Talk:Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover

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

I'm pretty sure I've read this somewhere, but I can't find where. I've toned down the article correspondingly. I would certainly agree with you that rumors about Cumberland were probably exaggerated. The article was not meant to suggest that these rumors were true. But, of course, if they were not genuine rumors, they should be removed. john 07:13, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Duke of Cumberland, son of George III

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.)

Surely his grand-uncle, the Butcher Cumberland, is at least as notorious? At least in Scotland... john k 02:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Wicked Ernest

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)

That is fine (though the place to bring your source to the attention of other editors is on the talk page, not the article page), but you deleted the language in the article that said that he didn't do these things, and inserted your belief (which I have no doubt is well founded) that he did. The thing is, you can believe either way, but we don't know for sure either way--and their are sources which don't hold the same way (going all the way back to The Royal Dukes. That is why I suggested (and to help you out, even started a paragraph) that you summarize your theory in addition to the existing text, so that the reader is aware of both schools of thought.--Wehwalt 16:51, 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)

Call it what you will. You have your own views, I am sure they are sincerely held. However, I do not know that it is the historical judgment of historians generally that Ernst murdered his valet and had an affair with his own sister. I will not accept what you say as undisuputed fact without knowing there is a consensus on these points.--Wehwalt 18:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything happened between Princess Sophia and Ernest, it was rape, not an affair. She'd written to her lover, General Thomas Garth, that Ernest had made "attempts" on her person.

WP talks about the opinions of scholars, not support them Whodhellknew 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

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)

King instead of Victoria

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)

It was not a case of want – in the UK, we have a male-preference succession, which means that the most senior person of the male line succeeds, i.e. William's next-oldest brother's eldest daughter, Victoria. Whereas, in Hanover, male-only succession was in place, so Victoria did not succeed, rather, William's most senior male heir – his next surviving brother, Ernest Augustus. Incidentally, this is all explained in the article(s) ^† DBD 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In the old days, that would have never been allowed to happen. Hence, the case of want. I think it was entirely political, because the male descendents of the Georgian kings were not exhausted or extinct. The Jacobites had lost and Catholic Emancipation was passed, so there was no reason to keep this dynasty on the throne. Prince Albert's dynasty had less dominance, since he and his heirs had no Continental territory to pull the UK around in directions possibly unfavourable to the British people. 68.110.8.21 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hanover had very little influence on the UK, especially after the early years of the personal union. From 1760-1837, the last three joint kings, only George IV visited Hanover, and that very briefly. The Act of Settlement required that British troops not be used to defend Hanover, in fact it was occupied by Napoleon. Hanover was very much an afterthought. It was a place where impoverished royals could live cheaply, and where some royal connection would be sent off to serve as governor. At the end, the British were delighted to lose Hanover, since it meant that Cumberland would leave England.--Wehwalt 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, it's not like he was illegitimate. There had to be an ulterior motive to displacing a dynasty with enough living male representatives to continue the line into the present day, including the future to come. Parliament did this to the Stuarts too, so this truly speaks for the power they wield. 68.110.8.21 04:32, 15 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)

You know, it doesn't hurt to ask questions and discuss. 68.110.8.21 12:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the Act of Settlement 1701 Victoria was the lawful heir to the British throne. Cumberland was so detested in Britain that Parliament probably never once considered passing a new law dispossessing her. Jess Cully 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

One could only wonder what things would be like now, if Parliament had decided to keep up dynastic politics with the House of Orange-Nassau, the Hanoverians, or the present Windsors. They are choosing to revive the Oldenburg element of Prince George, Queen Anne's husband. That's probably because they wanted it then and tragedy cut off their hopes for a lasting succession, which is now present with Prince Philip's "Mountbatten" children. I wonder if it has anything to do with the Whiggish preference for pre-Norman conditions, when England was dominated by Scandinavian pirates instead. I don't think it is entirely up to the Queen in who she could marry. Remember, if the dynastic politics had been Royally directed (in the Stuart favour), there would have never been any Dutch or German monarchs of the British Isles. Ireland would probably never split, while one can only speculate how America would have turned out. Actually, I think things would be the same as in France. The Revolution would have deposed the monarchy for good and the American colonies would have been of no consequence. There would have been a successor to our Robespierre (Cromwell) to be a Napoleon of Britain. Imperial India would not have been the focus of power, but I think that Britain would have Continental expansion and client or puppet countries in Europe instead of the Commonwealth version. 68.110.8.21 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)