Talk:Ernst August von Hannover (born 1954)/Archive 2

Concerning the recent month-long edit war
Since nobody wants to discuss before edit warring, I wanted to start this section to discuss these edits. I'm not seeing any discussion (other than a months old discussion about another marginally-related issue), and neither am I seeing any strong consensus for this "preferred" version. The sources being mentioned in the edit summaries seem to be primary sources, making them unsuitable in this instance. Are there any non-primary sources that contradict the source that the IP is inserting? - SudoGhost 22:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A website by the government of Monaco which provides the styling of someone married into its reigning family is not a primary source (that would be the document issued in 1999 authorizing the wedding of Princess Caroline to Prince Ernst August and according him the title that the Monegasque court would henceforth use), but is a normally acceptable secondary source. The website is not controlled by the subject of the article -- and the fact that it is issued by the government of his brother-in-law is irrelevant inasmuch as his brother-in-law is a sovereign who has constitutional authority to grant and recognize titles. Nor is the Queen-in-Council Order a primary document executing a titular designation. Declarations are given by the Queen-in-Council are verbal orders given by the British monarch in the presence of her Privy Council. The order issued pursuant to that is a record of the action, not the action itself. But the Le Petit Gotha is certainly a secondary source documenting the titulature of heads of reigning and formerly reigning families. Since we aren't discussing the article title, it is irrelevant that it isn't in English -- it is as reliable as any English-language source (more so, because this is the area of its focus and expertise), and it plus the others mention outnumber the one source which is cited as the basis of the repeated reverts of several editors on this point. Finally, I am puzzled by the intervention with the apparent intention of shifting the burden for justification of article content on the several editors who are being reverted by the IP. Should not his reverts be halted first, his allegations that any source which disagrees with his is "unreliable" be challenged, and he be asked to justify why he insists upon this article's compliance with his one preferred source over those favored by other authors of this article? FactStraight (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If any of the editors reverting the IP had made even a slight attempt at discussion instead of edit warring, your comment would have been correct. But sadly that is not the case.  Both sides are required to discuss and show why their preferred version should be used.  And no, his reverts should not be halted first.  Discussion should take place first.  The fact that the editor challenges a source is not some aspect of grand villainy that requires blind reverting, but rather discussion.  Burden is placed on all editors, not just IP editors with whom we disagree with.


 * With that said, I think the issue is perhaps the wording of the article. He is styled ___.  Styled?  Is this a legally recognized title within Germany? (which I'm assuming is where Hanover is) - SudoGhost 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (And in response to your edit summary, an assumed WP:OWN issue is no excuse to edit war. A "we're right" edit war with no discussion is still edit warring, and is disruptive to the article.) - SudoGhost 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is generally assumed that in Germany (but nobody has ever adduced proof, despite repeated requests) that his name is legally "Ernst August Prinz von Hannover". When the German Empire collapsed in 1918 the Weimar Constitution mandated that the constituent German states desist according past privileges to royalty and nobility (contrary to what is widely assumed, the nobility and their hereditary titles have never been abolished in Germany as they explicitly were in the Soviet Union and Austria), and henceforth treat hereditary titles merely as a legal part of individual surnames. However foreign governments remain free to treat persons who held hereditary titles in countries which no longer recognize them however they prefer -- for instance, after 1918 several Germans naturalised in, e.g., Belgium and The Netherlands have been incorporated into those kingdoms' nobility with the legal right to use translations of the titles they held in Germany as insignia of their acquired Belgian or Dutch nobility. And still-reigning dynasties invariably treat such titles as still extant (important because as recently as 1980, some monarchies required dynasts to marry fellow royalty -- so monarchies have always been free to consider dethroned royalty as meeting this requirement, both by long tradition and as a practical matter, because by 1980 there were only 10 reigning dynasties left in Europe). In English-language media, Ernst August is predominantly accorded the style "Prince of Hanover" or, colloquially, "Prince Ernst August of Hanover", often with other styles such as "Duke of Brunswick and/or Royal Highness as the descendant and heir of the former Kings of Hanover. Moreover as cited, those styles have also been used to refer to him in legal documents by the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Sovereign Prince of Monaco, each being the lawful fount of honor of their respective realms and each having had (along with the President of France) the right (by law or treaty) to approve Ernst August's 1999 marriage to Caroline, the Hereditary Princess of Monaco. The IP, along with occasional others, insists that Wikipedia conform to what he thinks is German law by stripping Ernst August of title and style in this article except insofar as "he styles himself", i.e. -- affirming "He's not a prince!" and implying that the styles he uses are bogus. Nobody here denies that Germany does not recognize "Prinz von Hannover" as a royal title, but attempts to "correct" by striking out references to him as a prince in this English-language article -- which is prevalent usage as demonstrated by the cites from reputable English sources I have now added to the article -- are misleading to English Wikipedia's readers. FactStraight (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I object to editors trying to impose German/Austrian/Ukrainian/Romanian/etc. law on the English-speaking world. These countries have the 'legal right' to pass strange laws within their boundaries. They do not have the right to impose these laws on all mankind.


