Talk:Alfred, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

message: Did he shoot himself or die of syphilis? PatGallacher 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: I have added my account of his death and in a seperate edit removed Packard's. Being seperate it should be easier to replace if necessary.  That account said 
One account states that the young Alfred had married an Irish woman.  His parents insisted that the marriage be annulled under the 1772 Royal Marriages Act.In reality, the Royal Marriages Act states that the marriage of any individual in line for the throne is null and void ab initio unless it was previously approved in writing by the Sovereign. No annulment would therefore have been required, as the marriage would not have existed in the first place.  Alfred allegedly shot himself, but not quite fatally.  He was sent (against the doctor's advice) with a tutor and a medical attendant to Meran, where he died. Packard, Jerome, "Victoria's Daughters" (1998), pgs. 299,347. St. Martin's Press, New York. ISBN 0-312-2446-7
My account does not "allege" he shot himself, nor do I reference the British Royal Marriages Act. Saxe Coburg and Gotha law would govern the putative marriage, as by the time of the marriage Alfred was heir to a sovereign state which specifically precluded a union of its throne with that of Britain unless no other male heir existed.  Barliner 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Death 

message: If his father was the Duke of SCG, would he still be Hereditary Prince, or would Hereditary Duke be more accurate? Prsgoddess187 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hereditary Prince 

message: There are so many problems with this wretched little article that I hate to even touch it; but I have removed the following two passages from the "Career" section, which I have renamed "Life":
The engagement was probably arranged and championed by Alfred and Elsa's mothers, both of whom were Russian grand duchesses by birth. It was probably broken by the bride's family, when they learned more about young Alfred’s lifestyle, which was reported avidly in the German tabloid press.
* * * 
However, the information about such a marriage is incorrect. Sander's research is based on inaccurate information in John van der Kiste and Bee Jordaan's biography of young Affie's father.  The entire story about young Affie's marriage was concocted by an American, Frank Fitzgerald Bush, who claims his mother, Irene, was the result of young Affie's marriage. 
 
Young Affie never met Mabel Fitzgerald, who was a teenager at the time of the alleged marriage.  The complete story of the fabricated marriage can be found in Marlene A. Eilers' book, Queen Victoria's Descendants, as well as in a two-part article on young Affie, which was published by European History Journal. The article was written by Marlene A. Eilers Koenig
The problem with the first cut section is the weasel word "probably" - who says?  Cite with a reliable source.  Otherwise, it's merely gossip, and gossip doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
The problem with the second cut section is twofold:  first, it is not written in encyclopedic style.  Second, the writer gave a half-assed attribution for what sounds like his personal opinion; if it's worth including in the article, it's worth a minute of time doing a proper citation.
Beyond that, there are so many other things that need fixing, but I'm going to leave poor Alfred in peace for now and hope that one day, somebody who has factual information and reliable sources can do a better job here.  And because for psychological reasons, obscure royalties tend to attract fanatical editors who are long on enthusiasm and short on logic, it's worth repeating, per WP:BURDEN:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.  Textorus (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The second portion is helpful - in fact, indispensable - to the reader. I've restored it with a cleaned up source citation. Its removal left Wikipedia peddling discredited myths. We shouldn't report a widely disseminated, but factually unsupported, and non-contemporary story as fact simply because it's frequently repeated. - Nunh-huh 21:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

text: yep Wiki067980 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unsourced material