Talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pre Dec 2004 discussions

This page is a classic, and amusing case of people doing edits who haven't read the reputable historical sources, and don't care for them, but have jumped on to the latest crank theory, whatever it be.

For example: the most authoritative historians to deal with Eddy's involvement in the Cleveland St Scandal are Hyde, Lees Milne and Aronson. Hyde didn't have access to the Esher archive, and probably wasn't aware of its relevance. However, Lees Milne in his Esher biography detailed the case and published the revealing passages, while Aronson published all the most relevant extracts. Although the official papers mentioned PAVs involvement, it was only these letters which confirmed his complicity.

Denying PAVs involvement in the light of this material AND the Lord Chief Justice's private briefing to Harold Nicolson in the 1930s, is a folly akin to believing the Prince, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria or the great grandparents of todays royal corgies are responsible for the Ripper murders. Please. Facts backed by primary evidence, not supposition.

--

Attention Somebody who's interested. Shouldn't some more of these Royals mentioned in this article be linked? Ortolan88

How certain is the cause of death? Some sources seem to say he had typhoid fever, recovered, then died of influenza; others that he died of typhoid fever; others (apparently?) of pneumonia. -- Someone else 22:03 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

After trawling the Web for a couple of hours, I have found that the consensus is that he caught influenza, which worsened into fatal pneumonia. The typhoid theory is mentioned on only one site (and the possibility of syphilis on one other site). However, consensuses can be wrong! And on top of these there is a conspiracy theory that he was poisoned. --- Heron

Another reference: Chambers Biographical Dictionary (1990 edition) says pneumonia. -- Heron

---

I think this page could have a more useful title: "Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence" perhaps? Mswake 22:40 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

The move to Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale was incorrect and contrary to wikipedia policy. Wikipedia like other sources relies on the most common and highest title. Avondale was not generally used and in the form listed here is made to sound like 'Clarence and Avondale' are in fact part of one unified dukedom. In reality they aren't. Describing Albert Victor like that would only make sense if one referred to the Prince of Wales in his page as also being Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, etc etc etc. In fact, correctly, we focus on his primary title, Prince of Wales. And we do not refer to the current Duke of York by his subsidary titles but simply as D of Y. FearÉIREANN 18:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But the Dukedom of Clarence and Avondale was one unified dukedom (like the Dukedoms of Connaught and Strathearn, Buckingham and Chandos, Cumberland and Teviotdale, Gloucester and Edinburgh, etc.). It couldn't be created as Clarence alone, because at the time there was an extant Earldom of Clarence held by the Duke of Albany (which is now suspended). Proteus (Talk) 18:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Proteus. In trying to do two things at once I mucked up both. :-( What I meant is that is was understood by common usage to be separate, not that it was separate. (Damn it. I'll never try to type, read and work again!) D of C & A is was not how it was known. It was as D of C. For clarity purposes unless it is impossible to do so, the used title, not the official title, should appear. There was not another Duke of Clarence in that time period that Prince ALbert Victor could be mixed up with, so using the whole official title is unnecessary, once it is explained in the article the nature of the title in its fullest sense. Sorry for confusing you with my confusing jumble above. FearÉIREANN 18:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Proteus (Talk) 19:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Too much Ripper information

There is far too much Jack the Ripper on this page for someone who is not a real suspect. This should either be on the Jack the Ripper page or if necessary on a separate page about all of the suspects [unregistered user]

There already is a page about all the suspects, and this info was moved off of there because it was way too long. There are literally hundreds of people named over the years as Ripper suspects and you can't put them all on one page. Besides, I would argue that the JtR suspect theory is one of the most notable points on his life, as, generally speaking, if anyone has heard of this rather minor bit or royalty, it's probably in the context of being named by various authors as either being the Ripper or the casue of the Ripper killings. The information belongs here. DreamGuy 21:22, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

