Talk:Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover

Rumor
Rumor suggested that he beat a servant to death, and perhaps raped his own sister, Princess Sophia. His wife also had a bad reputation, having allegedly murdered one or both of her previous husbands.

I would be interested to know your source for these statements. I have done extensive reading on Ernest Duke of Cumberland and have not come across anything that would confirm them. The sentiment is certainly strong that he murdered his valet, but he did not beat him to death. And there is no indication that he raped Sophia although some maintain he fathered a child by her.

I am very curious about the statements concerning Princess Frederica. I have read only that her first husband died following a sudden, brief illness but that her second husband died of a stroke. Is there some documentation to support allegations of murder?

Ernest was no saint, to be sure; but he seems to have a much worse reputation than the facts support. His rigid right wing politics and refusal to accept change made him many enemies and some historians feel that most of his 'scandals' were trumped up to discredit him. This may not be so, however, because I was in England recently and was hard pressed to find anything on public display pertaining to him. He is a fascinating character and I'd like to know where you did your research.

Thank you.

Aimee Thrasher


 * I'm pretty sure I've read this somewhere, but I can't find where. I've toned down the article correspondingly.  I would certainly agree with you that rumors about Cumberland were probably exaggerated.  The article was not meant to suggest that these rumors were true.  But, of course, if they were not genuine rumors, they should be removed. john 07:13, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See discussion on Sophia re possibility of illegitimate child. Hebbgd (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Duke of Cumberland, son of George III
The Hanover template needs a little modification, in particular the words "Duke of Cumberland" need to be put next to the name of George III's son, Ernest Augustus I of Hanover who was by far the most notorious Cumberland of them all.

PS Cumberland was accused of having tried to rape Lady Lyndhurst, wife of three-time Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst. I am not sure of the date. Can some knowledgeable soul pls put this into the text? (My source is Cecil Woodham-Smith, her source is the diarist Greville..but I reckon any standard bio of Cumberland shd have the details.)


 * Surely his grand-uncle, the Butcher Cumberland, is at least as notorious? At least in Scotland... john k 02:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Wicked Ernest
I've toned down the editor who claimed that Cumberland did indeed murder and commit incest, to the exclusion of all other theories. I have no objection to the one sentence being expanded. However, we do not know, and WP does not judge.--Wehwalt 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the editor is citing his own book. That is akin to citing a page you made, and is frowned upon. The better approach, from what I recall, is to bring the source to other editors' attention on this page and let us decide.--Wehwalt 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re "Wicked Ernest": My purpose in naming my book was indeed "to bring the source to other editors' attention", and especially because its endnotes comprehensively cite the sources on which my conclusions are based. For example, the record of Ernest Augustus's confession to his aide-de-camp that he murdered the valet Joseph Sellis in St James's Palace is in the Windsor royal archives and was published in Professor Arthur Aspinall's "The Correspondence of George Prince of Wales", vol VII, 1971. John Wardroper 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is fine (though the place to bring your source to the attention of other editors is on the talk page, not the article page), but you deleted the language in the article that said that he didn't do these things, and inserted your belief (which I have no doubt is well founded) that he did. The thing is, you can believe either way, but we don't know for sure either way--and their are sources which don't hold the same way (going all the way back to The Royal Dukes.  That is why I suggested (and to help you out, even started a paragraph) that you summarize your theory in addition to the existing text, so that the reader is aware of both schools of thought.--Wehwalt 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

82.35.111.58 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Sorry if I got the Wiki-rules wrong. An essential part of clarifying a piece of history is to seek out primary sources. If they show that certain things in previous accounts don't stand up, you can't really still say 'you can believe either way'. That nearly amounts to giving equal value to whatever has been printed, no matter what is questioned thereafter by further research. Surely one aim of Wikipedia is to clear away some of the detritus of history. Note that royal courts depend very much on image. What the public was given, and indeed is given, is a blend of truth and untruth. Note what Prince Ernest's sister Elizabeth said: "I speak very little like a courtier tho' bred up in the heart of Court... Poor Truth has a bad life of it, yet it will sometimes out." [Source, for those who want it: letter to the rector of St George's, Bloomsbury, June 1801, British Library manuscript Add 41695] Writers on royalty are often rather inclined to be overkind with the truth.

