Talk:Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Archive 1

message: I updated the link to "Prince Albert piercing" to say "Prince Albert genital piercing" since there had been complaints on that page that people had been linked there without appropriate knowledge of what they were being linked to.
Daydream believer2 17:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
This article says that the story of Prince Albert having a genital piercing was "certainly" originated by Doug Malloy, but the Prince Albert piercing article only says that this is suspected to be the case.  How certain is this?
Rodparkes 03:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Albert piercing 

message: According to the biography of Victoria by Stanley Weintraub, Albert may have died of stomach cancer.  I don't have the book with me now, but this is a summary of what he said:
Albert was diagnosed with typhus by the physician who had distinguished between typhus and typhoid, and thus the diagnosis was considered unquestionable.  Even so, several other physicians at the time did question it.
Albert was a heavy smoker.
Albert had been having trouble with his digestion, and with his teeth.  Trouble with teeth is often a side effect of trouble with the stomach; acid fumes come up the throat and attack the teeth.
A diagnosis of stomach cancer fits these facts, and other things known about his condition.
Weintraub made it sound as though stomach cancer were the current scholarly consensus, and just hadn't percolated out into the general public yet.  Is this worth a note in the article?
:There is nothing in the article about the theory that he died of stomach cancer, yet it is stated as probable / fact in multiple sources. Is it likely that a doctor at that time could have mistakenly diagnosed typhoid instead of stomach cancer? Can the symptoms of those two very different diseases be similar enough to cause a wrong diagnosis? What does the death certificate say? What do historians say about Albert's death? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See footnote 98. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death caused by stomach cancer? 

message: Why does Prince Albert of Prussia redirect here? He was never a Prussian prince. He was born a prince of Saxe-Coburg, not Prussia, so I can't understand what the redirect is for. Morhange 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Chl 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Albert of Prussia 

message: Albert was a consort. Should he not be titled the way WP states consorts are to be titled? Charles 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Male consorts and female consorts are different.  Albert was "Prince Albert" for his whole life, wherease female consorts (on some male consorts) become Queen (or King) upon their spouse's accession.   He should go back to "Prince Albert of...", since he's universally known as "Prince Albert." john k 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is universally known as Prince Albert, he should be at Prince Albert. Since that would probably not be acceptable, he is at the form that is currently specified for consorts. Charles 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The form specified for consorts was specifically designed for female consorts.  It should not apply here, or to Prince George, or to any other male consort who is merely a prince. john k 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing that indicates that it cannot or should not apply to males. Charles 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the rule is because women consorts becomes Queens, and thus having the title of the article call them "Princess" is confusing.  On the other hand, Albert and George were called "Prince Albert" and "Prince George."  Moving them back, again. john k 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, it should be Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha  Astrotrain 22:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You make no sense at all whatsoever. I'm convinced you have no idea what is really going on. In the UK, Lady isn't a real title, at least as far as daughters of earls go. Marie-José is so named because she was a royal princess of Belgium and her father was the king of Belgium, as opposed to just a ducal princess of a place that her father was not even the sovereign of. Charles 04:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Because there's no other "Albert, Prince Consort", so the territory isn't needed DBD 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 

message: :One day the prince had a conversation with a great manufacturer of crockery and sought to convert him to the idea of issuing something better than the eternal willow-pattern in white with gold, red, or blue, which formed the staple of middle and lower class domestic china. The manufacturer held out that new shapes and designs would not sell; but the Prince Consort induced him to try, and he did so with such a rapid success that it revolutionised the china cupboards of Britain.
:: the above vague paragraph reads like something out of a children's book and is largely nonsense, possibly a vague ref to Henry Cole. I have removed it for now. --mervyn 15:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crockery

message: To style Albert as "Duke in Saxony" is incorrect. See Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; Ernst I was Duke until his death in 1844; his successor was Ernst II, who died in 1893, after Albert's death. The title passed to Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, fourth child (second son) of Victoria and Albert; Albert himself never held the title.—Chidom talk  23:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not reigning Duke; whether he held the style is a different question. Have you a source on the house law of the Saxon duchies? Septentrionalis 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and I see that the last queen consort of Italy, Marie-José of Belgium, was born Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess in Saxony, so I withdraw my statement that the title is incorrect. I think that "Duke _of_ Saxony" would have been incorrect; I'm not sure what the significance is of "_in_" as opposed to "_of_". How anyone figures all this stuff out is beyond me at this point. Just when I think I understand how it works, it changes.—Chidom talk  03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All members of the House of Wettin held the title of duke or duchess in Saxony, a reflection of shared status as members of the reigning families of what was essentially a large family of states. Each ruler was also a Duke of Saxony, differenced with the name of his capital or principal city. The title Duke in Saxony is a dynastic title linking the family's status to the territory. Charles 04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Was it "Herzog zu Sachsen" or "Herzog von Sachsen"? john k 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Herzog zu Sachsen... The princes were all Dukes in Saxony while the sovereign dukes were sovereigns of the various Saxonies. Charles 02:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "zu" is not properly translated as "in" as far as I'm aware.  Could you present some evidence that this translation is in use? It's also worth noting that "Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Saalfeld," or whatever, only appears as a proper title in the 19th century.  In the 18th century all the Ernestine dynasts, ruling or not, were styled "Duke of Saxony, Angaria, and Westphalia; Landgrave in Thuringia; Margrave of Meissen; and Princely Count of Henneberg"  Some of the branches had appended additional (and wholly notional) Jülich-Kleve titles, but none of the branches had any Saxon titles besides "Herzog zu Sachsen" that I'm aware of.  The title is "Duke of Saxony," even if this doesnt quite convey the nuance of the German. john k 19:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify on this, there are three noble particles in German - in, zu, and von.  "in" is normally translated "in," as in "Duke in Bavaria," or "King in Prussia."  Both "zu" and "von" are normally translated as "of," except when you have "von und zu" as you do with the Princes of Liechtenstein, where I'm not sure how it's dealt with.  The only way to be completely clear about which Particle is meant is to give it in German. john k 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 move to Albert, Prince Consort per the poll below.  This was acceptable to everyone and several people placed it high on their preference list, so, although there is no supermajority, the page will be located there. —Mets501 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke in Saxony 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
#Support. See below for explanation. Deb 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *How can we editors presume ourselves wiser than a guideline?
**Because we wrote them.
*What is a guideline?
**An approximation to the consensus of editors on similar questions, held together by Scotch tape and piano wire. See WP:PR therefore, as :Template:guideline says, it has exceptions. 
*What is the status of the section  on consorts?
**That's one of the things we're here to find out. It's a generalization of actual usage, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Isabelle of Bavaria; there is some trifling </irony> dispute on how it should apply, for example, to Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse.  We disagree on how rough an approximation it is; at least one of us denies that it applies to this case at all.
*How does it apply to this case?
**Setting aside all questions of what the guideline should  be, that's still debateable. All of the choices proposed are more or less defensible under the guideline as it stands; for example, Prince Albert is an appeal to exception 4 on monarchial names: If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, use it. I will now go add a note that that applies generally, and see if anyone reverts me. Septentrionalis 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines

message: Deleted this:
"Prince Albert was considered a dandy in his time, and was well-known for wearing corsets and engaging in tightlacing. This is evident in many of the photographs that exist of him.[citation needed]"
I don't think that citation is going to turn up.
:I think he tight laced his tool though! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.68.145 (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: Without the content the heading above this comment is entirely correct. "Albert, Prinz von Saxe-Cobug zu Gothe" is the correct name for this man. He might have been consort to the Queen of GB  and Ireland and Empress of India, but the man deserves his common name, ie Prince Albert. The title for this article has obviously been created by persons that do either: do not know their history, do not know the correct protocol, or does not care. Exempli gratia How about calling Jackie Kennedy, Jackie, First Lady;or Laura Bush, Laura, First Lady? Brendandh 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was battled over long and hard. It mostly stems from the fact that Prince Albert is best known as Prince Albert, and 2nd to that, Prince Consort, which he held as a substantive title. Now, here, on Wikipedia, we drop Prince/ss from the beginning if their style begins Prince/ss, like HRH The Prince of Wales is at Charles, Prince of Wales, rather than Prince Charles, "Prince of Wales". Therefore, the page for the man known commonly as "Prince Albert" (who can't reside at "Prince Albert" because there have been so many) is at Albert, Prince Consort. Hope this clears it up for you! † DBD 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Brendandh, your titling is off, way off. First, the German title would be "Prinz Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha", not the format you suggested which is just plain wrong. Secondly, Albert is known as the Prince Consort; in fact, the title is almost entirely synonymous with Albert. Both "Prince" and "Albert" appear in the title. With the content of the article, I am sure must people will figure out who he is. Charles 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: As above

message: Why was he called Albert? His full name was Francis Charles Augustus Albert Emmanuel, so what made the family decide to call him Albert? Why not use this name first? Morhange (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look and no biography lists a specific reason. It was the norm, though; Queen Victoria's first name was "Alexandrina" and her mother was called "Mary Louise Victoria". Unfortunately I can't put my finger on specifics, sorry... PeterSymonds | talk 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: It seems reference to this piercing named for Prince Albert has been removed from the article.  Why is that?  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody?  I'd really rather not have to dig through the history to restore it.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The provenance of the piercing is in doubt, yes.  But there is no doubt, and ample evidence, that there exists a piercing known as the Prince Albert, which is purportedly named for this Prince Albert.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: But it's not in the article although it's clearly relevant to this person.  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince Albert piercing removed

message: Our article on Balmoral Castle says that the Royal Family bought the freehold; and most long leases would have expired by now. A point of no real importance, but our articles should not disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "In 1852, Albert obtained the freehold of Balmoral" DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Balmoral

message: I've added a new rendering of Albert's arms.  I believe there might have been some copyright concerns over the harp that was used in the previous version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1 Aardvark (talk • contribs) 06:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arms Update

message: :(See also the later move request in the following section.)
Albert, Prince Consort →  —
We don't have a convention on Princes consort; most of them (including Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) are at the title they would hold if single. We should therefore follow usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move September 2010

message: Any truth in the popular belief that his dong was impaled by  a ring ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was made up in the 1970s by Doug Malloy. DrKay (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this not be mentioned in the article? The genital piercing is probably more well known than the person, at this point.2A00:23C4:4F07:1000:51ED:B111:9877:ABB1 (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  penis ring 

message: From the article: "Albert managed and improved the other royal estates; his model farm at Windsor was admired by his biographers,[48] and under his stewardship the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall – the hereditary property of the Prince of Wales – steadily multiplied.[49]"
Multiplied seems a bit remarkable (but not impossible), if someone have access to the source, please check, perhaps "increased" is a better word.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says "Pursuing his interest in agriculture, he set up a model dairy farm at Windsor that was soon making a profit, and he multiplied the revenues from the duchy of Cornwall estates held in trust for the prince of Wales." I've changed it anyway because Elizabeth Longford says in "Victoria R.I." (p.73) that the revenues rose from about £27k at the start of her reign to over £60k "at the end". So, I doubt it more than doubled during Albert's stewardship. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiplied?