Jump to content

Talk:Ernst August von Hannover (born 1954)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Prince of Great Britain and Ireland

This should read Northern Ireland. Ireland is a republic since 1948 and this German thug has no right to style himself "Prince of Ireland" - (apparently by "RoyalPirate"?)

No, the title to which he makes pretense is "Prince of Great Britain and Ireland", and it traces back to long before Ireland was a republic. - Nunh-huh 01:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Germany (Hanover) is a republic too, in case you hadn't noticed. :-) -- Curps 03:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had noticed but it seems Ernst August has not.

One can be fairly certain that Ernst August is very well aware that he lives in a democratic Germany. However, if we're going to follow this dubious line of thought, re title bashing, we're going to have to excise any and all aristocratic distinctions in any and all Wiki entries about people who are former royals, aristocrats, et cetera, from countries that no longer exist or no longer officially recognize titles, even if those people are popularly and universally known by titles technically defunct. Which seems like a lot of work just to make a point. I might also point out that in democracies, former presidents, ambassadors, senators, et cetera, are commonly referred to and addressed by their former titles out of common courtesy. Mowens35 12:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, no need for title bashing, but I would say there is no need for excessive use of titles either. Who exactly calls him "His Royal Highness The Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg, Royal Prince of Great Britain and Ireland" except for himself and a very small number of fans of the House of Hanover? This is his legal title neither in the UK nor in Germany, and he is not duke of anything that actually exists. In Germany, where he is frequently mentioned in the tabloids, he is known just as "Prinz von Hannover" (Prince of Hanover), because that is his legal surname. Certainly nobody calls him Royal Highness or Duke. These are not former titles of his, by the way -- the Kingdom of Hanover ceased to exist in 1866, more than 80 years before Ernst August was born. --Chl 04:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, his wife's family, the royal family of Monaco, calls him that and recognizes her as HRH The Princess of Hanover, Duchess of et cetera, et cetera. When he's in Britain, he's recognized similarly, out of courtesy for what no longer legally exists. These are not necessary "fans" of the House of Hanover. He is called these out of courtesy and he remains recognized as such by various ruling houses. It's not my job (nor Wiki's) to spend an inordinate amount of time parsing who is and who isn't any longer a title holder, particularly if such titles are regularly used, especially out of courtesy. And though the Kingdom of Hanover no longer exists, nobody's complaining if he uses titles he would be entitled to if it still existed. See our entries re Leka of Albania, Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, et cetera. Wiki allows various deposed royals to remain listed by their former titles or the former titles of their families without an enormous amount of discussion or angst. Like I said, if we're going to do away with any and all royal titles, particularly those no longer extant, somebody's got a big job ahead of him/her. And frankly, it's going to make a researcher's work much harder, not to say impossible, if they want to use Wiki to find out about somebody the general public regards as Princess of this or that, but we list her as Jane von Doppelganger. Mowens35 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The German tabloids are more likely to call him "der Prügelprinz" or "der Pinkelprinz" than "Prinz von Hannover". --Angr/탉 09:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. It seems to be standard practise by royal court to accord 'former royals' and their descendants by the titles and styles they would have held if the family were still reigning. Yugoslavia no longer exists but the members of former royal house are still referred to as prince and princesses of Yugoslavia with the style of royal highness as the former houses of Greek, Italy, Iran etc the list endless. That said, Wiki's editors are just following what seems to royal court practise. Its also worth noting that on the marriage of Prince Ernest to Princess Caroline the Queen was required to consent as Ernest was subject to royal marriages act. When she gave her consent she refer to Ernest as His Royal Highness Prince Ernest of Hannover. We could debate the legal status of Ernest von Hannover for years. I think it very clear the legally he is no longer a prince - that is not dispute. But it seems to be generally accepted practise former royals to style themselves by the legally dysfunct titles.

Template

someone added a monarch template to this page...he is not a reigning monarch, he has no heir aparent and his titles are not legally recognized. I deleted it for these reasons and it was overwhelmingly large. Some people around wikipedia seem to be treating the former German Royals as if they still rule, i dont have a problem with using thier titles, but when people start to make succession boxes for thrones that have ceased to exist since world war one, i do have a problem. Mac Domhnaill 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a monarch template. It is a pretender template. That it is not a monarch template is shown in four ways.

