Talk:Frederick, Prince of Wales

I can't see any reason why this article should have been moved from "Frederick, Prince of Wales" - the most commonly used name. As with all other princes and princesses, his middle names can be (and are) mentioned in the text. I intend to move it back unless anyone has any objection. Deb 17:46 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've always seen him referred to as Frederick Lewis. john 19:10 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I doubt that you've always seen him referred to as "Frederick Lewis". "Frederick Louis" is equally common, and just plain "Frederick" is more common than either. Deb 20:42 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen "Frederick Louis". I can't recall too many sightings of just plain "Frederick", which was my point. Most of the early hits on '"Frederick" "Prince of Wales" -Lewis -Louis' on Google are for James I's eldest son Henry Frederick, but that might only mean I'm excluding instances where "Lewis" or "Louis" is mentioned at some point, but not in the title. There are certainly more hits for "Frederick, Prince of Wales" than for "Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales" or "Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales"... but, of course, google isn't really a good source for this. Other encyclopedias and major historical works would seem to be a better source.

The Britannica article is titled "Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales". The 1911 Britannica titles his article "Frederick Louis". The Encyclopedia of World History. The Columbia Encyclopedia article is also "Frederick Louis", and refers to him as such in all the other articles referring to him. Looking through the first ten results of a search of historical journals on JSTOR for "Frederick" and "Prince of Wales", one finds results for both "Frederick Louis" and "Frederick" (no "Frederick Lewis"). On these grounds, I'd support a move to "Frederick Louis", but not one to merely "Frederick", since he is commonly referred to with his middle name. john 21:11 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Further: Linda Colley's Britons refers to him in the index as "Frederick Lewis". It seems to me there's no reason not to include additional information when the fellow was commonly referred to by the longer name. But perhaps other opinions should be sought. john 03:43 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In view of the quantity of research I've done into the subject, I would have to dispute your findings, and I do believe the move was quite unnecessary. However, as someone's now gone to the trouble of changing all the links to the new title of the article, I shan't bother changing it back. Deb 19:34 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What quantity of research is that? Could you provide references? I was perhaps too strong in my earlier comments, and I've certainly seen him referred to as "Frederick, Prince of Wales", but usually in more informal discussions of him. All the encyclopedia articles on him that I've found list him as "Frederick Louis". As such, it seems like Frederick Louis (or Lewis) is more appropriate. After all, Gladstone is sometimes called "William Gladstone" and sometimes "William Ewart Gladstone", but we have the article at the latter, because he's referred to as both, and it's better to give more information. john 19:43 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the reason we have Gladstone at "William Ewart Gladstone" is because he is referred to by his full name (or at any rate as "W.E.Gladstone") at least as often as he is referred to as "William Gladstone". That's not true in the case at issue. We don't generally have princes and princesses listed by their full names (except where necessary for disambiguation), because the middle names are rarely used.

By renaming the article "Frederick Lewis", the person who did so (and I know it wasn't you) has made it less likely that people will find it on their first attempt at searching, simply because of the confusion over "Lewis" and "Louis". The comparison with entries in printed encyclopaedias is not appropriate, because they are searched alphabetically. Wikipedia is not. Deb 21:52 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

P.S. See my user page to understand my other comment.

Hmm... book on famous people from Wales, eh? I'd note that it's possible (although I'm not certain of it), that I was the one who moved it to "Frederick Lewis". If so, I apologize. I shouldn't have done so without consulting first. In any event, I'm still not sure what should be done here. On the one hand, I still think he's referred to as "Frederick Lewis" or "Frederick Louis" at least as often as "Frederick". On the other hand, the fact that there's two spellings is problematic (too bad he was christened in Hanover, eh?). Getting back to Google, "Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales" gives 356 hits; "Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales" gives 141 hits; and "Frederick, Prince of Wales" gives 1,310 hits, of which only 130 seem to be short for "Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales". So, if you'd like to move it back, although I'm still not completely comfortable with it, I'd be willing to help change the links back, and such. john 00:15 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, I would like to move it back, but I'm not sure I can face it, especially if it's going to cause further controversy. I'll just go off and ponder, if you don't mind. Deb 19:46 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sure. At this point, I don't especially care. As I said, I'll help with fixing links, if you decide you want to move it. john 23:44 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not as tired as I was last night, so I've made a start. Deb 17:26 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand the statement:

Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales was the only man of that name ever to hold the title Prince of Wales.

