Talk:William III of England/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ill health and move of Court

Mention needs to be made of William III's poor health, which necessitated his temporary removal of his Court from London to Hampton Court and then Kensington Palace (via, temporarily, Holland House). It's covered in Macaulay's History of England. I'd add it myself but don't know the topic well enough to put it at the right point. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It was in 1688/9:

• Hobhouse, Hermione, ed. (1986). The Old Court suburb. Survey of London. Vol. 42: Kensington Square to Earl's Court. British History Online. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
• Howard Colvin, ed. (1976). The History of the King's Works. Vol. V (1660–1782). p. 183. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help), cited in above.

— Hex (❝?!❞) 08:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was asthmatic, I think, and London's sooty air disagreed with him. I have some source materials at home, I'll see what I can dig up and add to the article over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Secret letter to Charles II of Jan. 1672

My hair stood on end when I read " Meanwhile, William had written a secret letter to Charles in January 1672 asking his uncle to exploit the situation by exerting pressure on the States-General to appoint William stadtholder" in the section "Conflict with republicans." Since when did the States-General appoint stadtholders? I looked at the citation given (Troost, pp. 65-66) and indeed no such claim is made there. In the quote from the letter, William speaks of "the States," which has to refer to the States of Holland, his most-persistent opponents. Troost does not make the claim that "States-General" is intended here. I have deleted "-General" which leaves the ambiguous "States" from the letter. No need to change or challenge the citation.

I have made a number of other edits (some of which regrettably "anonymous" because I forgot to log in) to dot a number of other 'i's. For instance, the Act of Seclusion itself was not in the secret annexe with the Treaty of Westminster (1654) (which article I have recently rewritten), but was required by it. De Witt was quite capable of drafting the text of the Act, without having it dictated to him :-) I don't think the provinces suspended the stadtholderate (Friesland certainly did not and left uncle William Frederick in place), but most left the office vacant.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's what Troost wrote, I'm sure that's what the sentence should be. I wrote most of that section years ago, so I suspect it was my confusion that led to the error. Thanks for fixing it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy to oblige :-) Incidentally, I was happy to observe that you write "De Witt" with a capital D, in the Dutch fashion. I have been fighting off people who snottily lecture me about style rules which appear to dictate that it should be "de Witt". Of course, I change it back where needed :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The Actuality of King Billy is not on the Main page

It has been documented that William the 3rd was around 5ft tall, had a hunch, and was a homosexual peodophile, both being around 5ft fall off the horse and having a hunch are all tell tale signs that he was bore up out of a non tanistry ethnic backround, its seems this has been omitted from the main page,i will make an indept online search to find this information as a personal backround of King Billy is entirely relevant.--Prestigiouzman (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That will not do. If you are to make assertions about what should be in the article content it cannot be based upon such statements as "It has been documented". Where has it been documented, and by whom? And what has been documented? Your assertion is, at best, unclear. Fiddle Faddle 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I just had to reinstate this to the talk page. Blanking this section does not help anyone to reach a consensus. Things are to be discussed as adults here. Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the fact that there has never been any sort of link between height, having a hunch or the ability to ride a horse and if someone is raised in a tanistry background. Gorgak25 (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I am missing no point at all. That one views a claim as ridiculous does not mean it should not be discussed. The best way to deal with these ludicrous claims is to use consensus. If the editor makes these claims then they must be cited if they are to appear in the article. This is the same for any claim. Fiddle Faddle 13:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I really think it's a mistake; the user has been very reluctant in any sort of cooperation in discussing things. But policy is policy, you're right. I'll leave a note on his talk page, though, to remind him about this. Gorgak25 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your feelings. Even so, all that has to happen is that consensus is formed against these alleged facts and they may not, then, appear. There is some logic to the assertion. Tanistry is unlikely to allow a hunched midget to be a ruler. But that is original research and not allowed here either. The horse is a distraction, merely a tall platform. Remember the midget in one of the Shrek movies? Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

William II of Scotland

I think it's unfair that the article is headlined "William III of England", when he was also king of Scotland. The article should be called "William III of England and II of Scotland". Why privilege one over the other, isn't it suggesting that one is more important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.66.64 (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not that the editors here have picked one over the other (he was William I of Ireland, for that matter), but that historians commonly call him William III and Wikipedia titles articles by what their subjects are commonly called. Here's the policy on that. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

-There was no separate regnal number for Ireland. He was William III there as well.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Laughable english propaganda

