Talk:George V

Hansard

When the 1936 Bill was before your Lordships' House, among the medical members who spoke was the late Lord Dawson of Perm, and the noble Lord, Lord Horder, whom I am very glad to see in his place this afternoon. Lord Horder spoke against the Bill on that occasion; I hope he may have seen fit to repent in the interval. Unfortunately I have no reason to believe that he is now on the side of the righteous. I will not refer to the speech which he made on the occasion I have mentioned, as he is here to give his own views to-day. The speech of Lord Dawson of Penn was really a very eloquent plea for voluntary euthanasia, though he did not actually vote for the Bill—in fact he voted against it. What I think worried him was that the safeguards proposed were too stringent. I should like to draw your Lordships attention to what seems to me to be one of the most significant passages in his speech. He gave a concrete case which was evidently one that had come within his own experience as a medical man. This is what he said:

"A woman has endured a disease with incomparable bravery for nine years, has pursued her calling and directed and sustained her home. At long last, by tile extension of the disease and diminishing strength, she is crushed by pain and complete disability. She besought peace and kindly death, and called to witness how hard she had fought. Is submerging of her sufferings to be denied her because her life might be shortened by two or three months? That can only be decided by her doctors, who know the thoughts and feelings of the patient and the realities of her stale. This is something which belongs to the wisdom and conscience of the medical profession and not to the realm of law."

It seems to me that he was proposing to leave it to the discretion of the doctors to take a decision of that kind.

LORD HADEN-GUEST My Lords, is the noble Lord implying that Lord Dawson of Penn suggested that a doctor should, in certain conditions, give a lethal dose of a narcotic or other drug to a patient? I have a copy of Hansard containing the report of Lord Dawson's speech in my hand.

LORD CHORLEY I leave it to your Lordships to judge from what he actually said. Whether or not that was what he intended to mean, of course, it is not within the discretion of doctors to take a decision of that kind, because the law does not permit them to do so. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, that is clear.

Above information needs to be in the article.

As in 2026 as was 1936 bringing forward a death is legally murder, hence campaigns.

--Pennine rambler (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This article is about George V. Sources that do not mention George V do not belong here. Content that does not cover George V does not belong here. DrKay (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

References

"Act of murder"

Re George V and Dawson articles: There is an existing reference that states the physician murdered George V, in his article, it has been there all along, however the word murder (https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or) is being blocked from this article. Taking a person's life is an act of murder even if done as they are close to death, hence the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774 which would not be needed if it wasn't murder. It is as much murder now in 2026 as 1936, that is the law. Citation is number 128 in George V article, Observer-Reporter, Washington (PA), 28 November 1986, archived from the original on 3 November 2020, retrieved 18 September 2016. Others are,

https://access.historyhit.com/videos/the-death-of-king-george-v-a-royal-murder-mystery: "an act alternately referred to as “euthanasia,” medically assisted suicide or murder."

https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Royal-Murder-Mysteries-George-V-Mercy-or-Murder/0MTY0RKVD0P5P5DWMX04P7V758: "killed him with the administration of a lethal injection of morphine and heroin effectively murdering a reigning British monarch."

https://tv.apple.com/gb/episode/king-george-v---a-very-private-murder/umc.cmc.4eg2a19rv4g8bfpw4b7pl59pa?showId=umc.cmc.9xhzaqmrr9t29m7p5t1axlc3: "death was later revealed to have been hastened ... did he also euthanise the King's sister?"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1777788/king-george-v-death-murder-spt: "it probably wasn't illegal ... euthanasia and assisted suicide were made illegal in the UK in 1961", the word "murdered" is placed in quotation marks by the Express, when quoting Dan Snow

https://www.bournbrookmag.com/home/murder-of-a-king-the-curious-death-of-george-v: "There is a very real chance that the King of Great Britain, steward of the British Empire, and keeper of the faith, was murdered."

