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: No Consensus - The arguments of those in favour of moving are based on WP:COMMONNAME. In contrast the primary argument put forward in this case are based on a legal name.
Assessing the weight that should be given to the argument based on the legal-name is not a trivial exercise. Wikipedia has a long-standing policy of favouring common names over official names, but there are exceptions for royalty. The relevant section of the guide covering royalty tells us not to use pretended titles unless "this is what the majority of reliable sources use". The question is therefore what was said about what reliable sources say.
The nom put forward a good prima-facie case that reliable English-language sources used in the article all use the proposed title. This was supported to some extent by Ngrams analysis raised in support !votes, though the NGrams evidence did not seem to relate directly to the topic of this article - had it done so it would have been more heavily weighted.
In opposition JoelleJay raised a number of apparently reliable sources that used the "von Hannover" formulation. This was sufficient to at least cast doubt on the argument put forward in the nomination. Arguments based on an EU style-guide are less heavily weighted, however: Wikipedia has its own conventions.
A further argument raised in opposition was two previous decisions, however the applicability of those decisions to the present one was not discussed in detail. The 7 June 2023 move discussion was put forward to review, with a number of votes on either side of endorse/overturn before being withdrawn after the editor who requested review simply moved the article to Albert of Saxony where it has since remained without any objections. At the very least, it is hard to give this decision a lot of weight. The 6 December 2022 discussion was closed based in large part on the Reichsburger issue, but I don't think any serious argument has been made here that this bizarre movement is an issue in this case.
Summing up, the real argument here is about what name reliable sources in English actually use for the subject of this article, and sufficient doubt was cast on "of Hannover" to put this in to "no consensus" territory. All other arguments were hard to give a lot of weight to despite being the subject of much spilled digital ink.
PS - there is an absolutely massive backlog of cases at WP:RM right now and disputes over the titles of nobility such as this one are the primary cause. It really would be a good thing for this kind of issue to be addressed at a policy/guideline level rather than trying to fight it out case-by-case. Even if this has been tried in the past, I urge you to try again. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ernst August von Hannover (born 1954) → Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) – Consistency and WP:COMMONAME. The text says his name is Prince Ernst August of Hanover, his father is "of Hanover", and they come from House of Hanover. The English-language sources used in the page like [1], [2], [23], [28] and [32] uniformly use the name Ernst August of Hanover. FromCzech (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. English-language common name. Ngrams for all men of this name[1] demonstrate that most English language sources translate the territorial designation but that using English versions of the given names is falling out of favour. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - per consistency & common name. GoodDay (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose The actual legal name of this person (born 1954) is "... von Hanover" -- the fact that there is some pretence (I don't know if it's his personally, or just among monarchist Wikipedia editors) that this is a translatable title is just that, a false pretence. The logic of the previous requested move applies both to explain why this article is not titled "Prince ..." and why it is not titled "... of Hanover". --JBL (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In particular, The text says his name is Prince Ernst August of Hanover only because the article is wrong; his father is "of Hanover" yes well his father lived in a country in which noble titles had a non-pretentious existence (albeit only for 4 years). --JBL (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Technically, his father, for those four years, was heir to the Duchy of Brunswick, not the Kingdom of Hanover, which had been abolished about 50 years prior. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Touché; I am open to the possibility that it is also wrong in the case of his father :). --JBL (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose legal name is von Hanover. We don't translate legal names. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, legal names should not be translated even when some marginal English sources do use a translated title in pretense.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, per consistency and English spelling Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Do you also think Rembrandt should be called "Rembrant of the Rhine" in his article, for 'English spelling'? --JBL (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Van Rijn is a surname. Ernst August's legal surname is Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland. The article won't be at his surname or his legal name, regardless of the outcome here. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's not like we would use the translation of his full deprecated title as the article title either, though. "Prinz von Hannover" is clearly the substantive surname in RS, and according to our MOS Ambiguous[f] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. so even if the translated form was more common in RS we would still prefer the untranslated surname because it is accurate. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As I said "The article won't be at his surname or his legal name, regardless of the outcome here". Neither the current article title nor the suggested target uses a "substantive surname". Neither involves any titles at all, and both use only his given legal names; neither uses his legal surname or a deprecated title. You say, "Prinz von Hannover" is clearly the substantive surname in RS. So, why aren't youwe using it? Celia Homeford (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Amended 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Van Rijn is a surname. Yes, exactly; and either "von Hannover" or "Prinz von Hannover" is [the part of] a surname [that gets used as the reasonable abbreviation], not something that has an "English spelling" any more than "Van Rijn". So, why aren't you using it? Who is the "you" supposed to be in this question? --JBL (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Why aren't we using it? Because that was the result of this discussion, which moved the article from its prior (much worse) title its current (much better) one. (And the current proposal is to make it worse again, though not as bad as it was before.) But surely you knew that. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Common name and consistency are part of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. The opposing arguments cite legal name, which isn't a part of the policy and it isn't his legal name anyway. At best, it is part of his legal name in Germany, but he has different "legal names" in the UK and Monaco. I also find the opposing arguments on the grounds that he holds a title of pretense or that it's only used in "marginal English sources" invalid. It's used in mainstream and official sources, and besides the title isn't included in the request, so it's irrelevant. DrKay (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  To paraphrase my argument from the last discussion where we had consensus to move numerous articles to their native names: Apart from minor orthography alterations, we don't translate any part of someone's modern legal name, including nobiliary particles like "von". Our MOS says Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources, and NCROY says Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use (note this is not restricted to only English RS).

  As evidence that the proposed move target is inaccurate for any personal name in Europe, we have top-tier RS in the form of an international governmental translation guideline that makes it clear no amount of surname translation into English would meet official EU standards: Personal names should retain their original accents, e.g. Cañete, Malmström, Šefčovič. The German ß may, however, be replaced with ss and if the name is essentially a proper name... leave it in the original form, and a high-quality English-language publication from the subject's home country discussing this practice specifically in the context of defunct German noble titles-cum-surnames: But a century ago, the Weimar Constitution determined that all those hereditary titles should be abolished, allowing members of the former nobility to only keep traces of it in their surnames. Therefore, to be exact, since his family name is Prinz von Thurn und Taxis, we shouldn't even be translating the word "prince" — just like anyone else's family name isn't translated into other languages. And we also have publications, from multiple countries, that explicitly address what the proper surname of Ernst August is and which versions are inaccurate. Adel verzichtet nicht: Der Drang zum Von und Zu, Die Presse am Sonntag, 30 Sep 2012; Vergangene Prinzen - Vor 100 Jahren wurde der Adelsstand abgeschafft, DPA International, 11 Aug 2019 (Der Unterschied zu früher ist aber bedeutend. Ein Adliger trägt einen Titel, auf den der Vorname folgt: Prinz Charles oder Prinz Harry. Bei den deutschen Nachkommen des Adels gehört das Wort «Prinz» nur zum Nachnamen dazu. Vorname: Ernst August, Nachname: Prinz von Hannover. Charles ist ein Prinz. Ernst August heißt nur so.

  What further evidence for MOS do we need that "of Hanover" or any other translation is not correct? JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is an argument for moving him to "Ernst August Prinz von Hannover (born 1954)", but is not a persuasive argument for retaining a form that is incorrect according to your own logic. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The article title is currently 8/10, the proposed alternative that's under discussion here is 4/10. 8 > 4 regardless of whether there is another option that is 9/10. You are welcome after the end of this RM to propose a move to "Ernst August Prinz von Hannover (born 1954)", but how we would !vote in that hypothetical discussion is irrelevant to the current discussion, since that title is not one of the options under consideration. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In addition to what JBL said, which is the main rebuttal to your statement, I contend that there is a much bigger difference between translating a surname--against international guidance, our own guidance, accuracy, and the laws of at least two countries--and abridging a surname to a form supported by many reliable sources. The sources above also are not saying "von Hannover" alone is incorrect (the one in DPA in fact uses it throughout), while they are saying that any translation of them is wrong. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Legal name in the UK. Official English-language name in Monaco. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Neither of these is WP:RS for anything. --JBL (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I mean maybe the second one could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF for sufficiently mundane details about Caroline, but not for self-serving stuff like the claim that Ernst is "His Royal Highness" of anywhere, and especially of the nonexistent Kingdom of Hanover. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If I looked correctly, there is not a single available English source in the article that uses "von Hannover", and they are reliable. In that case, I'd say it's an alternate name and doesn't conflict with WP:COMMONNAME as you write. WP:NCROY says that It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English..., but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles, which supports the move. I also don't understand how the international governmental translation guideline (Page not found btw) and the German publication affect the title of an enwiki article, it seems irrelevant to me. When I look at frwiki, eswiki, ptwiki, etc., I see the most commonly used and most understandable name in the given language too, not the legal name. FromCzech (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It doesn't matter which sources are cited in the article, what matters is the overall source landscape, accuracy, and consistency with other pages. I know this is completely different from Czechia WP so perhaps that is where the issue lies, but: we do not translate surnames for any other contemporary people, so why should we for him? Simply because some news media in English translate it for sensationalization purposes, or to pander to monarchist/nationalist audiences, or because Google just automatically translates "von" and "Hannover" separately and English-speaking journalists don't realize it's a surname? And FYI there are plenty of English sources that use "von Hannover", including scholarly journals:

  [2][3][4]("Caroline von Hannover, the daughter of ailing Prince Rainier, appears with her brother, Prince [Albert], and her husband, Ernst August von Hannover")[5][6]("a March 1997 image of Caroline and Ernst August von Hannover at a horse show")[7]("Finally, in the third von Hannover case and in a recent judgment petitioned by Princess Caroline's husband, Ernst August von Hannover")[8][9][10][11]("Hildesheim state court Judge Andreas Schlueter found Ernst August von Hannover guilty Tuesday")

  The EU style guide demonstrates it is not standard to translate names of even organizations if the name is "proper" (as opposed to a description); this is also consistent with our own MOS. The Germany-based English language newspaper demonstrates that translating a surname that used to be part of a German noble title is considered improper in all cases. These two examples are evidence that surname translations are inaccurate according to the high-quality sources that actually address that question broadly. Meanwhile, we have multiple sources that expound on translating von Hannover's last name in particular, and all of them say this is incorrect.

  So on balance the fact that we have sources explicitly stating "von Hannover" and other German aristocratic surnames should not be translated supports the statement that such translations are inaccurate, and therefore may overrule COMMONNAME even if the subjects weren't defunct nobility. But since we are dealing with defunct nobility, we must also observe the successful RfC that added to NCROY the rule that defunct titles should not be used unless they meet the higher standard of clearly being the preferred name across sources in general. Treating a surname as if it was still a noble title is precisely what translating any part of it is doing, and this was directly opposed by consensus in the previous RfCs on this exact topic. JoelleJay (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per consistency and all the points raised in this discussion. There is no reason this article should be treated differently than the other descendants of the former German nobility. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. As noted above, von Hannover is his legal name now, not particularly a royal title that should be translated.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]