Talk:Prince John of the United Kingdom

message: Princes John's eldest brother Edward VIII referred to him as "little better than an animal." Whatever the accuracy that time and sentiment has displaced, can there not be something other than the sentimental hagiography and internets-ASD diagnoses that proliferate even here? It seems so easy for the ignorant, cushioned by their short-bus-joke conditioned mentalities and their self-ascribed "I'm Asberger's me - cos I like Star Wars" nonsense to fail to understand anything about the problems Prince John may really have suffered - especially those that would have necessitated him being removed from others, especially being subjected to the public eye. No - it never occurs to any of you that he may have been prone to masturbating uncontrollably in public, for example - of course none of you have any idea what it is like for an adolescent with such disabilities, never mind the need to ever contemplate such. None of which is encyclopedic any more than the gushing 'nature's innocent special child' bullshit portrayed and endorsed so enthusiatically here. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about John's condition being romanticized. Contemporary reports seem to show he was uncontrollable and sometimes violent and destructive. 4.174.14.56 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Without more evidence, who knows? I'm inclined to agree with Plutonium. I'd like to see any other contemporary accounts, like what Roxana cites. They should be added to the article.  --Bluejay Young (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Views 

message: The channel 4 documentary "The Lost Prince" showed photographic evidence that the Prince John was at his grandfather's funeral in 1910, and was frequently seen in public until the First World War. This article seems inaccurate because mentions him mostly being shut up at Wood Farm. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  coronation 

message: It is not true that his "seclusion has subsequently been brought forward as evidence for the inhumanity of the royal family". Seclusion is not neglect, but the reverse. It is desirable for members of the royal family to be brought up out of the public limelight.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seclusion not evidence of neglect 

message: The article currently says:
Both these details seems to be sourced to the Channel 4 documentary which I'm not going to try and view but these seems to be a contradiction or at least a poor wording here. I'd interpret the second paragraph to mean from ~1913, he "slowly disappeared from the public eye". But the earlier paragraph seems to suggest he was "appearing frequently in public" until after 12 July 1916 which is a weird if he was slowly disappearing from 1913. There was obviously an abrupt sudden change in 1916 when he was sent away but I sort of think the latter paragraph is more likely to be true and the former is an oversimplification. I wonder if it's better to just remove the bit after the comma, and maybe merge the two paragraphs and then re-jig the lead (which also mentions the eleventh birthday bit). But we'll need someone who knows the documentary to help.  Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: The note #2 claiming that George V said his father was afraid of his mother, he was afraid of his father, etc, etc. has not been proven to have actually been said by George. In fact, something that George DID say when his father died was that he had lost his best friend. That doesn't sound like someone who was afraid of his father. Also, if you look at photos of him with his children, you can see that they ALL have genuine smiles on their faces. His kids certainly didn't look like they were afraid of him in any way, and he looked like he cared very deeply for his children. This fake quote should not be used as any kind of source or proof of anything. It is completely unproven that he said it, and the known facts do not support the statement. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious alleged quote 

message: *Someone will need to look into copyright status, but the photo here would be an invaluable addition to the article: . EEng 04:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: New image