This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2010. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
See discussion on Sophia re possibility of illegitimate child. Hebbgd ( talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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.)
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)
In addition, the editor is citing his own book. That is akin to citing a page you made, and is frowned upon. The better approach, from what I recall, is to bring the source to other editors' attention on this page and let us decide.-- Wehwalt 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Re "Wicked Ernest": My purpose in naming my book was indeed "to bring the source to other editors' attention", and especially because its endnotes comprehensively cite the sources on which my conclusions are based. For example, the record of Ernest Augustus's confession to his aide-de-camp that he murdered the valet Joseph Sellis in St James's Palace is in the Windsor royal archives and was published in Professor Arthur Aspinall's "The Correspondence of George Prince of Wales", vol VII, 1971. John Wardroper 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
82.35.111.58 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Sorry if I got the Wiki-rules wrong. An essential part of clarifying a piece of history is to seek out primary sources. If they show that certain things in previous accounts don't stand up, you can't really still say 'you can believe either way'. That nearly amounts to giving equal value to whatever has been printed, no matter what is questioned thereafter by further research. Surely one aim of Wikipedia is to clear away some of the detritus of history. Note that royal courts depend very much on image. What the public was given, and indeed is given, is a blend of truth and untruth. Note what Prince Ernest's sister Elizabeth said: "I speak very little like a courtier tho' bred up in the heart of Court... Poor Truth has a bad life of it, yet it will sometimes out." [Source, for those who want it: letter to the rector of St George's, Bloomsbury, June 1801, British Library manuscript Add 41695] Writers on royalty are often rather inclined to be overkind with the truth.
Well, when they change all the history books to say Ernest killed his valet and raped his sister, we can go with a single theory, until then we should have both. And the logical way is to have the traditional view first, the new theory second.-- Wehwalt 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
A few comments on this.
History books inevitably contain errors, misjudgments, special pleadings and even sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Historians and others need to do all they can bring out the truth, so that indifferent books are less likely to be granted equal weight with sound ones.
I have given a citation already for Ernest's confession to murder. There at least there is no call for using the word 'theory'.
As for Princess Sophia, who has suggested that Ernest raped her? Not I! My work on the question suggests that there was a consensual relationship. Evidence of a fondness between them first occurs when she is 16. She writes to her confidante Lady Harcourt, Aug 24 1794,"Dear Ernest is as kind to me as it is possible, rather a little imprudent at times, but when told of it never takes it ill" Harcourt manuscripts at Stanton Harcourt: volume of letters from the royal family. "Imprudent" was a word often used in society for behaviour likely to cause gossip. John Wardroper 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
WP talks about the opinions of scholars, not support them Whodhellknew 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd thought I'd add to this as this is my first day creating a Wikipedia account. I am nor a fan to be looking into all things royal. Though, what has interested me is that my 6th Great Grandfather is Joseph Sellis. I am a descendant of his daughter Charlotte Sellis who married into the Foden family branch. I am interested in creating a Wikipedia page for Sellis as all the information that is out about him is about his 'Suicide.' Which, in contrast to everything I have read about Sellis I think they is more to his life than just the day of his death on 31th of May 1810. I'm not surprised on the courts ruling as they are forever are within the favour of the royal family members regardless. In 1812, Sellis' family was kicked out of the palace and they moved up north to get as far away from the royals. In the 1841 I think Joseph Sellis wife died by this time. her 2nd husband James Draper was mentioned on there though. He lived with Charlotte Sellis' son Joseph Foden in Runcorn, England. Further on the censuses the family then resided in Manchester, Lancashire, England. Which, alot of the family still to this day are from. I see that some of you mention John Wardroper and his book. Does anyone know if he is this alive or how I'd get in contact with him. Where I was in London a few years ago I knocked at his address he given on one of his in research of Sellis and his family. Unfortunately, he did not live their. Though, they is a few other people that have wrote books and mention the name of Sellis also. Quite the infamous guy isn't he just... 17:00PM 18th April 2021 (UK time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMW1995 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