https://www.dappledthings.org/deep-down-things/the-shifting-debate-about-euthanasia-and-eugenics-some-other-words-for-murder: "euthanasia and suicide are sins against the Fifth Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill. This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about euthanasia: no one has the right to destroy an innocent human being. Whatever the motives, euthanasia is murder:"

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/30/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-certain-death-of-george-v.html: quotes Kenneth Rose as saying it is murder but does not make a judgement itself

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1986/11/30/a-death-in-time/3b48b38b-bcd7-408b-9231-e0fca8a6483d/: "hastened death"

There is significant reference to George V's death being murder, which the law does class that as,

There can be only one reason to block the word murder from the article, it is pushing a pro Euthanasia narrative, it is a wp:POV that is being asserted. What it isn't is a wp:SYTH.

This matter is open to discussion. Pennine rambler (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for discussing the rights and wrongs of euthanasia, nor is it something I'm interested in. Nor am I interested in rehashing a debate that you have already raised at least twice before: Talk:George V/Archive 1#Regicide category and Talk:George V/Archive 1#Death 2. As can be seen in the other discussions, other references use 'mercy killing' or 'euthanasia'. Please do not cherry-pick references that support your POV while ignoring references on the other side. DrKay (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You claim that the "existing reference", which is Watson's article in the December 1986 issue of History Today, says that the Observer first broke the story. I am not able to find this anywhere in Watson's article. DrKay (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I have also added relevant quotes from the sources above. Four do not think it is murder. Two use words like 'effectively' or 'real chance' to qualify the word murder, not making it explicit. One, Dappled Things, is a self-published Catholic blog, and cannot be used per WP:SPS. The remaining one makes no judgement itself, but quotes Rose as saying "In my opinion the King was murdered" (and also quotes Dawson saying "mission of mercy"). DrKay (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Resolution

I am in the middle of a long travel, but this isn't resolved. I'm sorry to say you are asserting your own POV in exclusion of the word murder, even the source cited and in use states the word murder, which was your last edit on George V and you have continued to edit yourself as part of edit warring. I propose a solution, that the article should state the fact that his means of death was covered up until his own diary came to light, at which point the observed headline should be cited, as it is already in the citations and has been for years, it says murder, so why not use that? --Pennine rambler (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

See my previous comments. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This headline states "Doctor murdered Britain's George V' It is an existing citation and is from 1986 and is how the news broke of how George V died. The act of killing someone no matter how close to death they are is by law in the UK criminal and an act of murder, that was the same in 1936 as in 2026, it is a matter of fact, do you disagree? If so why?

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19861128&id=bkZiAAAAIBAJ&pg=2197,3764364 Pennine rambler (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

See my previous comments. DrKay (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

"Murder" wouldn't be the correct terminology, given George V's position. The terminology would be "assassination". GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any sources that use that term. DrKay (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I welcome any input to the dispute resolution on this as below, I recall some discussion a long time ago about such and especially regicide, there was no agreement although it does seem like the most accurate, assassination usually is murder with a political motive.

The dispute resolution is about the wording of this article, specifically about the death of George V, --Pennine rambler (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Why does this suddenly have to be added to the bio? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It's factual. It's there in the citations and has been for years. Citation 126 "Doctor 'murdered' Britain's George V", Observer-Reporter, Washington (PA), 28 November 1986 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19861128&id=bkZiAAAAIBAJ&pg=2197,3764364 Pennine rambler (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The word 'murdered' is only used by the Observer-Reporter inside quotation marks. Euthanasia is used multiple times (without quotation marks). DrKay (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I will submit that in the US we use "homicide" as a catchall term for one human killing another. Murder is a specific crime, and acts such as the death penalty, medical euthanasia, and justified self defense are not considered murder, but they are still all homicide, which is what death certificates state as the cause of death. Morality aside - which is a judgement call that violates WP:NPOV - if there's any question as to whether the killing was legally considered murder at the time it occurred homicide seems like the obvious choice of wording which presents the fact that he was killed by his doctor without any attempt to draw additional conclusions per WP:NOR. Media using sensationalized headlines is nothing new - over here, such a headline without a criminal conviction could be grounds for defamation (if anyone alive objected), and they would probably phrase it as "killed by" instead. The UK isn't as litigious, but that doesn't mean headlines are automatically neutral statements of fact, which Wikipedia should be. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree this would be an alternative and reasonable and your points are solid. Pennine rambler (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe 'euthanasia' should be used as the physician acted of his own accord without informing the King. It isn't an assisted suicide because George V had no knowledge of the event and did not wish to die. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The article only uses 'euthanasia' for one category, but that category is defined as including involuntary cases. DrKay (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This is response to you at the dispute page, while awaiting a volunteer.

