Talk:Prince George of Denmark

message: Here there are eighteen pregnancies: Anne, Queen of Great Britain#Issue. Here there are seventeen pregnancies: Prince George of Denmark#Issue. What is correct? Calle Widmann (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of pregnancies 

message: Queen Anne wrote a letter to Christian V after Prince Georges death. However Christian V died in 1699. Somshe wrote a letter to a death person?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.157.214.9 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Amended. DrKay (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It says here that she "insisted on writing herself to the King of Denmark to tell him of his father's death". That clearly refers to Frederick IV. I've added his name. The article discusses George's relationship with Anne's family in detail, so it would be nice to show that she was not oblivious to the existence of his family. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Anne wrote a letter to Christian V after Prince Georges death 

message: Was he heir presumptive to the Danish throne?
His brother accended the throne in 1870 and his son future Frederick IV was born in 1871. Frederick III's second son was George as Denmark practised agnatic primogeniture up to mid 20th century, he would be heir to the Danish throne between 1870 and 1871.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamika1990 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish Royalty 

message: Prince George was also a knight of the Order of the Elephant. That should be mentioned under Honours. Surtsicna (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. DrKay (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of the Elephant 

message: I added four portraits of George a few minutes ago. Perhaps some of them can be used in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reluctant to put more in because when I last nominated Queen Anne at FAC someone complained that there were too many images of her. Currently, we only have two images that are similar in style and content (the lead image and the one from 1687), but we can argue for their inclusion because they show him 20 years apart. DrKay (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, but some could replace those already included. For example, the National Maritime Museum portrait, which depicts George as Lord High Admiral, wearing ducal robes and the collar of the Garter, could perhaps supplant the engraving. On the other hand, the Legacy section might benefit from the 19th century miniature bought by Victoria's husband Albert, since it is said that Victoria hoped that her own husband would never be as "subordinate" as the "very stupid and insignificant husband of Queen Anne". The one by John Riley must have been painted before 1691, which would make it suitable for the Marriage section, where there may be place for another image - though both portraits would then be by the same artist. It is up to you, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Godolphin House Riley is distorted, because it has been photographed at an angle, so I prefer not to include it here. All these images show him in the same martial pose, holding a commander's baton and/or wearing the garter (either as a sash or a collar). I prefer the images to show different aspects or provide information that is not shown elsewhere in the article. So, the pictures of him at a young age, on horseback, and with his wife are clearly different and therefore, I think, worthy of inclusion. I like the statue because it's the only one, and I like the Sheppard engraving because it shows an alternative coat of arms (and the style of printed works at the time). The Weigel engraving is in my view the weakest image; in fact, I kept it in for the words at the bottom and in the caption (because they show his titles) rather than drawing itself, which is only really notable because it is a Continental work rather than a British one (and so shows he was an international figure). That image is the worst likeness as well, presumably because it was not drawn from life, but that again tells us something about the way he was portrayed. I think for more images to go in the article, they ought to show something clearly new or be of better quality than the current ones. However, that could be argued in the case of switching the Weigel engraving for the Kneller NMM, particularly as it would be swapping a black-and-white image for a color one, which would also be something in its favor. DrKay (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it makes no sense to add portraits which do not contribute much (if at all). Is the portrait kept at Frederiksborg Palace worth looking for? Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: This page is about Frederiksborg horse, but features two images of Prince George as a bachelor. Given that very little is written about his life prior to Anne (merely seven sentences), perhaps an image would be a helpful addition. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: On second thought, they barely show his face, so I doubt they would be any improvement. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four new portraits 

message: Apparently, George is not entirely forgotten in Denmark either. Prins Jørgens Garde still exists. Their official website contains a brief biography. Does the Garde merit a mention? Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In Denmark, his name is most commonly associated with two other connections: 1) "Prins Jørgens Gård is a square forming part of the Christiansborg complex. Prins Jørgens Gård is the postal address for the Prime Minister's office [Prins Jørgens Gård 11, 1218 Copenhagen K] and the Supreme Court [Prins Jørgens Gård 13, 1218 Copenhagen K]. The connotation is however not as strong as e.g. "No. 10 Downing Street".  2) The Prince of Denmark's March (Prins Jørgens March). During World War II, the BBC used it in several broadcasts to occupied Denmark, and he is remembered in the Danish title. 89.239.209.112 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prins Jørgens Garde 

message: She was born Lady Rachel Wriothesley because her father was an earl, she then became Lady Vaughan on her first marriage and then Lady Russell on her second. Her husband was attainted in 1683, so I would presume he lost his courtesy title and so at the time she wrote of George's grief she would be reverted to Lady Rachel Russell, her own title she had from birth with her married name. The attainder was reversed in 1688 or 1689, so she might have been Lady Russell again after that.  DrKay (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Russell 

message: Two counties in the United States are named for him, Prince George's County, Maryland, and Prince George County, Virginia.  Should they be mentioned in this article?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should counties named for him be listed? 

