Open main menu
Edward VII is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 9, 2011.
Article milestones
January 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 8, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 17, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Needs revision.Edit

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 The statement in the article is therefore out of date.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... (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 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Titles, styles, honours and armsEdit

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

Move discussion in progressEdit

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 TobaccoEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 15:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


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)


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. (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Mentions of Alice Keppel in the "Death" sectionEdit

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 2012Edit

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. (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 2012Edit

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

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

Fundamental misunderstanding of political power in the UKEdit

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 (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)

the point here eludesEdit

" 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)

Knight of the GarterEdit

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.[1][2]. 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)

Film clipEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 01:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Good article.Edit

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

Photo of coronationEdit

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)

Paris Brothel - Le ChabanaisEdit

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 OlavEdit

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)


Wilson[1] links him to Boy Scouting, was there a connection?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ John S. Wilson (1959), Scouting Round the World. First edition, Blandford Press. p 25

Requested move 21 January 2018Edit

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)

– 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 VIIEdward VII of the United Kingdom and Edward VIIIEdward 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 VGeorge V of the United Kingdom and George VIGeorge 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.fTalk 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

20th Century Press ArchivesEdit

@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)

Caesar at funeralEdit

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)
Return to "Edward VII" page.