You are no historian sir. After the death of Queen Victoria, this "minor bit or <sic> royalty" as you call him would have been the heir to the throne but for his premature death. Upon his father's death he would have been the King. This Jack the Ripper nonsense was most certainly NOT "one of the most notable points on <sic> his life". There is no mention of a connection between the Prince and Jack the Ripper from any contemporary source during his life or for over 70 years after his death. It is all hogwash and should NOT be in any serious biography. Granted, if Wikipedia was purely about Jack the Ripper then such detail would be warranted on this page; but it isn't. It is a general purpose encyclopaedia and should contain facts and not scurrilous and unsubstantiated rumours, which no-one takes seriously. [comment from anonymous unregistered user] aka - Turkey

Like hell I'm not a historian. IT most certainly is one of the most notable points in his life. Mere fact that he could have been a king if someone else dies isn't all that notable. I am WELL AWARE that there was no mention of any connection to the Ripper murders mentioned for almost a century, but if anyone these days mentions him it's because of the Ripper connection. It has become the most notable thing about his life. A general purpose encyclopedia should contain all pertinent information. And for something that supposedly no-one takes seriously, there sure are a lot of books advancing him as a suspect and a lot of readers who believe it's true. Putting solid information here mentioning the books and why they are wrong is necessary. DreamGuy 23:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Mere fact that he could have been a king if someone else dies isn't all that notable." - You still seem to have misunderstood the Prince's position as the eldest son of Edward VII . If he hadn't died of pneumonia when he did - HE WOULD HAVE BEEN KING instead of George V. The Wikipedia page List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects says that the suggestion that the Prince was the Ripper is "A theory considered preposterous by reputable historians, and discounted by most Ripperologists." - If this encyclopaedia is to be taken seriously why should we make it the most prominent featrue of this biography. The most sensible place to put this information is in List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. This page is currently only 17.5k long there is plenty of room for expansion. - Turkey

So what if he would have been king if his father died? So would have lots of other people if lots of things that never happened had actually happened. What ifs are not notable. The idea that that's your argument is just preposterous. He is a minor footnote in history other than that he keeps getting brought up for rumors of various scandals. And you might want to pay attention here, for the thing you are complaining about in this article has already been taken out, with my blessings... unless you are now proposing that ANY mention of the things that he is MOST well known for shouldn't be in the article even with a short summary and a link to another page? DreamGuy 10:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

"So what if he would have been king if his father died?" - AARRRRRRRRHGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH - NO - NO NO!!!! - You STILL SEEM unable to grasp it. He was George V's elder brother - IF HE HAD LIVED (Eddy that is) - HE Would have been King - it has NOTHING to do with other people dieing - all he had to do was LIVE and hwe would have been King - get it now? - Turkey

Everybody dies. He wouldn't have had to just live, he would have had to live past his father's lifespan. Things that could have been but did not happen ARE NOT NOTABLE and it's ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise. DreamGuy 11:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I was indicating to you that - when you originally stated - "I would argue that the JtR suspect theory is one of the most notable points on his life .. this rather minor bit or royalty" - that you are wrong on both counts, because a) there was never any suggestion of him being connected to the Ripper killings during his life and b) he was no more a minor royal than William is a minor royal. You said "Things that could have been but did not happen ARE NOT NOTABLE and it's ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise." - Well that's a good point, I'll take your point and I'll run with it. It could have been that Eddy was the Ripper, but in all probability he wasn't. What is the basis for linking Eddy with the murders. Some French biographer of Edward VII makes a passing reference to the Ripper and Eddy in the same breath and has no genuine souces to back it up. Later, subsequent authors jump on this reference and make up all sorts of information. Do you not see that this kind of information has no place in a serious article about the man, for the very reasons that you state above i.e. "Things that could have been but did not happen ARE NOT NOTABLE" - Turkey.