 * User:FactStraight is legally correct in stating that in Austria the titles were abolished, and that this did not happen in Germany.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In Germany they became "merely part of the name", which is nothing else than the abolishment in Austria other than they are still allowed to call themself with that name. They are not titles anymore. Of course the Queen of England can give him any title she likes under English law, or some dictator from Monaco can do the same under his laws, but I do not think they have done that. By the way, I would not call a law that is saying nothing else than article 1 of the universal declaration of human rights ("All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" - http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) a "strange law". - Clumpytree (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The refs show that his title is 'Prince of Hanover'. - dwc lr (talk)
 * I haven't read all refs, which ref are you refering to in particular? Anything more convincing than the German law since 1919? - Clumpytree (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They all call him by a title not a name. Germany has its laws the rest of the world can refer to people by titles if they want. Wikipedia does not have to toe the line of German law, many sources gives him the title Prince of Hanover. - dwc lr (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * However, if a person's title is not recognized in the place he lives, that becomes an issue, it doesn't matter what country. I can call myself the King of the United States, and if reliable sources pick up on that and refer to me by that for one reason or another, it would likely be mentioned in the relevant article, but not listed as my title, because the United States doesn't recognize me as King.  I think that may be the issue here. - SudoGhost 00:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And that is precisely the problem I was commenting on. Who styles him the Prince of Hanover?  If that issue is clarified in the lede, then perhaps that would solve the issue behind this edit war.  If the style is not legally recognized in the individual's own country, that may need to be mentioned as well, as perhaps that is also an issue behind all of this. - SudoGhost 23:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the mention of the German legal issue is not a problem as at the beginning of the lead there is a part (Legal name in Germany Ernst August Prinz von Hannover) and a footnote about titles being surnames since 1919 in Germany, what his legal name actually might be is unsourced so what we have at the moment is someone's guess. The issue is some people do not seem to like the fact that sources still attribute titles to persons of non reigning Royal Houses and want this practice to not take place on Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While you may not think it is a problem, others obviously do. Who styles him that way may need to be clarified, that part of the lede, as written, is obviously an issue with some editors, so clarification of who does (and possibly who doesn't) recognize that may be required.  While it is sourced, sources need to be taken with proper weight.  Your removal of a source giving an alternate viewpoint doesn't seem to be taking that into consideration.  If there are multiple reliable sources discussing the fact that the title is not or may not be recognized (at least by certain parties), that may need to be addressed in the article.  - SudoGhost 23:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Who" calls him Prince of Hanover is clarified in the lede -- by an extraordinary 14 footnotes! Those sources establish that he is called "Prince of Hanover" in the major media of the English-language -- overwhelmingly without any qualification on the legality of the term. The lede also states (though without documentation) that his legal name in Germany is Prinz von Hannover which, being the prevalent name format in the Federal Republic of Germany for descendants of the titled nobility, needs no qualification. Nonetheless, the lede makes clear that the dynasty from which Ernst August descends is no longer reigning. Opponents don't want clarification that he is widely called "Prince of Hanover" in English-language media: what they want the lede to say is either WP:POV (i.e. improper or exclusively self-ascribed), or is WEIGHT (i.e. emphasis on German legality rather than English-language usage). FactStraight (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More sources does not equal better, and your addition of sources seems to hold the quantity over quality mentality, and is overkill; I strongly suggest those be trimmed down to (at most) three or four of the strongest and most reliable sources. What "they" want needs to be taken into consideration.  If you clarify those that disagree with you as "opponents", no wonder these issues have arisen.  They are not opponents, they are editors.  That section of the lede is an issue, and needs to be clarified in some form or fashion, in order to resolve the issue and stop this back-and-forth.  - SudoGhost 23:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This section opened with the question, "The sources being mentioned in the edit summaries seem to be primary sources, making them unsuitable in this instance. Are there any non-primary sources that contradict the source that the IP is inserting? - Sudo3RR could be expected to desist. So we have engaged in extensive explanations of the reasoning, history and context for use of the title. Whereas the only point made by the 1 person arguing to the contrary on these issues here is an expressed objection to the use of what he considers an illegal title in defiance of his interpretation of German law -- yet no one has  challenged Ernst August's status or titulature in Germany or in German. His other source cites the legal equality and dignity of humankind in general -- but it says nothing about the prevalent use of "Prince of Hanover" to describe this particular person in English, although it does make clear that the basis of the objection is his interpretation that the use of a title is, ipso facto anti-egalitarian; a perspective to which he's entitled but which is impermissably POV to impose on this article. Use of the term "opponent" was, I thought, clearly intended not as a reference to him, but to his posture toward use of "Prince of Hanover" as expressed in repeated reverts, and was in no way intended to disparage him -- but his sarcastic tone is not criticized. Consensus on how "Prince of Hanover" should be used in this article is clear, yet the responsibility for addressing expressed concerns is not treated here as mutual, but is exclusively requested of those who share the consensus view and in favor of the position of the one person who objects and violates 3RR to do so. It begins to look as though capitulation to the edit-warring dissenter is the only outcome which will be deemed acceptable. Why? FactStraight (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, your usage of the word opponent was quite clear. As to this consensus, the consensus is not clear, there are multiple editors that think otherwise, as seen by this discussion and the previous article name discussion. What appears to be a "We're completely right, the 'opponent' is completely wrong" reasoning will not work. Compromise is what gets things done, not strong-arm edit warring, which has been done by both "sides" of this edit war. That sentence in the lede, as written, has been shown to be too vague to be demonstrably true in all situations, and it seems that the only way to satisfy all parties and all sources is to clarify this. This is my suggestion. If you have another suggestion that will work, by all means, suggest it, but overcrowding the article with sources is not the answer, but rather is a symptom of the fact that something is indeed wrong with the article as written.

As to your concerns, the reason I'm asking questions of the individuals that maintain their preferred version is precisely that, to ascertain why. If the IP/other editors were maintaining their version by reverting all other edits, I would be asking the same of them. This article is not a battleground, and yet I have the impression that it is being treated like one. By collaborating with those that have differing views, you are not "capitulating" to them, you are compromising. Believe it or not, the editors that disagree with your views are not here to destroy the article, but are also trying to improve the article. Please keep this in mind. This is not an attack against the article, but an attempt to improve the article and to also stop this edit warring, which is still being carried on. - SudoGhost 01:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would gladly see the whole sentence removed as it effectively repeats what is already in lead ‘Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (born.........He is styled His Royal Highness, the Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg.’ The fact that titles in Germany are a surname is a footnote in the lead so I think the lead complies with WP:NPOV. I don't think vagueness is the issue for the IP/Dbpjmuf/Clumpytree. They have a chip on their shoulder because Germany abolished its monarchy and titles became surnames, and thus in their opinion they think Wikipedia should not give titles to Herr Prinz von Hannover (which without any evidence they assume is his legal name) in spite of the fact that sources still attribute royal titles as FactStraight has shown. - dwc lr (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, how would you feel about this:


 * "Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (legal name in Germany Ernst August Prinz von Hannover : given names Ernst August Albert Paul Otto Rupprecht Oskar Berthold Friedrich-Ferdinand Christian-Ludwig, in English also known as Ernest Augustus of Hanover and His Royal Highness, the Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. ) (born 26 February 1954 in Hanover), is the head of the deposed royal House of Hanover and claimant to the thrones of the former Kingdom of Hanover and the former Duchy of Brunswick."


 * Would the above be acceptable? To me it seems a minor change, but (hopefully) would satisfy both sides, as he is known in English as Prince of Hanover, and seemingly would resolve any issues brought up by the current wording (like legality in the home country, who does and doesn't style him in such a manner, etc.)  It removes the "He is styled..." sentence, and moves his title into the "in English also known as" section.  He is known by that title in English, as per the references, so it seems the simplest wording. - SudoGhost 03:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I noticed it still duplicates some of the name at the beginning, but it's at least a start. - SudoGhost 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, personally I would prefer to cut His Royal Highness, the Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg completely as I think its redundant and repeats what we already have at the beginning. - dwc lr (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence originates from Dbpjmuf trying to imply he was a 'self styled' prince. - dwc lr (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, does anyone object to removing the sentence completely? - SudoGhost 03:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My compromise for the first sentence would be:
 * "Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (legal name Ernst August Albert Paul Otto Rupprecht Oskar Berthold Friedrich-Ferdinand Christian-Ludwig Prinz von Hannover : (born 26 February 1954 in Hanover), is the head of the deposed royal House of Hanover and claimant to the thrones of the former Kingdom of Hanover and the former Duchy of Brunswick."


