Talk:Edward VII/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

What about the scandals that Edward VII was involved in as Prince of Wales. He was named in divorce proceedings and got caught up in a gambling scandal where another player cheated? No mention at all of any of this?

No surprise there- ANY controversial item about any royal of the 20th century or later mysteriously disappear. Be it Prince Philip's controversial comments or Harry's questionable paternity, it disappears. Of course, pretty much anything about Diana, uncited, can be printed and remain. I have a feeling there's an employee of Buckingham Palace whose sole job is to check up on royal wikipedia articles, cleaning up the royal ones and dirtying up Diana's. It happens all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's complete garbage. You obviously haven't read the article because if you had you'd see that the divorce proceedings and gambling scandal is in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with illustration?

Something is wrong with one of the illustrations - the caption is shown, but you have to click on it to see the picture. Is this intentional? rasmusdf 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Click on the link to House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and it redirects you to House of Windsor, which covers both houses, since they only differ by a name change. We are linking to the Royal House, not the place in Germany. I know the House of Windsor didnt exist yet! They changed the name to windsor in 1917. Jiang 08:56 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was a German house which, at times, ruled over not only that Duchy, but also Great Britain, Belgium, Portugal, and Bulgaria. The article Saxe-Coburg-Gotha discusses all that, and I think would be a better link than House of Windsor which is anachronistic. john 17:04 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You should either separate the current House of Windsor article into two, or incorporate any relevant info into it. I elect to do the latter, since we are concered with the Royal House name and not the Duchy. The same royal house exists to this day, just with a name change. The two are not synonymous. We are only concerned about the British dynasty, not the others. The historical origins of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha deserve a mention though --Jiang 17:23 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Saxe-Coburg-Gotha article deals with the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha also ruled the Duchy, Bulgaria, Portugal, and Belgium, and is described as such in the article Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. john 22:27 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with John; it's simply more accurate to have the link access Saxe-Coburg-Gotha than Windsor. I do appreciate your keeping the link to the House of Windsor named Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Arno 08:20 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I added lists of monarchs to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha article and made some other modifications. --Jiang 15:03 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Arno 07:52 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

What I'm interested in is did Edward have any kind of real power? Did Victoria? At what point did the monarch become a front figure with no real power?

Victoria and Edward reigned as constitutional monarchs. It's hard to name an exact date as to when the monarch became a figureheard because the change didn't occur overnight. Rather, the monarchy lost its power to Parliament gradually over time. For example, before the Commonwealth of England and The Protectorate, British monarchs were executive monarchs. Following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the British monarchs found themselves surrending much power to Parliament. This trend continued after the Glorious Revolution, during which Parliament arguably asserted themselves as a more powerful body than the monarch. The last monarch who withheld royal assent was Queen Anne in 1708.

When King George I took the throne in 1714, the British monarchy took a very odd turn. George I spoke very little English, and in fact spent very little time in Britain. Under his tenure as King, the British "cabinet" took its modern form, ruling Britain in the name of the King during his absence. From this point on, the cabinet (and the Parliament to which it was responsible to) became the main body involved in the day-to-day running of the Kingdom. However, the King retained the responsibility of appointing the "Prime Minister," so he in fact still had much influence over the direction of the government.

This trend continued through the reigns of the "Georges" until William IV took the throne. The "Georges" had a habit of "meddling" in politics, but William IV preferred to stay out of politics, letting democracy do its thing. He was, however, the last King to appoint a Prime Minister contrary to the will of Parliament. His successor was Victoria, who inheritted a liberal, (by 1830 standards) limited monarchy who had very little say over the day-to-day runnings of the Kingdom. Victoria was definitely very conservative and much warmer to the Tories than the Whigs, yet (much to her dismay) she couldn't do anything when the Whigs won majorities in Parliament and she hesistantly allowed the Whig party to form governments.

Victoria and Edward did, however, have the power to advise their governments and influence decisions behind the scenes, much like Elizabeth II does today. They also had the much influence in the international scene, as the monarch acted as a diplomat and intermarriage between European royal families (as Victoria often arranged) forged political alliances. So they in a sense did have *some* power but the amount of power they held was nothing in comparison to the authoritarian monarchies of Germany, Russia, and Italy of the period.