  • It explicitly states the guy is a pretender to a throne, not a monarch.
  • It uses personal name, not title or claimed regnal name, at the top.
  • It is deliberately placed differently (not at the top but down a paragraph) to avoid any equation with a monarch or a pope box.
  • It deliverately uses a different colour scheme from all royal boxes, using green, a colour not associated with monarchy, rather than purple, red, yellow, blue etc, all colours associated with monarchy. That shade of green was deliberately picked to be as far away as possible from monarchical colours.

The box was created to pull together some important facts on pages about people who are pretenders to thrones, namely the personal name of the person, what regnal name their supporters claim they have (and the world "claim") is explicitly used in the box, when they were born, when the monarchy was abolished, who was the last monarch, their relationship back to that person and the royal house they head. Reading pages on pretenders it became obvious that information was scattered, in some places had to follow, POV captions were being slipped in under pictures, etc. This way, the picture is captionless, the key facts are pulled together, their status as a pretender, not a monarch is explicitly stated (so making POV edits calling people "king" or "queen" more difficult if there is a whopping big box saying pretender on the page) and all the pages that are already themed by a category have a themed neutral graphic. Graphics on themes, whether people, places, titles, claims to titles or whatever are standard all over Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

according to Burke

It was alleged that EA of Hanover would be rightful heir "according to Burke's Peerage" if Victoria were a bastard. I don't believe Burke's says any such thing: in fact, since EA of Hanover holds no peerage titles, I don't believe he appears in Burke's; he certainly isn't in the index of the 106th (next-to-latest) edition. - Nunh-huh 21:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

EA of Hanover does not hold peerage but he could apply for Dukedom of Cumberland to return to his family under the title deprivation act. He family was stripped of the dukedom of Cumberland due their german connections and loyalties in 1917

The actual reason for deprivation of Ernest Augustus II of Hanover's titles was "bearing arms against Great Britain", not his connections or loyalties. - Nunh-huh 23:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Future title...

If he survives to be the first husband of a head of state of Monaco, what would his title be? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If it happened, Ernst August would not be the first husband of a head of state of Monaco, a distinction which goes to Prince Jacques I who was later recognized as Sovereign Prince of Monaco in his own right by King Louis XIV after the death of Louise Hippolyte. He would probably be given the title of Prince of Monaco, but given that his current title is higher ranking and already recognized by the government of Monaco he might prefer to stay as he is.
Presumably it would remain HRH The Prince of Hanover. Charles 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

article title

Why does the title of this article humor his princely pretensions? If he is not actually a prince of anything, shouldn't the actual title of the article just be Ernest Augustus Hanover. youngamerican (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

His title is used to refer to him in a number of princely and royal courts. He simply is not known as Ernest Augustus Hanover. Charles 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Which ones? It seems that the only one where it holds any legitimacy is Monaco. youngamerican (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The United Kingdom, namely. At the funeral of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Ernest and Caroline are listed among members of foreign royal families as Prince and Princess Ernst August of Hanover. The same courtesy is extended to The Duke of Aosta, King Michael and Queen Anne of Romania, and King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie of the Hellenes. Charles 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I still find the whole concept of a heriditary monarchy a bit silly, but it appears my country is headed towards heriditary oligarchy, so there you go. youngamerican (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. 08:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (2006)

Ernest Augustus V, Prince of Hanover → Ernst August, Prince of Hanover – {Ernst August is used overwhelmingly for him in English and, as a pretender, no ordinal number should be used in the article's name} Lethiere 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

  • Currently, after the reader is redirected and disambiguated, s/he still ends up on a page whose name uses an ordinal for a pretender and a translated name that is less used in English than his actual name. Any needed re-directs or further disambiguation can be done once the page's name is determined.Lethiere 06:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Not sure if it's the correct name yet, but better than the current one. Chl 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Discard the proposal. You can read this as opposing. The proposed name is not good. The existing name is not good. The problem will be that when this vote is closed, its winners (whichever party it is) will say that the name has been decided. Then it would be much more difficult to get this moved to better place. The naming needs better discussion and expertised attempts to find a good name, and that has not yet occurred. Discard the whole poll, please. Shilkanni 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there an alternative process you wish to initiate? Please tell us the details of how it would work. Otherwise this is the usual WP process for changes of this type (aside from the fact that most page names are changed unilaterally and only get feedback afterwards. Pages are not frozen while discussion and "expertised attempts" are in progress). If there is specific information or expertise that should be invoked here, this is the appropriate time and place to bring it up, and it's welcome. Otherwise the applicable WP criteria seem clear to me: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem", and the relevant "rule below" is #6: "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned." Lethiere 20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Lethiere, you realize, I hope, that the proposal to move to Ernst August, Prince of Hanover is going to get a decision "not moved". Would you like that afterwards, certain people will plead that the vote decided that the article will remain at "including ordinal V" ?? That, for example, any new propoal to move should get 50% more votes than the number of those who opposed this move request now?? (I have seen such happening). Move request is a thing that requires some maturity. I just hope that enthusiasts learn some maturity and even to prepare carefully and with expertise before move proposals, though having seen some people's behavior, it might just be too much to hope. Shilkanni 20:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Support, although include the ordinal (V). Anything is better then the current location. Why was it moved? Mac Domhnaill 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Although a celebrity through his marriage and antics, not only is his name rarely translated into English (most exceptions appear to be English-language genealogies. Yet most of them do not translate his name, even when they translate those of his German ancestors), but in formal and legal English-language contexts it is not translated: London Gazette, 12 June 1981, it was recorded in Privy Council by Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom that, "Her Majesty was also pleased, under the said Act, to declare Her Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover and Chantal Hochuli..."; it's also been noted on this talk page by Charles that "At the funeral of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Ernest and Caroline are listed among members of foreign royal families as Prince and Princess Ernst August of Hanover"; and on 11 January 1999, the afore-mentioned sovereign again issued an Order-in-Council, "My Lords, I do hereby declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco...". Interestingly, the 1981 and 1999 declarations indicate that the preferred title of pretence of Hanover's claimants is Prince or Duke "of Brunswick-Luneburg", although neither of those is prevalent in English sources. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles, rule #6 states "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e. someone who has not reigned." Since some of his non-reigning "Ernst August" ancestors have used the ordinal with their names, that should be mentioned in the article. But the current scion can only be considered "Ernst August V" as pretender to the Hanoverian kingdom, since he would be the fifth king of that name upon restoration, but not the fifth Duke of either sovereign Brunswick or of Cumberland and Teviotdale. So it is impossible to escape the fact that use of the ordinal applies to his monarchical claim, and is therefore forbidden POV in WP.Lethiere 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether August or Agustus is correct, but I do support dropping the V from his name, as he has never reigned. The current title would be fine as a redirect, but it should not be the title. Maybe we can all write him and ask him to petition to have his ancestor's British title restored to make life easier for a few Wikipedians :). youngamerican (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There should be no ordinal, since he's no ruler. The given name of historical rulers is usually translated, the given name of present-day rulers sometimes. Since he's neither a ruler nor historical, there is no reason to translate his given name, except for consistency with his ancestors of the same name, but this seems like a minor concern. So Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, is a clear improvement over Ernest Augustus V, Prince of Hanover. Another question would be if "Prince of Hanover" as a title is correct. There is really no reason for us to use courtesy titles. Although I guess one could call it the proper English translation of his name as a citizen of Monaco... Disambiguation should not be an issue -- he is clearly better known than his father, so his father would be the one who possibly needs an addition in parentheses. His father, by the way, does deserve the title, since he was born before Germany got rid of titles. Chl 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
We use them for the French pretenders: Duke of Anjou and Duke of France IIRC. Articles titles really sghould give some hint why btheir subject is notable. Septentrionalis 23:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I would sort of support this move, although I would include an ordinal (Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover) as although he has not reiged he is not the first Ernst August to be Prince of Hanover, and his name is technically Ernst August Prinz von Hanover V. Mac Domhnaill 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, the movement history of this article shows clearly why Cooldoug should not be allowed to make any moves. Shilkanni 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

We need to come up with a NPOV way of disambiguating all the Ernst Augusts... —Nightstallion (?) 08:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. Shilkanni 10:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Just so no one reading is confused, in the name "Ernst August V", the "V" is not a regnal ordinal, but rather an indication that he's the fifth family member to be named Ernst August. It's like "Sr." or "Jr.", not like "Henry VIII". - Nunh-huh 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If that is what we are dong, it should be Ernst August (V), Prince of Hanover. john k 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretender or Hereditary Heir?