 * His legal name is his legal name, not just in Germany. His given names are part of his legal name. Discussion of the "HRH" delusions is not necessary in the introduction.
 * More broder point, my concern with the article is not how some people might call him, but what SudoGhost said about him claiming to be King of the United States of America. I do not object if we say that reliable sources call him "King of the United States", I object that we state that he has the title "King of the United States". Clumpytree (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is that is if you even know what his legal name is as its been unsourced for months. As far as I have been told you are only allowed three given names on your German passport. Another concern is that you want to give WP:Undue weight to German law when he is still referred to as a Prince by reliable sources. - dwc lr (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unsourced because Herr Prinz von Hannover has not showed us his passport. If you really want to know you might be able to ask the Hanoverian registration office. As to German given names, the German wikipedia page says to that (translated by me): There is no explicit law on given names in Germany, it is merely a common law developed by the jurisdiction. A person can have multiple given names, but has to have at least one. By a decision of the German supreme court, courts have the right to limit the number of given names parents are allowed to give to a child in order to protect the best interest of the child (confirming a ruling of a court that limited the twelve names a mother wanted to give her child to five). In German passports and identity cards all given names are listed. In the machine readable parts as many given names are listed as fit into that section. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorname_%28Deutschland%29)
 * - So as long as no judge thought it would be against the best interest of little Mr. Prinz von Hannover Junior to have that many given names he can have as many given names as his parents liked.
 * I do not want to give undue weight to German law, but to reality. He is Prince of Hanover as much as he is King of the United States of America. Clumpytree (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You don’t accept him as a prince that’s your POV and we know you don’t believe in NPOV so it’s your way or nothing as far as you’re concerned. But I think the majority of editors who do believe it is possible to have a NPOV are happy the lead is neutral, correct and accurately reflects reliable sources. - dwc lr (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with your POV is that it is contradicted by the law of the country of whom he supposedly should be a prince of. If we would add to the article that he has the title "King of the United States of America" everybody would know that is ridiculous because there is no king of the USA. Somehow some people feel that it is different if one claims that he is the "Prince of Hanover", even though that is just as ridiculous. There is a prince of Hanover just as much as there is a king of the USA. I do understand that in the english speaking world he is often addressed as "Prince of Hanover" (be it because people do not actually know better, or just because it is a custom to translate such names), and as I said, I do not object to using a translation of his name to refer to him, but Wikipedia should try to be about truth (that is no contradiction to not believing in NPOV) and therefore it should not claim that he has a title that he just does not. - Clumpytree (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on published secondary sources, and reliably published published primary sources. His passport is an unpublished primary source, and so does not meet Wikipedia requirements.  Documents from the Hanoverian registration office are only admissible if they are published. What his name and titles are must be based on published secondary sources.


 * The arguments made against this are based on solely on original research, which is against Wikipedia Policy WP:OR.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. For Clumpytree, saying he is King of the USA is ridiculous as there never was a King of the USA. That is not the case with Hanover, Brunswick and Germany in general which has a long history of monarchy, no one pretends that Germany is nayhting but a republic the lead does not say he is reigning monarch, all it says is he is head of the deposed House of Hanover. I don’t see why people have such a massive chip on their shoulder about Wikipedia calling him Prince of Hanover, no one clearly pays any attention to Germany’s law as he is called Prince regardless of it in reliable sources. The lead is neutral showing what he is called and recording the ‘truth’ as you see it in a footnote. - dwc lr (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not talking mainly about the lead. Your and my suggestions on the lead were mainly just uncontroversial suggestion on how to improve the article. The contenious issues are such as may last edit that has been reverted, e.g. that there is a infobox "royalty" that claims that he has the title Prince of Hanover, and that there is an infobox "Hanoverian Royal Family". I did not even edit the lead. I do not think it is very controversial what his name is. We agree that he is mostly called Prince of Hanover in the english speaking world, but I also think everybody agrees that that is merely a translation of his actual name. I am fine with that the common translation of his name is used in the article, I have not heard anyone objection that his actual name should also be mentioned. It is probably true for most articles on persons in Wikipedia that no copies of their id cards are published. There was some discussion on the German wikipedia site on whether his last name is "Prinz von Hannover" or "Prinz von Hannover, Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg", if you like one can duplicate that in the english version. It seemed that the "Prinz von Hannover, Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg" faction got their way (though nobody really knows for sure), so probably his full name should be given as "Ernst August Albert Paul Otto Rupprecht Oskar Berthold Friedrich-Ferdinand Christian-Ludwig Prinz von Hannover, Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg", but again, I really do not care much about whether he is called "Prinz von Hannover", "Prinz von Hannover, Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg", "Prince of Hanover", or just "Ernst August". My point is wikipedia should not claim he is prince of the German city Hanover, which I repeat is just as ridiculous as claiming he is King of the USA. - Clumpytree (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The version proposed above by SudoGhost is acceptable to me (although I would prefer more of the references to mainstream RS be left in to reduce the likelihood that this debate will be renewed yet again by someone alleging that "Prince of Hanover" is a POV usage in English), and I thank him for working out a mutually acceptable solution. In deference to Clumpytree's concerns, I concur that the infobox should not visibly describe the family in a way that suggests it is still reigning (the version I'm looking at now does not seem to do so), and reco that "Prince of Hanover" should be annotated to footnote #2 which describes the 1919 loss of legal privileges in Germany. FactStraight (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Overciting
SudoGhost described the following as over-citing. He has a point; it was 12 footnotes for one sentence.
 * He is styled His Royal Highness, the Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg.

He edited this down to four, which is still quite a lot for a single sentence.
 * He is styled His Royal Highness, the Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg.

Which additional references do you want added?

Since many of the sources cited are only cited for this one point, would not a single footnote do, if the footnote cited all of the sources that are used in the article for just this one point? A possible way of doing this would be:
 * He is styled His Royal Highness, the Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. Prince's Palace of Monaco. Biography: HRH the Princess of Hanover. retrieved 10 August 2011. Queen-in-Council. 11 January 1999. Order-in-Council. de Badts de Cugnac, Chantal. Coutant de Saisseval, Guy. Le Petit Gotha. Nouvelle Imprimerie Laballery, Paris 2002, p. 702 (French) ISBN 2-9507974-3-1 Express.Grace Kelly: Actress and Princess who Epitomised the Elegance of the 1950s. 8 April 2010. The Guardian. Brockes, Emma. Cream of the crop. 10 December 2002. Life. 'Valentino in Rome, 45 Years of Style' Dinner. 6 July 2007. CBS News. Associated Press. Princess Caroline of Monaco. retrieved 28 August 2011. Vanity Fair. Who is Giving Prince Ernst August a Little T.L.C. during his Time of Marital Strife?. 2 October 2009. European Voice. A right royal row. 26 May 2011. People. Nickel Anhalt, Karen and Mikelbank, Peter. Princess Caroline's Husband Seen with Girlfriend Again. 19 January 2010. Telegraph. Hall, Allan. Prince Ernst of Hanover denies assault at Kenya disco retrial. 15 June 2009.

--Toddy1 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to insist on the additional sources. This discussion documents that they were added in response to challenges, so if the article again becomes unstable due to allegations that "Prince of Hanover" is not prevalent journalistic usage, restoring more references by way of documentation will probably be appropriate. Meanwhile, since we seem to have reached unanimity on a stable version, let's leave them out. FactStraight (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed resolution
Okay, so there doesn't appear to be any objection to removing the sentence in question (as per above), the only other issue I'm seeing is this. Personally I see no issue with the being in the article, but perhaps removing Prince of Hanover from the title section of the royalty infobox would be the compromise sought by those that seem to have an issue with his being called such. The issue seems to be that he's a claimant to the thrones, and as far as I know, claimants to thrones don't have those titles in their infoboxes. I don't doubt that this is his name, or that he is called such in reliable sources, but I think by removing it from the title field of the infobox would satisfy those that seem to oppose this title, and would hopefully also satisfy those that want this name kept in the article. Here is what I propose:


 * 1) Remove the sentence "He is styled..." from the lede.
 * 2) Remove Prince of Hanover from the title field of the infobox
 * 3) Keep any other reference to "Prince of Hanover" as it is currently written in the article, as this is his name and is what he is referred to in English reliable sources.
 * 4) Keep  in the article, as this is his family.

