Talk:Frederick, Prince of Wales

message: There are lots of references to Frederick being killed by a cricket ball, and only slightly fewer that mention a tennis ball. But as our own article on tennis mentions, tennis is known to have been invented in the mid 1800s, 100 years or more after Frederick's death. So I've edited to reflect these facts. - dmmaus 10:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, in March 1751 he was taken ill after superintending his workmen at Kew, ‘complaining of a violent pain in his side’ (Newman, ‘Leicester House politics’, Camden Miscellany, 195); he suffered this, with feverishness and fainting, for two weeks. On Wednesday 20 March 1751 he was pronounced ‘quite safe’ (ibid., 198) by his physicians, but about 9.30 p.m., at Leicester House, he felt ill again and soon afterwards ‘laid his head upon his pillow and without a convulsion sigh or groan or the least movement—rattled in his throat and was dead in three minutes’ (ibid.). His death was subsequently blamed on a burst abscess in one lung, perhaps the result of an old sporting injury, from which has arisen the legend that Frederick died soon after being hit by a cricket or tennis ball.
john k 05:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Killed by a ball

message: I've tagged the "titles and styles" section with an unreferencedsection template. What evidence is there that he was styled "Prince Frederick of Hanover" rather than "Duke Frederick of Brunswick-Lueneberg" in the period 1707-1714? And the article on Duke of Gloucester says he was styled by that title from 1718 until he was created Duke of Edinburgh. Opera hat (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles and styles 

message: Recently the file :File:Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales by Philip Mercier.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales by Philip Mercier.jpg]] 

message: The story of the birth of the first child, the "she-mouse" Augusta,  appears to contain a contradiction in timing. The reference given indeed states that the birth took place in July, but the first child is said in all other sources to have been born on August 31 of that year! I don't think this is possible. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Story of first child

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Frederick, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150623215338/http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=6741&gpn=2 to http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=6741&gpn=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150623205944/http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=6494 to http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=6494
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Early refs: 
* Notes and Queries  referencing Memories of the Last Ten Years of the Reign of George the Second by Walpole (Appendix)
* Literary Gazette.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not clear whether the epigram was anonymous, and the reference to Thackeray is a distraction. Valetude (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Epigram' source

message: The Post-nominal letters, as they appear now, do not appear in the common way in Wikipedia. They should be changed to Template:Post-nominals. Thank you. Duke of Somewhere (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-nominal letters 

message: One editor keeps going around replacing long-standing images of royalty without consensus. In this case, the picture of Prince Frederick had been in the infobox for a decade. The editor in question replaced this image with the one on the right. It could be problematic if the image keeps changing. Векочел (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see the image you want though it’s been in the infobox for some time it had just as much consensus as the image I put. There was no talk page conversation. Even the editor who added to the infobox in 2010 didn’t even right a edit summary. Just because no one changed it doesn’t mean there was consensus.  Orson12345 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Based on the painting alone the painting on the right is artistically better. And looks toward the text which always looks better. Orson12345 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in infobox