I don't understand the preoccupation with calling him a pretender to the extinct throne of Hanover. He is either the rightful heir of the throne of Hanover which no longer exists or he is not. I do not think it can be disputed that he is first in line to the throne of Hanover should it ever be restored. It is wrong and not NPOV to call him a pretender. When I saw the word pretender I had to read the whole article and this comments page to find out why he was being called a pretender. It is wrong and should be changed. He is not pretending, he is recognized as the rightful heir to the extinct throne of Hanover by the Queen of England (now part of the UK, however she's still Queen of England, in addition to other things). I'm a genealogist and it is important to distinguish usurpers and pretenders from rightful heirs. You may not like the guy, but this is not a place for editorials. Just the facts please. He is not a pretender, but the rightful heir and should be recorded as such. I consider the use of Pretender here as a weasel and anti-NPOV word. "Pretender" should be stricken and "hereditary" should be added. Of course this would require editing a great many pages. Pretender may be technically correct in usage, but it certainly isn't correct in common usage and understanding. Since not many people today consider that a "pretender" to a throne might also be the rightful hereditary heir. The simple truth is that words change meanings over time and today a pretender is considered someone who doesn't have a "right to claim". At least there should be a notation or clarification that "pretender" in this case means extinct or defunct titles; other than a mere link to the word pretender. --Celtic hackr (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Kingdom of England doesn't exist for 300 years, therefore the Queen of the United Kingdom is not Queen of England. The throne of Hanover is not extinct (it's not a dinosaur...), it's vacant. He is a pretender - a person who claims the throne. He is known as pretender to the throne of the Kingdom of Hanover and it doesn't matter whether you you like the word 'pretender' or not. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Ernst August's great-great-grandfather King George V of Hanover was definitely a pretender/claimant to the throne of Hanover from 1866 to his death in 1878. George's son, Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover, was also pretender/claimant to the throne of Hanover. But to apply that term to Ernst August's son, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick, or to his heirs, goes well beyond the meaning of the words "pretender" or "claimant". Ernst August does not claim to be the rightful king of Hanover - although a very few others might claim it for him. But he is most certainly the representative of the last king of Hanover. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

References?

There seems to be a reference section missing on this page. Could someone add one please? I'm not entirely clear on how to do it, so won't even attempt it. Also, the whole page seems to be a bit lacking in citations in general. Hmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.104.237 (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not a prince

Prince is the son of the King or Queen from Spain, Swedden, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, Danmark, Jordania... but Ernst is not a prince because Hanover is not a principality, is a city in the Federal Republic of Germany. Germany is a REPUBLIC since 1918 and there are not nobility titles. Prince of Hanover is the same that Queen of the Pop -Madonna-, King Pele of football or others apelatives. Hanover city don't recognize Ernst like a prince because is a city in a Republic. Perphaps he's a Royal Highness in Monaco or United Kingdom, but not in Germany where don't exists Royal titles and only are official the head of the states like Spain, Swedden, Norway, etc. --84.120.9.13 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right. He is just a urinating vandal. Maybe this article should be deleted. -- 213.39.131.66 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems as if we have a few IP addresses that are probably being used by the same user. Care to create a single account and unify your multiple personalities into one legitimate one? --Caponer (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Prince's title is officially recognized by the government of Monaco as is Caroline's title of HRH Princess of Hanover.
Oh come off it. You, or the Monaco government can 'recognise' the title all you want but if Hanover doesn't recognise it, and he has no plans to invade to regain his position, and he has no privileged position in that City, the title is just a fairy tale fiction. I'm all for the inclusion of the historical stuff but pandering to the wishful thinking of wannabe monarchists isn't something Wikipedia should be involved in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The title of Prince is officially recognised by German law as part of the surname, in the form as it was in 1918 - therefore "Prince of Ireland" and not Northern Ireland. --84.154.52.170 (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, his legal family name is (in German) "Prinz von Hannover", according the German law. Therefore, he's called Ernst August Prinz von Hannover" (without comma in German, since it's his family name) and not "Prinz Ernst August von Hanover". -- megA (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comma in name

Since "Prinz", according to German law, is part of the family name, shouldn't his name be written without comma (as it is in German)? Compare to Otto Graf Lambsdorff, not "Otto, Graf Lambsdorff" (Otto, Count Lambsdorff) -- megA (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia article titles are based on a person's common name. This may be, but is not necessarily, their legal name. In the German Republic, this individual has the legal name Ernst August Prinz von Hannover, but he is quite commonly called "Prinz Ernst August von Hannover" or, less frequently, "der Prinz von Hannover". In English-language sources he is commonly called "Prince Ernst August of Hanover" or, less frequently, "the Prince of Hanover". Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... what you say contradicts the current article name "Ernst August, Prince of Hanover", which is neither of the variants you used. -- megA (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not defend the present title. I think that it would be more accurate as "Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)". I do not feel strongly enough about the matter to make a fuss. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

name/title

The question at hand is whether the article's should refer to its subject by his name (Ernst August Prinz von Hannover) or by a title he claims (Prince Ernst August of Hannover). Dbpjmuf (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 39 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) → Ernst August Prinz von Hannover – Ernst August Prinz von Hannover is his name. He is not a prince. Dbpjmuf (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be moved to Ernest Augustus V. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dbpjmuf that the article should be listed under his name. Other names he might be known as from boulevard magazins can still be used as redirects if necessary - Clumpytree (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The news database Factiva lists 838 English-language results for "Prince Ernst August of Hanover" and 2 English-language results for "Ernst August Prinz von Hannover". Among the results for "Prince Ernst August of Hanover" are articles from The Times (Feb 26, 2011), New Yorker (Jan 17, 2011), The Daily Telegraph (Jan 1, 2011), Windsor Star, Sunday Times, Hobart Mercury, Calgary Herald, The Evening Standard, New York Post, and The Guardian. This is what the man is called in English - even if the anti-monarchist group of Wikipedia editors doesn't like it (they have been incredibly active in the last week). Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally am not anti-monarchist. The man simply isn't a prince. His name is Ernst August Prinz von Hannover. Dbpjmuf (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence for that assertion? Or is this just your opinion? Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That there aren't any princes in Germany anymore since 1919 is even mentioned in this very article ;) - Clumpytree (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Why should the policy of one particular government influence Wikipedia practice. Other governments have no problem calling him a prince. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Because we are discussing whether he is the Prince of Hanover in Germany, and that is for the German people to decide. If the English want to adopt him as their Queen, they can do that any time and wikipedia would subsequently reflect that. The only institution that could make him a Prince of Hanover (Germany) is the German lawmaker. However, as Germany adopted the declaration of human rights it is unlikely they reintroduce royalty. - Clumpytree (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Those results may very well simply reflect the in-house styles of those publications. Which should have no effect on using the correct terminology on wikipedia. Dbpjmuf (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"may very well" Or may be for some other reason. Got some evidence? Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Because it is frequently used there should be a redirect under this name in wikipedia, but as it is not his proper name and wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper wikipedia should use his real name for the main article. - Clumpytree (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a policy of using legal names. It uses common names. Otherwise we would have "Carlos Irwin Estévez" instead of Charlie Sheen. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between using a stage name and falsely claiming to have a title. Dbpjmuf (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Who told you he claims the title himself? OR is it the media that give him the incorrect title? -- megA (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you oppose the proposed title? Dbpjmuf (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia, not German. GoodDay (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
And the English language Wikipedia different from the German Wikipedia is supposed to be wrong? I do not quite get that argument. Why not use the correct name? - Clumpytree (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The correct name would be Ernest Augustus V', no mention of 'prince' & no mention of 'Hanover'. GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You not commonly translate names. I doubt that the "V" is part of his name (in any language). And "Prinz von Hannover" is his official surname (again, in any language - as you do not translate names...). Clumpytree (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
He's the fifth person named Ernest Augustus. He's not Hanoverian royalty. I shant change my stance. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
He is not named "Ernest Augustus" but "Ernst August" and there have probably been more people with that name than 5. I agree that he is not Hanoverian royalty, still "Prinz von Hannover" is his surname. - Clumpytree (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sticking with Ernest Augustus V. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you also call the former American president George Bush II? By the way, roman numerals aren't used in Germany, (and I believe neither in Britain), unless you have to distinguish between ruling monarchs. Which he isn't. -- megA (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume that would be "Gregor II", he does not use surnames and adapts first names. Clumpytree (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
If V appears to monarchial? then change to Ernest Augustus (born 1954), which would be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2011
Per MegA's George W. Bush example... Would you have his article be called George Walker (born 1946)? 46.7.29.75 (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me not logged in. Dbpjmuf (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ernest Augustus (b. 1954) will do. Comparisons to GWB don't apply, as Augustus is the Hanoverian family's last name. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
"Augustus" is their last name?! Where did you get that from? As far as I know his last name is "Prinz von Hannover". Clumpytree (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Prince of Hanover is not their last name. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That is correct, and that is exactly the reason why there is this discussion to move the article. - Clumpytree (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Prinze von Hannover isn't their last name either, as it's merely the German version of Prince of Hanover. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That it is the German version of Prince of Hanover does not make it wrong. Looking at the discussion on the German Wikipedia page on him it seems not to be clear whether his last name is "Prinz von Hannover" or "Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg"... Clumpytree (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
How is this supposed to be moved if its not even known what his last name even is? - dwc lr (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it would be a step in the right direction. "Prince of Hanover" is definitly wrong, "Prinz von Hannover" would be incomplete at worst. Clumpytree (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. By the way, it is common practice (in Germany) to shorten his name to "Ernst August von Hannover", without the title; compare to another prince, a descendant of the last German emperor, whose German Wikipedia article is de:Louis Ferdinand von Preußen (1907–1994). (The "von" already denotes nobility in most cases in Germany) I notice a similar practice with monarchs here on wikipedia: Elizabeth I of England is the title of her article, no "Queen". Why not leave it to "Ernest Augustus of Hanover" or "Ernst August von Hannover" (BTW; the German emperor is called "William I", not "Wilhelm I", so first names are indeed translated... on the other hand, he isn't a ruler, so Ernst August Prinz von Hannover is probably the correct way; compare to Otto Graf Lambsdorff. megA (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this is the English language Wikipedia, not German. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support For what it is worth, the style name, title, seems the more natural in English - Charles, Prince of Wales; William, Duke of Cambridge, etc. Be that as it may, I'd accept the advice on the form in Germany. Looking at English precedents isn't all that helpful because style has changed over the years and it is not usual now to translate names and titles. The emperor of Germany would most often be referred to as Kaiser when using his title (and in most cases his name given as Wilhelm rather than William) and the Emperor of All the Russias as Tsar, etc. He is German, the claimed title is German (and the title passed to his ancestor rather than Victoria because of Hannoverian law). --AJHingston (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
But not Emperor Wilhelm in the article title, which NCROY discourages. That's the problem. And names aren't translated, at least for living persons, and Prinz von Hannover is also part of his name. As I said, I don't see WP:NCROY helps much. Trying to apply rules in Wikipedia is often problematic - I see that Prince Harry (mentioned below) is actually in the German Wikipedia as Henry Mountbatten Windsor. A commendable attempt to get it right (first name on the birth certificate + father's surname is the default assumption in Britain) but incorrect because it isn't the name he has chosen to use and isn't the one that would appear on official documentation. --AJHingston (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think German wikipedia editors are allergic to any royal title if Prince Harry is at that name. The issue we have here is, is 'Prince of Hanover' a substantive title (WP:NCROY#Royals with a substantive title; so Ernst August, Prince of Hanover) or not a substantive title (WP:NCROY#Other royals; Prince Ernst August of Hanover). In German there is a Furst (substantive title) and Prinz (not a substantive title), both are translated as Prince in English. So Prince Ernst August of Hanover is ok for an article name, but Ernst August Prinz von Hannover is most defiantly not. Especially as its not even known whether that is his legal name in Germany. - dwc lr (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (2011)