Well, when they change all the history books to say Ernest killed his valet and raped his sister, we can go with a single theory, until then we should have both. And the logical way is to have the traditional view first, the new theory second.--Wehwalt 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A few comments on this.

History books inevitably contain errors, misjudgments, special pleadings and even sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Historians and others need to do all they can bring out the truth, so that indifferent books are less likely to be granted equal weight with sound ones.

I have given a citation already for Ernest's confession to murder. There at least there is no call for using the word 'theory'.

As for Princess Sophia, who has suggested that Ernest raped her? Not I! My work on the question suggests that there was a consensual relationship. Evidence of a fondness between them first occurs when she is 16. She writes to her confidante Lady Harcourt, Aug 24 1794,"Dear Ernest is as kind to me as it is possible, rather a little imprudent at times, but when told of it never takes it ill" Harcourt manuscripts at Stanton Harcourt: volume of letters from the royal family. "Imprudent" was a word often used in society for behaviour likely to cause gossip. John Wardroper 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Call it what you will. You have your own views, I am sure they are sincerely held.  However, I do not know that it is the historical judgment of historians generally that Ernst murdered his valet and had an affair with his own sister.  I will not accept what you say as undisuputed fact without knowing there is a consensus on these points.--Wehwalt 18:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If anything happened between Princess Sophia and Ernest, it was rape, not an affair. She'd written to her lover, General Thomas Garth, that Ernest had made "attempts" on her person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.225.132 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WP talks about the opinions of scholars, not support them Whodhellknew 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wehwalt: you provide no citations in defence of your position. You also make the bizarre assertion that Wikipedia should wait till "the history books" better reflect the primary sources. Alrewas (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on his comments in this thread, Wehwalt's interpretation and application of Wikipedia's policies and practices toward inclusion as fact of allegations of notorious acts of homicide and incest in this article appear to be consistent with ONUS, EXCEPTIONAL and PRIMARY. I support reliance upon the standards he's articulated. FactStraight (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, note that my understanding of policy has evolved in eight years ... I have Wardroper's book, though I haven't read it recently. It's not like he has found some new trove of papers.  What's out there on Ernest is out there, and there is unlikely to be much more.  His interpretation, in a non-scholarly, popularly written book is that Ernest did those things, and I'm not sure that Wardroper's worth mentioning.  This article has passed through FAC since 2007, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd thought I'd add to this as this is my first day creating a Wikipedia account. I am nor a fan to be looking into all things royal. Though, what has interested me is that my 6th Great Grandfather is Joseph Sellis. I am a descendant of his daughter Charlotte Sellis who married into the Foden family branch. I am interested in creating a Wikipedia page for Sellis as all the information that is out about him is about his 'Suicide.' Which, in contrast to everything I have read about Sellis I think they is more to his life than just the day of his death on 31th of May 1810. I'm not surprised on the courts ruling as they are forever are within the favour of the royal family members regardless. In 1812, Sellis' family was kicked out of the palace and they moved up north to get as far away from the royals. In the 1841 I think Joseph Sellis wife died by this time. her 2nd husband James Draper was mentioned on there though. He lived with Charlotte Sellis' son Joseph Foden in Runcorn, England. Further on the censuses the family then resided in Manchester, Lancashire, England. Which, alot of the family still to this day are from. I see that some of you mention John Wardroper and his book. Does anyone know if he is this alive or how I'd get in contact with him. Where I was in London a few years ago I knocked at his address he given on one of his in research of Sellis and his family. Unfortunately, he did not live their. Though, they is a few other people that have wrote books and mention the name of Sellis also. Quite the infamous guy isn't he just... 17:00PM 18th April 2021 (UK time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMW1995 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if an article on Sellis himself is advisable, review WP:1E. An article on his death, that gives details of his life in a preliminary section, is certainly in order. I don't have any info on Wardroper. I hope your researches bear fruit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I've removed several '[' brackets seeing as they have no function whatsoever in the article and pop up in odd places. It was the same in Princess Sophia's page, which I edited as well Whodhellknew 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

