editors are allowed to have their own opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I favor replacement with the Oertel painting. It is at night. A torch is lit. It is well documented. Does anyone else favor? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The fact that it is set at night-time is a major bonus, I think. But again, two subtley different images? The original painting by Johannes Adam Simon Oertel has prominent native Americans, while the engraving by John C. McRae does not? No mention of American Indians in the literature? At least the engraving image is not reversed this time. I must admit I have not looked for slaves. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I see a Native American Family. There were native Americans and Slaves in New York. The biggest sell on this is that it was at night. It looks like there is a bonfire and a torch. The statue is equestrian. There seem to be more people pulling the statue down. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I was just going by what the witness said, forty people. Why not add a double photo? Show both versions by different artists. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
And I was going by what the witnesses didn't say, e.g. about a Native American family. Or children and dogs. It just seems a little fanciful to me. But then, I don't have a degree in History. No real objection to this one. Just like the existing one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Response: I have a Bachelor of Arts in History. I have created articles on Wikipedia. I am all for proper research. I started editing on this article to get a British view of the American War of Independence and I was interested in George III as a historical figure. In America, there is rarely a British View of events. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't expect to be treated rudely or mocked on a talk page over slavery in New York, or my college degree, by another editor. You don't have to have a bachelor's degree to edit on Wikipedia. It seems editors have lacked interest in the talk subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
DrKay's comments above saying I (am) " incapable of performing simple research, fail to comprehend logical arguments and have no access to scholarly resources" I never claimed to be an expert. I have access to JSTOR and the internet. I have scholarly books. I gave internet sources on slavery in NYC, including an Eric Foner article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand there are apparently no sources, other than Leizelt's artwork, that suggest slaves pulled down the statue. There are apparently no sources that say slaves did not pull down the statue. I am not in favor of saying there were slaves pulling down the statue unless there is a source that says they did. But to discuss slavery in NYC with sources is not out of the ordinary. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd be quite surprised to see any source saying "slaves did not pull down the statue". In the absence of a positive source, I would also not be in favour of saying that they did. I suspect you'll also find it hard to produce a source saying that a Native American family looked on while the statue was pulled down. But it's still a useful image. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
What is interesting with George III, I believe he wanted to keep the colonists from going West into the Indian Lands. The was one reason for the American War of Independence. I believe there were Indians in New York, but, just the same for slaves, unless a source says they were, we can't put that in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any source(s) for that? Why would he want to keep the colonists from going West into the Indian Lands? That might be notable in itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Was the King's or Prime Minister's cabinet minister's position Secretary of State for the Colonies, created 1768, a representative of the colonies, served in Parliament, or looked after the colonies' best interests? The colonies claimed "taxation without representation", so for clarification, did Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Germain, in any manner represent the colonies? Or was his only interest George III's interest? I am not sure the authority or duties of the position is quite clear in the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The article says nothing specifically what the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Colonies were concerning the colonies. The source for the article information was this: Records of the Board of Trade and of successor and related bodies There are no dates pertinent to the American colonies that are applied. It really is just a general list. The archived website does not help much. Was Lord Germain a member of parliament? I don't think he was. This is just a talk to find if there are any sources on the matter. The office was started because of the "troubled" colonies. How was this office suppose to help? Why did it fail? It does not sound like Lord Germain represented the colonies or expressed any representation to Lord North or George III. Maybe the office was not set up with the intention to represent the American colonial interests or to curb a rebellion. That is my guess. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
It is just a simple question. Did the colonists actually have no representation under George III? I don't think anyone reads the other article. If there are no sources on the matter, so be it. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This is more a question of the structure of the British government than the bio of George III. Best place would be to put it in the article about the Colonial Secretary, or possible the British Empire page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021