THis story is so ridiculous. England was invaded and taken over by the Dutch. THe english can't handle this and invented a tortuous set of lies which are repeated in this nonsense article. Can someone look at the Dutch version of events rather than just the ridiculous propaganda invented during WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2843:9F00:3579:1390:6DE9:1ADF (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's charming to see young people taking an interest in history.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Bank of England

William III was also the Founder of the Bank of England. Shouldn't that be mentioned as part of his legacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's in the section William III of England#Parliament and faction. DrKay (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"not found in article body"

@DrKay: you may just search the words "Calvinist" and "Anglican" to find this:

• "Charles found his nephew to be a dedicated Calvinist"
• "Despite his conversion to Anglicanism, William's popularity plummeted during his reign as a sole monarch"

--Qbli2mHd (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Title

It is stated in the article that he was "..King of England, Ireland and Scotland from 1689 until his death in 1702". The current name is thus misleading. Several WPs call the article "Vilhelm III av Oranien", so maybe that could be used? Sigmundg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That means "William III of Orange", in reference to his title as Prince of Orange. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

window tax

The tax was introduced in England and Wales in 1696 under King William III and here no word about it. why? 129.69.140.138 (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The article says he couldn't raise taxes and only Parliament had the power to raise them. We need to know how the window tax relates to him personally. Was he an avid supporter or opponent? Did he take any action in support or against Parliament's taxation plans? Celia Homeford (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

At war with England

Leaving out civil wars, was there ever an English monarch who at one point in his life, led a country that was at war with England? This seems worth a mention. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:2461:91B6:B97B:F78B (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (and observe this set was a poor choice for a multi-move request, because it could easily resulted in splintered rationales). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• William III of England → William III and II
• Mary II of England → Mary II
• James II of England → James II and VII
• Charles I of England → Charles I
• Charles I → Charles I (disambiguation)
• Charles II of England → Charles II
• Charles II → Charles II (disambiguation)

– There is nothing especially "of England" about any of these monarchs. All were monarchs of the kingdoms of Scotland, of England, and of Ireland. (Charles I, born the heir to the throne of Scotland, had a life-long Scots accent.)

• We have already James VI and I not James I of England
• Charles I is WP:PRIMARY for the English-speaking world, because he was born "of Scotland", and because Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland is less good
• Charles II as primary for the English-speaking world, because he was not only "of England", and because Charles II of England, Scotland, and Ireland is less good
• James II and VII as is in the infobox presently and is already a redirect (or James VII and II (as in James VI and I))
• Mary II already redirects to Mary II of England
• William III and II as is in the infobox presently, already a redirect) (or William III and II (as in James VI and I))

The case for moving the two Charleses may be weaker than the others, since there are many European monarchs names (and anglicized) "Charles I" and "Charles II". However, given the enormous impact of the reign of the two Stuart kings on political and cultural history, plus the fact that all but the French kings Charles are actually Carl, Karl, Carol, Carlo, etc., the unqualified terms "Charles I" and "Charles II" ought to resolve with the Stuarts. GPinkerton (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for the two Charles moves (strongly for II, and perhaps weakly for I, although I don't think the strength of opposition really makes a huge difference), based on no overwhelming primary topic in usage among all other topics. At the moment no stance on the other ones.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for Charles II on the grounds of insufficient proof of primary topic. Charles II of Spain frequently peaks above Charles II of England in page views: [1]. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the first tree, oppose Charles I and Charles II. "Mary II" proposal clearly satisfies both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "William III and II" and "James II and VII", though better known solely by their ambiguous English regnal names, are called so commonly enough to be acceptable. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls them James II and VII and William III and II. No case has been made for "Charles I" and "Charles II" as primary topics, and I have already explained my misgivings here. I do not think they should have been bundled with the rest as it reduces the chances of any of the articles being moved. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for all. Urselius (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Some argumentation would be appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Question: Is he actually called "William III and II" anywhere? If not, then being both a William III and a William II is not enough to move the article. JIP | Talk 20:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• JIP, he is called "William III and II" in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It is not common but also not unheard of. It does appear to be more common than "William III of England", however. Surtsicna (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I need to poke around some more, but I'm not certain the III and II format (or II and VII in the case of James) is super recognizable to people for royalty that held two different titles in different countries. --Yaksar (let's chat) 21:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• The first Stuart king of England is best known as James VI and I, so the format is well-established. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. James VI and I is exception because he was king of Scotland (as James VI) for many years prior to becoming king of England. I see no reason why we should move these articles in light of that. -- Calidum 02:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: James VI and I is not an exception. Reliable sources very rarely refer to a "William III of England", and frequently refer to a William III and II. The articles should be moved to reflect reliable sources' usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPinkerton (talk • contribs)