King instead of Victoria
Why wasn't he William IV's successor in the UK? After all, William IV was successor to George IV and they were all brothers. Who wanted to separate this dynasty from the British Isles? 68.110.8.21 07:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not a case of want – in the UK, we have a male-preference succession, which means that the most senior person of the male line succeeds, i.e. William's next-oldest brother's eldest daughter, Victoria. Whereas, in Hanover, male-only succession was in place, so Victoria did not succeed, rather, William's most senior male heir – his next surviving brother, Ernest Augustus. Incidentally, this is all explained in the article(s) DBD 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the old days, that would have never been allowed to happen. Hence, the case of want.  I think it was entirely political, because the male descendents of the Georgian kings were not exhausted or extinct.  The Jacobites had lost and Catholic Emancipation was passed, so there was no reason to keep this dynasty on the throne.  Prince Albert's dynasty had less dominance, since he and his heirs had no Continental territory to pull the UK around in directions possibly unfavourable to the British people.  68.110.8.21 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hanover had very little influence on the UK, especially after the early years of the personal union. From 1760-1837, the last three joint kings, only George IV visited Hanover, and that very briefly.  The Act of Settlement required that British troops not be used to defend Hanover, in fact it was occupied by Napoleon.  Hanover was very much an afterthought.  It was a place where impoverished royals could live cheaply, and where some royal connection would be sent off to serve as governor.  At the end, the British were delighted to lose Hanover, since it meant that Cumberland would leave England.--Wehwalt 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yeah, it's not like he was illegitimate. There had to be an ulterior motive to displacing a dynasty with enough living male representatives to continue the line into the present day, including the future to come.  Parliament did this to the Stuarts too, so this truly speaks for the power they wield.  68.110.8.21 04:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It speaks to the disruption to royal legitimacy caused by the intemperate actions of Charles I in the context of the Protestant Reformation. All entertaining speculation; for it to appear in the article a reliable source making the argument is required, and original research drawing on facts to synthesise the argument cannot be accepted. .. dave souza, talk 07:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, it doesn't hurt to ask questions and discuss. 68.110.8.21 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the Act of Settlement 1701 Victoria was the lawful heir to the British throne. Cumberland was so detested in Britain that Parliament probably never once considered passing a new law dispossessing her. Jess Cully 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One could only wonder what things would be like now, if Parliament had decided to keep up dynastic politics with the House of Orange-Nassau, the Hanoverians, or the present Windsors. They are choosing to revive the Oldenburg element of Prince George, Queen Anne's husband.  That's probably because they wanted it then and tragedy cut off their hopes for a lasting succession, which is now present with Prince Philip's "Mountbatten" children.  I wonder if it has anything to do with the Whiggish preference for pre-Norman conditions, when England was dominated by Scandinavian pirates instead.  I don't think it is entirely up to the Queen in who she could marry.  Remember, if the dynastic politics had been Royally directed (in the Stuart favour), there would have never been any Dutch or German monarchs of the British Isles.  Ireland would probably never split, while one can only speculate how America would have turned out.  Actually, I think things would be the same as in France.  The Revolution would have deposed the monarchy for good and the American colonies would have been of no consequence.  There would have been a successor to our Robespierre (Cromwell) to be a Napoleon of Britain.  Imperial India would not have been the focus of power, but I think that Britain would have Continental expansion and client or puppet countries in Europe instead of the Commonwealth version.  68.110.8.21 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The First?
Is he Earnest Augustus the First? His successor is named George the Fifth. That suggests that the Kings of Hanover used the numerals of their predescessors the Electors of Hanover. Which would make him Earnest-Augustus the Second. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He is the First. No question. Looks like the first "first" one died before the appointment became elective, so I guess id didnt' count.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean "effective". I'll have to look into that, but in Germany he is often reffered to as Ernst-August II. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wehwalt means "elective" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.76.45 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No the Kingdom of hanover didnt do that also he also King george V was that because of the Past Kings of hanovers(Also the king of britain george VI) the last King george was King George IV of Hanover so that is why there was a King geroge V of Hanover (68.80.137.103 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC))
 * But William IV was Wilhelm IV ... looks like they found a reason to keep pace with the Britons.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Image
The image claiming to be of a young Ernest cannot be right. The sword worn in the image was introduced into the British army in about 1822, and the uniform worn dates to circa 1850. Ernest would have been a middle aged to elderly man at this time. As a young man he would have been in a wig and clean shaven. Urselius (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Reigned as Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh? There was no Ducal crown of Cumberland, it was just a title. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In most infoboxes the word reign is used in lieu of tenure.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It sure don't look right, Peerage members don't reign. If Ernest would've had no sons those Ducal & Earldom titles would've ceased to exist. Ernest didn't succeeded to those title, they were conferred on him (like Duke of York, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, etc). GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Augustus, not Ernest
The article shouldn't refer to him as Ernest. It should refer to him as Ernest Augustus, as that is the name he used. We never refer to Empress Maria Theresa as Maria, do we? Anyway, the article looks great. Surtsicna (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but RS refer to him constantly as Ernest, and (check signature) so did he. Are you the GA reviewer?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't decided to review the article. I just fixed some minor issues. If the sources you used refer to him as Ernest, then I guess there is no need to change it. Good luck with the review process! Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudos
Surprisingly interesting for such a long article about a comparatively obscure historical figure. Sca (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On behalf of everyone who worked on it over two years plus, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict between Wikipedia articles
This article says: "Thomas Garth, thought to be the illegitimate son of Ernest's sister Princess Sophia, had been fathered by Ernest.". But the article Thomas Garth says: "He was born the son of John Garth MP, and Rebecca, daughter of John Brompton and grand-daughter of Sir Richard Raynsford, Lord chief justice of the Kings bench. Garth was chief equerry to King George III of the United Kingdom and is believed to have been the father of an illegitimate child born in 1800 to Princess Sophia Matilda, one of the king's daughters." Which was Thomas rumored to be: the father of an illegitimate son, or the son himself? Too Old (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The son was also named Thomas.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look a little more carefully at the two quotes. The first says the father of the bastard was Ernest, son of George III, the second says the father of the bastard was Thomas, son of John Garth, MP. Too Old (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quoting only in part. Ernest was certainly rumored to be the father, but this is not widely believed.  Sophia is far more widely believed to be the mother, but this is not certain.  I am not responsible for the content of the Garth article, btw.  If it is OK, I'm going to ask Dr.Kiernan, one of our acknowledged experts on British royalty to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The parents of Captain Thomas Garth are not known for certain. General Thomas Garth acknowledged that he was the father, and the mother was rumored to be Sophia. The rumors that Ernest was the father are the least believable. I'm not aware of any historians who challenge that Garth was the father, but there are authorities who challenge that Sophia was the mother. DrKay (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Photograph?
He died in 1851, and every king at the time had been photographed at least once as far as I know. So does it still exist? and if so, why isn't it in the article?Ericl (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the Van Der Kiste book (see biblio), plate immediately preceding page 103, he shows a photograph of Mary, Duchess of Gloucester (Ernest's younger sister) with Victoria and two of her children from 1856 and part of the caption says, "this was probably the only occasion on which a child of George III was photographed".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