message: The subject appears in 'Category:English royal consorts' and 'Category:Scottish royal consorts' under 'P', despite the fact that his defaultsort is 'George Of Denmark'. I suspect that this is because he is in these categories through the templates. Compare 'Category:Irish royal consorts' of which he is a member in the normal way, and in which he appears under 'G', as I suggest that he should. I added him to the English and Scottish categories manually, which made him appear there under 'G', but my edit was reverted 'remove duplication; already in these categories, through the templates'. Can anyone suggest how best to make him appear under 'G' rather than 'P'? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Prince George of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305194403/http://www.hac.org.uk/html/about-the-hac/captaingenerals/ to http://www.hac.org.uk/html/about-the-hac/captaingenerals/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108171200/http://www.kb.dk/da/nb/tema/fokus/prins.html to http://www.kb.dk/da/nb/tema/fokus/prins.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305151340/http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/About/index.asp to http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/About/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A sentence I added that Sarah Churchill believed Cumberland to be having a homosexual relationship with George Churchill was taken out with the reasoning that it is misleading. I don't think it's misleading at all. I don't see the problem. If editors have concerns can they please clarify so we can determine whether there is a compromise solution going forward. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim Somerset is your source, but Somerset says "the Whig attacks on George and his council were themselves politically motivated". Sarah Churchill didn't actually believe Prince George was homosexual. She was trying to damage Tory opponents by muck-raking. Somerset even provides a quote from a retraction Sarah wrote to Godolphin. DrKay (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: DrKay I think you have been somewhat discourteous in peremptorily dismissing my initial edits as misleading without proper discussion. I'd be interested to have the page reference where it says "the Whig attacks on George and his council were themselves politically motivated" to determine the context and whether this references to attacks on George's sexuality? The references in Somerset that I based my edits on say: "She [Sarah] had to admit however that she breached the bounds of good taste when she moved on to discussing the need for a change of personnel on Prince George's Council managing to convey that the Prince was reluctant to part with his adviser George Churchill because they were in a homosexual relationship." She told Godolphin "I did mean only what I said of Mr Morley as a companion and not with any disrespectful thought or reflection upon him, to show what sort of friendship it was.... But if I had thought or ever heard that he had any such inclination it would have been the last thing that I ever should have touched upon." The point is that she did imply to Anne that there was a homosexual relationship; although she subsequently back-tracked when she realized she had gone too far in offending the queen. It's not clear that she was talking simply about the views of the Whigs - and the argument that she was trying to damage tory opponents by much-raking seems to be an interpretation not specifically supported by the source (unless you perhaps have something specifically to hand that does make this link?) Contaldo80 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers were given in the edit summary. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 185 talks about the suggestion George was a Jacobite but doesn't talk about his sexuality. Have I missed something? At the moment you seem to be arguing that Sarah's claim about a homosexual relationship was politically motivated and linked more generally to Whig attacks on George and his council. This seems to be an interpretation not supported by the source. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 185: "George Churchill ... had 'uncommon morals' -- by which she meant homosexual tendencies -- but also nourished Jacobite sympathies". DrKay (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but that's only a partial quote and doesn't explain the context. Can you clarify whether the reference you are using states that Sarah did indeed adopt Whig attacks on George's sexuality? Contaldo80 (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified that this is George Churchill not Prince George. I'm using the same reference as you are: Somerset, pages 185, 333–335. DrKay (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I'll note that expressions like "George and Anne's marriage was a strong one" and "much to the devastation of his wife" are not in keeping with an encyclopedic tone, let alone NPOV. Keeping them would require some extraordinary reasons and strong historical consensus. Nemo 22:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources say this. DrKay (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
----
* :Prince George of Denmark → 
* :Prince George, Duke of Cumberland → ?
– Per Rule 3 of :Wikipedia:NCROY#Royals with a substantive title, which states "If a prince(ss) holds a substantive title that is not princely (a peerage, for instance), use "Prince(ss) {first name}, {title}". " 2601:241:300:B610:4B7:E88B:B3D:F40D (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Prince George, Duke of Cumberland titles a page with content and so it must also be dispositioned. If this request is granted, then Prince George, Duke of Cumberland may be moved to Prince George, Duke of Cumberland (disambiguation) and tagged with  in accordance with WP:ONEOTHER, or it may be deleted to make way for the first proposed page move. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 June 2021 