If I made any errors in my quick and probably biased summary, feel free to correct me. Aoi 01:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victoria was actually a Whig, at least when she started. She got on famously with the (very conservative) Whig prime minister Lord Melbourne, and her petulance prevented the formation of a Tory government under Peel in 1839. After Peel did get in, in 1841, she warmed to the Tories, and she never liked Russell, Palmerston, or Gladstone, who ran the Whigs/Liberals for most of the rest of her reign. But I think it should be noted that the Georges had a considerable degree of influence over the government. Prior to the 1832 Reform Act, governments tended not to lose elections - so much corruption was involved that the government could always pull out a majority. As such, the King's ability to pick the prime minister was dispositive. For instance, George III's dislike for the Fox-North ministry led him to first destroy it in the Lords (where his patronage remained important) and bring in Pitt, and then to manipulate the election to allow Pitt's victory. After 1832, this kind of thing was impossible, as William IV saw when he attempted to kick out the Whigs and bring in Peel and Wellington in 1834. (I think you are wrong to say William was uninterested in politics - the only reason he supported reform in 1832 was because there was a general fear of revolution if he did not. His 1834-1835 attempt to bring back the Tories shows where his true feelings lay). The other key date, I think, is 1911. Before 1911, if the Lords opposed something, the only way to get it through was to create more peers (or, at least, to threaten to do so). This required cooperation of the King, and the King was generally reluctant to do this. Which means that if King and Lords agreed, they had an effective veto against a commons majority. After 1911, this was no longer true, and, I think, after 1911. At any rate, throughout Victoria and Edward VII's reign, the monarchs retained a fair degree of influence, especially over foreign policy and military affairs (recall that Victoria's cousin the Duke of Cambridge was commander of the army for most of the second half of the nineteenth century), although this was mostly behind the scenes. I would say that the monarch who made the monarchy what it is today was, in many ways, George V. Both his support of Lords reform in 1911, and his generally character, which led him to avoid actually involving himself in politics to an even greater extent than his father and grandmother. john k 03:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

What is the vandalism alleged here for protecting the page? Astrotrain 21:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

The family name of Edward VII of the United Kingdom is Saxe-Coburg-Gotha not Wettin. User:Silverhorse

• sigh* not again with this nonsense. According to Buckingham Palace (and they should know), the Royal House name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but the personal surname was von Wettin, as estabished when examined by Queen Victoria who was curious what her surname was after her marriage to Prince Albert. In 1917 George V adapted the same name for both. In the 1960s Queen Elizabeth separated them again somewhat, by deciding that some of her descendants, while belonging to the House of Windsor, would have the personal surname of Mountbatten-Windsor. In practice all her children and the children of her sons have used MW as their personal surname, as explained also by the Prince of Wales's office who confirmed that is what Charles uses as a personal surname. Silverhouse seems not to grasp the difference between Royal House and family surname. They are not always the same. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced haty Buckingham Palace has officially stated those things. Where's evidence (It is not sufficient that someone got someone of BP say something in phone). Arrigo 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we should should simply omit the surname for British royality, since they don't actually use them. I am sure QV never used this name von Wettin, even if it was would she would have been after marriage. A seperate article on Surnames of British royality could be created to explain the situation. This would avoid edit wars and disputes. Astrotrain 17:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

It has been reported that Victoria was not happy with the "Wettin". Arrigo 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If Buckingham Palace says, as do the archives, that a member of a royal family had a particular surname, I don't know we can possibly not use it when giving her personal name. Either we drop the personal name completely (which IMHO is not an option) from the start of the article and only use the regnal name, or we use the full name, which includes the surname. As to it stopping edit wars: that is not the Wikipedia experience. People kept calling the Prince of Wales Charles Windsor, for example. The decision to use surnames was adopted to stop that, on the basis that surnames are going to be added in by users, so it makes sense to get them right. I think it is also useful to know what Victoria's personal surname pre- and post-marriage, and indeed to know such an important bit of information on all public figures with titles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen's youngest son has useed "Edward Windsor", thus bared of Mountbatten. Generalizations are bad. Arrigo 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not correct. He is Edward Mountbatten-Windsor according to legal documents issued by him. He uses Edward Windsor as his business name. That is all. It is quite common in business, or politics to use a shortened version of one's actual name. Michael Ancram and Henry Mountcharles are just two of many examples. Ancram is in fact Michael Andrew Foster Jude Kerr while Henry is actually the Earl of Mountcharles. Henry's actual legal name was Henry Coyningham but when planning a political career, as he was widely known as Lord Henry Mountcharles he changed his name by deedpoll to Henry Mountcharles. Edward Mountbatten-Windsor has not officially changed his name. He just uses a shortened version for business. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be dropped from the start of the article. In the introduction, there shuld be important issues. Non-used surname is not such. Surname issue can be explained in later part of the article. Arrigo 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there is so much ambigiouty over surnames for British royality, that it is not advisable to use them, particuarly in the first line of an article. Prince Charles' wedding certificate to Camilla, had his surname as Prince of Wales, and not Mountbatten Windsor, and others have used different versions depending on events. I doubt QV or EVII ever used von Wettin as their surname. Perhaps we can have their surnames mentioned in the styles and titles section at the bottom. Given we are trying to end the edit wars over styles, I think surnames should also be banished to a less prominent place. Astrotrain 20:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This was all discussed before, and Buckingham Palace were contacted for clarification about surnames. The problem with not stating one up front is that people then add them in anyway, except it is usually the wrong one. The information about the Prince of Wales's surname came directly from his office. That is what they say it is. And he had used it on occasion, for example, for his first banns. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Assassination attempts?

I know Queen Victoria was targeted in several assassination attempts. I was wondering if there were any such attempts on Edward VII's life. Anyone got any info?

I think sometime in 1900, while Edward was still Prince of Wales, he was shot at by an assasin. However (1901-10) ,I don't think as King,he was attacked in anyway. Does anyone out there, have more info on this topic? Mightberight/wrong 12:54 (AST), 30 October 2005.

In April 1900 he was twice shot at in a train station in Brussels by an anarchist and in August 1902 he was threatened by a young Dutchman in protest against the Boer War who attacked the Prince of Wales instead.--MWAK 15:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This amusing article has a "quote" regarding an attempt on his life.. Scoo 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Portrait

Could a better portrait of him be used? Not to be disrespectful to him, but I must admit that he slightly resembles a balloon in the one at the 'top.' --Anglius 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Duke of Saxony

As the son of Prince Albert, the article says he was Duke of Saxony. But wasn't there already a Duke of Saxony? Who would either become its king, or have his descendant(s) do so(I have not felt like looking up this fellows name at the moment)? My thoughts are it has to deal with the German custom of nobility titles, which I'm not familiar with. Any input? Kaiser matias 07:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, he held the title (all male agnates of the House of Wettin held it equally), but didn't reign as Duke of Saxony (his uncle, and later his younger brother, did as Dukes of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, though). As he wasn't a reigning Duke of Saxony, I'm removing him from Category:Dukes of Saxony, as all the other people in it were reigning Dukes of all of Saxony, or at least large parts. smigs 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Promise of Order of Garter to the Shah of Persia

The article says: "The Shah of Persia, Mozzafar-al-Din, visited England around 1902 on the promise of receiving the Order of the Garter", but does not say who promised the order to the Shah. As it is in the gift of the monarch, did Edward VII offer it then change his mind or did someone else overstep the mark by making the offer? - DavidCane 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jagiello

There is a new precedent being set: the article on Wladyslaw II of Poland got moved to Jogaila, which means that this article would have to be moved to Eduard von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha soon... //Halibutt 08:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind WP:POINT. And remember the not feeding advice before responding. --Irpen 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever my respected friend Irpen suggested above, I'm asking seriously: should articles on all monarchs be moved from their royal names to their, say, private names they were born with? //Halibutt 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To the serious question, the answer is no. --Irpen 07:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else? Not that I didn't expect Irpen opposing the idea here and supporting it elsewhere, but perhaps more input would be beneficial. //Halibutt 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Edward VII has failed for the following reason:

The article does not contain any inline citations and the books listed in the "references" section are limited. Please see WP:CITE for more information on how to properly cite an article. Also, most articles now are moving away from "trivia" sections, as most of the information in these sections can be included into the main body of the article. -- Underneath-it-All 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This article could defiantly use some more references. UK royalty is being nominated as a featured topic, and this page's lack of references is really holding it back. --Arctic Gnome 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops.

I'm sorry about deleting the DNB reference; I didn't know what it was. I'm still learning about this.

I deleted the the policy details from the description of the Beresford/Fisher quarrel, because that wasn't relevant to Edward, and should be explained at length in the articles about Fisher and/or Beresford.

--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Those are not punctuation errors - the original quotations do not have commas or fullstops, so the commas and fullstops must go outside of the quotation marks. I have reverted the changes to the Beresford/Fisher paragraph because it is referenced, and the inserted material does not appear in the reference. We shouldn't change referenced comments without adding a reference, or changing the reference to one which is better than the one given. (Middlemas was Professor of History at the University of Sussex, so the reference is already a good one.) DrKiernan 07:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

I understand that Edward VII changed his house from Hanover to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because of his father. But why is this so? After all the current Prince of Wales uses the surname Mountbatten-Windsor but his royal house is (and will remain when he is crowned, unless he explicitly changes it) Windsor. I cant see any differences in the situations...both of these (former) Princes of Wales had queens regnant as their mothers... Thank you for any help! --Camaeron (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, read, thoroughly, House of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor, then come back if you still don't get it... DBD 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Explaining my copyedits

In my opinion, Edward's reign is not coterminous with the Edwardian period; the period of his reign (one could find other words, but, like Fowler, I find this sort of repetition unobjectionable) is the Edwardian period. In the same way that Elizabeth I's reign is not the Elizabethan age. qp10qp (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can be excluded from wielding. If "wielding" is the preferred word (to me it sounds too active: the monarchy wielded little political power), some other accompanying locution would be more elegant, I think.

These are quibbles, of course. qp10qp (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More Information

I think the article is fairly short of detail about his life from 1863 to 1901 could someone please extend it for this period thanks. ruairidhbevan (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Titles

From what I understand, he was, at birth, His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Saxony, etc. Shouldn't these be included among his full titles? Morhange (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of titles, why is this article not called Edward VII of Great Britain and Ireland? Is it for convenience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.139.202 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

It is very dubious whether there was ever such a thing (in Britain) as the "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha". While Albert certainly was a scion of that dynasty, Victoria was the head of the household in Britain by virtue of her status as monarch (witness her proposal of marriage to Albert), and to that extent the dynasty was transmitted through her, not Albert, and the House of Hanover lived on in Edward VII, and lives on today. albeit under a different name. Escoville (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Victoria was the last monarch of the House of Hanover. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page128.asp. Houses take their names from the father not the mother. You may be confused as the situation was altered in 1952, when a decision was made that the Queen's descendants would remain (unusually at that time) members of her House of Windsor, rather than be members of her husband's House of Mountbatten. DrKiernan (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

We'd should have an image of him as King. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The infobox image should be a photograph of him. Can you find a photograph of him as king? Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Howabout the other image in the article, in his coronation robes. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good choice, but it's a painting. Photographs usually depict a person better than paintings (for example, it's easier for a painter to hide the subject's physical flaws). I wouldn't strongly oppose putting that image in the infobox, as it is not that important, but I generally prefer photographs. Surtsicna (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopfully, someone will find a photograph of him as King-Emperor. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Collars

The statement is supported by a single quote from a gentleman's outfitter in a feature entitled "Try our 98'Curzons!" from a provincial New Zealand newspaper. "Try our 98'Curzons!" is a typical advertisement slogan, and the feature promotes collars sold by a particular outfitters in Otago. This is a dubious source.

There are no scholarly [1] or literary [2] references to this collar in relation to Edward VII. In contrast, there are dozens of references from neutral, academic sources for Edward VII's popularisation of Norfolk jackets[3] and Homburg hats[4]. It is undue weight to include something from a promotional newspaper feature that is not covered by reliable sources. DrKiernan (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see three aspects to consider.

• The Otago Witness piece is not a questionable source for two reasons.

• The article is about how, "when a man becomes famous, he is sure to have something named after him", through the example of the "vagaries of the collar trade". Hence the tongue-in-cheek title. Presenting Davies as some one "who, if any one, ought to know what he is talking about" does not qualify the article as "an advert for Mr Richard Davies". Davies does not claim he created Edward VII's collars but informs "he got them originally eight years ago from a manufacturer called Charvet, in Paris". No reason to consider this information as promotion.

• I cannot see any reason why the source, the Otago Witness, should be dismissed. It is a legitimate newspaper, made available online as such by the National Library of New Zealand. If a "provincial newspaper in New Zealand" reports it, it is only fair to conclude that Edward VII "was thought" to have introduced it, as you wrote yourself in your previous edit.

• The claim that Charvet made Edward VII shirts is not extraordinary. There are many sources to document the fact Charvet had been Edward VII's warranted shirtmaker ("chemisier in Paris") since at least 1869. You can give a look to the article on Charvet for details and sources.

• Nevertheless, to avoid undue weight,

• I edited out the shirtmaker name and the collar name (but left the quote in the reference for verifiability)

• and inserted back the following towards the end of the paragraph: "He was thought to have introduced the stand-up turn-down shirt collar".

Thanks for accepting to discuss. Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 07:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The wrong Londesborough Lodge?

Surely it was Londesborough Lodge in Scarborough where he was struck with Typhoid? That would of course make it the North Riding not East.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25230963 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasholm guru (talk • contribs) 12:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. DrKiernan (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Order of the White Elephant

I have recategorised King Edward VII as a Knight Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Elephant as that would be the customary grade for a monarch to be appointed to - he certainly would not have been appointed as a 'Member' of the order ie to the 5th Class. The original categorisation was based on their being only one category in use for the Order, that has now been expanded to reflect the different grades of the order in accordance with WP:ODM preferred practice. If a reliable reference can be found for his appointment to a different grade, please amend the categorisation. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Great job! Jmlk17 21:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Home rule

"Advanced" doesn't make sense because there's no reason to think that Home Rule is more advanced than Dual Monarchy. In fact, quite the opposite since their articles seem to imply that home rule was suggested before dual monarchy. "Advanced" can also mean "extreme" but there's nothing extreme about Home Rule or votes for women. And it can also imply improvement, so I don't see how it is less POV. DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "advanced" isn't really any better than "progressive". I've instead created a new sentence saying "He was also opposed to Irish Home Rule, instead preferring form of dual monarchy", seperate from the bit about women's rights.

Having said that, I still don't really think it has to be in there at all as it's not particularly relevant unless someone can find some sources proving that he was particularly outspoken on the Home Rule issue. This section is supposed to be about "political controversies"; can anyone prove that Edward's opposition to Irish Home Rule was outspoken or in any way controversial? If not, I'm going to continue to take it out. Jonchapple (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Jonchapple (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Titles, styles, honours and arms

This section seems suspiciously thin. Where are his German titles? HansNZL (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 09:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Prince Albert Tobacco

It would be cool to show a picture of a Prince Albert Pipe Tobacco tin, perhaps one from around 1905-1910 which bore the inscription "Now King." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jive Dadson (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

FA?

This seems like a decent article, though not anywhere near FA status. It's almost four years old; it has about a dozen sources, half of which might be any good. I certainly wouldn't have approved this for a GA today, but apparently it's ok for an FA. The FA system may be broken beyond repair, but we can still control what we present to the general public, by paying a little more attention to what's presented as TFA, ok? Lampman (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just came to this from TFA. Agree, unfortunately there are some problems with it in its current state. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I also thought that, although by no means a bad article, it's a bit brief and lacking in depth for an FA, I've seen far better FAs than this. For example, a brief summary of Edward in popular culture could be incorporated, e.g. there was in important TV serial Edward the Seventh. PatGallacher (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That was rightly split off as a daughter article. DrKay (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentions of Alice Keppel in the "Death" section

The story that Queen Alexandra invited Edward's last mistress, society beauty Alice Keppel, to the King's death-bed is possibly a myth that Alice herself propagated. Mrs Keppel was asked at the King's request and, in a fit of hysterics, she was reportedly ejected shrieking, "I never did any harm, there was nothing wrong between us. What is to become of me?"

1) Alice Keppel is mentioned in three different ways in the "Death" section: as "Alice Keppel", as "Alice", and as "Mrs Keppel". Shouldn't this be adjusted?

2) I don't understand the last sentence. Was she invited, or what was "asked"? Who was ejected, and from where? If Alice Keppel was invited, did she accept? Why did she shriek? It might need to be reworded.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to those sources, and as it's an incidental point of greater relevance to Keppel than Edward, I've moved it to Alice Keppel. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012

In the photo which shows King Edward VII and his 3 immediate successors, the caption includes "his son, the future King George V," (notice inclusion of trailing comma). Please change the trailing comma to a semicolon, because "the future King George V" is not an additional person but merely a description of "his son". In other words, semicolon is used to separate items where a comma is not the clearest way of doing so.

128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the commas completely as they aren't necessary. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2012

Suggest Add to "Further Reading" for Edward VII:

Daily Express (newspaper, London), 10 Dec 1903, quoted and referred to in The Daily News (newspaper, Perth, Western Australia, 26 Feb 1904, page 9, "King as Fireman"), and available at http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/82418428

or better still, paraphrase the article into the Wikipedia text, which I don't have time to do and I very seldom make edits.

82.21.254.204 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: The newspaper article you recommend doesn't seem quite appropriate for the "Further Reading" section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

the point here eludes

" In 1870, republican sentiment in Britain was given a boost when the French Emperor, Napoleon III, was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War and the French Third Republic was declared.[31] However, in the winter of 1871, a brush with death led to an improvement both in Edward's popularity with the public as well as in his relationship with his mother. " What does the situation in France have to do with Edward's personal life? Strange use of "however" here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In 1870 his popularity, and that of the monarchy, was low. However, the following year it was rescued when he nearly died. DrKay (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding of political power in the UK

This article is very poorly worded. I quote:

"During the long reign of his mother, Queen Victoria, he was largely excluded from political power"

The person who wrote this line does not seem to understand that the United Kingdom is and was then a constitutional monarchy. ie: THE MONARCH HAS NO POLITICAL POWER TO BEGIN WITH. Power in the UK is in the hands of the elected parliament and in particular in the person of the Prime Minister of the day. If the monarch had political power then the UK would be a dictatorship and not a democracy!

In the USA there is an elected Head of State that exercises power, but he (or in theory she) can be removed by the will of the people. Hence there is a democracy in the US.

In the UK there is an unelected Head of State that has no power. The position and the offices undertaken are purely symbolic. The monarch in the UK makes no political decisions AT ALL. The power is in the hands of the elected representatives of the people in parliament. They can be removed by the will of people. Hence there is democracy in the UK.

The writer has fundamentally misunderstood the simple fact that Edward VII would NEVER have political power in the UK because of his position. He may have had influence, yes but nothing more than that. He could never make important decisions regarding the country. The rule of the British monarch is symbolic and has been so for well over 150 years now. Parliament has the power and makes the decisions NOT the monarch or members of the Royal family. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is the above writer who has misunderstood the meaning of power. You are clearly speaking about what you wish the world was like and not what it is like. The monarch is in no way powerless (this is republican speculation) Rather the Monarch has what we call soft power, the power to influence events for the better. I do not say he or she is more powerfull than parlameant but to say he or she has no power at all is misleading. Prime Ministers tend to take credit for everything that goes right and blame the Monarch for everything that goes wrong. For instance e biographer's of L.George takes credit for winning WW2 but blames George V for abandoning the Tsar. Consider the meaning of power. And who do you think really was making all those demands for the release of Nelson Mendella? Margaret Thatcher. As for your comment on Democracy I think its importent that we understand how Democracy began in this Country. At one point Democracy meant nothing more than the aristocracy's ability to elect themselves to power. There was no votes for women or for working men. The mantle of Democracy back then was one house one vote. Slavery existed, minorities were excluded from govermeant posisions and children worked bare-foot down mines. And this was the Almighty Democracy that Parlameant blessed us with. The monarchy on the other hand has had a greater influence on the evolution of our Democracy than some would care to admit. Prince Albert crusaded against child work laws, dueling and Slavery. He also went against the Prime Minister in establishing peace between America and Britain, somthing the Prime Minister Later tried to take credit for (Uncrowned King: The life of Prince Albert & The King and the Cowboy)Queen Victoria rescued and sheltered the African Slave Sarah Forbes Bonetta (At Her Magesty's Request: an African Princess in Victorian England) Edward VII Fought for equel rights for Catholics and Jews. He Also went to France against the Govermeants advice and began nogotiations for what would later become The French Cordial, somthing that HIS Prime Minister would later try to take credit for. (Edward VII official Biography) George V used his political clout to convince Stanly Boldwin not to execute the Sailors who went on Strike (George V: Sailor King) George VI had a major political influence During world War II (The Political Role of George VI & Churchill's own acounts)and Elizabeth II has, acording to Every Prime Minister she's worked with, been a great assete to the Country. Also Acording to Nelson Mendella, the queen proved a valuble influence on getting him released. He gave credit to her on his first visit, and only to her. All in all if by democracy you mean more than just electrol representation the Monarch and not just Parlameant deserves some credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.156.153 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is anachronistic to look at the power (or lack of power) of Elizabeth II in 2012 and argue that the same situation prevailed over 100 years ago. It is certainly not true that the monarch in the time of Victoria and Edward VII had no political power. They were not the primary agents of state power, of course, but that doesn't mean they were powerless figureheads, either. I'd suggest looking at Bagehot's The English Constitution for a good discussion of how royal power was understood to operate in the mid-19th century - and nothing really changed between Bagehot's time and the turn of the century. Victoria and Edward VII were certainly constitutional monarchs, but that still could imply considerable political power in their time. It was really only during the reign of George V that monarchs fully withdrew from the political world, and even here there are exceptions. john k (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the Monarch's powers as Head of Government had atrophied to legal fiction by the mid nineteenth century, but Edward VII was far from just a figurehead as Head of State - giving permission to have an election or to create peers was by no means a formality, and had there been no clear successor to Campbell-Bannerman in 1908 King Edward might well have had to choose which leading Liberal politician to "ask to form a government" as his mother had done on a number of occasions. Simon Heffer's late 1990s book is a good detailed account of Edward VII's political role.Paulturtle (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good article.

Good article. Well-done. NaySay (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo of coronation

I'm wary of adding images to FA's I've not previously contributed to, but the MoD has released File:Old War Office Building London MOD 45137378.jpg on OGL which shows the coronation procession in Whitehall so might be of interest? Le Deluge (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Needs revision.

The second paragraph of the article states: "Before his accession to the throne, Edward held the title of Prince of Wales and was heir apparent to the throne for longer than anyone else in history.[1]"

This needs to be revised to read: "Until recently, Edward held the title of Prince of Wales and was heir apparent to the throne for longer than anyone else in history.[1] (Prince Charles, son of Queen Elizabeth II, now holds that distinction.)", or some variation thereof. Edward VII was just short of 60 when he became king. At this writing (July 3, 2010), Prince Charles is already age 61 (born November 1948 according to Wikipedia article) and, in view of the Queen's apparent good health, likely to grow much older before acceding to the throne. The statement in the article is therefore out of date. I am surprised no one has commented on theis before. Bill in Venice (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Edward was heir to the throne and Prince of Wales from 1841 to 1901, just under 60 years. Charles has been heir since 1952, so just over 58 years, and Prince of Wales since 1958, so 52 years. Hence, Edward has been heir for longer and has been Prince of Wales for longer. The statement in the article is correct. DrKay (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wiki on Charles, he's been heir apparent since 1951, not 1952. It's now 2011. So yes, the paragraph needs to be ready to be changed, or the other article corrected. Charles is now 62, and has been heir apparent since his mother took the throne when he was 3. That's 59 years. So, within a few months, this article will be inaccurate. Seems they are now at a tie...68.123.159.45 (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They were not at a tie when you wrote this, but Charles has now been heir for longer than Edward VII. Bertie still beats him for time as prince of Wales. john k (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

On October 30, 2013, I found:

"Charles has held the title for 55 years, 96 days."

Unless someone wants to revise that on a daily basis, why not add an "as of ___" part to that statement to correct the problem of information aging? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's calculated automatically by a template. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Paris Brothel - Le Chabanais

Why doesn't this featured article mention the top Paris brothel Le Chabanais that he frequented in the 1870s and 1880s? He had a favourite room, his own coat of arms, his own ornate bath-tub and an intriguing sex chair designed for him. It was all featured in a BBC documentary and is referenced in national newspapers. Chienlit (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Order of St Olav

The award of the Order of St Olav in 1874 could not have been conferred by Norway as the independent kingdom (of which his son in law Haakon would be first monarch) was not formed until 1905. The correct nation should be the kingdom of Sweden which did award the order before Norway's rebirth of independence.Cloptonson (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no no no no. Sweden and Norway were in a personal union from 1814 to 1905; which meant that whomever was King of Sweden also happened to be King of Norway, similar to the modern situation re. Canada and the United Kingdom, or Austria and Hungary during the dual monarchy. The Order of St. Olav (as well as the short-lived Order of the Norwegian Lion) was founded by the King of Sweden in his quite separate capacity as King of Norway. The ending of the personal union in 1905 did not mean that Norway became independent (because it already was); just that it ceased to have the same monarch as Sweden. (although they did share a foreign policy during this period.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Knight of the Garter

The date he was conferred a KG, contrary to this article, is given as 8 December 1841, on ex-officio basis with his creation as Prince of Wales, making him the youngest knight in British history at 214 days of age according to the Guinness Book of Records.(page 184 of 1972 edition.)Cloptonson (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales is a constituent member of the order; 9 November 1858 is the installation date and the date of the letters patent.[5][6]. DrKay (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes; but installation is not the same as becoming a Knight. For example, Baudouin I of Belgium was made a Knight in the 1960s, but was not installed until the early 1990s.

Whoever is created Prince of Wales becomes a Knight of the Garter on their creation as Prince of Wales via letters patent. This has been the case since 1815.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Scouting?

Wilson links him to Boy Scouting, was there a connection?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Peacemaker

His "peacemaking" is described in the inroduction, but apart from a bit on the Etende is not really covered in the main article. Also itseems a bit strong to blame him for not preventing the first world war which started 4 years after his death! Epeeist smudge (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I had the same reaction to "...was unable to prevent the outbreak of World War I in 1914." Suggest removing that bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. There is nothing in the main body that supports this statement, and it would be speculation in any event to hold Edward VII somehow responsible for WWI. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

He was blamed for sowing the seeds of the war in hindsight among some quarters, particularly in Germany. Antonia Fraser's biography of Edward shows a "fierce cartoon" (her words) by a German artist depicting the robed Edward as the sower and Death the reaper.Cloptonson (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

But that's sheer propaganda, and has no true political/historical value - the events/causes of World War I are documented widely.74.37.202.124 (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Because there's no consensus for moving. But I see a need (as suggested) for wider discussion preferably at WT:NCROY to determine whether the relevant guideline needs to be revisited which may gives us consensual basis for either mass moving of these pages or sticking to the status quo without fragmented discussions. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• Edward VII → Edward VII of the United Kingdom
• George V → George V of the United Kingdom
• Edward VIII → Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
• George VI → George VI of the United Kingdom

– Per the consensus reached at Talk:Elizabeth I of England, which agreed that monarchs should have their ruling country in their article title. Furthermore, in the cases of George V and George VI, there were other monarchs of different countries by those names, as shown here and here. 2601:241:300:C930:ECE6:C109:DEB3:E195 (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This goes against WP:Common Name and WP:Concise. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1, #2, #4, and other similar moves for consistency; Neutral on #3. Since there are multiple George 5s, George 6s, and Edward 7s, I'd support having the page title of the primary topics of those have "of the United Kingdom" in the title, while still having a Redirect hatnote of "XXX redirects here. For other uses, see XXX (disambiguation)." Whatever we do, I'd just want there to be consistency. However, I'm a little bit more iffy on Edward VIII, as no other pages have that name... Hmmm. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose moving Edward VII → Edward VII of the United Kingdom and Edward VIII → Edward VIII of the United Kingdom per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you look on the dab pages, it is clear that Edward VII is the primary topic for that base names, and there is no other pages named Edward VIII, so using Edward VIII of the United Kingdom does not comply with WP:Concise. However, I do support George V → George V of the United Kingdom and George VI → George VI of the United Kingdom, as those could easily be ambiguous with other monarchs. CookieMonster755✉ 20:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all, as they are the primaries for their topics. The primary of Elizabeth I should have been moved to Elizabeth I, and I'd suggest another RM on that one soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support this convention for more precise, less ambiguous, titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support all per naming conventions. Timrollpickering 09:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Questions, why isn't the obvious addition of Elizabeth II on the nom's list since the nom specifically states that all monarchs "should have their ruling country in their article title"? And have all the associated projects been informed of this RM? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see a "consensus reached at Talk:Elizabeth I of England"; rather I see a discussion without consensus, which led to a suggested move not being made. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Upon reading that discussion again, Jonathan A Jones assessment seems correct, which also seems to me to call the stated premise of this RM into question. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, as the rationale of the proposer is a misunderstanding, as Jonathan A Jones has pointed out. This isn't the right venue for this discussion; it should go to Wikipedia:NCROY. Schwede66 20:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support WP:NCROY says: Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". (Elizabeth II is explicitly noted as an exception). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the guideline for now, but I think we should take what User:Surtsicna had suggested on Talk:Elizabeth I of England into consideration. A discussion is necessary to review the guidelines and probably make changes to some parts of them. Keivan.f^Talk 07:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. All are easily primary (or sole) topics for their names. See also Talk:Queen Victoria and Talk:Elizabeth II. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Close this discussion and open another at WP:NCROY, as was suggested when the Elizabeth I RM was closed with no consensus. Opera hat (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support and would also support a move to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom & Victoria of the United Kingdom. I don't see the reason for treating these British monarchs differently, from other monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Elizabeth II is far more prominent today due to being the current monarch (and having been so for over 60 years). I would support a move for Victoria. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • If I recall accurately, the main reason the Elizabeth II article was moved to its current title, was something to do with the fact that she's monarch of 15 other (Commonwealth realm) countries. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Necessary for disambiguation. I would also support renaming Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

20th Century Press Archives

@DrKay: Sorry, I was not aware of your prior revert. Though the archive itself and the PM20 web application is in German, the clippings in the Edward VIII. archive folder are in different languages, mostly in English. So I'd kindly ask you to reconsider if the contents could be helpful here, too. Caroca2 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure! I only saw the German text and hadn't seen the detail behind it. DrKay (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Film clip

I believe this film of Edward's funeral is in the Public Domain, since it is more than 100 years old. Does anyone know how to convert it to .ogv and upload it for use here? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured out how to convert it using VLC and uploaded it to WM Commons. The LoC information was helpful. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Play Media link on the funeral procession goes to a non-existent blank page, rather than playing media. Not sure how to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones5922 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems OK to me. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I now suspect this might be because I viewed the page on an older iPad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjones5922 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Caesar at funeral

I’m not able to ad info about it because of nja Iwasntallowedemojis (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's in the linked article Funeral of Edward VII. DrKay (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

comment needs critique

" As his grandson Edward VIII wrote, "his lighter side ... obscured the fact that he had both insight and influence." " -- as history has shown, Eddie 8 had less than a measure of common sense, insight, or diplomatic tact - I believe a couple of cites to this effect should be added before the quote, so that it would be plain that his opinion doesn't hold a lot of weight, eh? 50.111.51.247 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Since all the other comments from other authors are very similar in tone, and there are no sources saying Edward VIII's opinion of his grandfather was unusual or odd in any way, it would be inappropriate to imply or state that his opinion doesn't hold weight. DrKay (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Dubious

Are there any sources that say Edward reigned in New Zealand and Newfoundland from 1907? DrKay (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo?

Was the wiki infobox image for Edward VII changed because the infobox photo needed to be photographic? The Fidles portrait better portrays Edward rather than the current photo in my opinion, if not more iconic of Edward, especially in regards to Edward's bug-eyes. If a photograph is preferred there is another photo of Edward that can potentially be used here, by Boissonnas & Taponier. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Mrs H J Tennant?

It is an interesting point as to whether Mrs Tennant should be referred to using her husbands' initials or first name, or under her own first name. It was then of course quite common for the former to occur, and a photograph of the lady on a magazine cover with her husband's initials can be seen at: https://www.prints-online.com/mrs-h-j-tennant-14143509.html

Turning to the specific issue on which her name is mentioned in the article - the Divorce Law Commission - the text of the 1912 report can be seen at: https://archive.org/stream/cu31924021867878/cu31924021867878_djvu.txt

Mrs Tennant entered a dissenting note, which can be found as Note 169 towards the end, and this is headed 'Note by Mrs H J Tennant'. Therefore it could be said that in this context it is appropriate to refer to her using her husband's initials. It will be noticed that she signed the note 'May Tennant', but that would be the norm in personally signing something as opposed to being referred to in official terms.

Sbishop (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Sbishop

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

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

I was actually pleased to see it removed. He was prince of Wales and then king, and the titles and styles associated with those offices are the same for all the holders (at least for the last 300 years). I don't see much added value in repeating them here. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

King of the United Kingdom

Should we include "of Great Britain and Ireland" in Edward's title? I see that it keeps going back and forth. Векочел (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not necessary in the lead sentence, which should be as simple as possible. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)