George IV's estimation as imparted to the Duke of Wellington and relayed by him to Greville
As Wellington said to Greville in 1829: "I remember asking him why the Duke of Cumberland was so unpopular, and he said, "Because there was never a father well with his son, or husband with his wife, or lover with his mistress, or a friend with his friend, that he did not try to make mischief between them."" This struck me as a powerful expression of the King's opinion, from a reliable source; is it worth including? (I don't want to mess with an admirable featured article.) 45ossington (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link for that so we can view the context? Because George IV displayed a lot of those characteristics himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be found at . George IV is of course a famously unreliable witness, but his opinion of his brother (whether accurate or not) is notable in itself, it seems to me. 45ossington (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would mention that Greville reported it. Aside from that I have no great objection.  It does seem rather contradictory to George's actions towards Ernest, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note 116
The text of the article gives the source as "The Times" (i.e. of London), but the note cites the ""New York Times". Leofranc Holford-Strevens, 31 August 201580.177.167.155 (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYT was reprinting something that had appeared in the London paper. The actual citation, in the bibliography section, makes this clear.  The NYT was in its first year of publication, and it was common then to reprint stories from other papers.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move to Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover. Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ernest Augustus I of Hanover → Ernest Augustus of Hanover – He was not known by the numeral during his reign (as can be seen from this coin and this statue) or to history (his article in the NDB). There are several other people called Ernest Augustus of Hanover, but as a king he should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Opera hat (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the coin argument is valid because few if any rulers who are the first of that name put a Roman numeral after themselves. But yes, as he was the only king of that name (as opposed to elector) I think you make a sound point.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some contemporaries: Louis Philippe I, Roi des Français; Leopold Premier, Roi des Belges. Opera hat (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm not convinced by the primary topic argument; there are many others called Ernest Augustus of Hanover. However, I would be happy with "Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover". DrKay (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover too. It sidesteps the primary topic issue, and WP:SOVEREIGN supports this format as well. Opera hat (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support alternate title Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover. This title also makes it clearer that he was a king, as neither II nor III were.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have closed this by moving the page. This is permitted when there is a unanimous result (I take DrKay's oppose as a support for the proposed title). I deleted an old redirect to Ernst August.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit summaries
It would be nice to have them for the continuing changes to the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This article has been through extensive review and copy-editing, via the featured article process. The persistent changes are not an improvement in my opinion. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is continuing. Is there nothing that can be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