This edit request to George III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Redirect Coronation in Royal infobox from "Coronation of the British monarch" to "Coronation of George III and Charlotte" AKTC3 (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a new book (2021) Ada Ferrer by Cuba: An American History that describes how George III used American colonists to capture Havana. Britain had declared war on Spain in 1762. The British-led North American forces captured Havana. The information is in Chapter 4 Havana for Florida. The Commander of the British Army was Jeffery Amherst. New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey were involved. It was known as the Caribbean campaign. I am not sure it is covered in the article. Would be a good addition. Here is a link to the book: Cuba: An American HistoryCmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it should go in. It's a relatively minor part of the Seven Years' War in which George III had no personal involvement. It is sufficient to mention the war and leave all the details in the articles about the war. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
As a battle yes, but I think the involvement of Americans in the battle makes the difference. I am not sure if most people who read the article know Americans were fighting for GIII overseas, not just North America. It seems to be one of the last cooperative efforts between British and British-American colonies. That is the significance. The other aspect it is from a new book (2021) that covers the history of Cuba. GIII is specifically named in the book. Maybe more editors can put in their input. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe one sentence: "A Royal British American naval force, comprised of 4,000 American colonists, aided in the British's successful capture of Havana, traded later for Florida. " Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. George III, "King George", is named on page 48. GIII is mentioned concerning the take over of Havana. Chapter 4: Havana for Florida. I gave a link to the book above. You should be able to access page 48 on the link above. GIII knew that taking Havana required American colonial forces. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's insufficiently important. Per WP:PROPORTION, material should be covered in due proportion to coverage in reliable sources. If this is not usually covered in biographies of George III, it doesn't belong. DrKay (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not here to push anything. Ada Ferrer's book is fascinating and she is a professor of history. The takeover of Havana by Britain was very popular in England and much celebrated. American troops were used. Also, Havana was traded for Florida. Respectfully, I don't believe everything has to come from biographers to be significant history. I thought that the information would be beneficial to American readers, that 4,000 American troops were used to take over Havana. Maybe a last hurrah or cooperation with George III and the American colonies before the American War of Independence. Thanks to all for their valued opinions on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there any objection to adding that West Florida was ceded to Britain in 1763? The matter would simply be done with a link. There would be no mention of the Siege of Havana. The British American territory that King George ruled was enormous prior to the American War of Independence. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a difficulty, and that is you seem to be using "George III" as a synonym for the government of Great Britain. Is there any indication that King George was personally involved in the decision to send troops to Cuba, or was that a decision of the ministerial government? For example, your opening comment: "George III used American colonists to capture Havana" - what evidence is there that King George was personally involved in that decision? It was clearly a decision of the British government, but that does not mean that the King had any personal involvement in that decision. Unless there is clear evidence of his personal involvement, it's not appropriate to attribute the decisions of the ministry to him personally. I've taken a look at the Cuba book and unfortunately, p. 48 did not come up on the preview. However, if there's only one mention of George III in the 14 pages of the chapter, that certainly suggests that he did not have a major personal role in the capture of Havana. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The source says King George knew American forces were needed (Ferrer p 48) to take over Havana. I believe the British forces were the King's Army. George III was not a military general like Oliver Cromwell. Did Parliament rule Britain or the King? Was Parliament making war on Spain or the King? But I think from the Ferrer source George III knew and approved of the usage of Royal British American troops from the colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not an "either - or" with respect to the King and Parliament. Every military action is carried out in the name of the Crown; that's doesn't mean the monarch has personally initiated or approved every military action. King George was not an absolute monarch; in fact, Montesquieu cited the 18th century British constitution as an example of a constitution of divided authority. As I said, Google Books isn't letting me look at p. 48, but if there's only one reference to the King in the entire chapter, and that just says that the King knew American forces would be needed, that doesn't establish that it was his personal decision which the government acquiesced in. It's not always clear how much personal influence the monarch wielded in the 18th century, and on what issues. I think more would be needed than just one reference to establish that George was instrumental in the decision to invade Cuba, and also to use American troops.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Ferrer is a professor of history. She authored a modern (2021) researched and extensive book on the history of Cuba. She is the exact type of source Wikipedia should welcome. She mentioned King George by name on page 48. Obviously, George III was not leading troops into battle. I never said he was. Like a King, he would have some responsibility of approval of using American troops to invade Havana. The only requirement for using the information in an article is a reliable source. I don't believe there is a Wikipedia rule that says two sources are required. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
'mentioned King George by name on page 48' = trivial mention on one page in a book-length source = insignificant coverage = not included. DrKay (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure Ada Ferrer is a real historian. A Cuba expert no doubt. Probably a great book. But mention of George once in 576 pages suggests very strongly that Cuba does not deserve a mention in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree, there's no doubt that Professor Ferrer is a reputable historian, and the book sounds very reliable. That's not the issue. The question is whether the information in the book, a single reference to King George, is significant enough to include in the wiki article. For the reasons I've given above, I don't think it is, without further information about his role, if any, in the decision to send troops to Havana. I think that this comment contains a significant assumption: "Like a King, he would have some responsibility of approval of using American troops to invade Havana." Without better information about the workings of the British government in 1762, I don't think we can make that assumption.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I did not include any information on Havana take over. But who declared war on Spain? King George or Parliament or both? King George knew American troops were necessary to take Atlanta. It was a British General who organized American troops to fight for Great Britain and be part of the Royal Army. If another source is required so be it. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
"But who declared war on Spain? King George or Parliament or both?" King George, since declaration of war is a royal function, but he would not have done it unilaterally; it would have been a consensus decision of the ministry. You seem to be assuming that King George was an absolute monarch, which he wasn't. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Since King George declared war against Spain he would be responsible for its outcome. It would seem unlikely a British General would organize a Royal British American force to take over Havana without the King's consent. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be unaware that the war started before he became king, or that it took months for messages from England to reach the Caribbean. DrKay (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Again, you are making an assumption about British military command structure, and the powers delegated to individual cabinet ministers in military matters. Unless you can show that George III played a personal role in assigning troops from the colonies to the Cuba campaign, there’s insufficient evidence to include this in George’s bio. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree and am aware there was a delay in communication. The Spanish were unaware war had been declared. Yes. The Seven Years War started before George III. This has to do with Anglo-Spanish War (1762–1763). There is a good website: Capture of Havana. Lord Egremont, Secretary of State for the Southern Department, wrote the letter to Commander in Chief in North America Sir Jeffrey Amherst, directing Amherst to send 4,000 American troops to Havana. The British 60th Royal American Regiment captured Havana in August 1762. The 60th Royal Americans. Were cabinet ministers appointed by the prime minister or the King? Was Ergmont appointed by George III? Lord Ergemont was responsible for the use of American Troops. I suppose the question is was this with King George's consent or command? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe Lord Egremont represented the Crown. I assume he was approved by George III to be his minister. Is it safe to assume GIII approved of Egremont's decision to use American Royal troops to capture Havana? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with that, but Lord Egremont was acting on behalf of the Crown when enlisting American Royal forces. Are you saying that unless there is a Proclamation, then it is speculation of King George III's intent? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
"The Crown" is a political abstraction. All actions of the British government are carried out in the name of the Crown. That doesn't mean that the wearer of the Crown knows of all government actions and personally approves them. George III was not Louis XIV. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it is best then to put in actual comments made by King George. His Majesty did seem to be more pro-active during the American War of Independence. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022
This edit request to George III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please consider changing the following in the Early Reign section of wiki/George_III;
The detailed evidence of the years from 1763 to 1775 tends to exonerate George III from any real responsibility for the American Revolution."[55] Though the Americans characterised George as a tyrant, in these years he acted as a constitutional monarch supporting the initiatives of his ministers.[56]
It seems inconsistent with the plain language of the American Declaration of Independence. If the article intends to assert that the then "Present King of Great-Britain" should be largely absolved of the grievances identified in the DoI, then this section should be elaborated on, or simply just refer the reader to the sections of the article that refute the indictment. But as the passage currently stands, it appears a gross inconsistency, or worse, a dismissal of the levied 1776 indictment against the existing government.
This is a subject that deserves the highest levels of scrutiny and attention to the most subtle aspects of the wording. I would suggest scrubbing the entire cited passage, at this juncture. The arguments for and against should reveal themselves in the bulk of the article to follow. Though I'm sure Wikipedia as well as the community of people who have made contributions to this article will have well articulated their arguments, I feel the King's reign as it relates to the Revolutionary War is too heavy to blithely summarize in this way.
Some context for the DOI. It really was a war document designed to gain support for American Independence. G III was just trying to keep his colonies, most likely, and the wealth derived from them. That is common sense. What King would not do that? The information is sourced. I don't think the information is exonerating him either. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
GIII was also a protestant King. One wife. Many children. He did not own slaves. GIII may have lacked empathy for Americans' plight, but that does not necessarily make him a tyrant. Would it have been good for the King and his court to have visited his American subjects? Yes. But there was an Atlantic Ocean separation. He probably had a stubborn streak, i.e. an eight-year war. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Does issue just mean children or children and something else?
This edit request to George III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
He is now the second longest reigning British monarch as well as the second longest lived. He was passed in both categories by Elizabeth II. 73.21.69.196 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The article says he was the longest-lived and longest-reigning "king", in other words he had the longest reign as a "male" ruler. Elizabeth II and Victoria were neither kings nor male. Keivan.fTalk16:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
"Elizabeth II and Victoria were neither kings nor male." I think the point is that distinction is made in "God save the Monarch" only. Otherwise, "Victoria" and "Elizabeth II" both were kings. Granted, they were female kings, but kings nevertheless. Mysha (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
"Elizabeth II and Victoria were neither kings nor male." I think the point is that distinction is made in "God save the Monarch" only. Otherwise, "Victoria" and "Elizabeth II" both were kings. Granted, they were female kings, but kings nevertheless. Mysha (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to George III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change the sentence about him being the longest-lived monarch in British history to something else. The longest is Queen Elizabeth II 62.56.186.238 (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Should we change that sentence to something like 'He lived and reigned longer than any previous British monarch"? DrKay (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Surely "He was the longest-lived and longest-reigning king in British history" are stronger claims and are thus the more notable? Either way, the current claim seems not to appear in the article main body and is not actually sourced. Perhaps it doesn't need to be. 86.184.26.122 (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:CALC, it doesn't necessarily need a source. The list of British monarchs is short and easily verifiable, and the math necessary to determine the length of his reign doesn't need a separate citation. --Jayron3219:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I see it now. But I still maintain those current claims are stronger claim. Perhaps an explanatory footnote would be helpful and might reduce misunderstanding. 86.184.26.122 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
"...whom he had met on their wedding day"?
Under the heading "Marriage" the third sentence of the second paragraph states "On 8 September 1761 in the Chapel Royal, St James's Palace, the King married Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, whom he met on their wedding day." (emphasis added) This is a jarringly abrupt introduction to Charlotte. Had she and George communicated before then? The way it was written, it seems as if she happened to be in London, they bumped into each other for the first time, and said "Hey, let's get married today!" Could someone knowledgeable about the preparations for this event flesh it out a bit more? Bricology (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to George III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This article states that King George III never had any mistresses. I am a descendant of an illegitimate child of KG3. This content needs to be removed.
.."imbue him with her strict moral values"-- please re-word. One does not 'imbue' anyone with anything, and morals exist in and of themselves, so they were not his mother's morals. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Not done. The sentence looks OK to the OED: a heavy abridgement from the two entries there gives us "Inspire with[…]a set of personal standards". So what's your point?--AntientNestor (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
On Editing King George III Article
I think that the Article "George III" needs some improvements such as reorganising all sectoins including
1. Early Reign
2. American Revolution
3. Signs of Illness
4. French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars
I disagree. It would put 8 of the article's 9 biographical sections into one huge section, without any organizational advantage. DrKay (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
No, what I suggest here is that any section that is associated with anything that happened or occured during his reign such as for example: the early years of rule, the American Revolution, his illness, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars should be coperated ointo or placed under one whole section called "Reign" with those same sections as sub headings in the latter concerning the Reign of King George III. Danwikian (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this suggestion. Creating a collapsible entry would consolidate what is presently a lengthy table of contents and provide for greater readability.
