Talk:Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover

message: 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)
replies: text: .... 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Title

message: ---
Where did he actually serve during WWI? Septentrionalis 18:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Military service

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Family Photo 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Marriage