<unindent> It speaks to the disruption to royal legitimacy caused by the intemperate actions of Charles I in the context of the Protestant Reformation. All entertaining speculation; for it to appear in the article a reliable source making the argument is required, and original research drawing on facts to synthesise the argument cannot be accepted. .. dave souza, talk 07:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
He is the First. No question. Looks like the first "first" one died before the appointment became elective, so I guess id didnt' count.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean "effective". I'll have to look into that, but in Germany he is often reffered to as Ernst-August II. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No the Kingdom of hanover didnt do that also he also King george V was that because of the Past Kings of hanovers(Also the king of britain george VI) the last King george was King George IV of Hanover so that is why there was a King geroge V of Hanover ( 68.80.137.103 ( talk) 20:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted in the next day or so. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Surprisingly interesting for such a long article about a comparatively obscure historical figure. Sca ( talk) 16:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 2015 80.177.167.155 ( talk) 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover. Wehwalt ( talk) 23:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Ernest Augustus I of Hanover →
Ernest Augustus of Hanover – He was not known by the numeral during his reign (as can be seen from
this coin and
this statue) or to history (
his article in the NDB). There are several other people called Ernest Augustus of Hanover, but as a king he should be the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Opera hat (
talk) 12:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to have them for the continuing changes to the lede.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This article has been through extensive review and copy-editing, via the featured article process. The persistent changes are not an improvement in my opinion. DrKay ( talk) 07:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This article contradicts George V of Hanover. Please see Talk:George V of Hanover#Blindness. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not find Bird, but I found Willis, and it gives the account of the prince's accident, and gives it happening on 11 September 1832 (p. 221) and it mentions that he lost the sight in his right eye "as the result of an inflammation during his illness several years before" (p. 220). The timeframe being talked about is 1832. There's no particular discussion of Georg as successor.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2010. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
See discussion on Sophia re possibility of illegitimate child. Hebbgd ( talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
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.)
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)
In addition, the editor is citing his own book. That is akin to citing a page you made, and is frowned upon. The better approach, from what I recall, is to bring the source to other editors' attention on this page and let us decide.-- Wehwalt 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Re "Wicked Ernest": My purpose in naming my book was indeed "to bring the source to other editors' attention", and especially because its endnotes comprehensively cite the sources on which my conclusions are based. For example, the record of Ernest Augustus's confession to his aide-de-camp that he murdered the valet Joseph Sellis in St James's Palace is in the Windsor royal archives and was published in Professor Arthur Aspinall's "The Correspondence of George Prince of Wales", vol VII, 1971. John Wardroper 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
82.35.111.58 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Sorry if I got the Wiki-rules wrong. An essential part of clarifying a piece of history is to seek out primary sources. If they show that certain things in previous accounts don't stand up, you can't really still say 'you can believe either way'. That nearly amounts to giving equal value to whatever has been printed, no matter what is questioned thereafter by further research. Surely one aim of Wikipedia is to clear away some of the detritus of history. Note that royal courts depend very much on image. What the public was given, and indeed is given, is a blend of truth and untruth. Note what Prince Ernest's sister Elizabeth said: "I speak very little like a courtier tho' bred up in the heart of Court... Poor Truth has a bad life of it, yet it will sometimes out." [Source, for those who want it: letter to the rector of St George's, Bloomsbury, June 1801, British Library manuscript Add 41695] Writers on royalty are often rather inclined to be overkind with the truth.
Well, when they change all the history books to say Ernest killed his valet and raped his sister, we can go with a single theory, until then we should have both. And the logical way is to have the traditional view first, the new theory second.-- Wehwalt 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
A few comments on this.
History books inevitably contain errors, misjudgments, special pleadings and even sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Historians and others need to do all they can bring out the truth, so that indifferent books are less likely to be granted equal weight with sound ones.
