Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 British military history task force
Early Modern Warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)
German military history task force

Surely calling a non-reigning Palatine Wittelsbach "Duke of Bavaria" is taking recognition of titular claims to excess.Septentrionalis 02:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Bavaria was used by all agnates of the palatine house of Wittelsbach, much like Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg for all members of the house of Hanover and Duke of Wuerttemberg for remaining dynasts of the house of Wuerttemberg. Prince of the Rhine is, at best, an invention or courtesy title. Charles 02:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is English usage, which "Duke of Bavaria" is not.Septentrionalis 03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would he really be a prince of the Rhine when the family were counts-palatine of the Rhine? I am not saying it isn't English usage. I am saying that it factually was not a true title. However, the title duke of Bavaria is a real title and that is why it is included. Wikipedia practice is to show legal names and titles. That is what was done with Rupert. Charles 03:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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 don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 02:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rupert's titles are an absolute mess anyway. Current title seems to be most common usage, prince appended to front is fine. Charles 17:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see why this should be moved. Gryffindor 17:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, it is my understanding that the format "xxxx of xxxx" for males applies only to monarchs, see point 1 on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). In this case, the prince falls under the category "Other royals", see points 1-4. Gryffindor 18:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, given Septentrionalis's posting to this page "Please not; present title better than that" this seems a reasonable compromise page name. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

This is odd. The article states that he was commonly known also as "Prince Rupert of the Palatinate" so shouldn't this article fall under this name? I think it better in this case to contact the creators of this article directly instead of deciding this over their heads.. Gryffindor 17:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Google gives over 20 times the results for "of the Rhine" than for "of the Palatinate". The various houses-palatine have always left me with headaches :-P. I will change it to "of the Rhine". Charles 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes but does this only apply to Prince Rupert with the google hits, or all "of the Palatinate"s. For example Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine was always Princess Palatine, not of Rhine. Gryffindor 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is with Rupert only. It is so incredibly inconsistent though! Look at the Elector Palatine's page for his children, for instance. Sadly, common usage reigns supreme in this instance. Charles 18:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It is really inconsistent, but I think "Prince Rupert of the Rhine" is the best title. "Prince Rupert" is highly ambiguous, and thus unacceptable, and any other name is not in common use. john k 15:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He is commonly known in English as "Prince Rupert" (See for example the GREAT REBELLION article in 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica). If further explanation is needed it is: a German relation of King Charles I who had more experiance than most English men at the start of the Civil War in matters military. He falls under that quote an inhabitant of "a distant country that we know little about". His entry in 1911 is: RUPERT, PRINCE, COUNT PALATINE OF THE RHINE AND DUKE OF BAVARIA. Google:

  • about 651 English pages for "Prince Rupert of the Rhine" -wikipedia
  • about 545 English pages for "Rupert of the Rhine" -"Prince Rupert of the Rhine" -wikipedia.
  • about 56,300 English pages for "Prince Rupert" -"Rupert of the Rhine" "civil war" -wikipedia

So there are several other options. We could do what the modern http://www.britannica.com which uses "Prince Rupert" or we could move the article to "Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria" which is as he is named in this BBC link or the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica "Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine and Duke of Bavaria". --Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can cite the case of the duc des Deux-Ponts, who took his comital palatine title as equal to duke, rendering it of importance. If any move is made, Prince Rupert of the Rhine could be moved to Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, in order to avoid such a long title. Charles 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Please not; present title better than that. Septentrionalis 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I still feel that permitting Rupert of the Rhine to be a direct link would be even better; but I will not sulk if the present consensus endures. Septentrionalis 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The titles are a mess, for sure: Check the name he's got on de:, he's got even more titles there. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

[edit] But What's In A Name ?

As per: [1]

Between 1673 and 1679 the Admiralty Board was composed of between twelve and sixteen Privy Counsellors who served without salaries.

The next Lord High Admiral after the Duke of York (1661-1673) was Prince George (1702-1708).

Prince Rupert could be styled First Lord of succesive Admiralty Boards ( 1673, 1674, 1677 ).

Let's not comment on the "humiliating failure" until we have the facts straight.

Hoped to have gone fishing,

a salty
(Lunarian 12:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrince_Rupert_of_the_Rhine_1cc7.html"