You aren't following along. Nobody disputes that Prince Eddy never became king. The fact that he could have become king if history were different isn't notable. You claim that Eddy was not the Ripper and had no involvement. Several independent books and authors claim otherwise, so there is dispute. For you to claim it never happened is bias, pure and simple. If you want to go write on your own weblog that Eddy had no connection, that's fine. But this place is for objective discussion in an encyclopedic manner, not for you to push your opinions onto everyone. DreamGuy 02:43, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to make it absolutely clear. Consider Prince William of Wales. Do you consider him "minor bit or <sic> royalty" ? He is second in line to the throne, he will be King one day. This was exactly the same position that Eddy was in (he was not a minor Royal figure, unknown to history other than his connection with Jack the Ripper as you suggest). Eddy died young, so his younger brother took his place in succession and eventually became king George V. If William died tomorrow then Prince Harry of Wales would jump up one place . He would eventually become King in William's place. - Turkey

This is irrelevant to the discussion. Eddy was not king. Eddy's sole claims to fame are scandals. 100 years from now, if Prince William died and never became king, he'd just be an insignificant footnote as well. DreamGuy 11:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes it IS irrelevant to the discussion, but you seemed to be having considerable difficulty in understanding the concept of Line of succession. - Turkey

I don't have any problem understanding it, it's just pointless and irrelevant to what we are discussing. DreamGuy 02:39, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved the vast majority of the Ripper material to its own article, The Duke of Clarence as Jack the Ripper (I am amenable to alternate titles for that article), to be linked to from here and from the Ripper suspects page. This seems like the best way to go about this, since I agree with the anon that the article is massively unbalanced by what is patently not biographical material about the Duke. But I also don't think this information should be lost, and it pretty clearly is too long to remain in the Ripper suspects article. Its own article seems the best solution. john k 17:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to check the page out and see how it flows. The title probably has to change to something that doesn;t sound like it's advancing the cause that he was. As far as "patently not biographical material" goes, i'm not sure why that's criteria to move the info off the page, as articles all over the encyclopedia cover other aspects of their entries, such as fictional treatment, popular notoriety, and so forth. This anonymous unregistered user is running around trying to take all mention of anyone being a suspect (contemporary or modern day) in the Ripper case out of a number of articles and, in my opinion, vandalizing the encyclopedia to his bias as a result. DreamGuy 23:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of vandalising. I have been re-instating the information about Cornwell's book on Cornwell's page because this is most CLEARLY the most sensible place to put this information. I have not edited any other articles about Jack the Ripper. Other than that all I have been doing is have been replying to you on talk pages. - Turkey

I will accuse you of vandalizing because that's exactly what blindly reverting a page (Patricia Cornwell) back to a state so that it has information that duplicates and contradicts another article (Walter Sickert) covering the same topic. The information needs to be merged and the differences ironed out. Your actions are disrupting that, and your bias is apparent. DreamGuy 10:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

What are the contradictions, let's try to clear those up. - Turkey

Gee, now you finally get it, on the discussion page of a completely different article? Take it to the appropriate talk page where you should have been reading it all along. DreamGuy 11:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I know little of this user. But, since we know pretty categorically that Prince Eddy was not the ripper, it seems unbalanced for 75% of the article on him to be about this. Creating a new article seems the best option. I agree that the title probably needs a change. john k 00:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are a variety of theories and books that mention Eddy as either the killer, the person who did something that caused the killings as part of a cover up, etc. I almost wonder if the page shouldn't be titled "Royal conspiracy theories about Jack the Ripper" or something along those lines. Are there any other titles of similar oncepts we could look at for comparison purposes? I'd also think an additional sentence should be added to the current article mentioning the theories that the killings were done to coverup something he allegedly did and that scholars find no support for them either, since the most well-known theory didn't have him as the direct killer so the alibi wouldn;t matter as much. DreamGuy 05:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. The proposed title sounds better to me - and would allow for more discussion of the whole From Hell scenario, and all that, and mentioning alternate theories involving Eddy in this page also seems sensible. john k 07:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, sounds like we are in agreement then. That's something one of us can get to. DreamGuy 10:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Why can't this information be merged into List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects? It's only 17.5k at the moment, plenty of room for expansion - Turkey

