Talk:Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh

	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.

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 (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

reign?[edit]

The infobox uses the word Reign for his tenure of the dukedom. Is that appropriate for a duke with no duchy? —Tamfang (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's even appropriate for many dukes with duchies - we don't talk about the present prince of Wales's "reign" over the Duchy of Cornwall. "Tenure" should be used, I think. john k (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (son) → Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh – Per Cambridge Alumni Database, Royal Warrant, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; his name is a better disambiguator than a parenthetical family relationship. DrKiernan (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nominator's reasoning makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nominator's rationale. FactStraight (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – my reasoning behind the move was that the son was not called "Prince William Frederick" but "Prince William" and the father not "Prince William Henry" but "Prince William." That's why I thought we could try a paranthetical dab; for accuracy. DBD 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by the sources and the authority control links, he's generally called William Frederick. As all men are sons, "son" is imprecise as a disambiguator and applies equally to William Henry, who was the son of Prince Frederick. WP:AT recommends natural disambiguation (without parentheses) in addition to recommending precision. DrKiernan (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: as DrKiernan says, "son" is insufficient disambiguation. If you wanted to disambiguate them by their relationship then "the elder" and "the younger" would have been better. I'm rather surprised to see the argument that, in distinguishing between two men with slightly different names, removing that distinction makes the article title more accurate. Opera hat (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is ...second Duke... —Tamfang (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231120608/http://www.oxfordandcambridgeclub.co.uk/history.php to http://www.oxfordandcambridgeclub.co.uk/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover[edit]

Was he really a prince of Hanover? He was a great-grandson of the Elector of Hanover but not the King. He sure was a Hanoverian dynast and a Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg and in the line of succession to the Hanoverian throne but was he accorded a proper title when George III assumed the Royal title? Any source? For example, when Frederick III, Elector of Brandenburg assumed the title of King in Prussia, his nephews were given the titles of Princes in Prussia. Kowalmistrz (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: he was not considered a Hanoverian dynast because of unequal character of his parents' marriage. Source- https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/prince_highness.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowalmistrz (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]