Jump to content

Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePrince Rupert of the Rhine has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Untitled

[edit]

Surely calling a non-reigning Palatine Wittelsbach "Duke of Bavaria" is taking recognition of titular claims to excess.Septentrionalis 02:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Bavaria was used by all agnates of the palatine house of Wittelsbach, much like Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg for all members of the house of Hanover and Duke of Wuerttemberg for remaining dynasts of the house of Wuerttemberg. Prince of the Rhine is, at best, an invention or courtesy title. Charles 02:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is English usage, which "Duke of Bavaria" is not.Septentrionalis 03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would he really be a prince of the Rhine when the family were counts-palatine of the Rhine? I am not saying it isn't English usage. I am saying that it factually was not a true title. However, the title duke of Bavaria is a real title and that is why it is included. Wikipedia practice is to show legal names and titles. That is what was done with Rupert. Charles 03:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the case, some kind of explanatory note in the article might be in order. I looked at the articles for "Duke of Bavaria" and the list of counts palatine of the Rhine and Rupert is not listed in either, so it might be nice to explain what's going on. Ahkond (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find him because he was a junior member of the family and not its head. It is in the same category as the title of duke for all members of the house of Wettin (Herzog zu Sachsen) or title landgrave for all members of the House of Hesse. This is from an era when most dynasties used the same title for all members below the rank of Grand Duke or Elector. Seven Letters 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Septentrionalis, it is my understanding that the format "xxxx of xxxx" for males applies only to monarchs, see point 1 on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). In this case, the prince falls under the category "Other royals", see points 1-4. Gryffindor 18:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

This is odd. The article states that he was commonly known also as "Prince Rupert of the Palatinate" so shouldn't this article fall under this name? I think it better in this case to contact the creators of this article directly instead of deciding this over their heads.. Gryffindor 17:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives over 20 times the results for "of the Rhine" than for "of the Palatinate". The various houses-palatine have always left me with headaches :-P. I will change it to "of the Rhine". Charles 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but does this only apply to Prince Rupert with the google hits, or all "of the Palatinate"s. For example Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine was always Princess Palatine, not of Rhine. Gryffindor 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is with Rupert only. It is so incredibly inconsistent though! Look at the Elector Palatine's page for his children, for instance. Sadly, common usage reigns supreme in this instance. Charles 18:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is really inconsistent, but I think "Prince Rupert of the Rhine" is the best title. "Prince Rupert" is highly ambiguous, and thus unacceptable, and any other name is not in common use. john k 15:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is commonly known in English as "Prince Rupert" (See for example the GREAT REBELLION article in 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica). If further explanation is needed it is: a German relation of King Charles I who had more experiance than most English men at the start of the Civil War in matters military. He falls under that quote an inhabitant of "a distant country that we know little about". His entry in 1911 is: RUPERT, PRINCE, COUNT PALATINE OF THE RHINE AND DUKE OF BAVARIA. Google:

  • about 651 English pages for "Prince Rupert of the Rhine" -wikipedia
  • about 545 English pages for "Rupert of the Rhine" -"Prince Rupert of the Rhine" -wikipedia.
  • about 56,300 English pages for "Prince Rupert" -"Rupert of the Rhine" "civil war" -wikipedia

So there are several other options. We could do what the modern http://www.britannica.com which uses "Prince Rupert" or we could move the article to "Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria" which is as he is named in this BBC link or the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica "Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine and Duke of Bavaria". --Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite the case of the duc des Deux-Ponts, who took his comital palatine title as equal to duke, rendering it of importance. If any move is made, Prince Rupert of the Rhine could be moved to Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, in order to avoid such a long title. Charles 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please not; present title better than that. Septentrionalis 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The titles are a mess, for sure: Check the name he's got on de:, he's got even more titles there. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

But What's In A Name ?

[edit]

As per: [1]

Between 1673 and 1679 the Admiralty Board was composed of between twelve and sixteen Privy Counsellors who served without salaries.

The next Lord High Admiral after the Duke of York (1661-1673) was Prince George (1702-1708).

Prince Rupert could be styled First Lord of succesive Admiralty Boards ( 1673, 1674, 1677 ).

Let's not comment on the "humiliating failure" until we have the facts straight.

Hoped to have gone fishing,

a salty
(Lunarian 12:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Children

[edit]

According to Stephen Turnbull in his book, The Ottoman Empire, 1326 - 1699, a son of Prince Rupert fought at the Great Turkish War in the name of the Archduke of Austria. But this article doesn't even mention a wife or mistress - something that is hard to believe given the fact that his cousin Charles II was quite the hedonist, with all due respect (I support the Monarchy).Tourskin (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sack of Birmingham

[edit]

Strange that there's no mention of it or his role in its instigation and yet the illustration from the pamphlet features it. Jatrius (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added in a bit in the extension. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

I've gone through and fleshed the article out a bit, and added in-line citations. It'll probably need some copy editing, however. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It looks like it's shaping up well.Jatrius (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Career in the Restoration Navy

[edit]

I have an issue with the following text:

The Four Days Battle was at best a draw, but the St. James's Day Battle the following month allowed Rupert and Monk to use the same tactics to inflict heavy damage on the Dutch, resulting in a significant English victory.[127]
Rupert also played a prominent role in the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672–4).

Not mentioned is the Raid on the Medway, the article of which lists Prince Rupert of the Rhine as commander. For sake of completeness this should be included as the text now might leave the reader to think that the Second Anglo-Dutch War ended with "a significant English victory" which isn't exactly what happened.

BTW: Are only print references acceptable for the article? 82.170.244.87 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On-line references are acceptable on wikipedia, but should be a reliable source - i.e. "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If a site is self-published (i.e. the author has placed the material on the web themselves, as opposed to it being peer reviewed etc.), you'd probably want to argue on the talk page about why the author had particular credentials to be trusted on that particular topic. A site which lists its sources (e.g. where each bit of information has come from) is usually given more credence than one that just claims particular facts.Hchc2009 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince Rupert" redirect to here?

[edit]