According to Charles, Prince of Wales, he also has the title Prince of Wales. Could someone with some knowledge of the subject elaborate. --enceladus 08:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Only man of that name" means the only Frederick to be the Prince of Wales (there have been quite a few Princes of Wales).

James F. (talk) 11:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Need to actually start reading what is written and not what I think is written there. Thanks. --enceladus 22:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changed Lewis to Louis, because I thought it was just a mistake, but then I see here that there's been discussion about it. Well, I can't say authoritatively or anything, but Britannica and other references do say Louis. Everyking 18:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are lots of references to Frederick being killed by a cricket ball, and only slightly fewer that mention a tennis ball. But as our own article on tennis mentions, tennis is known to have been invented in the mid 1800s, 100 years or more after Frederick's death. So I've edited to reflect these facts. - dmmaus 10:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tennis is in Shakespere, Ever hear of the Tennis Court Oath in Paris, 1789? [[Paul, in Saudi 10:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)]]

Oh, yes. I see now the tennis article refers only to lawn tennis. Real tennis has a much longer history. Re-editing this article to explain more clearly. - dmmaus 03:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole story is apocryphal, at any rate. The ODNB notes:

However, in March 1751 he was taken ill after superintending his workmen at Kew, ‘complaining of a violent pain in his side’ (Newman, ‘Leicester House politics’, Camden Miscellany, 195); he suffered this, with feverishness and fainting, for two weeks. On Wednesday 20 March 1751 he was pronounced ‘quite safe’ (ibid., 198) by his physicians, but about 9.30 p.m., at Leicester House, he felt ill again and soon afterwards ‘laid his head upon his pillow and without a convulsion sigh or groan or the least movement—rattled in his throat and was dead in three minutes’ (ibid.). His death was subsequently blamed on a burst abscess in one lung, perhaps the result of an old sporting injury, from which has arisen the legend that Frederick died soon after being hit by a cricket or tennis ball.

john k 05:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks for clearing that up properly. - dmmaus 08:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tagged the "titles and styles" section with an unreferencedsection template. What evidence is there that he was styled "Prince Frederick of Hanover" rather than "Duke Frederick of Brunswick-Lueneberg" in the period 1707-1714? And the article on Duke of Gloucester says he was styled by that title from 1718 until he was created Duke of Edinburgh. Opera hat (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Recently the file File:Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales by Philip Mercier.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The story of the birth of the first child, the "she-mouse" Augusta, appears to contain a contradiction in timing. The reference given indeed states that the birth took place in July, but the first child is said in all other sources to have been born on August 31 of that year! I don't think this is possible. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Frederick, Prince of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150623215338/http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=6741&gpn=2 to http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=6741&gpn=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150623205944/http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=6494 to http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=6494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Early refs:

• Notes and Queries referencing Memories of the Last Ten Years of the Reign of George the Second by Walpole (Appendix)
• Literary Gazette.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC).Reply

Still not clear whether the epigram was anonymous, and the reference to Thackeray is a distraction. Valetude (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Post-nominal letters, as they appear now, do not appear in the common way in Wikipedia. They should be changed to Template:Post-nominals. Thank you. Duke of Somewhere (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

One editor keeps going around replacing long-standing images of royalty without consensus. In this case, the picture of Prince Frederick had been in the infobox for a decade. The editor in question replaced this image with the one on the right. It could be problematic if the image keeps changing. Векочел (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Векочел: From what I can see the image you want though it’s been in the infobox for some time it had just as much consensus as the image I put. There was no talk page conversation. Even the editor who added to the infobox in 2010 didn’t even right a edit summary. Just because no one changed it doesn’t mean there was consensus. Orson12345 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Based on the painting alone the painting on the right is artistically better. And looks toward the text which always looks better. Orson12345 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply