Talk:The Madness of King George

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Untitled

Just added 'Themes' section. I think this is quite an interesting flick from an historical perspective. --Eamonnca1 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

The prince of Wales wasn't fat during 1788-89 (nor was he tall); he only get bloated years later. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

I have deleted the following text under "Title Change": "Nonetheless it did come on the back of audiences leaving Henry V saying they wished they had not missed the first four films." This text referred to American audiences' belief that that the roman numeral "V" in "Henry V" implied that there had been four prior films. Even if this information is accurate, it is irrelevant to a discussion of this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbn4891 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]