This page claims that one of George III’s godparents was king Frederick 1 of Sweden. This is impossible, since there has never been a King Frederick of Sweden. Ever. 176.23.113.222 (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Mad King George redirects here. The Historic Royal Palaces website here says: "Unfairly characterised by historians as 'Farmer George' and 'mad King George'..." The Farmer nickname gets a mention in the "Legacy" section: "George III was dubbed "Farmer George" by satirists, at first to mock his interest in mundane matters rather than politics...." But why does the popular name "Mad King George" not appear anywhere? 86.187.230.21 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
"Prejudiced" is prejudicial. It alleges prejudice without naming anyone or giving cause to make such an accusation.
According to WP, the cited source, Herbert Butterfield, was a noted historian of the 1930s and 1940s. George III isn't mentioned in his page, except in the bibliography, which shows two publications with "George III" in the title.
Stuff in the lede is supposed to summarise stuff in the body. But there's no mention of these prejudiced biographers in the body.
Removal of material from George’s latest biography
Celia Homeford - I’m uncertain as to why you would remove information from George’s latest biographer? Aside from the removal itself, you’ve created a situation where Roberts appears in the Sources but is not, in fact, used. It’s odd that an FA would not use the most recent biography, per Criteria 1b/c. I’d be grateful if you could expand on your reasoning. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The content’s been removed entirely. What remains is, an arguably unnecessary, 4th source. I’m wanting to understand why the content was removed. KJP1 (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the footnote: it was an unnecessary repeat of the content already cited to Peters et al. and it was also editorialising, introducing analysis of Roberts' view that is not found in Roberts itself. I also agree with the removal of anything claiming that the diagnosis of bipolar disorder is 'modern', 'new' or 'recent' since that is flat-out wrong. That is an old diagnosis that arose before Macalpine and Hunter published their opinion. Indeed, in Macalpine and Hunter's own paper (1966) they talk about the preceding opinions of Namier (1955), Trench (1964) and Jelliffe (1931), who all supported the diagnosis of manic depression. DrKay (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your engaging in a discussion, rather than just removing cited material, with an edit summary of “trim”. I am puzzled by your assertion of “editorialising” - could you point me to the specifics of this? On the main point - I do think further coverage is needed in the body of the article. As it stands, it posits porphyria and bipolar disorder as two, equally valid, explanations of the king’s illness. I don’t think that is an accurate reflection of current thinking. KJP1 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree. Roberts and Peters are no more or less prominent than Cox, Roehl, Warren and Hunt. Peters acknowledges that the porphyria view is "widely accepted"[9]. The jury is still out, and the article properly states that the cause of the king's illness is not known. DrKay (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I’m afraid I think that the Peters’ quotation above is highly selective. It actually reads “surprisingly widely accepted”, i.e. almost the opposite of what you suggest. The article currently has a nearly sixty-year old study as its only source in support of porphyria, with four, much more-recent analyses, that not only challenge the study, but attack it as “spurious”, “flawed”, “weak”, “selective”, “false” and “deliberately dishonest”. And that’s before you add in the earlier 20th century studies you reference above. As it stands, the article does not properly reflect the most up-to-date research on this issue, and as such it does not serve the reader. KJP1 (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't lie about sources that are obvious to anyone looking at the article. Professors Cox, Watling and Warren were writing in 2005 and Professors Roehl, Warren and Hunt in 1998. There are two sets of distinguished professors, one (led by Cox and Roehl) arguing for porphyria and another (led by Peters and Roberts) arguing against. Wikipedia does not select between two equally balanced viewpoints. It only selects one view over another when one is a fringe view or the sources of one view are clearly weaker than the other. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I will ask that you conduct this discussion in a civil manner, as required by the instructions at the top of this page, Assume good faith and Be polite and avoid personal attacks. For an administrator and experienced editor to accuse another editor of lying is frankly extraordinary. I fully accept I was mistaken in suggesting that the Rohl et. al. dates from the 1960s, and apologise for this. But the porphyria theory, which it supports, does date from McAlpine and Hunter's 1966 study. Similarly the Cox, which appears later in the paragraph, predates all of the more recent studies of 2010, 2011, 2017 and 2022. The substance of our disagreement remains; you are of the view that arguments which attribute the king's illness to porphyria or to bipolar are equally balanced, I am not. Rather I think the current state of thinking could better be described along the lines of; "Until the mid-20th century, the king's illness was generally considered to be psychological. In 1966, a study by McAlpine and Hunter suggested that the illness was, in fact, physiological, caused by the liver disorder, porphyria. Although meeting with some contemporary opposition, the view gained widespread scholarly acceptance, and in the public mind through influential dramatisations, firstly Alan Bennet's play, The Madness of George III, and in Nicholas Hytner's subsequent film. From the early 21st century, this view has been increasingly challenged, and McAlpine and Hunter's study criticised, in a range of scientific papers. This recent scholarship contends that the porphyria theory is discredited and that George's illness was psychological, most probably bipolar disorder."
Obviously, this can all be discussed here, and a suitable wording agreed, if you are willing so to do. For that to work, you will need to engage in a collegiate way. If that isn't possible, I shall go down the RfC route. Let me know how you would like to proceed. KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Civility? Like you accusing me of bad faith and lack of collegiality? The bulk of your suggested wording is acceptable to me with the removal of extraneous editorialising like in fact and in a range of scientific papers and replacement of unsourced firstly with such as. Naturally, I cannot for speak for others. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Setting the personal disagreements aside, in pursuit of our shared aim of improving the article, I’ll re-draft the wording, in line with your textual comments. We can then see if it gains wider support. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
And have now done so. Obviously, I'm completely willing to work with you and with any other editors to revise further as required, in light of any further comments/concerns. KJP1 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
RfC of interest
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! HurricaneAndrew (444)20:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023
This edit request to George III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please insert the following (including the picture) after "George allowed Pitt to increase taxes, raise armies, and suspend the right of habeas corpus.":
James Gillray's satirical print of George being attacked on his way to opening Parliament, 1795
There is a 2002 edition of Thompson available online here which provides more detail. The carriage window was shattered, probably by a pebble and he thought he had been shot. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I've added the text but not the image. There are already 3 images in that section including two Gillray cartoons. DrKay (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I am not a Wikipedia editor and have no idea about standards and so on, hence why I wouldn't dare to edit the page myself, but I would like to point out that this article contains some outdated language that could be improved.
Under the section 'Final years' there is a reference to his deteriorated health and a final relapse of his mental health that he did not recover from, which is worded as 'permanently insane'. The lack of quotation marks seems to indicate that this isn't a direct quote, so I have to assume that it is a dated choice of words by an editor of times past.
I would argue that in current times, using the term 'insane' to indicate mental health problems and/or symptoms is offensive and unnecessarily stigmatising. I would suggest using less problematic language, such as what I wrote above to describe the context.
If the phrasing in question is in fact a direct quote, it would be beneficial to make that clear, so that the phrase can be understood in historical context.
As far as I can see from the sources, Hibbert (1999) certainly uses that word, so yes, maybe the phrase should be in quotes. I see that Fraser (1975) also uses that word, but not in quite that exact context. Maybe "an editor of times past", but more likely one just trying to follow Hibbert and Fraser? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done. That link is from Template:Infobox royalty, not here. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Done Thanks! --Hemanthah (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done: It says he was longest lived king. RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
_-_George_III_(1738-1820)_-_RCIN_405407_-_Royal_Collection.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Balthasar_Friedrich_Leizelt_-_Destruction_of_the_Royal_Statue_in_New_York_-_Google_Art_Project_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
The redirect George III Guelph has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 17 § George III Guelph until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)