Talk:George I of Greece

Dead link

Removed dead link (external pages)

Ioannina and Larisa

Are we sure that the 1878 Congress of Berlin awarded Ioannina to Greece? Larisa was ceded by Turkey to Greece in 1881, on the recommendation of the Congress, but surely Ioannina was not formally recognised as part of the Modern Greek State until the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest? DrKay 09:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Death

Are we sure about his death date here? If he was assassinated on 9 November 1912, why is he listed as dying on March 18, 1913? Randal Oulton 14:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Article amended accordingly. DrKay 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Portraits

I like images in wikipedia as much as anyone, but I think this FA has now reached a point of saturation. I recommend we create a gallery section at the end and limit the number of images above. Argos'Dad 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't like gallery sections. I prefer images to be integrated with the text. DrKay 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand and respect that, but if someone adds a bunch of new pictures, it could seriously degrade the readability of the article. Thanks for removing the unsourced images. Argos'Dad 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the images which I added are perfectly integrated with the text and except that have better quality. You must be more aestheticists than scholastics Dr.

Except if you want to simulate to other confreres of you like the Drs. of the School of Salamanca or the Anselme de Laon.

Ta - Ta

• • The addition of images can be overwhelming, Anonymous IP Editor. I think that we have reached a limit in this article. I am not concerned with labels such as "aestheticists" or "scholastics," except insofar as the quality of a Wikipedia Featured Article is maintained. Argos'Dad 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against so many images both on the basis of aesthetics (the page is too cluttered with them all) and scholastics (they add no further information) but also on the basis of accessibility (not everyone lives in a first world country and has a fast download or a speedy computer - by including more images you make accessing the page more difficult for people in the third world who are using shaky connections and old computers).

The number of images should be restricted for all three of these reasons. To take three specific examples:

1. Image:KingGeorgeIofGreece1864.jpg or Image:George of Greece 1864.jpg? My preference is strongly for Image:KingGeorgeIofGreece1864.jpg because it is smaller and contains all the relevant information.
2. Image:George of Greece 1890.jpg or Image:King George 1st of Greece Journal.jpg? The information in the first of these images is duplicated in the second. So, we should only include the latter, because it is better quality and contains extra information.
3. Image:George of Greece III.jpg and Image:George of Greece I.jpg, these images contain the same information so it is only necessary to include one at most. However, Image:KingGeorgeIofGreece1864.jpg also shows him as a young man. Is it necessary to show another image showing the same thing?

DrKay 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Agree with all of Dr. K's reasoning Argos'Dad 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm surprised you reverted again. I thought that last revision was OK. DrKay 14:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Dr.K. There was no edit summary and I was going quickly. Argos'Dad 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing information

The sentences "Later that year after continued unrest in Crete, which included the murder of the British vice-consul,[40] the Great Powers proposed making Prince George of Greece Governor-General of Crete under the suzerainty of the Sultan, thus effectively putting Greece in day-to-day control of Crete for the first time in modern history.[41]" seem ambiguous - the section ends abruptly at this point without confirming whether the proposed change was implemented, and if so, when. If it actually was implemented, then rephrasing it along the lines of "on the proposal of the Great Powers, Prince George was appointed Governor-General of Crete..." would make it clearer. If the proposal was not implemented, then surely this should be noted? 87.112.94.22 02:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

transliteration

someone please add the transliteration of his name in greek script. Arkwatem 09:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yorgos, not George

I personally find irritating the traslation of personal names into other languages. This king was called Yorgos, not George, and his son was Kostadinos, not Constantine! The right list is: Othon,Yorgos I, Kostadinos I, Alexandros, Kostadinos I again, Yorgos II, Pavlos, Kostadinos II

Traveller

Oh. I wonder which name you would give to Joan of Arc, a woman who was baptized Ioanna and whose name was spelled Jehanne. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that if anyone used the form "Yorgos" for any of these kings would probably be tried for lese majeste. The correct form is Georgios. Constantine ✍ 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe his friends or his wife called him indeed "Yorgos"!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Georgios and Konstantinos; no idea where "Yorgos" and "Kostadinos" are coming from. Greek kings are basically never known in English by their Greek names, at any rate. john k (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am baptized Ioannis, but they call me Yannis. "Yorgos" is the everyday name for "Georgios". But speaking about kings, only Georgios is the correct form.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, of course. So this is like saying that Charles II should really be "Chuck II". john k (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Kostadinos?" I think you mean Konstantinos? Kosta is short for Konstantinos (Greek language); Gus is short for Constantine (Latin language). But, I do agree with you in principle. I think the reason is due to the fact that, originally, the Kings name is spelled using the Greek alphabet. Since this is the English language Wiki, they use the Latin alphabet. Thus their names are simply fully translated. Again, I agree that these translations should use the Latinized Greek version of their names. But this goes against the status quo; namely, as John states above, "Greek kings are basically never known in English by their Greek names." --Nikoz78 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

His selection

The section on his selection as monarch is a little unclear. Why was he chosen? How was the selection narrowed down? Why wouldn't they want a Greek as a king? When it says "6 [votes] for a Greek," does that mean 6 people in the entire country wanted a Greek king, or does it mean 6 percent? Or something else..? Brutannica 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

it obviously doesn't mean in the entire country --Leladax 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article, again it says that only 240,000 votes were cast in the plebiscite. --The Dark Side 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

6 votes. DrKay 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't make sense--Leladax 08:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leladax, I don't understand you. The results were something like:

Option	Votes
Alfred	237 000
Leuchtenberg	2 500
Republic	93
Greek	6
Otto	1
Total	240 000

I don't have exact figures, but no doubt you could find them in the Greek newspapers of the time. The Great Powers informed the Greek assembly that neither Alfred nor Leuchtenberg could accept and they must find another candidate from outside the Imperial and Royal families of the three protecting powers.

I believe all men over the age of 25 had a vote. There was a census in 1861, and the population was 1,096,810. So, if we assume that half those people were male and half were over 25, then the turnout is about right. DrKay 10:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I remember reading in a few sources, that George I himself never converted to Orthodoxy and stayed Lutheran and it was only his children who were brought up Orthodox. So, I deleted the category and addeda the right one.--Kdebem (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please cite something reputable to back that one up. Danish sources routinely describe him as a convert to Orthodoxy. 80.163.68.22 (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he never converted. You can verify in John Van der Kiste's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.218.242 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

George immediately converted upon his arrival in Greece to Orthodox. This has been attested in countless books, not to mention Danish sources. I shall find some and soon list them then.--Nikoz78 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources and quotes from sources would be helpful here, since this seems to be a fairly clear-cut factual question. john k (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources:

• Michael T. Florinsky's Russia: A History and An Interpretation, 1961, p. 959: "William was unanimously elected by the Greek national assembly and assumed the name of George I. The new king was a Lutheran, but it was stipulated simultaneously that his successors would be Orthodox"
• Orison Swett Marden (editor) The Consolidated Lbrary 1906, p. 201: "By special permission, George I is allowed to adhere to his Protestant Lutheran faith, though his successors must be members of the Greek Orthodox Church" DrKay (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems to have been the practice among the 19th century monarchs of new countries. Leopold I of Belgium was Protestant but his children had to be raised as Catholics; same for William IV of Luxembourg and his children, and perhaps for other "imported" monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg was a different case. Luxembourg was ruled by a protestant grand duke from 1814 to 1912. Guillaume IV, who succeeded in 1905, had married a Catholic Portuguese infanta. IIRC, the agreement had been that any sons they had would be raised Protestant, and any daughters raised Catholic. They had only daughters, so the grand ducal house switched from protestant to Catholic. Other examples of what you're talking about are Carol I and Ferdinand I of Romania, and Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, all Catholic. Otto of Greece also remained Catholic, I believe. john k (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That certainly seems pretty strong on the idea that he did not convert, at least not immediately. john k (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Otto remained Catholic and his wife Amalia remained Lutheran. Theo Aronson in his book about the Greek family mentions that George was allowed to stay Lutheran, which he did, but his children had to be Orthodox. Which is why he looked for a Romanov wife.Kdebem (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I know for a fact that at least a few of the books I've read mentioned that he converted upon his arrival in Greece. The point being that he did not want to alienate the Greek people as his predecessor, Otto, had done. He "quickly learned to read and write Greek, and converted to Orthodoxy." I shall again look through my library. I know there are Greek and Danish sources that state as much. Give me time as I am too busy at the moment to dig through my collection. --Nikoz78 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that if included in the article, the opposing view should also be included per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Though I see that, currently, Lutheranism has been excluded from the article, while he is included in Category:Orthodox monarchs, so we favor orthodoxy at present. DrKay (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I checked the Van der Kiste, Aaronson and Palmer books. They all clearly and unequivocally state that: 1) Under the Allies Treaty George I was allowed to keep his Lutheranism (just like Otto remained Catholic), provided his children were brought up Orthodox. That's why he later chose an Eastern Orthodox bride; 2) He never converted to Orthodoxy. Though he attended Orthodox services publicly, privately he worshiped in a small Protestant chapel set up in his palace. That chapel was later used when Constantine I married Sophie of Prussia (then still a Protestant) and later when Paul married Frederica of Hanover (then still a Protestant) - for the smaller Protestant ceremonies. To get a 100% certainty, we could check his obituary in the Times. For now, it looks like he stayed Lutheran, so I adjusted accordingly.Kdebem (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This deserves a section in the article. Nothing talks about his religion in article except the spot on the infobox.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added "While George was a Lutheran, the Romanovs were Orthodox Christians like the majority of Greeks, and George thought a marriage with a Russian grand duchess would re-assure his subjects on the question of his future children's religion. (Van der Kiste, p. 24)" DrKay (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The sentence that begins 'When the Kingdom of Montenegro declared war on Turkey on 8 October 1912'is incorrect . In 1912, it was the Ottoman Empire, not Turkey, which was established as a republic in 1923.--2600:8800:1480:5910:8474:4BD6:AA3D:F437 (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's just being used as a shorthand term and for variety. It says Ottoman Empire in the immediately preceding sentence. DrKay (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Great-grandfather of Charles III

Should we mention in the lead that he is the patrilinear great-grandfather of Charles III? Nxavar (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No. DrKay (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

For Christian IX of Denmark, Charles III is mentioned among his descendants in the lead, and he is a generation before George I of Greece. I can't see the problem here. Nxavar (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)