This has already been explained to you. You've responded to posts explaining the rationale, but you apparently ignored them. I've now explained it to you on something like three different talk pages, so I won't bother again, especially since the point is moot for this article because a separate article has already been created. DreamGuy 10:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I've yet to see a sensible reponse. - Turkey

The fact that you can't see sense in it is your problem, not mine. As a number of other editors have followed along with the overall plan, including the editors on this talk page for the article which which no longer has the information you were complaining about unless you think that any mention at all is too much of a mention, in which case your bias is overwhelming and easily disregarded by anyone trying to follow the standards of objectivity. DreamGuy 11:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

This was when the suspects were in the Jack the Ripper page. There is plenty of room for expansion on the suspects page now. - Turkey

Again, you are ignoring the fact that it isn't a question of "room," it's a question of balance. The editors decided that on the list of Ripper suspects that each one would get roughly the same coverage, for NPOV reasons. In depth discussion on individual candidates was moved to where it would be appropriate. For many suspects, the allegations are the most notable aspects. With others it's one notable aspect out of many. For some, like Lewis Carroll, it's not very notable compared to everything else. In every case, it is still mentioned on their pages, becuse it is an objective fact that the allegations were made. Concensus has already been reached on how to handle the information on this page, please desist from filling this talk page (and that of other articles) with your insistance that Wikipedia do things your way in spite of what other editors and NPOV policy recommend. DreamGuy 02:39, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I see no evidence of what you suggest about other editors. Reading the talk pages, it appears that the details regarding Lewis Carrol and the Duke of Clarence were moved from the list of suspects on the original Jack the Ripper page because it is extremely unlikely that either of them was in fact the perpetrator. Nothing to do with NPOV. The suspects now have their own page and it makes perfect sense to use this page to discuss the details of the various theories about each suspect or to put this information on some other page entirely (like the one you created about the book naming Lewis Carroll as a suspect) rather than the page about the person. This is especially true for the likes of Lewis Carroll, given that the chances of him being Jack the Ripper are as close to nil and makes no difference. IVoteTurkey 05:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retarded?

I just clicked the link to the note (1) that is meant to serve as the source for the idea that this person was possibly retarded and was disappointed to see that it doesn't actually go to a source at all, it just searches Google for the words retarded and Prince Albert Victor... which, unsuprisingly, ends up getting this article and mirrors of it as some of the major hits, and otherwise has people making the accusation but likewise not backing it up. It seems to me that something of this nature needs to be sourced to a specific reference and not the luck of the draw of random Google surfing. DreamGuy 14:32, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS WAS NOT RETARDED!

What is your source for the statement that "his royal highness was not retarded"? Unless you knew him personally (and he has been dead since 1891), you will need a source for that remark. We know that the Royal Family has practiced inbreeding for years (e.g. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins, and Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh are third cousins), and eventually, that takes its toll on the family intellect, so let's not overlook obvious possibilities when discussing the Royal Family's intelligence or lack thereof.

In the article, we find the statement, "Sir Henry Ponsonby thought that Albert Victor might have inherited his mother's deafness." He may have been deaf. On the other hand, maybe his ears were blocked with ear wax, and no one thought to examine him or to remove the ear wax. My ear, nose, and throat doctor once told me that many people were condemned to a lifetime of being treated as deaf persons merely because their ears were blocked with ear wax, and no one knew enough to look for it or to remove it. That may have been his mother's (Queen Alexandra) problem too.

As for his alleged premature birth, do we have any support for that? As indicated by the article on King Edward VII and this article, Albert Victor was born 10 months after the date of his parents' wedding, which is a surprisingly long time for a first child!

John Paul Parks (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Title

This article would seem now to be the odd one out for double-titled peers. We have, amongst Princes:

• Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn
• Prince Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn
• Prince Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent and Strathearn
• Prince Edward Augustus, Duke of York and Albany
• Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany
• Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh
• Prince William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh

And amongst others:

• John Sheffield, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Normanby
• Robert Bertie, 1st Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven
• Peregrine Bertie, 2nd Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven
• Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Chandos
• Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos
• Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos

Just thought I'd point it out. ;) Proteus (Talk) 09:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Disproven allegations

I find the inclusion of disproven allegations in the introduction to be unseemly. While the inclusion of this allegation in the text is appropriate since they surface and the fact that they are disproven should be mentioned, there is no reason to draw attention to it as one of the six facts about him described in the introduction. Trödel•talk 08:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's highly notable and one of only two or three things the guy is noted for. Unseemly sounds like a POV in favor of not saying anything potentially negative about someone. We follow NPOV here. DreamGuy 08:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So being decent and respectful now violates NPOV. There is a difference between pop culture which embraces the macrabre and actual notablity. As you know from my edit, I am not proposing that the information be removed. I just don't think it merits one of the top 5 or 6 most important things about Prince Albert Victor. Trödel&#149;talk 09:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, the intro already states that he was controversial. Astrotrain 23:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, these things he is most famous for - even if they are not true. The Jack the Ripper stuff has been pretty well disproved, but not everyone is aware of that, so the general public reading Wikipedia still associate Prince Eddy with Jack the Ripper. The article does go on to pretty well debunk the idea. Cleveland Street, however, has certainly not been disproved, and - true or not - it's the other thing that he is 'famous' for. Indisciplined 13:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that someone is famous for something in "pop culture" is hardly some kind of evidence against that popular notion. If anything, the opposite could be argued. Where did this popular idea come from and why has it persisted to such an extent. I saw a British television program on the subject that included a great deal more information on the matter than appears in this article and it certainly doesn't appear to be some kind of "urban myth" that sprang from nowhere. No one has presented any conclusive evidence as to where the idea that he frequented the male brothel on Cleveland Street came from other than the very unlikely suggestion the Somerset "made it up" in the hope that it would protect him. A far more likely explanation for the statements in the letter quoted was that Somerset knew for a fact that Eddy frequented the brothel and felt that if he was going to be prosecuted, he had every right to reveal what he knew in the hope that the whole affair would be hushed up. This in fact was all but what happened as the article stated, with no prosecution of any clients. Mike Hayes (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a picture?

"His tomb, by Alfred Gilbert, is one of the most magnificent examples of Art Nouveau sculpture in Britain. A recumbent effigy of the Prince in hussar uniform lies on the tomb chest. Kneeling over him is an angel, holding a heavenly crown. The tomb is surrounded by an elaborated railing, with figures of saints."

a picture would be outstanding!--Samuel J. Howard 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a good picture here actually, it might be worth getting in touch with the uploader and asking if we can release it under the GFDL, maybe? Craigy (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

God, that thing is ugly. --Michael K Smith^Talk 00:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of dukedoms?

Was Albert Duke of Clarence and Duke of Avondale (holding two separate dukedoms) or was it one dukedom Duke of Clarence and Avondale, with merely two territorial designations? How does one tell the difference between a man with one dukedom/two designations and a man with two separate dukedoms? Were previous royal princes (eg Duke of Connaught and Strathearn) with two dukedoms or just one?

It was one Dukedom, and all other "double" Royal Dukedoms of that period were also "Duke of X and Y" rather than "Duke of X" and "Duke of Y". The only Royal creation I can think of with two separate creations of the same rank was the 1866 creation of the Dukedom of Edinburgh, with separate subsidiary Earldoms of Kent and Ulster. I don't know the reason for that, as they were both in the Peerage of the United Kingdom — in previous centuries people had been given two separate titles of the same rank because they were in different Peerages, usually England and Scotland (such as the future King James II, who was both Duke of York (in England) and Duke of Albany (in Scotland); after the merger of the Crowns future titles were simply "Duke of York and Albany" (in the Peerage of Great Britain). If you want to find out with other titles, this page is helpful (in this case "24 May 1890 (H) D. of Clarence and Avondale (& E. of Athlone) – Albert Victor Christian Edward (extinct(1) 14 Jan 1892)"). Proteus (Talk) 16:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Future King?

