Talk:William IV

Add topic
Active discussions
Featured articleWilliam IV 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2009, and on September 20, 2021.
On this day... Article milestones
October 6, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
April 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 8, 2013, September 8, 2014, and September 8, 2019.
Current status: Featured article

Requested move 13 September 2020Edit

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.

– All pages of monarchs of the United Kingdom have been moved to suppress the expression "of the United Kingdom" from their titles. I suggest that we do not exclude William IV from this recent trend and do the same for his page. The rationale behind this particular suggestion is consistency and cohesion, based on aforementioned reasoning, as well as recognizing that he is indeed the most notorious of all William IVs. In doing so we should also rename the already existing disambiguation page "William IV" to "William IV (disambiguation)". Let the discussions begin! M. Armando (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: the first "new" page title is a page with content and must also be requested to be renamed. This request has been modified to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. "William IV" is certainly the WP:COMMONNAME. And looking over the disambig page, I think he is also the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And as the nominator states, he is the last United Kingdom monarch to not be titled at the more concise common name, so WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT also support this move. Rreagan007 (talkcontribs) 23:51, 13 September 2020
  • Support. Consistent with other UK monarchs, and appears to be primary topic with an order of magnitude more page views than others on the dab page.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Rreagan007. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 18 September 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.


It is incorrect to say that slavery was illegal in the UK, as a reading on the Wikipedia article on the case of James Somerset will reveal.Mikesiva (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The article does not say it was illegal. It says it was not legal, which is the same as 'Slavery had never been authorized by statute within England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield found it also to be unsupported within England by the common law' (Somerset v Stewart). You said it was "still legal",[1] which is in contradiction to both articles and all the sources. DrKay (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that is absolute nonsense! The ruling by William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield only made it illegal to transport a slave out of England against his will (do read that Wikipedia article as well, especially the last two paragraphs on the sub-section "Somersett's case", where the following sentence appears: "This was not an end to slavery, as this only confirmed it was illegal to transport a slave out of England and Wales against his will."). Slavery itself continued in England after 1772. Mansfield himself clarified that ruling in later judgments, especially the 1785 Thames Ditton case. If you read "Black Ivory" by James Walvin, one of Britain's leading historians on British slavery, he makes that clear too. Also in the Wikipedia article, other historians such as Kenneth Little, Gretchen Gerzina, Folarin Shyllon, and Mora Dickson point out that slaves continued to be bought and sold in the British Isles after 1772. Primary sources such as Granville Sharp himself, newspaper clippings from the National Archives, and Carl Wadstrom provide evidence to show that slavery continued in England, and therefore continued to be legal.Mikesiva (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Since I imagine that the focus of the debates was on colonial slavery, perhaps it would be best to delete the allusion to slavery in Britain.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt (talk), I totally agree with that suggestion.Mikesiva (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I directly quoted from the article in question, word for word. So, I've clearly read it. DrKay (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant the parliamentary debate, not the article. No offense intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
You appear to have mistaken my reply to Mike as a reply to you. I thought your suggestion was to remove the seven words 'although not legal in the United Kingdom' from the "Service and politics" section. I am now not clear what you are suggesting. On the face it, it looks like you are suggesting a more substantial cut, which I think would lead to the article lacking comprehensiveness as the paragraph about the parliamentary debate is the only part of the article dealing with slavery except for two brief clauses in the lead and legacy sections. DrKay (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm suggesting removing the seven words in the manner you stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Naval serviceEdit

The article says that William never received a command after being promoted to flag rank, as do his Royal Naval Biography and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entries. However other sources such as Michael Phillips [2] and Rif Winfield (Winfield, Rif (2007). British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714–1792: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. London: Pen & Sword. p. 148. ISBN 978-1-84415-700-6.) say that he raised his flag on HMS London for a period in 1793 with Richard Goodwin Keats as his flag captain. Does anyone have any other sources that can corroborate this and should it be mentioned? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

On a related point, could you please explain your edit summary: [3]. The source at the end of the sentence says he was the rear admiral of the Valiant. The article now reads to me as though he was captain of the Valiant and then promoted from that position to an unconnected post as a rear-admiral. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

He didn't serve as rear-admiral on Valiant, he was captain of Valiant when/just before he was promoted to rear-admiral. He commissioned Valiant in May 1790 to serve in the Spanish Armament and she was paid off in the same year. He was promoted to rear-admiral on 3 December 1790 (all per Winfield). This [4] uses the Winfield information to create a pretty accessible table of Valiant's captains, showing he left the ship six days before being promoted to rear-admiral. I don't think I have access to the source used by this article, could you perhaps provide a quote from it? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
"in 1788 and the next year was appointed the Rear Admiral of HMS Valiant." DrKay (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright that's fair enough, but I'd suggest that that source simply misunderstands the situation, being as it is not written by a naval historian. I think the work of John Knox Laughton is safer on the subject. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Addition: per the Dictionary of National Biography [5] "In the following May the prince was appointed to command the Valiant in the fleet got together in consequence of the dispute with Spain relative to Nootka Sound. The Valiant was paid off on 27 Nov., and on 3 Dec. the Duke of Clarence was specially promoted to be rear-admiral." Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Taking this opportunity to also question the infobox and associated assertations that his last "active service" in the navy was as a rear-admiral. Firstly I'm not sure that stipulating his last rank in active service is relevant considering the majority of naval officers would be on the active list until the day they died - the notion of active service certainly wasn't the same as it was today. More importantly however, in April 1814 he raised his flag on the frigate HMS Jason as the commander of Louis XVIII's escort back to France - does this not count as active naval service? He was by this time Admiral of the Fleet. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Heathcote, T A (2002). British Admirals of the Fleet: 1734-1995. Leo Cooper. p. 258. ISBN 978-0850528350. says that London was in refit when he was appointed to command her, but this was cancelled when he made a speech criticising Pitt the Younger for going to war. Heathcote also says (p. 259) that Clarence's 1814 flagship was HMS Impregnable (1810), which is briefly mentioned in our article on that ship. Heathcote also reports an incident in 1827 (or thereabouts), when Clarence appropriated a squadron of ships at Portsmouth and went to sea with them for ten days, without the Admiralty knowing where they had gone. Alansplodge (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The ten-day joyride is in the article, dated to 1828 (per ODNB, which says 10 days starting on 31 July 1828). DrKay (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

TFA appearanceEdit

Usually, the following note is left on the FAC nominator's talk page but Emworth is long retired and many other editors are involved in it: This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 20, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 20, 2021.—Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation neededEdit

In the Relationships and marriage section, there is a quote that reads:

Mrs. Jordan is a very good creature, very domestic and careful of her children. To be sure she is absurd sometimes and has her humours. But there are such things more or less in all families.

That direct quotation is presented without verifiable citation. As this is a feature article recently highlighted on the project’s main page, I am hesitant to append an inline {{citation needed}} template to the passage and thus categorize the article as amongst those needing additional citations for verification.

What should be done about it? I would take care of it myself, but whatever book it is from would be one to which I would have no accesss. Thoughts? Thanks! SpikeToronto 14:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  UPDATE: I just searched, but to no avail. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 14:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It's probably in Fulford but I can't lay my hands on my copy at present so I've added a cite to another bio.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! SpikeToronto 10:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Main imageEdit

Image 1
Image 2

To my eyes image 2 is superior. It has a better contrast, color balance and resolution than image 1. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that image 2 is better. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Image 2 is better & I wish the fellow who attempted to change it, would stop & seek consensus first across several bio articles, before making such bold changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I reverted what he did because at the time nobody had responded to the article talk page post he had made. So since at the time there was no “consensus” I changed it back. When I saw he changed it back I checked to to see if anyone responded to him on the article talk page. I then saw that after I reverted his edit somebody responded agreeing with him so after that I didn’t change it back. Orson12345 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Please don't use male pronouns for a person whose identity is a complete mystery to you. Your 'explanation' here is faulty in many ways, but that one really irritates. DrKay (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I completely forget I’m so very sorry. In regards to my explanation I don't find it faulty but truthful. Again I’m very sorry if I upset or offended you that was not my intention. Orson12345 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

OK You can keep it and display. Usernogood (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless Shee intended green sky, 2 seems superior.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Active service rankEdit

Hi, I know this has been discussed in part before, but I thought I'd start afresh. I believe that it has been determined that William did not actively serve as a rear-admiral, albeit getting very close to doing so. Thus, if one does not count his later escapades as admiral of the fleet, surely his last rank in active service would be post-captain? I would also question why the article provides his supposed last active service rank instead of just his last rank? I'm not sure I've ever seen an article take that path before. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should remove the rank parameter. It's not completed on the other monarch's articles and they all held the final rank of commander-in-chief, which is part of being of head of state. DrKay (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)