Response to DrKay

You edited out the inline quotation of the headline from the Observer article in the text here

You claimed that "edits should not be continued when there is an active talk age discussion" as your reasoning to make that edit.

Despite stating that, myself not editing since, you have again gone in to edit the very section at dispute, twice more, a total of three edits since edit dispute arose on the article,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_V&oldid=1338627871

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_V&oldid=1338637334

adding a note in the edit →Declining health and death: the diary was discovered by Watson many years beforehand but he, and Lady Dawson, decided against early publication

You should refrain from editing this article whilst you are a party engaged in dispute.

DrKay given your user name implies you are a Doctor, do you have a conflict of interests?

The legal status of involuntary euthanasia has not changed in 2026 and is now as it was in 1936, a crime, it does result in prison time. https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/ According to the NHS specific charges are brought.

It would be prosecuted under these guiltiness today, set out at the Crown Prosecution Service and it would be considered in the public interests to proceed in accordance with point 12, as this applies "The suspect was acting in their capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, or other healthcare professional and the victim was in their care. https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or

The proposed resolution is the use of the Observer headline and with the same wording but in quotes if need be, facts are facts. Homicide is a catchall term also used and may suffice to state this was homicide. Pennine rambler (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Again as I have already pointed out at least twice, the claim that "the Observer" (actually, the Observer-Reporter) broke the story is false. The story was broken by Watson in History Today. It is one of many things you have got wrong and despite being told several times that you are wrong, you persist in pushing the same fake claim. DrKay (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The information you give here, that History Today broke the story before The Observer is wrong.

The diary was discovered in 1950 but it's content kept out of the public knowledge.

The 1936 death of George V was first reported in The Times as link here https://review.gale.com/2017/10/04/the-death-of-george-v-as-reported-first-in-the-times/

Kenneth Rose biographer of George V did refer to his death as murder, as can be seen at the following page https://review.gale.com/2017/10/04/the-death-of-george-v-as-reported-first-in-the-times/ "When Dawson’s notes were released Rose was ‘appalled’ and, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 27 November 1986, considered it be a case of murder."

"George V's death was euthanasia" was the headline first reported in The Daily Telegraph 27th November 1986 (Front page at above) clipping at https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=GDCS&u=webdemo&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CIO0703175390&asid=1771372800000~ec8cfe81

The Observer headline "Doctor Murdered Britain's George V" is dated November 28th 1986, https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19861128&id=bkZiAAAAIBAJ&pg=2197,3764364

(The Daily Star and Express also ran a similar headline as did others)

The History today article 'The Death of George V' by Francis Watson Volume 36 is dated December 1986, https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/death-george-v

The view of the biographer does belong in the article, which aligns with the Observer headline, as was my edit that you reverted, the Observer articles headline deserves mention, my edit was here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_V&oldid=1337278211

