Talk:William, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg

Untitled
We don't turn all the names to English. Just the ones where the name is not in wide use. But for "Wilhelm" you can see Wilhelm I of Germany and Wilhelm II of Germany. User:Dimadick


 * Wrong. Sometimes ruler names from the most recent century are left in their native firmat, but certainly not medieval ones. Maed 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


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

no consensus. Kimchi.sg 07:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move request
On basis of WP:Use English. From Wilhelm to William. And the ordinal fished from genealogies, to disambiguate and systematize (the ordinal is not very important to me). This was a medieval ruler, and very likely he even himself did not use the spelling "Wilhelm", as it developed only centuries later. Besides, this person's territories used then Low German, so the name was and is closer to current Dutch variant anyway in reality. Our guideline has always been to use English variant for so early rulers. I cannot see any reason to adopt a much later, High-German name variant. Maed 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

 * Support. As nominator. Maed 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Wilhelm" is clearly used in the picture, which is not dated but could have been made during his lifetime. There are about 10 Wilhelm, but already countless William and Williams. I don't see were the IX comes from, either - were there eight other "William, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg" before him? Three other Wikis list him as "Wilhelm V." --Matthead 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm is obviously going to be used in a German produced image. Charles 19:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly support English usage, as represented by the CMH and the Britannica is for English names for these princes. The Britannica also calls him William V, so I would amend to that extent. Septentrionalis 17:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose We may use Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition as a source of some of our articles but this is no excuse to copy its mentality and anglisize all names regardless of how common they are. User:Dimadick
 * Support. Our convention is to use English names for historical rulers, and I don't see a reason for an exception. I have no idea which would be the right numeral -- this might be complicated; we should try to avoid genealogical numerals. Chl 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Semi-support forename and territorial designation, unsure of numeral. Charles 19:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Semi-support name but the "Jülich" should be "Julich", and I have no idea what the numeral should be, and see WP:UE we do anglisize all names unless they are more commonly known by the native spelling in English sources.  --Philip Baird Shearer 08:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which sources? A google search for "Wilhelm" "Jülich-Cleves-Berg" points to 320, most them genealogical pages like the following Cleves Pedigree. A search for "William" "Jülich-Cleves-Berg" points to 161 results but a suprising number of them are irrelevant and mention the Duchy in the same page as a British ruler and politician. A search for "Wilhelm" "Julich-Cleves-Berg" provides only 4 results and advices agains removing the umlaut. A search for "William" "Julich-Cleves-Berg" provides only 9 results. I consider Wilhelm to be the common name and William and William a particurarly uncommon one. User:Dimadick
 * Oppose. Dddstone 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

discussion
He apparently was the first William of all these three duchies, Cleves having been separate for longest. However, the IX seems to come from the Julich rulers. V comes from Julich counted from its elevation to duchy - but there were earlier counts, and some dukes are numbered in continuation to counts, his too in this version. The duchies had been united to personal union only some time before him, them having been independent much longer. Maed 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


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

Accession crisis
The CMH mentions a crisis at his accession. This should be researched and explained. Septentrionalis 17:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There was the crisis of Gelderland, Emperor wanting to take it to the Burgundian patrimony, but locals and William desiring to preserve the hard-fought independence (see Charles, Duke of Gelderland). Possibly Wiliam just was a tool in locals' hands, a useful relative of earlier dukes. Crisis resolved to imperial win.


 * Whereas Julich-Berg had been a problem thirty ears earlier, when the elder Julich branch (from which William, of Cleves dynasty descended in female line) going extinct in male line. his mother yet lived. Afaik it eas then a question of permissibility of female succession. Try to find more, odd thing, 1539 just William's father died and he had been duke in jure uxoris. Maed 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

William
Because of his connection with Anne of Cleves, this individual is usually known as William in English publications. Olessi 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion?
This article needs to discuss William's religious affiliations. The Anne of Cleves article calls him a "strict Lutheran" but something more specific would be helpful. I'll put his religion in the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)