Why has this article been moved to Ernst August Prinz von Hanover (1954-)? There's no consensus for that move. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the title preceding that had been changed to the nonsensical "Prin eErnst August, Prince of Hanover (1954-)" by DWC LR. Dbpjmuf (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It's suppose to be changed back to Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954). GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Tried to. Wouldn't work. You're welcome to try yourself. Dbpjmuf (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I see it has now been successfully done. I assume that the original request is still open, though. The problem with the current name is that it would be wrong if it were a British title, and isn't a direct translation of the German form either, which seems odd. But if that is what people really want, so be it. --AJHingston (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Check out WP:NCROY the current title is correct, on English Wikipedia titles are not given in there native form. - dwc lr (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't have the title of prince, which is the issue. "Prinz von hannover" is his surname, not a title which can be transliterated to "prince of hanover". Yes, the original request is still open. Dbpjmuf (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:NCROY does not apply as the person in question is no royaltiy... Clumpytree (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What is this man notable for exactly if its not because he is royalty? - dwc lr (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Which reminds me of what a Prince of Wales said to a Crown Prince of Prussia, about a King of Hawaii. —Tamfang (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
He is notable for being a celebrity that urinates publicly and gets in fist-fights every now and then. He might be a celebrity because his ancestors have been royalty, and magazins take that as an excuse to write about him. Clumpytree (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that WP:NCROY gives us the answer on this one, and if it does it suggests that the version Prince Ernst August of Hanover is wrong in English. The easiest thing is to take the example of the heir to the throne of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, sidestepping the question of the validity of Ernst August's own claim. The short formal title of the present UK heir is Charles, Prince of Wales. If using only his name he is Prince Charles, if only his title, the Prince of Wales. He should never be referred to as Prince Charles of Wales. That is because 'of Wales' belongs to the title, not the name. So logically, either this article should be headed with the name in German, which we would not translate and incorporates his title, or if people really wanted to translate the title he should be Ernst August Prince of Han(n)over. My own view is that Ernst August Prinz von Hannover is the compromise which ought to keep everyone happy, since it recognises the title for those who wish it and is his official name for those who don't. But, since in English law there is nothing to stop anybody calling themselves Prince as a first name, I would accept that Ernst August can call himself what he likes and all redirects will take people to the same article. --AJHingston (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
In analogy to the Prince of Wales, his sons (one remaining actually) bear the name of "Prince (Harry) of Wales", as their title is not "Prince of Wales". Opposite to this, Ernst August has the name "Ernst August Prinz von Hannover" (or shortened to "Ernst August von Hannover") and not "Prinz Ernst August von Hannover" as he is, by law, not a prince. (Art. 109 of the Weimar constitution, confirmed as binding by federal law in 1964. -- megA (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Prince Harry does use the name Prince Harry of Wales, but as the article on him explains that is a bit of special case and a break with tradition. It's interesting that it occurs only because he is not Prince of Wales, as pointed out. I wonder if I have misunderstood, and the name Prince Ernst August of Hanover is used in English precisely because he acknowledges that Prince of Hanover would be misleading whatever his official name would suggest? It shows the difficulty of translating names. --AJHingston (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Argh! Especially when the rules in German and English are directly opposed... -- megA (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some of the comments here are bizarre in the extreme. Of course this man is a prince. Whether his country has become a republic or not is irrelevant - he is a member of a royal family and does not cease to be royal because this or that politician has decided he isn't. If he calls himself a prince and is entitled to do so (as he clearly is) then we should call him a prince. I'm not going to comment on whether we should use the English or German versions (as my views on this subject are mixed), but to say he is not a prince is simply incorrect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
How is he clearly entitled to call himself a prince? He obviously isn't part of a royal family.Dbpjmuf (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
From Wikipedia's article on him, "...Since he was born in the male-line of George II of Great Britain he is bound by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Thus, before his marriage to Princess Caroline, he officially requested permission to marry of Queen Elizabeth II, and on 11 January 1999, the afore-mentioned sovereign issued an Order-in-Council, 'My Lords, I do hereby declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco...' Without the Royal Assent, the marriage would have been void in Britain where his family owns property and his lawful descendants remain in succession to both the British crown and the two suspended peerages." FactStraight (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hm, any german encyclopedia would call him "Ernst August Prinz von Hannover". "Prince von Hannover" is his surname, "Ernst August" his given name. And of course he is not a prince, but he calls himself one :-) I'm not absolutely sure what this means for the english WP. Maybe we can compare him to Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha who's bulgarian name sounds like Simeon Sakskoburggotski. He was the last bulgarian Tsar and is pretender to the throne as "Tsar Simeon II of the Bulgarians". The Bulgarians obviously won't give him the opportunity to become Tsar again but you may want to claim that "he is the tsar" as you claim Ernst August "is a prince". The only thing one can answer to that is: Obviously he wants to be, but he isn't. Regards --Adornix (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
@Necrothesp If he would claim to be a pink unicorn would it then also be "bizarre in the extreme" to question it? Who can deny him the right to call himself a pink unicorn? Clumpytree (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I say follow the example of Otto Graf Lambsdorff, not Count Otto Lambsdorff. I don't think he himself claims any rights to a Hanover throne, it's the tabloids that do this job for him... -- megA (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Move. Keep as "Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)". This proposed move is based on misconception. "Ernst August Prinz von Hannover" translates into English as "Prince Ernst August of Hannover" - and of course he is a prince - that is what the "Prinz" bit is - it is not merely his name - it is also his rank in the German nobility.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I would support this one. I’m no fan of drooling articles about aristos, particularly Ruritanian ones like this, and I definitely think article titles should be in English where possible. But I think we have the wrong end of the stick on this one.