I have given a citation already for Ernest's confession to murder. There at least there is no call for using the word 'theory'.
As for Princess Sophia, who has suggested that Ernest raped her? Not I! My work on the question suggests that there was a consensual relationship. Evidence of a fondness between them first occurs when she is 16. She writes to her confidante Lady Harcourt, Aug 24 1794,"Dear Ernest is as kind to me as it is possible, rather a little imprudent at times, but when told of it never takes it ill" Harcourt manuscripts at Stanton Harcourt: volume of letters from the royal family. "Imprudent" was a word often used in society for behaviour likely to cause gossip. John Wardroper 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
WP talks about the opinions of scholars, not support them Whodhellknew 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd thought I'd add to this as this is my first day creating a Wikipedia account. I am nor a fan to be looking into all things royal. Though, what has interested me is that my 6th Great Grandfather is Joseph Sellis. I am a descendant of his daughter Charlotte Sellis who married into the Foden family branch. I am interested in creating a Wikipedia page for Sellis as all the information that is out about him is about his 'Suicide.' Which, in contrast to everything I have read about Sellis I think they is more to his life than just the day of his death on 31th of May 1810. I'm not surprised on the courts ruling as they are forever are within the favour of the royal family members regardless. In 1812, Sellis' family was kicked out of the palace and they moved up north to get as far away from the royals. In the 1841 I think Joseph Sellis wife died by this time. her 2nd husband James Draper was mentioned on there though. He lived with Charlotte Sellis' son Joseph Foden in Runcorn, England. Further on the censuses the family then resided in Manchester, Lancashire, England. Which, alot of the family still to this day are from. I see that some of you mention John Wardroper and his book. Does anyone know if he is this alive or how I'd get in contact with him. Where I was in London a few years ago I knocked at his address he given on one of his in research of Sellis and his family. Unfortunately, he did not live their. Though, they is a few other people that have wrote books and mention the name of Sellis also. Quite the infamous guy isn't he just... 17:00PM 18th April 2021 (UK time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMW1995 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
<unindent> It speaks to the disruption to royal legitimacy caused by the intemperate actions of Charles I in the context of the Protestant Reformation. All entertaining speculation; for it to appear in the article a reliable source making the argument is required, and original research drawing on facts to synthesise the argument cannot be accepted. .. dave souza, talk 07:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
He is the First. No question. Looks like the first "first" one died before the appointment became elective, so I guess id didnt' count.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean "effective". I'll have to look into that, but in Germany he is often reffered to as Ernst-August II. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 20:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No the Kingdom of hanover didnt do that also he also King george V was that because of the Past Kings of hanovers(Also the king of britain george VI) the last King george was King George IV of Hanover so that is why there was a King geroge V of Hanover ( 68.80.137.103 ( talk) 20:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted in the next day or so. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Surprisingly interesting for such a long article about a comparatively obscure historical figure. Sca ( talk) 16:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 2015 80.177.167.155 ( talk) 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover. Wehwalt ( talk) 23:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Ernest Augustus I of Hanover →
Ernest Augustus of Hanover – He was not known by the numeral during his reign (as can be seen from
this coin and
this statue) or to history (
his article in the NDB). There are several other people called Ernest Augustus of Hanover, but as a king he should be the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Opera hat (
talk) 12:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to have them for the continuing changes to the lede.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This article has been through extensive review and copy-editing, via the featured article process. The persistent changes are not an improvement in my opinion. DrKay ( talk) 07:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This article contradicts George V of Hanover. Please see Talk:George V of Hanover#Blindness. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not find Bird, but I found Willis, and it gives the account of the prince's accident, and gives it happening on 11 September 1832 (p. 221) and it mentions that he lost the sight in his right eye "as the result of an inflammation during his illness several years before" (p. 220). The timeframe being talked about is 1832. There's no particular discussion of Georg as successor.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)