These are facts, these facts belong in the article, Pennine rambler (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Wrong again. It's the Observer-Reporter not the Observer. The Observer is a different publication. I said this above at 22:35, 16 February 2026. The Observer-Reporter says in the third paragraph "In an article in the magazine History Today, the British historian Francis Watson said..." Here you are once again maintaining that the Observer-Reporter published before Watson even though they themselves explicitly state that he published before them. It appears you have not actually read the Observer-Reporter article, since you do not know its contents or even the name of the publication. DrKay (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Is homicide an alternative wording to use? Pennine rambler (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No. I already rejected homicide at the last discussion. DrKay (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Quoting from Pennine rambler's latest post at 04:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC), "George V's death was euthanasia" was the headline. As I have said repeatedly, the sources use different terms. We can not choose one term over another per WP:NPOV. DrKay (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The article should state facts, reciting how the news was released in 1986, the headline being "George V's death was euthanasia" first reported in The Daily Telegraph 27th November 1986 (Front page at above) clipping at https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=GDCS&u=webdemo&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CIO0703175390&asid=1771372800000~ec8cfe81 Followed by a statement to show how it was received, with national newspapers reporting that his death was murder and his biographer denouncing the actions of Dawson as murder, all that should be in the article, it is not for you to filter out facts because you disagree with them. Kenneth Rose when Dawson’s notes were released was ‘appalled’ and, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 27 November 1986, considered it be a case of murder." That should be in the article. There is no justifiable reason to put a veil over these facts.

As for the pedantics in your reply regards the Observer in text I wrote above, the exact publication is cleared up in the links I have given.

You cannot deny the dates and records shown. I have linked to the actual articles.

You are blocking facts appearing in the article and in doing so asserting your point of view, you have even blocked the word homicide, this is unreasonable of you. The article needs to include the points on the views about his death. Pennine rambler (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a summary article. It's not appropriate to go into all that detail here. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Wrong again, e.g. "First reported in the Daily Telegraph". Have you actually read the report in the Telegraph? Look at the fifth paragraph. It cites an earlier report on Channel 4 News. I'm not filtering out facts. I'm filtering out fallacies. We can't include the opinions that it was murder without including the contrary opinions that it was not illegal. Celia, GoodDay and Chompy have all indicated that additional content at this article is not required. We can just say what happened, as now, without going into details of who said what when and where and to whom. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

DrKay the taking of another's life, by any method including by lethal injection and irrespective of how close that person is to death is criminal, as much now in 2026 as it was in 1936 when this happened, that is a matter of fact not opinion. It is unusual to exclude this information.

There are facts missing from the article, which can be covered inside a sentence or at most a short paragraph. I believe this article needs editing, the citations need adding for a start to show how the news broke, this also effects Bertrand_Dawson,_1st_Viscount_Dawson_of_Penn article.

"George V's death was euthanasia" was the headline in the first citable news report in The Daily Telegraph 27th November 1986 (Front page at above) clipping at https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=GDCS&u=webdemo&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CIO0703175390&asid=1771372800000~ec8cfe81

Kenneth Rose biographer of George V "When Dawson’s notes were released Rose was ‘appalled’ and, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 27 November 1986, considered it be a case of murder." https://review.gale.com/2017/10/04/the-death-of-george-v-as-reported-first-in-the-times/

The above two facts are very relevant to the article and should be in it, the two articles also show how the reactions to the news of how he died in 1986. Pennine rambler (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It's literally not. "Criminal" is a LEGAL standard that varies based on jurisdiction and time period, and there are many instances where killing another human is not considered a crime for various reasons. You are imparting a moral judgement which is your OPINION and not appropriate for Wikipedia. There isn't even solid proof that he did overdose the king - only his own notes published posthumously; an unverified primary source, and not adequate evidence for a criminal trial even if he'd still been alive. That he wrote about doing so is the only thing you can claim is a reasonably well established fact. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Addressing your points,

It is a matter of fact not opinion that giving a lethal injection to a person whether they are dying or not, with the intent of killing was in 1936 a crime, as it would be now. It was not lawful, even if to alleviate suffering. That is not a moral judgement nor can it be considered a point of view, it is just plain fact.

Here secondary sources are used, there is no use that I have seen in this article of the primary source being his own diary. Kenneth Rose biographer of George V did refer to his death as murder, as can be seen at the following page https://review.gale.com/2017/10/04/the-death-of-george-v-as-reported-first-in-the-times/ "When Dawson’s notes were released Rose was ‘appalled’ and, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 27 November 1986, considered it be a case of murder."The discussion has not been about judging the matter but relaying the facts, which the news articles do. This was the first newspaper headline revealing his killing published in 1986, "George V's death was euthanasia" was the headline in the first citable news report in The Daily Telegraph 27th November 1986 (Front page at above) clipping at https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=GDCS&u=webdemo&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CIO0703175390&asid=1771372800000~ec8cfe81

Yes it is a established fact that Dawson did write of his methods in how he ended the life of George V. Pennine rambler (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Continuing to repeat the same arguments isn't going to change anyone's mind. You're clearly going against WP:CONSENSUS at this point. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Pennine rambler - I am afraid that you find yourself in a minority of one, as I would also oppose using the word "murder" to describe Penn's actions. Even the main source you use to argue for such a change puts the word in single quotes, as 'murder'. What Dawson did was pretty common for the time, and for decades thereafter. It was not considered as, nor described as, nor prosecuted as murder. To seek to impose your own 21-st century opinion in Wiki's voice would be wholly inappropriate. The attempt to describe Dawson's actions as "high treason" as you did in his own article before I removed it, would be even more inappropriate for the same reasons. Lastly, it really doesn't help for you to attempt to intuit/discredit other editors' motivations, as you do when you describe them as "pushing a pro Euthanasia narrative". Assume good faith, as we do with you. And it is fanciful to claim that anything is being "excluded" or "veiled" - as if there is a conspiracy of silence on the issue. The article includes the lengthy Dawson quote in which he is completely explicit about what he did. I shall repeat these points at the DRN (see below). KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I address KJP1 and points made, whilst murder seems contentious on Wikipedia, it is used in news reports, which are the secondary sources used for this article, one is especially is notable. Kenneth Rose biographer of George V did refer to his death as murder, as can be seen at the following page https://review.gale.com/2017/10/04/the-death-of-george-v-as-reported-first-in-the-times/ "When Dawson’s notes were released Rose was ‘appalled’ and, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 27 November 1986, considered it be a case of murder." Whereas the first newspaper report of the 1986 revelation, is this "George V's death was euthanasia" was the headline first reported in The Daily Telegraph 27th November 1986 (Front page at above) clipping at https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=GDCS&u=webdemo&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CIO0703175390&asid=1771372800000~ec8cfe81

You attribute edits that are not mine in the other article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bertrand_Dawson,_1st_Viscount_Dawson_of_Penn the words murder and treason were added to the lead there by other users, some years ago. They are not my edits. Please keep any comments on that article to its own articles talk page.

High Treason and murder was added here, not by me, Revision as of 15:05, 1 May 2023 User 2607:fea8:84a0:580:6495:84dc:1d96:19a5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bertrand_Dawson,_1st_Viscount_Dawson_of_Penn&diff=prev&oldid=1152657847

Why is the use of the word 'murder' acceptable elsewhere on Wikipedia but not here? Is it because this was an unlawful killing by involuntary euthanasia?

Use of term 'murder' where no trial has taken place of the killers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_the_Romanov_family

I believe the use of the initial news reports of the 1986 revelation would be the acceptable option here, two of which are stated in my reply today. --Pennine rambler (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposal of resolution, 1986 Diary Revelations

I propose that the article should contain a paragraph for the 1986 diary revelations which summarises the various ways that it was reported, this could include the news articles as follows,

The diary was discovered in 1950 but it's content kept out of the public knowledge. The 1936 death of George V was first reported in The Times as link here https://review.gale.com/2017/10/04/the-death-of-george-v-as-reported-first-in-the-times/ Kenneth Rose biographer of George V did refer to his death as murder, as can be seen at the following page https://review.gale.com/2017/10/04/the-death-of-george-v-as-reported-first-in-the-times/ "When Dawson’s notes were released Rose was ‘appalled’ and, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 27 November 1986, considered it be a case of murder." "George V's death was euthanasia" was the headline first reported in The Daily Telegraph 27th November 1986 (Front page at above) clipping at https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=GDCS&u=webdemo&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CIO0703175390&asid=1771372800000~ec8cfe81 The Observer headline "Doctor Murdered Britain's George V" is dated November 28th 1986, https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19861128&id=bkZiAAAAIBAJ&pg=2197,3764364 (The Daily Star and Express also ran a similar headline as did others) The History today article 'The Death of George V' by Francis Watson Volume 36 is dated 12th December 1986, https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/death-george-v

I do not suggest this to cause neutrality in the article to shift one way or the other, but to give cited facts about the diary revelations.

Perhaps editors could suggest wording that remains neutral. --Pennine rambler (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current inclusion of his own words from his journal, but adding the opinions of others on whether or not it was justified is just more of the same line you've been pushing this whole time. OpEds don't carry the same weight as standard reporting, for good reason. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Pennine rambler - as others have already said, repeating the same arguments, and posting the same links, here and elsewhere, really isn’t productive. Your arguments haven’t convinced any other editor to support the changes you want to make, and simply restating them won’t change that. You have raised the issue at DRN, and I’d suggest you wait and see how that works out. KJP1 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The errors in the above are pointed out here. The article is already neutral, balanced and an appropriate length. DrKay (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I had made a small error, although of no consequence, in adding a day of the month for The History today article 'The Death of George V' by Francis Watson Volume 36 is dated 12th December 1986, https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/death-george-v Where that error occurs please note that its date is just December 1986. Pennine rambler (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I have proposed this be included, it covers the press reaction in 1986, this is missing from the article. I believe the article lacks balance in the death section.

==George V Death==

Dawson administered injections of morphine and cocaine that hastened George V's death on 20 January 1936.

The act remained secret until 1986, when Dawson's diary—first examined by his biographer Francis Watson in 1950 but withheld from publication on request of Lady Dawson, not being publicly discussed until the History Today article revealed the diary content to the public.

Contemporary press coverage and later analyses described the event using a range of terms, including "euthanasia" or "mercy killing" in some reports, while some critics, including biographer Kenneth Rose, described it as 'nothing short of murder in the eyes of the law'. The former Royal College of Physicians president Sir Douglas Black also spoke against Dawson’s actions. referred to in a BMJ analysis as an act to bring about a convenient death.

Both Queen Mary and the then Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) had indicated to Dawson that they did not wish the king's suffering prolonged unnecessarily.

== References ==

Pennine rambler (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There’s nothing new here, and you remain in a minority of one in arguing for its inclusion. There is a clear consensus against the expansion you want. KJP1 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

TBH - I think @Pennine rambler: needs to drop the stick & move on. I'm not seeing any chances of them getting a consensus for the changes they want. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Death of George V. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#George_V. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pennine rambler (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)

--Pennine rambler (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Conflicting crosslinks

Please see my comment on this article. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal regards cross links. --Pennine rambler (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do we use May and Mary

I don't understand why in one section we are referring to Mary as May and then in the next section jumping back to Mary. I get that that was what the family called her, but should we not be referring to her by her proper name and the name she is known most by? Other sections as well jump from May to Mary. Should we not try to stick to one name? ItsShandog (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It used to be all May up to the accession and Mary after but people kept 'correcting' it to Mary, so now there's a mix. DrKay (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the difference between her and some of the other royals who used nicknames is that hers was used more prevalently. An example includes the description of this photo from the Royal Collection Trust. But I agree that the current situation here is not acceptable. It should either be Mary throughout the article or May up to the accession, not a mix of the two. Keivan.f^Talk 00:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)