Talk:Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover

message: Rumor suggested that he beat a servant to death, and perhaps raped his own sister, Princess Sophia. His wife also had a bad reputation, having allegedly murdered one or both of her previous husbands. 
I would be interested to know your source for these statements. I have done extensive reading on Ernest Duke of Cumberland and have not come across anything that would confirm them. The sentiment is certainly strong that he murdered his valet, but he did not beat him to death. And there is no indication that he raped Sophia although some maintain he fathered a child by her.
I am very curious about the statements concerning Princess Frederica. I have read  only that her first husband died following a sudden, brief illness but that her second husband died of a stroke. Is there some documentation to support allegations of murder? 
Ernest was no saint, to be sure; but he seems to have a much worse reputation than the facts support. His rigid right wing politics and refusal to accept change made him many enemies and some historians feel that most of his 'scandals' were trumped up to discredit him. This may not be so, however, because I was in England recently and was hard pressed to find anything on public display pertaining to him. He is a fascinating character and I'd like to know where you did your research.
Thank you.
Aimee Thrasher
:I'm pretty sure I've read this somewhere, but I can't find where.  I've toned down the article correspondingly.  I would certainly agree with you that rumors about Cumberland were probably exaggerated.  The article was not meant to suggest that these rumors were true.  But, of course, if they were not genuine rumors, they should be removed. john 07:13, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumor

message: The Hanover template needs a little modification, in particular the words "Duke of Cumberland" need to be put next to the name of George III's son, Ernest Augustus I of Hanover who was by far the most notorious Cumberland of them all. 
PS Cumberland was accused of having tried to rape Lady Lyndhurst, wife of three-time Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst. I am not sure of the date. Can some knowledgeable soul pls put this into the text? (My source is Cecil Woodham-Smith, her source is the diarist Greville..but I reckon any standard bio of Cumberland shd have the details.)
:Surely his grand-uncle, the Butcher Cumberland, is at least as notorious?  At least in Scotland... john k 02:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duke of Cumberland, son of George III

message: I've toned down the editor who claimed that Cumberland did indeed murder and commit incest, to the exclusion of all other theories.  I have no objection to the one sentence being expanded.  However, we do not know, and WP does not judge.--Wehwalt 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine (though the place to bring your source to the attention of other editors is on the talk page, not the article page), but you deleted the language in the article that said that he didn't do these things, and inserted your belief (which I have no doubt is well founded) that he did.  The thing is, you can believe either way, but we don't know for sure either way--and their are sources which don't hold the same way (going all the way back to The Royal Dukes.  That is why I suggested (and to help you out, even started a paragraph) that you summarize your theory in addition to the existing text, so that the reader is aware of both schools of thought.--Wehwalt 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Call it what you will.  You have your own views, I am sure they are sincerely held.  However, I do not know that it is the historical judgment of historians generally that Ernst murdered his valet and had an affair with his own sister.  I will not accept what you say as undisuputed fact without knowing there is a consensus on these points.--Wehwalt 18:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything happened between Princess Sophia and Ernest, it was rape, not an affair. She'd written to her lover, General Thomas Garth, that Ernest had made "attempts" on her person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.225.132 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wehwalt: you provide no citations in defence of your position. You also make the bizarre assertion that Wikipedia should wait till "the history books" better reflect the primary sources. Alrewas (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on his comments in this thread, Wehwalt's interpretation and application of Wikipedia's policies and practices toward inclusion as fact of allegations of notorious acts of homicide and incest in this article appear to be consistent with ONUS, EXCEPTIONAL and PRIMARY. I support reliance upon the standards he's articulated. FactStraight (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, note that my understanding of policy has evolved in eight years ... I have Wardroper's book, though I haven't read it recently.  It's not like he has found some new trove of papers.  What's out there on Ernest is out there, and there is unlikely to be much more.  His interpretation, in a non-scholarly, popularly written book is that Ernest did those things, and I'm not sure that Wardroper's worth mentioning.  This article has passed through FAC since 2007, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't know if an article on Sellis himself is advisable, review WP:1E. An article on his death, that gives details of his life in a preliminary section, is certainly in order. I don't have any info on Wardroper. I hope your researches bear fruit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Wicked Ernest

message: I've removed several '[' brackets seeing as they have no function whatsoever in the article and pop up in odd places. It was the same in Princess Sophia's page, which I edited as well Whodhellknew 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: Why wasn't he William IV's successor in the UK?  After all, William IV was successor to George IV and they were all brothers.  Who wanted to separate this dynasty from the British Isles?  68.110.8.21 07:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not a case of want – in the UK, we have a male-preference succession, which means that the most senior person of the male line succeeds, i.e. William's next-oldest brother's eldest daughter, Victoria. Whereas, in Hanover, male-only succession was in place, so Victoria did not succeed, rather, William's most senior male heir – his next surviving brother, Ernest Augustus. Incidentally, this is all explained in the article(s) DBD 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the old days, that would have never been allowed to happen.  Hence, the case of want.  I think it was entirely political, because the male descendents of the Georgian kings were not exhausted or extinct.  The Jacobites had lost and Catholic Emancipation was passed, so there was no reason to keep this dynasty on the throne.  Prince Albert's dynasty had less dominance, since he and his heirs had no Continental territory to pull the UK around in directions possibly unfavourable to the British people.  68.110.8.21 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hanover had very little influence on the UK, especially after the early years of the personal union.  From 1760-1837, the last three joint kings, only George IV visited Hanover, and that very briefly.  The Act of Settlement required that British troops not be used to defend Hanover, in fact it was occupied by Napoleon.  Hanover was very much an afterthought.  It was a place where impoverished royals could live cheaply, and where some royal connection would be sent off to serve as governor.  At the end, the British were delighted to lose Hanover, since it meant that Cumberland would leave England.--Wehwalt 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, it's not like he was illegitimate.  There had to be an ulterior motive to displacing a dynasty with enough living male representatives to continue the line into the present day, including the future to come.  Parliament did this to the Stuarts too, so this truly speaks for the power they wield.  68.110.8.21 04:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, it doesn't hurt to ask questions and discuss.  68.110.8.21 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the Act of Settlement 1701 Victoria was the lawful heir to the British throne. Cumberland was so detested in Britain that Parliament probably never once considered passing a new law dispossessing her. Jess Cully 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could only wonder what things would be like now, if Parliament had decided to keep up dynastic politics with the House of Orange-Nassau, the Hanoverians, or the present Windsors.  They are choosing to revive the Oldenburg element of Prince George, Queen Anne's husband.  That's probably because they wanted it then and tragedy cut off their hopes for a lasting succession, which is now present with Prince Philip's "Mountbatten" children.  I wonder if it has anything to do with the Whiggish preference for pre-Norman conditions, when England was dominated by Scandinavian pirates instead.  I don't think it is entirely up to the Queen in who she could marry.  Remember, if the dynastic politics had been Royally directed (in the Stuart favour), there would have never been any Dutch or German monarchs of the British Isles.  Ireland would probably never split, while one can only speculate how America would have turned out.  Actually, I think things would be the same as in France.  The Revolution would have deposed the monarchy for good and the American colonies would have been of no consequence.  There would have been a successor to our Robespierre (Cromwell) to be a Napoleon of Britain.  Imperial India would not have been the focus of power, but I think that Britain would have Continental expansion and client or puppet countries in Europe instead of the Commonwealth version.  68.110.8.21 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King instead of Victoria 

message: Is he Earnest Augustus the First? His successor is named George the Fifth. That suggests that the Kings of Hanover used the numerals of their predescessors the Electors of Hanover. Which would make him Earnest-Augustus the Second. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wehwalt means "elective"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.76.45 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

text: But William IV was Wilhelm IV ... looks like they found a reason to keep pace with the Britons.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The First? 

message: The image claiming to be of a young Ernest cannot be right. The sword worn in the image was introduced into the British army in about 1822, and the uniform worn dates to circa 1850. Ernest would have been a middle aged to elderly man at this time. As a young man he would have been in a wig and clean shaven. Urselius (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Image 

message: Reigned as Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh? There was no Ducal crown of Cumberland, it was just a title. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In most infoboxes the word reign is used in lieu of tenure.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure don't look right, Peerage members don't reign. If Ernest would've had no sons those Ducal & Earldom titles would've ceased to exist. Ernest didn't succeeded to those title, they were conferred on him (like Duke of York, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, etc). GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The article shouldn't refer to him as Ernest. It should refer to him as Ernest Augustus, as that is the name he used. We never refer to Empress Maria Theresa as Maria, do we? Anyway, the article looks great. Surtsicna (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but RS refer to him constantly as Ernest, and (check signature) so did he.  Are you the GA reviewer?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't decided to review the article. I just fixed some minor issues. If the sources you used refer to him as Ernest, then I guess there is no need to change it. Good luck with the review process! Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernest Augustus, not Ernest 

message: Surprisingly interesting for such a long article about a comparatively obscure historical figure.
Sca (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On behalf of everyone who worked on it over two years plus, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: This article says: "Thomas Garth, thought to be the illegitimate son of Ernest's sister Princess Sophia, had been fathered by Ernest.".
But the article Thomas Garth says: "He was born the son of John Garth MP, and Rebecca, daughter of John Brompton and grand-daughter of Sir Richard Raynsford, Lord chief justice of the Kings bench. Garth was chief equerry to King George III of the United Kingdom and is believed to have been the father of an illegitimate child born in 1800 to Princess Sophia Matilda, one of the king's daughters."
Which was Thomas rumored to be: the father of an illegitimate son, or the son himself? Too Old (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The son was also named Thomas.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look a little more carefully at the two quotes. The first says the father of the bastard was Ernest, son of George III, the second says the father of the bastard was Thomas, son of John Garth, MP. Too Old (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quoting only in part.  Ernest was certainly rumored to be the father, but this is not widely believed.  Sophia is far more widely believed to be the mother, but this is not certain.  I am not responsible for the content of the Garth article, btw.  If it is OK, I'm going to ask Dr.Kiernan, one of our acknowledged experts on British royalty to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The parents of Captain Thomas Garth are not known for certain. General Thomas Garth acknowledged that he was the father, and the mother was rumored to be Sophia. The rumors that Ernest was the father are the least believable. I'm not aware of any historians who challenge that Garth was the father, but there are authorities who challenge that Sophia was the mother. DrKay (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict between Wikipedia articles 

message: He died in 1851, and every king at the time had been photographed at least once as far as I know. So does it still exist? and if so, why isn't it in the article?Ericl (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Van Der Kiste book (see biblio), plate immediately preceding page 103, he shows a photograph of Mary, Duchess of Gloucester (Ernest's younger sister) with Victoria and two of her children from 1856 and part of the caption says, "this was probably the only occasion on which a child of George III was photographed".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph?

message: As Wellington said to Greville in 1829: "I remember asking him why the Duke of Cumberland was so unpopular, and he said, "Because there was never a father well with his son, or husband with his wife, or lover with his mistress, or a friend with his friend, that he did not try to make mischief between them."" This struck me as a powerful expression of the King's opinion, from a reliable source; is it worth including? (I don't want to mess with an admirable featured article.) 45ossington (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link for that so we can view the context?  Because George IV displayed a lot of those characteristics himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be found at . George IV is of course a famously unreliable witness, but his opinion of his brother (whether accurate or not) is notable in itself, it seems to me. 45ossington (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would mention that Greville reported it.  Aside from that I have no great objection.  It does seem rather contradictory to George's actions towards Ernest, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  George IV's estimation as imparted to the Duke of Wellington and relayed by him to Greville 

message: The text of the article gives the source as "The Times" (i.e. of London), but the note cites the ""New York Times". Leofranc Holford-Strevens, 31 August 201580.177.167.155 (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The NYT was reprinting something that had appeared in the London paper.  The actual citation, in the bibliography section, makes this clear.  The NYT was in its first year of publication, and it was common then to reprint stories from other papers.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 116 

message: It would be nice to have them for the continuing changes to the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is continuing. Is there nothing that can be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: This article contradicts George V of Hanover. Please see Talk:George V of Hanover#Blindness. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall exactly what Bird said and can't seem to lay my hands on my copy of it. At the time I was working mostly from books. Maybe there's a better, more recent source than Bird's 1966 book.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's a shame. It would be interesting to know what exactly happened to George. The way he lost his eyesight, in two different incidents in childhood, sounds rather bizarre. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There are bound to be other sources that say. George himself may have biographers. I will keep looking for the book.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Online reliable sources seem unanimous that the second incident was in 1833, and the ODNB says March 1833 after "an unexplained accident" at Kew. DrKay (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The contradiction regards the loss of sight in the first eye, however. This article says it happened in infancy, while George V of Hanover says it happened in 1828 (when George was nine). Surtsicna (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two contradictions: one of infancy versus 1828 and one of 1832 versus 1833. Note I said "second incident". You said "it would be interesting to know what exactly happened". Hence, my expansion of the second incident. DrKay (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. Thank you. Hopefully Wehwalt will be able to find the book and further explain the development of George's blindness. Perhaps it could also be explained how the blindness ultimately did not prevent George from succeeding Ernest Augustus despite "questions about whether he should succeed in Hanover". As it stands now, the only other reference to the succession to Ernest Augustus concerns the jewels dispute, where George is mentioned as "the King's son and successor, King George V". Surtsicna (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  George V's blindness 

message: He is stated to have been awarded the Danish Order of the Elephant in 1858 - although there is a supporting citation to a Danish site, either it cannot have been the subject of this article - as King Ernest Augustus died in 1851! - or the year is a typo.Cloptonson (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign honours - error?

message: Is the material recently added from a 1911 tertiary source still found in the more modern secondary sources? Tertiary sources typically lag behind secondary sources in terms of coverage and usually do not represent the most recent scholarship. A tertiary source from over a hundred years ago is going to be even further behind. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of material from 1911