    Prinz von Hannover appears to be the guy’s surname; when the various German monarchies were abolished in 1918 a load of these titles got converted into surnames (rather than calling him Ernst Welf, which would have been a lot easier)

    So translating it into English, or putting it in italics, would be incorrect in this case. (As with the oft-quoted Otto Graf Lambsdorff; Graf translates as "Count", but Lambsdorff translates as "Lambs Village"; we certainly wouldn’t title an article like that. And another example is Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, another tin-pot prince we have an article on).

    The intro could always have an explanatory sentence "his surname, PvH, is derived from the title held by his father as...", to clarify the difference. Swanny18 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No one has provided any evidence that ‘Prinz von Hannover’ is his surname it is all WP:OR and speculation, It could be ‘Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland’ or some combination thereof. Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is at the title he is because according to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha he is not a prince. The reality is in English, Prince Ernst August of Hanover is not known as ‘Prinz von Hannover’ it would be a very bizarre thing to put him under such a title, not even the German Wikipedia uses it. - dwc lr (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
As to the first point, "Ernst August Prinz von Hannover" gets over 270,000 hits on Google, so somebody is calling him that. And by surname I mean like this guy; whether he really is a prince or not I'll leave to the Federal Republic of Germany to decide.

And for the third point, the German WP does call him that; the article is titled Ernst August von Hannover (1954) and the lead has Ernst August Prinz von Hannover, vollständiger Name (full name) Ernst August...(Gambolputty).

As for your second point, I don't quite follow; are you saying we can have Hubertus Prinz as an article because he isn't a prince, but we can't have Ernst August Prinz because he is?Swanny18 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KiloT 18:56, 13 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Monarchism vandalism

It might be a good idea, if someone could clean up this article and it could then be protected against vandalism by monarchists. Clumpytree (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTVAND. They are editing in good faith, not to vandalize Wikipedia. - SudoGhost (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Good faith or not, it is still incorrect. Given the three strikes rule I am still not allowed to correct the article again. It is currently faulty. - Clumpytree (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Have you considered trying to persuade people that you are right?
  • Please try to use sources to try to make a case on the talk page for your point of view. But keep an open mind when you do so. You never know, when you look up sources to prove you are right, you might discover that you are wrong. (This happens to me sometimes.)--Toddy1 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth year

The subject is certainly primary topic. So what is he doing with a birth year? Let's move this article to Ernst August, Prince of Hanover. Kauffner (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is very common that more than one person or thing has the same name. We have the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rules to deal with this problem. Besides, the others might be "Ernst August" in German, but in English they are "Ernest Augustus." Kauffner (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernst_August_von_Hannover_(born_1954)/Archive_1&oldid=1160191543"