Wing loading is most definitely NOT independent of G-loading. Given a constant-mass aircraft (and don't go preaching details like "the fuel is being burned, so mass is not constant" ) with a fixed CG, G-loading and wing loading are almost directly proportional. (they are not directly proportional, since the fuselage and thrust vector may start to contribute to the lift at high angles of attack)

An aircraft flying with the CG located near the neutral point will fly either faster or more efficiently than a nose-heavy plane. I can speak from personal experience in a Cessna 172. During cruise, a piece of heavy cargo was moved from the co-pilot seat to the baggage compartment. Following this move, the plane accelerated from 110 knots to 125 knots, and required a re-trim.

An aircraft flying as above will also be more responsive to small elevator inputs. Since the wing is essentially acting as a fulcrum against which the tail operates to keep the CG balanced, moving the CG effectively increases the mechanical advantage that the tail has.

I realize that the comment bashing the "near 90 degrees" observation was intended as an agressive nitpick, and that you probably understand full well the difference between knife-edge flight where the weight is supported by thrust and fuselage lift, and a high-G coordinated turn, where the wings are actually perpendicular to the load vector formed by combining gravity and centripetal acceleration. Do we really need to insist on absolute precision in communication, when the intent should be clear to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of flight physics?