Just curious about how Prince Rupert redirects to here. Is he a well-known in British history? Just curious how it stacks up against Prince Rupert, British Columbia. A Google search has the city and local information coming as the first few results for me. It's a city of 10,000 people and a reasonably well-known port in Canada, but I'm not sure how well it's known in the English speaking world. - Wmcduff (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm English-speaking and I'd never heard of Prince Rupert the place until now. Whereas I first heard of Prince Rupert the person when learning about the Civil War in primary school (age ten or eleven). Opera hat (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be location based. Europe (and England specifically, I suspect) are more likely to know Prince Rupert the historic figure, while Canadians are going to think of the place. And someone from the United States is unlikely to have heard of either, I'd bet (well, not counting history/geography buffs). As there are more English than Canadians, the redirect seems reasonable. - 69.176.176.99 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm American, I've heard of the man but never heard of the town in BC. There is also (Prince) Rupert's Land too. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert's Land was always known by that name. Prince Rupert the city might be looked for by simply the city name, however, thus the adjustment to the disambiguation. - 69.176.176.99 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sabrebd (talk · contribs) 12:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Opening impressions are that this is high quality work, well illustrated and largely well sourced. The only immediate issue I can see is the lack of sourcing for the tv, film and literature section. This would also probably be better as prose rather than a list under WP:EMBED, not least because it stops fly by additions of trivial instances. I will give detailed feedback over the next few days.--SabreBD (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My style of review is to go through the prose in detail and make suggestions, please note a lot of these minor points are advisory and would not be a reason for failing GA. However, they will probably come up at FA.--SabreBD (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well-written:
    • (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    • A general point. Is this article using British English - there seems to be a mixture of spellings.
    • Lead:
    • Very minor, but for consistency the English Civil War needs dates. Otherwise the lead is clear and balanced.
    • Early life and exile:
    • Opening section: born "during the Thirty Years' War": given that its thirty years long this does not help a lot. I would delete. However, there is a need here to explain that these events are the beginning of the TYW, as this would not be clear to a casual reader.
    • date of the battle of the White Mountain would be useful (it reads as if 1619 not 1620)
    • "By the early 1630s this appeared closer than ever". Some redundancy here. Could be just "By the early 1630s this appeared close". This and the two surrounding sentences need some simplification.
    • battle of Lutzen does not need a pipe link. WP:EGG suggests the whole phrase should be linked or this looks like a link to the place not the battle.
    • Teenage years
    • At the moment an overlink of Thirty Years' War, Linz and English Civil War in this article
    • "As time went on" - beginning of final paragraph. A redundant phrase. I would delete.
    • Too many alsos in the final paragraph.
    • Career during the First English Civil War
    • "He had considerable success during the early years of the war, his drive, determination and experience of European techniques bringing him early victories" Some redundancy here (two lots of early)
    • "finally found" - just found will do
    • Powicke Bridge, worth mentioning that this is usually seen as the first real encounter of the war - a casual reader might not know this.
    • Added.
    • "Some of the weaknesses of Rupert's character began to display themselves, however, when he quarrelled with his fellow infantry commander, Lindsey." The however should be at the start of the sentence or removed (otherwise it reads like the second clause contradicts the first).
    • Final paragraph - "in fact" - redundant.
    • Later stages, 1644-46
    • "Rupert had quarrelled with Lindsey at Edgehill:" not sure why we need this again and it overcomplicates the sentence. but perhaps I am missing something.
    • "Digby was a classic courtier, with a "darting wit and fluent tongue";" Probably enough to know he is a favourite.
    • On the Marston Moor campaign, probably too many adjectives: "suddenly", "surprise". "With his sheer speed" might be seen as hyperbole.
    • I would have a comma after Leicester and before "but".
    • Is it worth saying that the battle destroyed the king's main army (at least the infantry)? Might help casual readers understand the significance of the loss.
    • "Earlier interpretations of this event have focused" tense confusion, should be "Earlier interpretations of this event focused"
    • Reputation
    • Boye, poodle and Marston Moor have already been linked,
    • Career during the Second English War and Interregnum
    • Pipe link Holy Roman Emperor to Ferdinand III. Ferdinand has already been linked, so this may count as an overlink.
    • Digby, Louis XIV, Thirty Year's War are all overlinked.
    • "steadily losing vessels to their pursuers;" seems to be a sentence ending in a semi-colon.
    • "The second phase of the campaign then began, as Rupert crossed back into the Atlantic and, during 1651, cutting west to the Azores capturing vessels as he went." - a confusing sentence, may be better to break this up, e.g.: "The second phase of the campaign then began. Rupert crossed back into the Atlantic and, during 1651, cut west to the Azores, capturing vessels as he went."
    • The next sentence also has a lot of clauses and should probably be split in two.
    • "catching Malaria", normally it would be "contracting Malaria"
    • "By bad luck, one of Rupert's notes". Delete the redundant "By bad luck
    • Career following the Restoration
    • Royal Navy is linked twice
    • "The French role in the conflict proved a problem when Charles turned to the appointment of an admiral, however; Rupert's objection to the French alliance was well known, and accordingly the King appointed the Duke of York to the role instead" A bit unclear, may need breaking into two sentences.
    • "landing an amphibious army" its an amphibious operation or just landing an army. The bit about planning seems redundant and this sentence should probably be split in two.
    • "The result was the Battle of Schooneveld in June and the Battle of Texel in August" - results were?
    • "selection of officer" officers? This sentence could also split up for clarity.
    • Later life
    • "his primary attentions to North America", could just be - "his attention turned to North America"
    • "although Hughes appears to have held out reciprocating" should be "although Hughes appears to have held out from reciprocating"
    Too many "ultimatelys" in the death section.
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
    • Early life and exile:
    • "enjoying the famous palace gardens": famous may be seen as WP:PUFF and thinking about this, I can see the library is important, but are the gardens that significant to his late life?
  • Verifiable with no original research:
    • (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    • Generally fine. A minor point is that p. should be followed by a space according to every example at WP:CITE. Normally all Harvard references give a date, but not really a GA issue.
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
    • Early life and exile:
    • No citation for Rupert's height.
    • Teenage years
    • His refusal to convert at the end of the penultimate paragraph of section and the end of the final paragraph are not covered by citations
    • Career during the First English Civil War
    • "an image which has endured over the years" is not covered by a citation.
    • Discussion of advance to London. Does Wedgewood discuss both views? She is the only source. From memory, this debate continues after her work. I am fine with who is saying what being clear from footnotes, but at FA someone may call "who" if it is not clear in the text.
    • Career following the Restoration
    • No citation for Battle of Solebay.
    • No citation for Rupert's retirement.
    • Later life
    • Obviously statements tagged for lack of citations here need them.
    (c) it contains no original research.
    • Not an issue
  • Broad in its coverage:
    • (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    • Very good coverage
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    • Seems balanced to me
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    • Fine
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    • Cannot see any
  • Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    • (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    • Most are copyright free. File:Prince Rupert, the Great Executioner.jpg needs transferring to the commons
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
    • These are fine.

    African slave trade.......

    [edit]

    Lofa, I haven't seen any sources linking the Prince to the Maafa, only to the early slave trade. Can you give a source that does? If so, very happy that we incorporate it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Spencer

    [edit]

    I've changed the first ref to 'Spencer' to a full reference to Charles Spencer, 2008, Prince Rupert: The Last Cavalier as this seems indicated by the Bibliography; can someone confirm that this is correct? Also, if someone could confirm that this is the same source used in Margaret Hughes I'd be grateful. GoldenRing (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no need to change the citation style here, since as you say, as it is already listed in the bibliography at the bottom of the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair enough. I'm used to the non-bibliography style of citations and it confused me for a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob's. On the morganic issue, it sounds a plausible enough statement, but, like you, I can't think of any sources which have actually said it. I'll have a hunt around, but if not, it should probably come out of Peg Hughes' article. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mother tongue?

    [edit]
    "By the age of three he could speak some English, Czech and French, and mastered German while still young . . . ."

    Born in Prague to German(sort of) and English(sort of) parents, and raised in The Netherlands, but in an atypical milieu, what was his first language? Is the answer known; is the question even meaningful? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Teenage years

    [edit]

    First sentence of this section of the article: "Rupert spent the beginning of his teenage years in England between the courts of The Hague and his uncle King Charles I, before being captured and imprisoned in Linz during the middle stages of the Thirty Years' War." The Hague is not in England. If this means that he divided his time between The Hague and London, it should say so, not that he spent his time in England.Robocon1 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The start of the lead

    [edit]

    Putting "Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria, Duke of Cumberland, Earl of Holderness" is inelegant and unnecessary.

    To exaggerate to make a point. See for example the article Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington if we were to include all his titles as they were listed at this death the first sentence would be

    Arthur Wellesley, Duke and Marquess of Wellington, Marquess Douro...

    Arthur Wellesley, Duke and Marquess of Wellington, Marquess Douro, Earl of Wellington, Viscount Wellington and Baron Douro,Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter,Knight Grand Cross of The Most Honourable Order of the Bath,One of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and Field Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces. Field Marshal of the Austrian Army, Field Marshal of the Hanoverian Army, Field Marshal of the Army of the Netherlands, Marshal-General of the Portuguese Army, Field Marshal of the Prussian Army, Field Marshal of the Russian Army, and Captain-General of the Spanish Army. Prince of Waterloo, of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo and Grandee of Spain of the First Class. Duke of Victoria, Marquess of Torres Vedras, and Count of Vimiera in Portugal. Knight of the Most Illustrious Order of the Golden Fleece, and of the of St. Ferdinand and of St. Hermenigilde of Spain. Knight Grand Cross of the Orders of the Black Eagle and of the Red Eagle of Knight Grand Cross of the Imperial Military Order of Maria Teresa of Austria. Knight of the Imperial Orders of St. Andrew, St. Alexander Newski, and St. George of Russia. Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Portuguese Military Order of the Tower and Sword. Knight Grand Cross of the Royal and Military Order of the Sword of Sweden. Knight of the Order of St. Esprit of France. Knight of the Order of the Elephant of Denmark. Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphic Order. Knight of the Order of St. Januarius and of the Military Order of St. Ferdinand and of Merit of the Two Sicilies. Knight or Collar of the Supreme Order of the Annunciation of Savoy. Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Military Order of Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria. Knight of the Royal Order of the Rue Crown of Saxony, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Military Merit of Wurtemberg. Knight Grand Cross of the Military Order of William of the Netherlands. Knight of the Order of the Golden Lion of Hesse Cassel, Knight Grand Cross of the Orders of Fidelity and of the Lion of Baden.

    It does not help to do this because the lead should to be a summary of the article content, and most importantly the first sentence or two need to be succinct, because that is what is returned by a search engine. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 2 external links on Prince Rupert of the Rhine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tennis/Pepys

    [edit]

    Pepys says "From him I went to see a great match at tennis, between Prince Rupert and one Captain Cooke, against Bab. May and the elder Chichly; where the King was, and Court; and it seems are the best players at tennis in the nation." [2]

    I think this indicates he holds Rupert as *among* the best four players, not specifically ranked, especially as 4th. Does anyone have the text from Spencer ranking him 4th? 190.102.1.177 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just replying to myself, Spencer indeed agrees:
    "...he was excellent at real tennis and was rated by Pepys as one of the four finest..."
    I'm going to update the article. 190.102.24.138 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoration Statesman section

    [edit]

    There is this sentence which says, "In 1673, Rupert was urged by Charles Louis to return home, marry and father an heir to the Palatinate, as it appeared likely that Charles Louis's own son would not survive childhood."

    However, on Charles Louis' own page, it says his wife never got pregnant. So what son is this sentence talking about? 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:149B:EEDD:A71A:AC9A (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretentious date formatting in the lede

    [edit]

    Considering we're now in the third decade of the 21st century, I think in terms of calendars the English-speaking world is well past using Old Style (O.S.) and New Style (N.S.) to reflect differences between the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar.

    A pretension that leaps off the page in the lede of this article. Is it truly necessary to inform the reader that there is a 10-day discrepancy of his birth and death dates (depending on the calendar being used)? Wouldn't it be simpler/neater to write a template/bot that when a cursor is hovered over a date, converts N.S. to O.S. instead of this long-hand, long-winded verbosity! Or to be even more prosaic, "no one cares". And without explanation: confusing.

    Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Duke of Cumberland, KG, PC, FRS (17 December 1619 (O.S.) [27 December 1619 (N.S.)] – 29 November 1682 (O.S.) [9 December 1682 (N.S)])

    146.90.208.196 (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Rupert_of_the_Rhine&oldid=1244983482"