A quick look at this article's references tells me you're wrong. -- Calidum 15:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: How quickly did you look? Which of them uses the form "William III of England"? GPinkerton (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

They all use William III. None use William III and II. Remember, the WP:BURDEN here is on you to show evidence to support a move, which you still haven't. -- Calidum 16:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is cited and it uses William III and II, so it is evidently quite wrong to claim "None use William III and II". Does any of them actually say: "William III of England"? No-one would deny "William III" is more common than "William III & II"; it's the of England that's objectionable and misleading, and it's all the others Kings William III that makes plain "William III" unusable. GPinkerton (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Congrats, you found one source that uses your preferred term! Have a cookie! But seriously, you're making a good case why this page should be moved to William III. I'd agree with you too, but WP:NCROY wouldn't allow us to do it. And just to nip your argument in the bud, plenty of sources use plain old WIII without referencing WII. See [2] [3] [4] [5]. And stop pinging me, please. Watchlists exists for a reason. -- Calidum 18:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, the point is that the "of England" is included. None of the sources you have linked to uses such a form, and while "William III" is unavailable, William III and II is unique, easily recognizable, and not actively misleading as "of England" is. GPinkerton (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose William III and II as barely recognizable unless you keep up with these fads. I do not agree about Charles I and Charles II as primary topics, at least not without evidence. As to James and Mary, I think they ain't broke. What's especially England about them all is that England was especially large compared to Scotland and Ireland. Nobody wants to move Louis X of France to Louis I and X. Srnec (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: Reliable sources do not usually refer to Louis X & I. Reliable sources do, predominantly, refer to William III and II, etc. There's nothing faddish about it. What reason has Wikipedia to depart from the traditional usages of the ODNB? England being "especially large" is irrelevant. We don't refer to the US presidents as "President of California" just because that one state happens to be larger than others. Again, we refer to James I & VI not "James I of England" even though England was still bigger than Scotland during his reign. William III & II was also a Dutch head of state for many years before becoming a British monarch; but I am not proposing to include that fact in the article's title because authoritative sources do not do so. GPinkerton (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RS do not predominantly refer to William III as "William III and II". It seems to have begun only late in the 20th century and is less common than the full "William III of England" per this ngram. The ODNB is not traditional here. POTUS isn't president of California in any sense, but James II was king of Scotland. The point about Louis was that we ignore his little kingdom in his title, even though he ruled it longer. If RS are more likely to use William III than William II, that's a reason to use "of England" to disambiguate. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ngrams are not a good way of counting RS. On that grounds, the article ought to be titled "William of Orange", since that name is orders of magnitude more common than the others, yet it strays even further from the reality. For reasons of precision, concision, and accuracy the second ordinal is a better disambiguation. It's already the title of the infobox, and it's shorter than any of the others. GPinkerton (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, "of England" is just a natural disambiguator for William III, which beats William of Orange, which is ambiguous with William the Silent. There is nothing misleading about "William III of England", any more than Louis X of France. But the exact form of disambiguation is a thing indifferent. It could be "William III, King of England" or "William III (England)" but we choose the current form because it is simple and easy to use in prose. At GScholar, I get 8 results for the proposed title from before 2000. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is my point: "of England" is not a natural disambiguater. The relationship of France to Navarre is not at all comparable to relationship of Scotland to England. As for before 1999, of what purport is that? There are dozens of Scholar results from this century. GPinkerton (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, "James I" gets 100x more results on Scholar than does "James VI and I", but we use that form because it is natural, unique, requires no disambiguation, and doesn't need a pipe-link when mentioned in the context of not-England. GPinkerton (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm consistent. I opposed the James I move in 2010 and in 2011. I see on that occasion I used the example of the monarchs of Aragon and not Navarre. Srnec (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but you also suggested in one of those discussions that you would have preferred James I over James VI and I. Why then oppose the moving to Mary II? GPinkerton (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose No indication that any of them is a primary topic. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Dimadick: Even though most are already redirects? What more important Mary II is there? What other William III and II is there? GPinkerton (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "What more important Mary II is there?" See Maria II of Portugal. Dimadick (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The article calls her Maria, and the page Mary II is a redirect to Mary II "of England". GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Significantly more ambiguous titles. What's next, Charles V and I? Neodop (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strawman argument. No-one uses "Charles V and I" and his dominions do not form a modern state. How are they more ambiguous? How many William III and IIs are there? GPinkerton (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop badgering everyone who disagrees with you. -- Calidum 17:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all. All backward steps. Whether it should be King William or William of England is debatable, but William is too terse. The numerals are not distinguishing enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2020 (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.

Sorrel

It's purely a rumour that the horse Sorrel was 'confiscated' from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.195 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox picture

The picture of William in the infobox has been the same for quite some time.

But someone keeps changing this. My view is that the old image should be maintained. Векочел (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say the one on the right (the new one) should stay, it's closer to Mary II's profile and looks a ton more regal than the alternative. WiltedXXVI (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The 'new' image, on the right looks more regal. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The image on the right is the matching portrait to the portrait used for his wife Mary II of England And it has a pacific artist and year. So it is more fitting for the info box.--Orson1234 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Orson1234

The image on the left is higher resolution and also has a specific artist and date/decade. DrKay (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the image on the right looks much nicer and the fact that it’s the matching portrait to his wife is nice but if you guys want the other one that’s fine. I just don’t want to go back and fourth. --Orson1234 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Orson1234

"Invasion of England"

Doesn't seem neutral - at least it represents a Jacobite POV. I doubt those inviting William to the kingdom viewed it as an "invasion".--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:7DF5:BFB2:A89C:2C26 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it the glorious revolution was less of an invasion and more of a Dutch-backed English coup. WiltedXXVI (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how Williamites viewed it. What William and his army did fits the general definition of an invasion, so we can describe it as such. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is, it fits into both camps, in one way it was an invasion yes; William had an army and marched into another land looking to take the crown.

But on the other hand it was also a kind of coup: William was invited, by the English to come and take the crown, to get rid of a King they didn't like.

The problem with 'invasion' is there wasn't much fighting until afterwards and he was invited by parliament and the people quite liked the idea, the problem with 'coup' is that William rocked-up with what was near-enough an armada. WiltedXXVI (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I think there are a few problems with your reasoning and description of events

First of all, William was never invited to take the crown himself. Secondly was William not invited by Parliament or "the English", but by the Immortal Seven. They were not representatives of parliament or even particularly important. Also "William rocked up with what was near-enough an armada" is a bit weird to say when his armada was much bigger than the Spanish Armada of 1588 and probably the largest successful naval invasion ever at that point in history.

And yes, there wasn't much fighting, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an invasion. The definition of an invasion does not include the need for large and many battles. The English Royal Navy and army simply failed to engage the enemy. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Would an invasion not require the enemy to not want you to be there? And with regard to it being "probably the largest successful naval invasion ever at that point in history", yes, but does it count, they were invited, the armada was more like a massive body-guard or fail safe than the means to seize the crown, or the land even. WiltedXXVI (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Invited by who? Not by parliament or the lawfull king. That is what is important here. The English navy under Dartmouth tried to stop the invasion, but simply failed. James also tried at first, but panicked before a large battle could take place. So it is pretty clear that there was significant opposition to the invasion and that it wouldn't succeed without Williams/Dutch military forces. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem, both terms are, correct, in many ways it was a coup, and in many other ways it was an invasion.

I would say that initially it was an invasion, it did meet resistance, not as much as it perhaps should have but it did meet resistance. But as the invasion continued it became more and more a coup as the resistance crumbled, the people stopped resisting and ultimately parliament proclaimed William & Mary sovereigns. WiltedXXVI (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are all kinds of interesting things that can be discussed here, but for now I think we can both agree then that there isn't anything wrong with calling it an invasion. Many historians have called it that too. The word invasion thus doesn't need to be removed. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely, leave it as invasion, I think the problem arises when you try to name the whole thing by either coup or invasion, because both are true at different points in time, and may even both be true simultaneously, that's why we just call the whole event "The Glorious Revolution" and after "The Williamite Wars" WiltedXXVI (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of England (1694-1702).svg
• Coat of Arms of Scotland (1694-1702).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Disaster year": 1672

The new section "Disaster year": 1672" is way too long, too detailed. It should be condensed. Lubiesque (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to condense it, but the Franco-Dutch War is a really important part of William's life and was barely covered. Just be sure to leave enough in DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Image

I've changed the image to a more closer image of the king and clearer Lew 283 (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lew 283 I agree with the change. It's a nicer painting and better reflects the warrior king William was DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, your right Lew 283 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with the change. The majority of monarchs are depicted wearing their coronation/Garter robes, including William's wife. This change disrupts that consistency and frankly I don't see any problems with the image's quality. Keivan.f^Talk 11:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I see your point but not a problem either for me that I changed it as it was closer that's all Lew 283 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)