I also propose that if this resolution to this dispute is accepted, that none of the issues above would be changed in the article without discussion and a consensus agreement on this talk page. Meaning that the IP editor would not be able to remove any mention of "Prince of Hanover" from the article, nor would they be able to change any reference to this being his name / what he is known as, without coming to the talk page and establishing a new consensus. I think this is the best way to solve this issue while trying to satisfy all parties involved in the best way possible, while also improving the article. If possible, please state whether you support or oppose this below, so that the consensus for this, if established, can be easily seen by anyone wishing to dispute any consensus established. - SudoGhost 22:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - As nom. - SudoGhost 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support FactStraight (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to be neutral.--Yopie (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Partially-Support, Partialy Oppose - see below:
 * (1) I like the "He is styled..." sentence; but I can concede that it is not essential; other articles on royalty I have compared the article with do not have such a sentence in the introduction. I think the citations are essential - SudoGhost has already trimmed these from 12 to 4 - now he proposes to trim to zero.
 * (2) Oppose. Other Royalty has the title in the infobox (e.g. Prince Philip).  It is his title.  I see no valid reason delete it here.
 * (3) Support
 * (4) Support
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is his common title, which is why it would remain in the article, but no other claimant has their title in the infobox. The Prince Phillip example is invalid, as Prince Phillip is a legally recognized Prince with proper claims, the Prince of Hanover is not.  Without that, there is no compromise, you're only supporting the things that are supported by those maintaining this version, which would only cause further edit warring.  As to the citation issue, see above.  Quality is much more important than quantity, and oversourcing the article does not improve it, but can actually harm the article instead.  I don't want to remove the citations to zero, nor did I suggest that.  Also, I didn't trim them from 12 to 4, I reverted a good-faith edit that introducted citation overkill, per WP:BRD.  Before the IP was blocked, it was and had been at 4 citations for quite some time. - SudoGhost 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please make a proposal for where the 4 citations would go.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those references are not the issue, they can go where they support information, that's doesn't appear to be the issue of the edit war, so isn't in the scope of this proposed resolution. However, per WP:CITEKILL, each statement being verified by sources should only really have three sources, at most, verifying the information.  Any more is unnecessary.  After this is resolved, you're more than welcome to start a separate section discussing these four references, and they can be established there, if you feel a consensus is needed. - SudoGhost 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to your removing the 4 references as part of your 'solution'.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The objection has been noted, but removing the references was never part of the 'solution'. The sentence will be removed, and the references have to support something.  What they support after that can be discussed in another section. - SudoGhost 18:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * SudoGhost calls what has happened an edit war. Of the 'maintain consensus' side, all seem to participate and make compromises.  Of the 'just a name' side, only SudoGhost is participating in the discussion of SudoGhost's 'solution'.  Clumpytree and the IP editors have not expressed agreement or disagreement - I think they need to express an opinion.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (I've notified 79.97.144.17 & Clumpytree of this discussion in case they weren't aware of it, it's now their choice whether or not to take part in the discussion, but if they choose not to, they effectively get no say in the consensus.) - SudoGhost 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Partially-Support, Partially Oppose on the same basis as Toddy1. I don’t think removing ‘Prince of Hanover’ from the infobox is necessary, however I am more than happy for the footnote #2 to be attached as FactStraight suggested in the main discussion above. - dwc lr (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you find another claimant that has the title listed in the infobox? I tried and could not.  Of the four listed, #2 is the only one that is a compromise on the part of those who support the current version.  Without #2 being agreed to, none of the other three are a compromise.  The proposition both gives and takes.  We cannot only choose the takes. - SudoGhost 19:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it is universal. A few are Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (b. 1943). Unfortunately I have to Oppose then as I do not agree with removing the title when its a well estbalished practice to put it in the infobox. - dwc lr (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a claimant to that title, his title is not recognized in the country where he claims that title, therefore I can completely see why those opposing that usage don't want it there. By removing it from the title infobox, we can avoid edit warring over tiny details, because without some sort of compromise, this back-and-forth looks to continue in ad infinitum, something I'd like to see avoided. - SudoGhost 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they would object to it in the infobox when it will be elsewhere anyway, but I agree it is a tiny detail. But lets see what, if anything, Clumpytree and the others have to say. It's disappointing that the IP who persistently edit warred has had noting to say in this discussion that you kindly took the time to facilitate. Hopefully a lasting peace can be agreed. - dwc lr (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Partially-Support, Partially Oppose First let me apologize to Toddy for having been disconnected from the internet and not being able to participate in this discussion. Though I do not quite see where he sees the willingness to compromise on the royalist side. As said before I do not care to much about points 1 and 3. Point 2 is obviously supported by me (and opposed by the royalists), and point four opposed by me and favoured by the other side. Anyway, removing the title from the infobox would at least be a step in the right direction. The "royal family" claim would obviously still be bullshit. - Clumpytree (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction, I agree the He is styled His royal highness, should definitly be removed. I do not oppose he being called Prince of Hanover throughout the article. Clumpytree (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see his style mentioned somewhere such as in a Titles and styles section such as the one found at his estranged wife Caroline, Princess of Hanover's article. In my opinion it’s a good location to discuss titles and styles and the German Republic's position. - dwc lr (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the basis of a workable compromise. Under a "Historical (or Traditional) titles and styles" section, the HRH could be mentioned once (again annotated to footnote #2 about noble privileges ending in 1919). Meanwhile the 4 cites (collapsed-into-1) for "Prince of Hanover" could annotate the first reference to that term in the article. These 2 modifications hopefully address Clumpytree's objection to the HRH being made to look as though it rests on a current legal basis in Ernst August's country of citizenship, while addressing Toddy1's and dwc lr's concern that the title & HRH be acknowledged and thoroughly sourced so that the Britons', Monegasques' and others' references to him as such don't look inexplicable. So:
 * Prince Ernst August of Hanover (1953 – 1987)
 * His Royal Highness The Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick (1987 – present) FactStraight (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The suggestion above seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, but addressed what sounded to me to be a couple of unresolved concerns that I want to be sure aren't neglected if anybody still cares. FactStraight (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a section would be useful - provided that it was cited.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this section needs to be added. - dwc lr (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my logic behind number 4 is that he is a member of that family, whatever the family's royal status. He is not (as far as I know) disowned from his family, any issues with the current status of the family's status should be handled on the appropriate article, I don't think the template should be removed as if he were not a member of that family. - SudoGhost 21:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

