Talk:Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / 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 Peerage and Baronetage.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

3rd Duke's numeral[edit]

As of April 19, 2016, the list of dukes variously described the 3rd Duke as Prince Ernest Augustus III and (after the title deprivation) Prince Ernest Augustus II. Presumably the first is a typo, but I can't be sure as I don't know enough of the formalities. @Hebel:, perhaps you know? David Brooks (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David Brooks, thank you for pointing that out. I changed it into what's usually used. There are no formalities in this however. The numerals are basically nonsense. King Ernest Ausgustus of Hanover could either be the First or the Second, both have been used in the past for that monarch (depending on whether you count an Elector of Hanover by that name or not) and the other ones called Ernest Augustus basically have no numerals (or shouldn't have any), since they were not monarchs of Hanover. Perhaps we should remove them altogether? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hebel: I'm utterly neutral on this. I was only here because of the EB1911 connection. Perhaps a sanitized version of the above could go into the article itself? David Brooks (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]