Talk:Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Declaration of Pillnitz?[edit]

This isn't my area of study at all, but I can't find any other real mention of this "Brunswick Proclamation" or "Brunswick Manifesto". Is it possible that someone's mixing this up with (or is this in part of) the Declaration of Pillnitz that was issued by Emperor Leopold II and Frederick William II of Prussia around the same time? --Ricky81682 00:35, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

No, the Brunswick Manifesto was a real thing. Written by the Prince of Condé, I believe. john k 01:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Republicans?[edit]

Also, the Republicans that are mentioned either needs to be explain on the Republican disambiguation page in the context of the French Revolutionary Wars or needs to be linked to the proper group. --Ricky81682 00:35, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Name[edit]

For all other rulers of the time we use the English version of the name, e.g. Frederick William III of Prussia. Is there a reason we aren't doing it here? Chl 13:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg → Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick … Rationale: We should use English; and this Duke is notable as a general in the Wars of the French Revolution, in which he is invariably called Duke of Brunswick

Views[edit]

Please add and sign with ~~~~ a one-sentence comment here.
  • Support as nom. This is the usage of the New Cambridge Modern History. Septentrionalis 22:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't specifically care where the article is, but I would point out that right now Duke of Brunswick is a redirect to Duchy of Brunswick, and should probably be a disambiguation, with this particular duke mentioned prominently. Whether we use "Karl Wilhelm" or "Charles William", though, "Duke of Brunswick" is probably more appropriate than "Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg", which is downright obscure, even if technically correct. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest relevant, accurate information not sacrificed; let a redirect take care of "Brunswick" → "Brunswick-Lüneburg". Alternatively, if title changed to "of Brunswick", ensure something along the lines of "(properly the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg)" included near the start of the article. Regards, David Kernow 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the alternative, although the NCMH index (only) calls him Brunswick-Bevern. I suspect the situation is complicated enough to warrant a paragraph of its own. Septentrionalis 23:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. AjaxSmack 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per results from Google Books [1]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Current title is Anglo-German garble. ~ trialsanderrors 09:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He is usually called with just Braunschweig or Brunswick, and not with any hyphenated postfixes. Perhaps one or two of his three first names would also be droppable, for briefness' sake (full names and titulary are properly in the article, not in article name). Henq 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion[edit]

  • What/where is the threshold between translating people's names and retaining them?  (Should Giuseppe Verdi, for instance, become Joseph Verdi or another Joseph Green?)  I'm inclined to oppose as I suspect the majority of people with whom this duke interacted – certainly those not bound to refer to him by title – would have considered and/or used "Karl" and "Wilhelm" as his first names. Thanks, David Kernow 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I wonder if George III is a(nother) "trick" example, as he became an English monarch; this Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg did not...?
(b) If Joseph Green was more well-known as "Yoysef Grinberg", then perhaps that is a more suitable name for his article...?
(c) I'd hoped a scan of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) might've assisted me, but there appears a mixture of English and non-English renditions of names (including, ironically, Wilhelm). So I'm still uneasy about whether English is the appropriate default as regards foreign people's names; I wonder just how often the "most common form of the name used in English" (ibid.) means "the name in an English translation"... Apologies if I've missed something obvious, David 00:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By me, it means looking him up in English works of general reference and seeing what he's called. YMMV. Septentrionalis 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay; I'd noted your original NCMH reference. I'm not voting as I realise I'm not sufficiently informed. Thanks for your input, David 03:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should try to keep the two questions here separate: 1) whether the given name should be translated or not, 2) what the correct title is.

1) Translation: there is no generally accepted rule here, except that the names of sufficiently old nobles and rulers are generally translated and the names of current ones generally aren't. Where to draw the line is a difficult question; but in the case of Germany, we are in the lucky situation that there is a date that offers itself: 1918, when monarchy and all titles were abolished. So, for the sake of consistency, I agree that this guy should have his given names translated into English.

2) Title: There is currently a debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) about the correct titles for the dukes of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Before making a decision here, we should wait for the result of that debate. According to our naming conventions for rulers, the common usage goes only so far; e.g., Queen Victoria is certainly almost always called that, and yet our article on her is at Victoria of the United Kingdom. Chl 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

name and number[edit]

What is the basis for calling him "Charles II"? Most sources I've seen use "Charles William Ferdinand" and call his grandson "Charles II". See, for example, the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, which calls the subject of this article "Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand" and the grandson "Karl II". I'm going to move. john k (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Gauss Patronage[edit]

It should be added that the Duke of Brunswick supported Carl Friedrich Gauss' education. Gauss was one of the greatest mathematicians ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffel (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some suitable text, with a reference taken from Gauss' article. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens after a standard -ly adverb[edit]

@Modest Genius: I quoted chapter and verse of the MOS in my edit summary, but somehow you did not find, read and absorb this part of WP:HYPHEN: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary)". The hyphens do not help the reader. Chris the speller yack 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections or requests for further clarifications, this seems to be settled, so I will remove the superfluous hyphens. Chris the speller yack 15:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just seen this and have no idea what was being discussed 8 years ago. Modest Genius talk 12:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_William_Ferdinand,_Duke_of_Brunswick&oldid=1213763393"