1. Where would the four citations in the sentence "He is styled..." be placed if your proposal were to be adopted?--Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I don't think all four would be necessary, they could be used to support information elsewhere, if required, without reservation, so long as the four proposed changes above are not affected by the references being placed elsewhere. This is of course unless there is any objection to this. - SudoGhost 13:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Could we take out the "HRH" from the "hanoverian royal family" box? That might be a compromise to keep the box, but not use the inappropriate stylings... Clumpytree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Titles and styles go hand in hand. Odd to show one in the infobox without the other. - dwc lr (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the reason why I would want "HRH" to be removed. THEY ARE NO TITLES, THEY ARE NAMES! - Clumpytree (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How come his wife since her marriage to Mr Prince of Hanover suddenly went from being accorded the style Serene Highness to that of Royal Highness. - dwc lr (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because some dictators prefer not to take notice of the end of their fellow monarchies in other European countries. - Clumpytree (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to go defaming people. - dwc lr (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also is actually anyone opposed to drop the "in Germany" after "legal name" and integrate his first names into his legal name? Clumpytree (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is he a British citizen like his father? If he is are we certain that legal name in the UK would be the same as in Germany. - dwc lr (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently he is? Is it possible to have different names in two countries of the European Union? - Clumpytree (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well in his fathers lawsuit in the UK the case was called Attorney-General -v- HRH Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] 1 All ER 49. - dwc lr (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * His legal name as recognised in the German Republic, is not the same as his legal name as recognised elsewhere. But then Germany has a history of passing laws that deny people rights and privileges that people are accorded elsewhere.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clumpytree has managed to get himself indefinitely blocked, so we must proceed without his further input. However, I don't object to his last request to drop the "in Germany" limitation on Ernst August's legal name. Besides, it's a moot point because, unless an RS is cited, the "source requested" tag on it will soon compel omission of "legal name" as a description of Prinz von Hannover anyway, leaving that phrase simply saying, "Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg[1] (Ernst August Albert Paul Otto Rupprecht Oskar Berthold Friedrich-Ferdinand Christian-Ludwig Prinz von Hannover),". If that's acceptable, may we move forward? Meanwhile, 79.97.144.17 has also not weighed in on this proposal although in editing other articles since this solution was proposed by SudoGhost he has left unrelated but articulate comment elsewhere. Are there any other outstanding issues to be resolved at this point? FactStraight (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolution
Resolution - It seems there is a consensus in some form or fashion by everyone that participated in the discussion (although some editors had objections to certain parts, there was no outright objection to any one particular part of the resolution by both sides), therefore in an attempt to stabilize the article and prevent disruption and/or edit warring, I've made the proposed changes per the consensus. As per the proposition above, the IP editor and/or any others wishing to remove and further mentions of the words "Prince of Hanover" as they are currently written in the article must come to the talk page and establish a consensus first. Failure to do so will be considered edit warring per the definition (editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion) and will be treated as such and reported to the appropriate noticeboard. This also holds true to the other three parts of the resolution, although hopefully the other three will not be an issue. Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this and to help establish a consensus. - SudoGhost 03:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

References removed
As per the discussion above, the sentence "He is styled..." was removed, so it doesn't make sense to have the references there without supporting information. Therefore, I'm placing them here on the talk page, so that editors can discuss what to do with these references (leave them out, place them in the article to support other content). However, although I have no objection in any way to all four references being reinserted into the article, I strongly recommend that no more than three references be used to support any one statement in the article per WP:OVERCITE. - SudoGhost 03:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

He is styled His Royal Highness, the Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg.

Legal name
I see this is now sourced but looking at the book on Google Books I see nothing to support his legal name as being just Prinz v Hannover. This is the entry for Prince Ernst August on page 117 which is where apparently his legal name is given. I will possibly remove this soon and restore the fact tag. I have asked the user who added it about this issue. - dwc lr (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Handbuch des Adels (1991) gives the subject name's as Ernst August Prinz v. Hannover (Vol. 100, p. 38). I suggest we do the same. It should be boldface in the opening. There is no need for double naming. Surely you know about the German naming law. Do you really think that this person was granted an exception? Kauffner (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They are giving that as his main title. His son will be listed as Pr Ernst August. - dwc lr (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * His full listing in the book is Ernst August Albert Otto Rupprecht Oskar Berthold Friedrich-Ferdinand Christian-Ludwig Prinz v. Hannover, v. Großbritannien u. Irland, Herzog zu Braunschweig u. Lüneburg (Kgl. Hoheit) which shows they talking about titles not legal names. - dwc lr (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would interpret "Ernst August Albert Otto Rupprecht Oskar Berthold Friedrich-Ferdinand Christian-Ludwig Prinz v. Hannover" as his legal name, with defunct titles following the comma. Your interpretation assumes that fundamental German law does not apply to the subject. This is from the Wall Street Journal: "Germany's noble titles of yesteryear are now merely surnames." Der Spiegel explains it in great detail in German in this article: Anders als in Österreich, das alle Adelstitel tilgte, dürfen sie in Deutschland gemäß Artikel 109 der Weimarer Verfassung weiter geführt werden - allerdings nur als Bestandteile des Nachnamens (Unlike Austria, which abolished all titles of nobility, they may be held in Germany in accordance with Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution, but only as part of the surname.) Here is the law itself: "Titles of nobility are regarded only as part of a name and may no longer be conferred." (Weimar_constitution, Article 109). Kauffner (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that title became surnames but the problem is the Hanoverians do not just have one title, it’s really guess work what his surname could be. It could be just Prinz von Hannover or Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg or Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland, or some, or all of those in a different order. We just don’t know. It's similar with Wettin's, they could be just Prinz von Sachsen or they could Prinz von Sachsen Herzog zu Sachsen - dwc lr (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to interpret the German naming laws. Adels is recognized as the best source for this type of information. They give him as "Ernst August Prinz v. Hannover", which I propose we treat as his formal name. I suppose you could also justify using, "Ernst August Albert Otto Rupprecht Oskar Berthold Friedrich-Ferdinand Christian-Ludwig Prinz v. Hannover, v. Großbritannien u. Irland, Herzog zu Braunschweig u. Lüneburg". But it does not seem that you are proposing to call him that. Kauffner (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing anything because it is all WP:OR and I don't know what his surname is I can take a guess but none of us know for certain. I am just saying GHdA is not giving his surname when it calls him 'Prinz v Hannover'. They list the late King of the Belgians as Baudouin I. König der Belgier, that does not mean König der Belgier is his surname they mean it as a title, and it's the same for Prinz v. Hannover. - 02:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please! No one has a period in their name. Adels is giving is his name as "Baudouin I" and his title as "König der Belgier". By the same logic, it is unlikely that the book is really giving Ernst August's name with a comma in the middle. If you think that giving a name in same form as the source is OR, you don't understand the concept. Kauffner (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "v." is merely an abbreviation for "von".
 * The "u." is merely an abbreviation for "und" (and).
 * The answer is that the article should say what his name is in English using an English source, and what his name is in German using a German source - and since English-speaking people misinterpret German abbreviations, the abbreviations should be spelled out.
 * Let us not worry about which parts of his name constitute his surname under German law, since this depends on interpretations of German law.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Upbringing & education?
Nothing so far on his life before marriage. 86.168.138.96 (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Princess Caroline of Monaco, heiress presumptive to the throne of Monaco
Princess Caroline of Monaco is not the "heiress presumptive to the throne of Monaco." Under Monaco's present rules of succession, enumerated in Monaco's current treaty with France, the title can only be held by a male in either the direct line of descent or a male adopted by the ruler or his male heir. If Prince Albert II remains childless, his title would pass through Princess Caroline (his elder sibling) to her son, Andrea Casiraghi. Dick Kimball (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. See the Constitution of Monaco, Grimaldi house laws and the line of succession to the Monegasque throne. Even if what you said were true, Casiraghi could not possibly be heir presumptive, given that he is neither Albert's agnate nor adopted by him. The kind of succession law you refer to is not very practical and thus hasn't been used by any monarchy for centuries. For example, the king's only nephew at the time of his death could be his younger sister's son, but his elder sister might have a son later on who would claim the throne on the basis of primogeniture. That said, the Princess of Hanover is the heir presumptive to the throne of Monaco and it is very likely that she will one day succeed to it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ernst August, King of England?
This section: "As the senior male descendant of Ernest Augustus I of Hanover (1771 - 1851) (who was the younger brother of Queen Victoria's father, the Duke of Kent), Ernest Augustus would now be king of England, if Queen Victoria had been unable to succeed. For example, if females had been excluded from the succession (which prevented her from succeeding to the throne of Hanover), or if, as suggested in a recent book, Victoria had been illegitimate."

Is rather odd; I don't quite get the point.
 * [1] There is no "King of England" at present. There is a "Queen of the United Kingdom".
 * [2] Queen Victoria quite clearly was "able to succeed"
 * [3] If Queen Victoria had had a different biological father that in and of itself would not have affected her legitimacy. As a child born in wedlock, she is legitimate and able to succeed.
 * [4] females are not excluded from succeession, never have been, and it has never been suggested that they should
 * [5] if Queen Victoria had not succeeded, that fact alone would change history, and there's no reason to believe that the marriages that have occurred since would have occurred
 * [6] if nonetheless they had occurred, Ernst August would be (and is) forever excluded from the throne because he married a "Papist".


 * I'll edit this down to him being the head of the house of Hanover. - Nunh-huh 20:27, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The point, old bean, is that salic law, which governed the inheritance of the British throne until King Henry VIII did away with it, required that only a male could inherit the monarchy of England/Britain/the UK. If salic law were still in effect Queen Victoria would never have been crowned queen and King Ernst would be the current ruler of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Dick Kimball (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Salic law never governed the succession to the British throne. The Act of Settlement 1701 very clearly stipulated male-preferance cognatic primogeniture (which, of course, includes females) and it remained valid after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain by the Acts of Union 1707. Thus, there was no point in history when women could not ascend the British throne. King Henry VIII obviously could not have done away with anything related to the 18th century. He did not do away with agnatic primogeniture in England either, as it was never applied. King Henry II derived his right to the throne from his mother, which would not have been possible according to Salic law. Later on, the entire point of the Wars of the Roses was whether or not the succession should be governed by agnatic primogeniture or by cognatic primogeniture. King Henry VII, who finally ended it, derived his succession right from his mother and (though he would not admit it) from his wife. Ernst August could have never ascended even if Salic law had been applied, since he derived his right from several females (Sophia, Elizabeth and Margaret and many more before the Wars of the Roses). That said, your last sentence does not make much sense. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Royal house"
As can be seen from Royal house and List of royal houses, there is consensus, that royal house can be regnant or non-regnant.--Yopie (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Both of those article have been tagged, one of them for years, as containing no references or sources at all. How is anybody supposed to know that someone didn't just make all that up?Smeat75 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Regnant or non-regnant, royal means pertaining to a king or queen. As no member of the house is a king or queen, the family is not royal. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, provide source for your POV. I added two sources for "royal house", one is specialised book, other is Britannica. By the way, his wife is called "Royal Highness the Princess of Hanover" by the UNESCO. --Yopie (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because his wife likes to go by "royal highness" does not change the meaning of the word "royal." 46.7.236.155 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think calling him "claimant" is libellous
I changed "claimant" to "pretender" in the lead and user Yopie changed it back, "pretender" has a specific meaning, "claimant" makes it sound like this guy is such a fool that he actually claims non-existent thrones. I think it could be considered libellous and am reporting this to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.Smeat75 (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Titles and styles" - deleting
First this article gives this person phoney titles "His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, His Royal Highness The Prince of Hanover (from 1987)" then it explains that there is no such thing any more."In Germany, the legal privileges of royalty and nobility were abolished in 1919, thereafter for legal purposes, hereditary titles form part of the name only." It's just confusing, no reason for non-existent "styles and titles" to be referred to at all.Smeat75 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So this false misleading information was restored, I have tagged the article for accuracy and neutrality.Smeat75 (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have source for it?--Yopie (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What? The article gives a source for it right there, in the next sentence The Reich Constitution of August 11th 1919 (Weimar Constitution) with Modifications, Article 109. His legal last name is Prinz von Hannover but he is not "HRH" and he is not a Duke. It doesn't matter if some people refer to him by such titles, even if they happen to be the Queen or the Pope, the titles do not exist any more, I could call my pet goldfish "His Royal Highness the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg" but that would have no legal status even if I could get the Queen to call him that too. See the article on this person on the German WP they do not call him "HRH" or a Duke because they know that all such things no longer exist in their country.Smeat75 (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Smeat is using OR, POV, and synthesis. If sources call him the Pope of China, then we attribute that title to those sources. I don't care what German law is, we attribute what German law says about his titles to German law, but we do not ignore the titles that he claims and reliable sources have called him. We just don't ignore sources because we disagree with them, or because "law" disagrees with them. Also, German Wikipedia does not decide English Wikipedia policies, procedures, or articles; "other things exist". And as a point of fact, if the Pope calls you a bishop in China, you're a bishop whether Chinese law calls you one or not. So there is another fallacy in your point of view. Not to mention, this guy's title of Prince comes from the UK, not from Germany.Camelbinky (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He holds dual citizenship, so he is a British citizen, and his wife also carries the title of Princess of Hanover as her OFFICIAL style see- Caroline, Princess of Hanover. Can we drop this now?Camelbinky (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point about Prince of Hanover, but that is not what this article says. It says he has the "titles and styles" of :::::"His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and His Royal Highness The Prince of Hanover (from 1987)" and then it explains that all German titles were abolished in 1919. He is not Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg. So I will make that clear.Smeat75 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I do not see how I can be accused of OR, SYNTH, etc., when it says right on the page " In 1919 royalty and nobility were mandated to lose their privileges in Germany, hereditary titles were to be legally borne thereafter only as part of the surname." Smeat75 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They lost privileges they had, but the idea that a nation-state can revoke a person's right to call themselves by hereditary titles as they did, is a gray area in international politics. I do believe he has the legal right in England to take the claim of Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, I'd have to read more about his father and what British law is. The Queen of the UK, the government of France, and the Prince of Monaco have all officially called him those titles you mentioned. I see no greater RS to state that he can be called as such; at least by rule of- it's an alias. If I'm mentioned by the government, newspapers, and go around telling people at work that my name is Samuel Johnson, it doesn't matter that my legal name is not Samuel Johnson, I would assume that Wikipedia too would call me that name per policy on using common names as opposed to official. See- the many threads at every noticeboard and ArbCom about the Chelsea Manning name controversy for an example. But once again- it is up to the sources, and there are three source- the three govts that I mentioned.Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He is not the "Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg"
There's no such thing. I have tried to make this article neutral but it keeps being reverted so I have tagged it for accuracy and neutrality.Smeat75 (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the British government and others who keep referring to him as such. Surtsicna (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna is right. It does not matter if Germany itself does not "recognize" such title. He is referred to as such in reliable sources, including government announcements. If the Queen of England, the govt of France, and the govt of Monaco refer to him as such, then he is such! Smeat75 I truly suggest you move on and find another article and topic to edit, as your continued instance on this issue after being given hard evidence multiple times, shows a "I don't hear you" attitude, you seem to lack a grasp of RS and what exactly making an article NPOV is about. You pushing a POV of your own in trying "to make this article neutral" as you state.Camelbinky (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox with "Hanoverian royal family" and false honorific prefixes
There is no such thing as a Hanoverian royal family. The Kingdom of Hanover was abolished in 1866. Maybe the subject of this article(which really ought to be moved to Ernst August Prince of Hanover, "Prince of Hanover" is not a title, it's just his last name, I tried to move it yesterday but it was reverted) could conceivably be called "HRH" but none of those other people (except for his wife) in that box have such honorific prefixes, all of that was abolished in 1919. I changed that template to say "House of Hanover" instead of "Hanoverian royal family" and removed the false honorific prefixes, it was reverted, I tagged the template for accuracy, it was removed on the grounds that it "makes a mess" and I was being disruptive so I am going to tag every article it is used in for neutrality and accuracy. Please do not remove the tags from the article, there is certainly a dispute here, I strongly, strongly dispute that that infobox is accurate and neutral.Smeat75 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point you have now moved on to being a disruptive, WP:POINTy editor and have crossed into vandalism due to your inability to allow discussions to resolve to consensus, which has been clearly against you so far. You have taken an attitude of "don't hear you" and refuse to accept what sources say. I ask you desist from editing this article at all until resolutions are made, otherwise you can see yourself topic banned.Camelbinky (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what sources say, which is that German titles of royalty and nobility were all abolished in 1919. The minute that law was passed all of those people became no more royal or noble than your pet rabbit and that was nearly 100 years ago. Go ahead and report me.Smeat75 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that any king or queen is more "noble" than I am, yet I don't dispute the fact that there is a woman in London known as Queen Elizabeth II, much like I don't dispute the fact that there are some people known as Prince(ss) X of Hanover. It is a matter of fact that they are known as such; the law abolished the priviliges they had, but obviously did not alter the way they are known to the English-speaking world. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a very good word that is used for ex-royal titles "Titles of pretense". That's all it is, pretenders making-believe that they are still something that they are not, if other people are foolish enough to indulge them in that, that is their business, but there is no reason why WP has to do so. I have just asked someone who participated in an arbcom case with me who I think is very fair minded and skilled at mediation to have a look at this dispute, I have never seen her express any opinion on royalty or have any reason to think she has any knowledge of these matters, which is just the sort of person who in my opinion would be able to be fair. I don't expect her to rule on the content but if she agrees to be an informal mediator and she has a look and tells me to drop this, I will.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the one having a dispute with everyone else, and with Wikipedia itself. It is not our job to fix what we think is wrong with the world. It is our job to edit according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:Verifiability and Common name. If sources call them princes and princesses, so do we. That's all there is to it. Their claims to be princes are stronger than Queen Latifah's claim to be a queen, for what that's worth. Surtsicna (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have said before, what I find completely unacceptable is not the names so much, they do have "Prince" and so forth in their names, but the use of those honorific abbreviations and nav boxes with "royal family" in them. And I am not at war with WP, I have not broken any "rules" as far as I know. I have been following WP:BOLD.Smeat75 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have broken the spirit of WP !rules per the BRD cycle, as your FIRST edit about this topic was the BOLD edit, then comes the R for Revert, which I and many others have done MANY times each time you do this, then is the D per discussion. Once the first Revert occurred, Discussion began and you should have ceased ALL editing towards your POV on the issue until it is resolved. You have now violated WP:CANVASS in trying to get another editor involved in this discussion, no one ever said "yes, let's get a third party decision" and we all decide on someone truly neutral, instead you got someone who you admit to working with at an Arbcom case, hardly neutral. I suggest you tell that person to stay off this talk page as I will report this violation and ignore any "decisions" they make should they show up attempting to sway any sense of !votes towards a consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not asked her or anyone to comment on this talk page on the content of this specific article, I have not even mentioned this article,I have asked her if she would be willing to tell me, on my talk page, her opinion as to my conduct, I would like a neutral view as to whether I have been acting like a jerk in disputing the neutrality and accuracy of a range of articles, not just this one that imo are written with a POV of collaborating in the fantasies of a lot of pretenders that their titles of pretence and phony honorifics have any objective value when all of that was abolished nearly 100 years ago.Smeat75 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can tell you the answer- no, you haven't been a jerk, you've been quite nice. BUT what you have been is a person on a "mission", and that mission involves a particular POV. A personal POV, which you need to understand- Wikipedia is not the place for your battle. Please read and understand this, as this is the umpteenth time I am saying this to you- Wikipedia follows what sources say regardless of what the "truth" is, verifiability over truth. It does not matter if they are "pretenders" or not, if they are recognized by sources as being xy then they ARE REFERED TO AS SUCH ON WIKIPEDIA. There is simply no ifs, ands, or buts about that point of fact. That is not something to be debated. If you have a reliable source that specifically states the following, then you may mention the following- "Ernst August is not a prince nor does he hold any noble or royal titles"; but anybody may then also add the following "The Queen of the United Kingdom, the government of France, and the government of Monaco have referred to him by the following titles xy, xz, and zy" properly sourced to many multiple sources. Now really, please take to heart what I have told you, this isn't about your attitude or HOW you are debating. This is simply a matter of you aren't listening. The German law you mention, 1- only applies to how the German govt views any titles and abolishes the priveleges they once had. It does not eliminate hereditary titles since the German govt is not the source of those titles. They can not destroy the titles themselves since they didn't create them. 2- his dual citizenship with the UK creates problems as his titles can continue to be recognized by a foreign country, titles are not tied to land! See- until 1801 the British monarchy continued to claim King of France as his title even though the domains under English then British rule dwindled to just the Channel Islands. Also an example- the principality of Monaco claims titles which are based on French titles, France doesn't have nobility, but the Monagasque have coopted those titles for themselves because they continue to own the land and chateaus that were once associated with those titles. 3- He's married to the heir to the principality of Monaco, she's recognized as the Princess of Hanover based on her marriage to him. The government of Monaco recognizes his titles. Therefore- Wikipedia MUST.Camelbinky (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well stated and I concur. Smeat75 has made it clear he intends to continue ignoring: that Wikipedia assertions of fact must be sourceable to reliable publications (yet many such publications have been and can be adduced in support of this man's styles and titulature); that content is the product of consensus as documented on the talk page (yet he ignores the fact that most commenters have disagreed with his edits and argumentation); that articles are not subject to ownership (yet after being reverted and disputed he insists that his preferred version be Wikipedia's version); and that dialogue and compromise are how Wikipedia articles are shaped (yet he asserts I just don't like it, repeating the same argument ("these styles/titles have been abolished in German law") despite being told repeatedly by different contributors why that rationale is insufficient and unacceptable ("German law does not determine how people are referred to on English Wikipedia"); that qualifications and modfications which address his stated objections have been or can be included (footnotes which acknowledge the non-legal status of styles/titles/claims); and that the many years and hundreds of editors who have edited this and similar articles in a different direction than his, but entirely in good faith -- while not making any particular edit "right" -- do not merit the relentless contempt and vituperation he exudes while editing. FactStraight (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Camelbinky for your comment, you have convinced me to leave this article alone, this person is a special case, he is married to a real royal, not a pretend one, for one thing. It is interesting to me, and made me think, when you say "the German government did not create these titles and so they cannot abolish them" in which case I wonder who did create royal titles? God? Are they a force of nature, like gravity? I know the Weimar republic did not create German royal titles but presumably they were created by the governments of historical rulers in the past in the territories of Germany in 1919, current governments can abolish or undo actions of previous ones, surely. However this is not the place to have this discussion, I know. To FactStraight- would you mind going to my talk page and looking at how I have summarised this dispute of the last two days, pointing out where I am wrong and where my conduct has been at fault? I sincerely wonder if I really am in the wrong here, I am soliciting outside neutral opinion and would like to have "the other side" present their case from their own viewpoint. Camelbinky is welcome to do the same, although it seems to me that s/he is really interested in this particular article and not in the larger issue of, imo, completely non- neutral WP articles on pretend royals pretending, falsely, that these people are still "serene highnesses" and so forth.Smeat75 (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably mischievous to point out that his wife wasn't 'royal' before marrying him: as a Princess of Monaco she would be "Her Serene Highness", and only became "Her Royal Highness" as the wife of Ernst. So the only way she's a "real royal" is if you accept Ernst's royalty. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not mischievous, just the natural outcome of the fact that ex-royalty have always been treated as if their kingdoms are gone but their royalty survives intact. The ruling Prince Regent of Liechtenstein is a mere Serene Highness, while his wife, a niece of Franz, Duke of Bavaria is a Royal Highness in Liechtenstein, even though Bavaria no longer exists as a kingdom. Ditto His Imperial and Royal Highness Lorenz, Archduke of Austria-Este, married to the sister of Philippe I of Belgium and explicitly referred to in Belgium's constitution as "Archduke" even though Austria not only doesn't recognize but forbids use of that title in the country where it originated. Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia travels on a passport as an HRH issued by the native land of his wife, Princess Barbara of Liechtenstein, just as Princess Marie of Orleans has HRH on her passport as the wife of Prince Gundakar of Liechtenstein. And Prince Carlos of Bourbon, Duke of Parma is legally a Dutch prince and HRH because although his father's family lost Parma back in 1859, his mother is a sister of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. This is the norm, not the exception -- it's no "fluke". Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, mother of the current King of Sweden, could not have married his father if the notion that members of deposed dynasties lose their royalty, since at the time the couple wed Sweden's law forbade any of its princes from marrying "the daughter of a private man", yet Sibylla's father had lost his duchy in 1918. When Sibylla's daughter, Princess Désirée of Sweden married Baron Nils Silfverschiöld, a legal titleholder in Sweden's extant nobility, she forfeited her HRH and rank for marrying a non-royal, while her sister Princess Birgitta wed Prince Johann Georg of Hohenzollern -- whose family abdicated its principality in 1849 and have legally been "commoners" in Germany since 1918 -- remains a Royal Highness and official member of the Swedish Royal Family to this day. This is a bewildering set of apparent contradictions which WP makes sense of for interested readers when it is allowed to reflect the de facto reality on the ground, but which remains an unsolvable puzzle when the encyclopedia is censored from giving any but the "official version" of facts to its readers... FactStraight (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The above post is a lot of laughable and ludicrous folderol imo. "A pretender is one who claims entitlement to an unavailable position of honour or rank" Pretender, I can certainly find a lot of sources that say these are all "titles of pretence",that's all there is to it,once the current government of the historical state that handed out the "HRH" abolishes it, the ex-holders are not royal, they are only pretending, some of their relatives or foreign governments may go along with them in that pretence but there is no reason why WP has to.Smeat75 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good lord, Wikipedia must "go along with it" because governments and reliable sources do! You don't seem to understand that we go by what sources say, not what we decide based on laws of a country. And as I explained on your talk page- a government does not have the right to abolish noble titles!Camelbinky (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I said, Camelbinky, that you had convinced me not to attempt any more changes to this article, not that I would never comment on these issues again.Smeat75 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

