Talk:Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

message: The entire article reads a little too "one sided".
There is a lack of Criticism section and throught the article the tone taken seems to be pouring one accolade after another onto Albert, with the use of language suggesting some piece of biography from the monachry's website. 
I'll admit i am not familiar with the exploits of this man(though now much informed thanks to the article) but i find it hard to believe that nobody(neither then nor until now)had any criticism of some of his actions regarding anything in particular. From the article i'd get the impression that he was universilly acclaimed for all his actions as consort.--79.221.31.71 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, criticism sections tend to suck, valid criticism should be in the right place in the article. There is some, foreign bastard when he came, stiff and reserved, beat the son, unpopular again at the start of the Crimean war. But the overall tone seems positive to me, which might be as it should be. He was (as I understand the article) fairly enlightened, faithful to his wife, even good with money. Of course, he never held formal power, and that helps too. Perhaps there is some feud/harsh words from The Duke of Wellington (about the army), Palmerston or the clergy that could be expanded somewhat? Since he didn't actually have the piercing.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's hard to believe, but occasionally there are also people who, fundamentally, were well regarded and lived without attracting much criticism, controversy or controversy. 37.183.120.216 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Criticism 

message: Hi real name was Prince Albert von Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha. Shouldn't that be the title of the wikipedia article then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.184.90 (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia sometimes works a little differently, see WP:NAMEGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Albert von Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha 

message: Shouldn't there be more information about Albert's Anti-Slavery Position? I for one am sick and tired of hearing idiots babble on about the Monarchies pro slavery history when in fact the Monarchy was more Anti-Slavery than Parliament. If it was enough to get him condemned at the time in some quarters then it should be enough for him to be celebrated today. Not enough people know about this, but other than a few paragraphs I haven't found much detailed information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.204.209 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albert and the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and the Civilisation of Africa 

message: I went ahead an removed "absurd" again and changed it to "false rumours".  This seems like it conveys the sense that the rumours were indeed false, without having the unnecessary baggage that a word such as absurd brings.  I'm not entirely sure it is a fair characterization, because, while the rumour was false, since we were not alive at the time, I don't think we can say it was "absurd".  The fact that it was spread and somewhat believed shows that it wasn't an absurdity in the strict sense, though it clearly was false.  "False" to me seems to convey a more neutral tone.  Sorry to post a talk page entry over one word, but since there seems to be an editing conflict regarding it, I thought that I would explain my changes, and see if we can reach some sort of consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine by me, thank you. DrKay (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording in family and public life 

message: I think the lead image should be a color image that is not duplicated lower down in the article. The image being inserted by the Mexican IP is a black-and-white image that is already shown (as a cropped version) lower down in the article. I also favor an image where the subject looks into the article, as advised at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. DrKay (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Why would he be listed as Albrecht in the box with the personal details? His name was indeed Albert from birth, as the German Wikipedia page shows. Not an uncommon name in Germany in those days either. Mbshu (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As Germans are often called Albert (e.g. Albert Einstein, Albert Speer) and the German National Library calls him Albert, I've removed it. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Albrecht?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Albert, Prince Consort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117031208/http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/the-collectors/prince-albert to http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/the-collectors/prince-albert
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From Hermoine Hobhouse's 1983 biography of Prince Albert, Prince Albert: His life and work:
Prince Albert said in later life that he had known since he was three that it was intended that he should marry his English cousin. This is the favourite scheme of their common grand-mother, the Dowager Duchess Augusta. In 1821, she wrote to the Duchess of Kent: 'The little fellow is the pendant to the pretty cousin; very handsome, but too slight for a boy; lively, very funny, all good nature and full of mischief.'
The book cites "Dowager Duchess to Duchess of Kent, August 11, 1821, quoted Grey [Charles Grey, author of The early years of His Royal Highness the prince consort], p 19." I have the book in front of me as confirmation. Reversinator (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the pendant to the pretty cousin" 

message: I realize that the PBS series Victoria is not a documentary, so it contains instances of fictionalization. It is highly researched, though. 
Upon the death of Albert's father, Ernest I, his uncle (King Leopold) tried to comfort Albert by telling him that he was the Prince's father, due to an affair he had with Albert's mother. Albert became very angry and told Leopold that because of him, Victoria was married to a "bastard" and that their child were "illegitimate". (When he ultimately tells Victoria about his altered parentage, to her, it doesn't signify.) Since neither this article, nor Ernest's nor Leopold's mentions this, I gather that this whole birth episode is one of the fictionalizations?
Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A.N. Wilson talks a bit about this in nhis recent biography. There was a rumour that Leopold was Albert's father but on balance Wilson says there is just no evidence for this. LastDodo (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Objectively, it is difficult to find irrefutable evidence for or against an alleged illegitimacy of historical figures, unless we exhume them and make the DNA. I believe that this, like many other cases, will remain rumors, possible, but not certain.--37.183.120.216 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albert's father, according to ''Victoria'' series. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: From the Lucy Worsley article: fyi
In May 2019, Worlsey's speech about Prince Albert, subsequent to her 2018 book Queen Victoria: Daughter, Wife, Mother, Widow, included comments indicating that the prince did not deserve all of the accolades he had received. (title=We're too nice to Albert – he was no perfect prince, claims historian|date=30 May 2019|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/30/were-too-nice-to-albert-he-was-no-perfect-prince-claims-historian|work=The Guardian|access-date=31 May 2019|quote=Albert kept those babies coming,” said Worsley. “And that’s because he could see that while she was busy with that, he could get on with making himself king in all but name – taking over some of her duties, taking over some of her power.) "I sense that some of you are thinking, 'No, I just don’t believe this. Albert is a great man. He’s brilliant, he's a polymath, he organised the Great Exhibition, he supported science and art and industry.' Well that is true. But I don’t think he should necessarily have been doing those things. ... I think he should have been fulfilling the more traditional role of a Queen or a princess in this relationship, which was single-mindedly to support his spouse, which he didn't do."
Peter K Burian (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince did not deserve all the accolades, per historian Lucy Worsley 

message: The "midwife" referred to in the article as Charlotte von Sieborg was Marion Theodore Charlotte Heidenreich von Sieborg. She graduated with a degree in obstetrics from Giessen University in Germany in 1817, two years before she assisted in the births of Albert and Victoria. According to her Wikipedia page she was considered Germany's first gynocologist.
I submit that relegating her to the status of midwife is disrespectful and inaccurate.
I have never made an editing change to a Wikipedia article, so perhaps someone with more experience could change her to "German physician" instead of midwife?
68.110.9.53 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:CIRCULAR, we can't use wikipedia as a source. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlotte von Sieborg was much more than a midwife 

message: this image is much better for the info box it’s isn’t blurry and just looks nicer. --Orson12345 (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2022
:I see little to no difference between either image, so the previous consensus should hold until consensus changes. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box image 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :The Prince Consort and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  DrKay (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Prince Consort" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :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: moved to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Participants seem to have agreed with the general thrust of the nomination, and there is clear consensus for adopting a "<Name> of <Place>" in some form. However, "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" (i.e., including his title) was found by many participants to be preferable to the original proposal, as it was a more common name as well as being WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles on male royal consorts. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Albert, Prince Consort →  – In the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, WP:CONSORTS, and WP:CONSISTENT, I am requesting this page move for the article title of Queen Victoria (of the United Kingdom)'s husband [and the third great-grandfather of King Charles III (of the United Kingdom) via two of his children!].
For an extended rationale, feel free to read the below bullet points:
1. WP:COMMONNAME - A series of four Google searches demonstrate that variants of "Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" are more likely to be used in general than "Albert, Prince Consort" (NOTE: Because of technical restrictions, I was unable to generate Ngram comparisons for these four titles. I would appreciate seeing any data from that tool that furthers my argument.):
*1 - "Albert Prince Consort" yields approximately 169,000 Google hits,
*2 - "Albert, Prince Consort" yields approximately 134,000 Google hits,
*3 - "Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" yields approximately 295,000 hits (i.e. approximately 75 percent more than "Albert Prince Consort"), and
*4 - "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" yields approximately 377,000 hits (i.e. approximately 123 percent more than "Albert Prince Consort")
If the above ratios are not convincing enough, here are four pertinent United Kingdom-based sites that use "(Prince) Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" in lieu of "Albert, Prince Consort" to describe Victoria's consort:
*National Portrait Gallery: "Victoria marries her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; he is given the title of Prince Consort" and the title of the link itself: "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is an alternative version of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.)
*Historic Royal Palaces Blog: Today is the 200th birthday of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (1819-1861)"" 
*Science Museum Group, which refers to Victoria's consort twice as "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha"
*And perhaps most convincingly, the Royal Collection Trust: "A lithograph from an album of portraits containing prints and photographs: a vignette portrait of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; bust length, turned slightly to the left; wearing a military uniform with decorations; inscribed and dated on the mount below"
2. WP:PRECISION - In a similar vein as Albert's wife, whose article title I unsuccessfully tried to change for the same reason, the title Albert, Prince Consort does not 
 the scope of his life. Who was Albert a "prince consort" to? Where was Albert a "prince consort"? Similarly, Prince Albert is also an unacceptable alternative because while that may be another common way to refer to Victoria's consort and better follows WP:CONCISE, that title does not distinguish him from, for example, the Sovereign Prince of Monaco (Albert II). Instead, we use...
3. WP:CONSORTS - ...the pertinent guidance from WP:NCROY on consorts (i.e. spouses) of monarchs, which states: . Since Albert was a prince of the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha by birth, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is thus the appropriate title alternative using this format. And if you need one last convincing piece of evidence...
4. WP:CONSISTENT - This is the policy that is most central to my request. Let's look at what the majority of the articles on 19th century European consorts are titled (i.e. part of the scope of NCROY): (For the sake of brevity, I will only list the consorts of sovereigns that reigned over kingdoms (i.e. no grand duchies, papacies, or principalities) that still exist. Also, countries are listed in alphabetical English order and consorts of noble and other non-royal origin are excluded.)
#Queens consort of Belgium: Louise of Orléans and Marie Henriette of Austria
#Queens consort of Denmark: Marie of Hesse-Kassel, Caroline Amalie of Augustenburg, and Louise of Hesse-Kassel
#Queens consort of the Netherlands: Wilhelmine of Prussia, Queen of the Netherlands, Anna Pavlovna of Russia, Sophie of Württemberg, and Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont
#(Norway was in a personal union with Denmark until 1814 and then separately with Sweden for the rest of the century)
#Consorts of Spain: Maria Luisa of Parma, Maria Isabel of Braganza, Maria Josepha Amalia of Saxony, Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies, Mercedes of Orléans, and Maria Christina of Austria
#Queens consort of Sweden: Frederica of Baden, Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp, Josephine of Leuchtenberg, Louise of the Netherlands, and Sophia of Nassau
#Queens consort of the United Kingdom: Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Caroline of Brunswick, and Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen
As illustrated, all of the pertinent European consorts' article titles use the format , akin to my suggested alternative title. Moreover, none of these article titles indicate a royal title held suo jure, hence why I propose Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in lieu of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Based on the above explanation and policies, in addition to potentially WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (although I personally believe this last guideline will never be conclusive when it comes to royals), I therefore conclude that Albert, Prince Consort is an unsuitable title for this article. 
As a final aside, while consensus will win out in the end, given that WP:CONSISTENT and WP:COMMONNAME in this case support a move to "Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", I hope that this move request will be much swifter and more favorable than some other ones that have recently occurred in this topic area! Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this. If the title is changed, it should be moved to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 August 2023 

message: *Support - per the nominee's reasonings. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this. If the title is changed, it should be moved to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey