Talk:Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

British Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lower Saxony (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Lüneburg vs.Lunenburg[edit]

This falls along the lines of Bayern/Bavaria, Preussen/Prussia, Sachsen/Saxony, Hannover/Hanover, Braunschweig/Brunswick... The name simply is correctly and factually translated into English as Lunenburg. A 1911 article from EB simply isn't the be-all and end-all of the matter. I would better support Braunschwieg-Lüneburg than I would a mix of languages. "Brunswick-Lüneburg" is non-existant as a proper name. Charles 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt this should be decided by the native English speakers, but Google finds 35,000 hits for "Brunswick-Lüneburg" or "Brunswick-Luneburg" and 600 for "Brunswick-Lunenburg". --Chl 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but that is simply the repetition of error. Google "Princess Diana" and "Diana, Princess of Wales". Charles 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

official ordinal[edit]

Has anyone actually checked from authentic original sources did E.A. use an official regnal number as reigning duke of Brunswick??

I see that here someone has put III to him, as if his father and his great-grandfather were the numbers II and I. However, his great-grandfather never reigned in this territory, nor had a proper claim to it. His father can be said to have had a proper claim. that would make this E.A. here as number I (or number II if his father, the claimant, is counted).

However, if the so-called genealogical numbering is applied: It means that every Welf having been a duke of some original Welf lands will get an ordinal - Then this guy here is at least fourth in succession: there was duke Ernst August of Brunswick-Calenberg who became the 1st Elector, then there were king Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, and in addition this guy's own father, so at least three earlier Ernests Augusts...

Original source info would be needed for this guy's regnal number. Shilkanni 10:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The kings of Hanover were Dukes of Brunswick and Lunenburg. I believe Hanover encompassed Brunswick/Lunenburg. If he were renamed to Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick would that be fine? Charles 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking this for the content of the article. Actual answer to the question would be appreciated. Shilkanni 17:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the regnal number in any sources -- it's just his name without number. Most of the Welf dukes didn't use a number. When using genealogical numbering, he'd be V. Chl 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never ever seen a regnal number either. He should be Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick. His father should be Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, I think. His son and grandson should probably be disambiguated by birth and death dates, rather than by confusing ordinals that nobody ever uses. This ordinal business on the Hanoverians is seriously lame. john k 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the III out of the first line; this leaves Prince Ernst August of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lunenburg which is dissonant. Lunenburg is archaic; to my ear about as archaic as Leghorn. If we're going to use it, we should probably use Ernest Augustus. Septentrionalis 21:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about both: "Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick-Lunenburg (de: Prinz Ernst August von Hannover, Herzog von Braunschweig-Lüneburg)"?

Lunenburg is a relic of Cfvh's liking for it. We should change to "Brunswick-Lüneburg". The German, I would add, is "Braunschweig-Lüneburg". I've made some significant edits to the article. john k 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is; oops. Septentrionalis 22:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Brunswick and Lunenburg, or Brunswick and Luneburg (without the umlaut) as some would (inelegantly) put it. Junior members of the house used zu for the Brunswick and Lunenburg title and I believe that the Duke only used von solely with Brunswick (Braunschweig) since it was (if I remember correctly) a "different" duchy from Brunswick and Lunenburg. Charles 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody evers says "Brunswick and Lüneburg" in English. "Braunschweig and Lüneburg" appears to be used in German, but there is no rule requiring literal translations of every term in German if this is not what people generally do in English. I would add that "Lunenburg" is never used any more, and I can't recall ever seeing it without the umlaut, either. Your insistence that "Lüneburg" is not used in English has no basis. With respect to the particle of nobility used by members of the family, it is worth noting that on François Velde's article that I linked, the Duke of Cumberland in his own statement indicating what titles he would use following his father's death in 1878, says he will be "Herzog von Braunschweig und Lüneburg," but that his son, in his statement to the Kaiser about his father's renunciation, refers to him as "Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg". So it would appear there was little consistency in this matter. The british titles are always "von," and pretty much every other usage of "Braunschweig" or "Braunschweig und Lüneburg" that I can see is "zu", including Duke Wilhelm's signature as "Herzog zu Braunschweig" to the House Laws of 1831. So apparentl "Herzog von Braunschweig" is never used. john k 06:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]