message: Sorry for being nitpicky. But he was the English consort & Scottish consort, separately from 1702-07. Then British consort, 1707-08. Also, he was the Irish consort, the entire time 1702-08. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: England and Scotland are part of Britain. They always have been. DrKay (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point. Anne wasn't the British monarch before May 1, 1707. She was the English monarch, the Scottish monarch & Irish monarch separately. That's why we have separate lists for the monarchs & their consorts, concerning the British Isles history. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course she was the British monarch before 1707. She succeeded in 1702 on the death of the brother-in-law. DrKay (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No she wasn't. There was no Kingdom of Great Britain before 1707. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Britain existed for thousands of years before 1707. DrKay (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point & you know it. We're dealing with politics, not geography. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to replace "British monarch" with "British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, Pakistani, Ceylonese, South African ... Tuvaluan and St Kittsian monarch" at Prince Philip is inane and ridiculous. Simply use a convenient, over-arching concise term that everyone recognizes. DrKay (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This situation is different, as the Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the merging of the Kingdoms of England & Scotland. Also, during this time period, Ireland was a separate kingdom, the entire time. Anyways, we're not going to agree on this, so best to get input from others. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is the same. Canada was a separate kingdom, the entire time. The realm of Papua New Guinea was created by splitting the realm of Australia, etc. You acknowledge yourself that it's 'nitpicky'. It's unnecessarily and absurdly pedantic. DrKay (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Anne's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

text: The infoboxes for Anne of Denmark, Henrietta Maria, Catherine of Braganza and Mary of Modena describe them as "Queen consort of England, Scotland and Ireland" (or in Anne of Denmark's case, Queen consort of England and Ireland from 24 March 1603 and Queen consort of Scotland from 17 May 1590, as she became such on those respective dates). I suggest that George of Denmark's infobox should be similar. Alekksandr (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As can be seen, three of those are single succession boxes. Not three separate boxes, not thirty-two separate boxes. One. DrKay (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Those three are single infoboxes (as opposed to succession boxes) as the subjects were consorts of the Three Kingdoms between the same dates. I suggest that George's infobox should correspond with the relevant sections of his wife's and should read as shown in the first one to the right. Or if that is too wordy, an alternative would be the second one to the right.Alekksandr (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The box for Queen Anne is as follows
I.e. it shows that she was Queen of England and Queen of Scotland from 1702-07, and then Queen of Great Britain from 1707-14. I suggest that her husband's succession boxes should correspond to hers, and should be as follows
Alekksandr (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Easily simplified to a single line, that is accurate, recognizable and easily understood. A similar change to the one suggested would lead to 32 separate lines at Prince Philip's succession box. This is a bad idea. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the same. But, I'll leave others to debate that here. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In Prince Philip's case, we can simply use "Consort of the monarch of the Commonwealth realms".  Peter Ormond 💬 16:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose the use of such a contorted and unidiomatic phrase that has never been used before by any source ever. DrKay (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I would oppose that, as well. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Queen Anne's succession boxes are as stated above, despite the fact that a change to correspond with Queen Anne's article would lead to 32 separate lines at Elizabeth II's succession box. Alekksandr (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What change at Elizabeth II's succession box? There are already 32 separate lines there. DrKay (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

text: The Kingdom of Ireland was separate from the kingdoms of England, Scotland & later Great Britain. That's why the (Ireland & GB) were unified in 1801 to become the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box

message: @DrKay There isn’t a garter portrait of George in the article. Perhaps one of the portraits in the article could be replaced with the garter portrait? But honestly there isn’t that many images in the article. The portrait could be added without the article looking crowded. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He's wearing the order in six portraits in the article. I don't see any value in adding a seventh. DrKay (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the garments of the order. I don’t see a reason not to include it in the article. It won’t crowd up the article. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of the Garter portrait  

message: Some degree of reconciliation was achieved following Queen Mary's sudden and unexpected death from smallpox in 1694, which made Anne heiress apparent.[35]
Since Anne's status as heir to the throne could've been replaced by a male son of William, shouldn't this read as "heiress presumptive" instead of "heiress apparent"? 12.233.98.14 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. William's children (by anyone other than Mary) were after Anne in the line of succession, per the Bill of Rights 1689. DrKay (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: William III of England's claim to the throne was jure uxoris. It would not matter if he had children or not, it would matter if Mary II of England had heirs of her own. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heiress Apparent