British
Why did he even ask Queen Elizabeth II permission to marry? I see what is in the article, but I am wondering what is his intention for this and doesn't anybody think it is odd that after so many generations and distance the Hanoverians are from actually even succeeding, they would even care enough to ask their cousins two-centuries-removed for permission to marry. Does he plan on petitioning for the return of his ancestors' peerage titles or preserving that right for his descendants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor's New Spy (talk • contribs) 5 July 2013‎


 * Without such permission his marriage is not valid under British law for any purpose, not only succession. —Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that every British has to ask the Queen's permission t marry? --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Every descendant of King George II, other than the issue of princesses who marry into foreign families, must ask for such permission. See Royal Marriages Act 1772. It is likely that the Act will be repealed (as proposed in 2013) and replaced with a new law which would include far fewer people who must ask the monarch for permission to marry. But the Act has not yet been been repealed, and was certainly in force when Ernest Augustus married. - Nunh-huh 22:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ernst August owns property in the UK, which, I suppose, his children might not have been able to inherit if he had married without the Queen's consent, as the marriage would have been void and any issue thereof would have been deemed "illegitimate" under British law. Having said that, my understanding is that, in English law, unlike for example in French civil law, a person can leave his property to anyone he/she wants provided that there is a legally valid will. The "illegitimacy" of his children wouldn't be a relevant issue in that respect then. 189.19.80.253 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 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: moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (born 1954) → Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) – All the sources in the article call him "Ernst August" (or "Ernst"). Celia Homeford (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ernst August is his official German name.Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 11:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support There is no reason to translate his given names just because he is a prince. We wouldn't translate the given names of other living Germans. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support We don't translate the names of modern royals. Certainly not the non reigning ones. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:35, 11 September 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322192202/http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/h.r.h.-the-princess-of-hanover/biography/biography.388.html to http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/h.r.h.-the-princess-of-hanover/biography/biography.388.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823074711/http://www.palais.mc/monaco/x-net/internet-palais-princier/english/home.577.html to http://www.palais.mc/monaco/x-net/internet-palais-princier/english/home.577.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hostilities?
Prince George married Princess Sophie, despite the refusal of Buckingham Palace to approve the match on the grounds that Britain and Germany were still at war in April 1946. So when did the war in Europe officially end? Valetude (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * According to our End of World War II in Europe, the UK ended its state of war with Germany on 9 July 1951. - Nunh-huh 00:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware (I am not a historian), a real peace treaty has only been in effect since 1990. --217.239.6.161 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)