George V's blindness
This article contradicts George V of Hanover. Please see Talk:George V of Hanover. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall exactly what Bird said and can't seem to lay my hands on my copy of it. At the time I was working mostly from books. Maybe there's a better, more recent source than Bird's 1966 book.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a shame. It would be interesting to know what exactly happened to George. The way he lost his eyesight, in two different incidents in childhood, sounds rather bizarre. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are bound to be other sources that say. George himself may have biographers. I will keep looking for the book.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Online reliable sources seem unanimous that the second incident was in 1833, and the ODNB says March 1833 after "an unexplained accident" at Kew. DrKay (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The contradiction regards the loss of sight in the first eye, however. This article says it happened in infancy, while George V of Hanover says it happened in 1828 (when George was nine). Surtsicna (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There were two contradictions: one of infancy versus 1828 and one of 1832 versus 1833. Note I said "second incident". You said "it would be interesting to know what exactly happened". Hence, my expansion of the second incident. DrKay (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thank you. Hopefully Wehwalt will be able to find the book and further explain the development of George's blindness. Perhaps it could also be explained how the blindness ultimately did not prevent George from succeeding Ernest Augustus despite "questions about whether he should succeed in Hanover". As it stands now, the only other reference to the succession to Ernest Augustus concerns the jewels dispute, where George is mentioned as "the King's son and successor, King George V". Surtsicna (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not find Bird, but I found Willis, and it gives the account of the prince's accident, and gives it happening on 11 September 1832 (p. 221) and it mentions that he lost the sight in his right eye "as the result of an inflammation during his illness several years before" (p. 220). The timeframe being talked about is 1832. There's no particular discussion of Georg as successor.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Foreign honours - error?
He is stated to have been awarded the Danish Order of the Elephant in 1858 - although there is a supporting citation to a Danish site, either it cannot have been the subject of this article - as King Ernest Augustus died in 1851! - or the year is a typo.Cloptonson (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition of material from 1911
Is the material recently added from a 1911 tertiary source still found in the more modern secondary sources? Tertiary sources typically lag behind secondary sources in terms of coverage and usually do not represent the most recent scholarship. A tertiary source from over a hundred years ago is going to be even further behind. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)