Talk:Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge

Untitled

Royals usually don't use ordinals, so this page probably should be at Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, just like Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and so on. -- Lord Emsworth 02:52, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Arms

I'm removing Image:Adolphus Duke of Cambridge Arms.svg from this article as the arms are depicted wrongly: cadet members of the House of Hanover used neither the Royal Crown on the inescutcheon of Hanover nor the smaller inescutcheon gules with the Crown of Charlemagne (as only the head of the House was Arch-Treasurer)[1]. Opera hat (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Succession box

I've made some edits to the succession box, adding in that the duke was Viceroy of Hanover through the entire existence of that office. In doing so I noticed that the two Viscounts Melville needed disambiguation (as per WP:SBS/G) and was confused to note that Prince George, Duke of Cambridge is successor to three of these offices (President of the Foundling Hospital, Grand Master of the Order of St Michael and St George and Duke of Cambridge, 4th creation). I can't think of a way to make this clearer than I have done, though, by piping the first two to Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge.

Normally, I'd rowspan these, but there are intervening headings (that are useful, so I didn't want to remove them) and, at least in Google Chrome under the Vector skin on my laptop, that rowspans quite badly (I've removed the irrelevant rows):

Other offices
Preceded by The Duke of York and Albany	President of the Foundling Hospital 1827 – 1850	Succeeded by Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge
Honorary titles
Preceded by Sir Thomas Maitland	Grand Master of the Order of St Michael and St George 1825 – 1850
Peerage of the United Kingdom
New creation	Duke of Cambridge 4th creation 1801 – 1850

Even assigning a background colour to the rowspanned cell doesn't solve the overrunning colour bars — and, of course, the colour would differ according to users' skins. We could amend all header bars, but that would be a big task and they're all protected so, frankly, would be a bit of an arse. So I'm not really sure how best to handle this.

What I've actually done, as can be seen on the article page, is make the relevant rows appear thusly:

Other offices
Preceded by The Duke of York and Albany	President of the Foundling Hospital 1827 – 1850	Succeeded by Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge
Honorary titles
Preceded by Sir Thomas Maitland	Grand Master of the Order of St Michael and St George 1825 – 1850	Succeeded by Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge
Peerage of the United Kingdom
New creation	Duke of Cambridge 4th creation 1801 – 1850	Succeeded by Prince George

, which at least makes it clearer that the three offices are acquired by the younger duke, but is still imperfect (and technically violates WP:SBS/G).

Does anyone have any better suggestions? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I sympathise with the desire to remove redundancy, and I appreciate the industry and resourcefulness exhibited here, I do not believe that there is much reason for concern in this or similar succession boxes. Oddities often arise through the intermingling of succession chains in these boxes, and the {{s-start}} template system is designed to accommodate them as seamlessly as possible; it is actually one of the more common elements that a person may be repeated throughout a box (especially a bigger one), under the same name or title or, occasionally, different ones. We do have a system which allows adjacent cells from different rows to be merged into one, but this is only done when a) the names and links in the cells to be joined are identical, and b) the cells in question are truly adjacent, namely placed under the same header and in the correct order (rather than being re-arranged to facilitate their merger). It is therefore a more specialised and less universal treatment than it initially appears, and even in these relatively simple cases, if my memory serves me correctly, we have received complaints that the merged cells have a negative impact upon accessibility. Imagine what would happen with a more radical disruption of the succession box's tabular structure.

In any case, the grouping of succession lines based on predecessor or successor is arguably arbitrary, as it is not based on any shared traits of the titles themselves and also relies on the order of the header groups, which is defined by other criteria. Partial collapsing of succession boxes is itself a little-tested technique and I do not know what consequences its adoption on any scale would have. I am also adverse to seeing the visual prominence and clarity of headers compromised by the obscuration of one-third or even two-thirds thereof (in case both predecessors and successors are shared across the header groups).

I therefore consider any plans to join cells across headers not only unnecessary but potentially detrimental to the good function of succession boxes. More comments on this page's box to follow soon (I find myself increasingly unable to type right now); so far I have standardised the dates and fixed the Prince George links. (As I have recently clarified in the guidelines, and further clarified just now, there is no need to disambiguate a peer with the same title as the article's subject because that peer is clearly not the subject, who is never named in the box—or at least never named as anything but the very rare Himself or Herself. Good call on the Melvilles, though.) Waltham, The Duke of 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, your Grace. I agree with everything you've said; I'm happy with the box as it stands, I just wanted to make sure everyone else was; I think it's probably apparent enough that the successor in the last three rows happens to be the same person. And I agree, spanning a successor across headings would be pretty awkward, to say the least. I welcome any further comments or suggestions you may have... — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Popularity in Hanover

Maybe one should mention that the Duke was quite in popular figure in his time. This was, amongst other things, due to the fact that he introduced a rather modern and liberal constitution (compared to the old one) with a parliament consisting, like the Houses of Parliament in the United Kingdom, of two houses. His popularity in Hanover was further increased because his successor as ruler of the independent Kingdom of Hanover (Ernest Augustus I of Hanover) exercised an autocratic rule that made many yearn for the good old days when Adolphus was Governor General or Viceroy respectively. The memory of the popular Duke lives on in a toast well-known in the Hanover region: "Pitsche, pitsche, pitsche, der Herzog von Cambridsche. Hei kümmt, hei kümmt, hei kümmt, ob hei noch einen nümmt? Hei nümmt noch einen ... na denn man prost! (Rough translation: Swig, swig, swig, the Duke of Camdridge. He comes, he comes, he comes, maybe he'd like another drink? He'd like another one ... well then, cheers!)" "Pitschen" in Low German translates as "to swig" or "to booze". --91.19.103.16 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2020

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. DrKay (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge → Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge – User:Lord Emsworth states above "Royals usually don't use ordinals, so this page probably should be at Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, just like Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and so on". Regardless of "usage" (i.e. etiquette) the fact cannot be denied that his son was the 2nd Duke, having inherited the title on his father's death. Besides, the present Duke of Wellington (9th Duke), for example, is never referred to in person (e.g. in correspondence) by ordinal number anyway, but his article here is called Charles Wellesley, 9th Duke of Wellington. GEC Complete Peerage places the numerals 1 and 2 against the successive entries for the two men. Not new creations. It seems that Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex will be re-created Duke of Edinburgh after his father's death, so that would not make him 2nd Duke of Edinburgh, automatic inheritance will not operate, apparently. But this title Duke of Cambridge seems to have operated with regard to descent as a "normal" dukedom, heritable automatically by the eldest son. The Dukes of York during the Wars of the Roses, members of the royal family, all being descended from a younger son of King Edward III, are all given ordinal numbers in wikipedia and elsewhere. I suggest the article be re-named "Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge" and his son accordingly 2nd Duke. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Per Lord Emsworth. Unnecessary disambiguation and contrary to WP:CONCISION and WP:COMMONNAME. DrKay (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is disambiguation "unnecessary" here but necessary for Duke of Beaufort and for every other dukedom on wikipedia? Why is it necessary for Duke of York, a far more prominent family in British history? I don't follow the logic. The persons involved here are not great enough celebrities to have "common names", as for example the 1st Duke of Wellington, whose article title omits the ordinal number. That's not the case for any other dukes on wikipedia, as far as I am aware.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort, is ambiguous. There is more than one man of that name. Edward, Duke of York, is also ambiguous. Edward, Duke of York, has a hatnote directing people to others of that name, but whether it's the primary topic should be examined. DrKay (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Royals with a substantive title. We don't do '1st', '2nd', etc for royalty (nor do any citations, by the way). Celia Homeford (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Request withdrawn, those rationales are fully persuasive. Thanks. Would it be useful for others like me who may question this point in future to place an explanatory note after the name, perhaps with a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Royals with a substantive title?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• The talk page discussion should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"First Duke of Cambridge" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect First Duke of Cambridge has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § First Duke of Cambridge until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)