Talk:Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover

Title

What was Ernst August called after he lost his titles in 1919? Did he keep the title in his personal life, or did he drop it completely? Prsgoddess187 13:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

copied from discussion about naming pretenders Ernest August, from NC (titles) talkpage:

....But I have to ask, what of Ernest Augustus II? Are we depriving him of his crown princely title here? Can he not be Ernest Augustus II, Crown Prince of Hanover or must we use the Cumberland title? May both be use? That is, Crown Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumbberland? Or is that Cumber-some? (hehe) Charles 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

.... In terms of the Duke of Cumberland, he deprived himself of his "Crown Prince" title when he succeeded his father in 1878. Until that time he was known as "The Crown Prince of Hanover," but after his father's death he became known as "The Duke of Cumberland." ... john k 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Augustus 3rd Cumberland's case should be discussed at his article talkpage - the overall solution is not dependent upon it (were he either E.A, 3rd d of C, or Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover, we see that both names are unique).... Shilkanni Shilkanni 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The convention of Wikipedia is to give the highest title ever used, even if he died when using a lower one. That would support this guy being "Crown Prince". Shilkanni 18:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this guy cannot be under a regnal number (i.e, II) since he never reigned. See Naming Convention. Shilkanni 23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Crown Prince of Hanover an actual title, like Prince of Wales? If not, there's some sense to keeping him at Cumberland, which is what he seems to get called. But the number must go. Septentrionalis 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Military service

--- Where did he actually serve during WWI? Septentrionalis 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Remembering that he was in his seventies during that precise war, I would guess that he served in a way similar to how Otto I of Bavaria ruled his kingdom. Besides, as he had declined to accept the constitution of German Empire, I cannot fathom how he would have been trusted in German army. Possibly he was given some nominal position in his son's duchy's military forces, but actual warring is probably a slightly far-fetched description. Shilkanni 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There were a number of German generals in the early seventies such as Hindenburg who were embodied in World War I. He was not alone.Cloptonson (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Cumberland and Teviotdale

I am aware that his full title was "Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale," but my understanding has been that such people were generally called only by the first part of their two part ducal titles. Thus, George III's second son is always called "The Duke of York," not the "Duke of York and Albany," and his fourth son is called "The Duke of Kent," not the "Duke of Kent and Strathearn" (and notice that his daughter was Princess Victoria of Kent, not Princess Victoria of Kent and Strathearn). Given that our articles are titled based on common usage, rather than pedantic correctness, why is it wrong to have this guy at Ernest Augustus of Hanover, 3rd Duke of Cumberland, or something along those lines? He was normally called, as far as I know "the Duke of Cumberland," not "the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale." john k 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was basing my move on the standards at WikiProject Peerage (basically a creation of Proteus, and which I haven't yet formally joined), which essentially say that the article title and opening should have Cumberland and Teviotdale, but just Cumberland is fine everywhere else. However, I was perhaps too hasty; I totally understand that we can't move articles based on "pedantic correctness." Maybe we should just move it back- the poor Ernst Augusts have had enough of a mess with names anyway. TysK 07:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...you are correct that this is what WikiProject Peerage currently says. I wasn't aware of that. I'll withdraw the objection for now. Carry on. john k 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although note that the project also says not to use ordinals. I believe the proper title under it would be Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. Which is, of course, indistinguishable from his grandfather's title before he became King of Hanover. The standards might need a working over. john k 11:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why we use 3rd Duke, and I believe that that is still standard. Septentrionalis 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ordinals

Does anyone really think the ordinals belong? For this guy, I'd prefer Prince Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. For his son, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick. For his grandson Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (1914-1987) or Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover (1914-1987). For the current prince Ernest Augustus, Prince of Hanover (b.1954). The ordinals are inappropriate, given that none of them were king of Hanover, which seems to be the implication of the ordinal. john k 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree; Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover or rather Prince Ernest Augustus of Brunswick is probably preferable unless a (unlikely, under the circumstances) grant of "Prince of Hanover" can be sourced (whatever we do about disambiguating the two latest generations). We carefully avoid using numerals for the French pretenders. Septentrionalis 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, he was born in 1845, while the Kingdom of Hanover was still in existence. His sisters are always "Princess Frederika of Hanover" and "Princess Marie of Hanover." Are you sure you're not confusing him with his son, the Duke of Brunswick? From 1851-1878 he was known as "The Crown Prince of Hanover," and from 1878 to 1923 he was called "the Duke of Cumberland," as his title of pretense while head of the royal house of Hanover (in the same way that Juan Carlos's father was the Count of Barcelona.) I think the best title would probably be Prince Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. Where are you getting the Brunswick and the unlikelihood of "Prince of Hanover" from? john k 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean the susject of this article, on whom I agree with you; I meant his grandson (1914-1987). His son (1887-1953) renounced Hanover, didn't he? Septentrionalis 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject of this article renounced Brunswick in 1913. I don't believe his son renounced anything. After 1918, the whole family started using "Prinz von Hannover" again. I don't see any especially need for a new grant - it seems rather silly to treat the events of 1866 as depriving this family of the right to "Prince of Hanover" but the events of 1918 do not deprive them of "Prince of Brunswick". I would suggest the following:

1. Prince Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale
2. Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick
3. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (1914-1987). Although he might also be called Ernest Augustus, Hereditary Prince of Brunswick, I don't think this is how he was actually known after 1918, so I don't think it's appropriate.
4. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (b. 1953)

Does this sound acceptable? john k 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. What concerns me are the events of 1914; the Duke of Brunswick made some concessions for his throne and his marriage. But I'll find a source. Septentrionalis 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It'd be good to include it, but I don't think it ought to affect nomenclature - his son and grandson are always called Princes of Hanover and not Princes of Brunswick. Here is an old ATR thread on the subject of the title "Prince of Hanover." Apparently "Prince/ss of Cumberland" was used for Cumberland's children until 1913, and "Prince/ss of Brunswick" between 1913 and 1918. Here François Velde discusses the issue, says that neither Cumberland nor his son renounced their Hanoverian claims - Cumberland only renounced his claims to the Duchy, and his son didn't renounce anything. john k 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Velde's site combined with the alt.talk.royalty archives is incredibly useful for stuff like that, BTW. john k 03:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note the wording of the younger Ernst August's letter to Bethmann:

With the assent of my father, I have asked to be commissioned as an officer in the royal Prussian army, and I have sworn an oath of loyalty and obedience to HM the Emperor and King. This implies the promise that I will do or support nothing that is directed at altering the current situation of Prussia's possessions.

This is pretty clearly not a renunciation. Compare to his father's actual renunciation of Brunswick:

On the assumption that the Bundesrat will not raise any objections on behalf of the Empire to the accession of our dearly beloved son his royal highness Ernst August duke of Brunswick and Luneburg, royal prince of Great Britain and Ireland, we hereby solemnly renounce to our rights to the throne of Brunswick and cede these in their full extent to our dearly beloved son son his royal highness Ernst August duke of Brunswick and Luneburg, royal prince of Great Britain and Ireland.

the younger Ernst August merely says that he will not act to alter the current situation, but he doesn't renounce his rights to the throne of Hanover. john k 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a renunciation. Fine, let's do it. Septentrionalis 19:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this page and the one on his son. I'm not sure about what to do with the younger Ernest Augusti. Should it be "Prince X of Hanover" or "X, Prince of Hanover"? The title "Prince of Hanover" is clearly unsupported by any specific grant, or usage during the actual kingdom, or whatever, unlike, I believe, "Prince of Prussia," which was apparently the title for heirs presumptive like Prince Augustus William and Prince Frederick William under Frederick the Great and Prince William under Frederick William IV. But I've certainly seen the current head of the house referred to as "the Prince of Hanover." And I certainly don't want Charles to start a move war over it. So I thought I'd leave that question open a bit longer. john k 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Family Photo

The group photo cannot be from 1887 as the smallest child is approximately one. Even if it was taken on 31 December 1887 the infant would only be six weeks old and not be able to sit up or make "eye contact" with the camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.180.120 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't this article be named Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover? being is that the highest position he had? GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think so. It's also his common name. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Crown Prince of Hanover is what he was known as during his father's life. "Duke of Cumberland" was his title of pretense as pretender after 1878. I think it should go with the name he was known as during his time as pretender, not during his time as heir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.146.66 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That was me above. I've moved the article back. Please do a formal move request if you want to move the article. He stopped being known as "Crown Prince of Hanover" when his father died.

Marriage

"from marrying without the British Sovereign's consent or else risk losing their titles and place in the succession"
this seems incorrect, As of Royal Marriages Act 1772 without consent of monarch, then marriage is not valid in Britain thus their children are illegitimate and they won't have British titles or place in line of succession to the British throne and no claim to Dukedom of Cumberland, His own titles or place in line of succession doesn't affect.
eg:- Marriage between Future George IV and Maria Fitzherbert was declared null and void but he doesn't lost place in succession and eventually suceeded as king George IV.
Chamika1990 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Same was true of the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge - both got to keep their titles and place in the line of succession, it's just their children did not inherit them. john k (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)