Why was Albert so little-known and still is little known in history? I would have thought him being the heir to the Empire he would have been trumpeted at the time but it appears he wasn't. Also, what would he have been called as king? "albert" was surely prohibited by Victoria, and "Victor" doesn't seem to have been set by precedence so unlikely...

He could have gone by Edward as his father did. As his name was Albert Victor Christian Edward. Not sure about why not very well known. Prsgoddess187 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea (well, Queen Victoria's idea, anyway) was that he'd be "King Albert Victor". Queen Victoria wanted all future Kings to have double regnal names as "King Albert Something", hence her naming her son "Albert Edward" and announcing that her grandson would be called "Albert Victor" without even asking his parents permission (they wanted to call him "Edward"). Of course, everyone pretty much ignored this — his parents called him "Edward" (or "Eddy") anyway, and when Albert Edward succeeded as King he chose to be simply "King Edward". Proteus (Talk) 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph change and the Ripper

Ok, prior to removing a repetitive, minor entry, there was the line that he was subject to conspiracy theories regarding his intellect, sexuality, etc. I added the reference to Jack the Ripper. This man was unfortunately tagged with a lot of conspiracy inuendo; being a suspect in the Ripper murders was, without doubt, the most notorious allegation placed on him, and unfortunately, any modern bio on him cannot escape that fact.

What would help in this article is improving the subheading about the Ripper, briefly mentioning the Prince as a suspect (including the individual(s) who first brought it up), the reasons why he was a suspect, the fictions connected to the Ripper about his own death (such as him dying in an asylum of syphillis), and any documentation available which proves otherwise. The fact that he was completely and totally innocent of these crimes must be plainly stated; to do otherwise is a disgrace to his memory and his decendents. Carajou 15:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What descendents did Prince Albert Victor have that you refer to CARAJOU?

Perhaps the descendants of his brother were meant? john k 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OR was Eddy the father of Clarence Guy Gordon Haddon and Alice Margaret Crook?! This is what I wish this page could answer as it is one of the biggest mysteries about Eddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)

• No. DrKiernan 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot say that for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TriangleDiamond (talk • contribs)

• Yes, I can. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To say that the accusation of him being the ripper is incorrect is, whilst almost certainly true, nonetheless opinion and unencyclopedic. Neutrally stating that he was suspected by a couple of authors isn't an endorsement of the theory.FelixFelix ^talk 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll say it again-a declaration of your opinion that PAV was innocent of the Whitechapel murders (whilst, I'm sure, correct) is your opinion. Stating that an author suspected that he was the Ripper is NPOV. And the 'experts' that you cite aren't cited in the linked page. A simple statement about him being a (marginal) suspect with an appropriate link would be satisfactory.FelixFelix ^talk 11:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that the current edit[1] by Dreamguy is fine.FelixFelix ^talk 09:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Haddon's son referred to as illegitimate?

The article seems to contradict itself here. It first of all claims (with apparent certainty) that the Prince married her and they had a child. Later it is claimed that the child would make no difference to the order of succession as he was illegitimate. Surely, if he really married this woman, the child was not illegitmate, and hence shouild have been the true King of England?--Zoso Jade 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• You've misread the article. She was married to Mr. Haddon. The Prince never married. Although, you are correct to say that the child was not illegitimate because the officially acknowledged parents (Mr. and Mrs. Haddon) were married. DrKiernan 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are a separate set of allegations as well concerning Prince Albert Victor and marriage/children. These are that he married Annie Elizabeth Crook, and was the father of her daughter Alice Margaret Crook Gorman. See the Royal Conspiracy Theory article/s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)

• That story is demonstrably untrue because marriages are public ceremonies which must, by law, be published openly and officially recorded. There is no such marriage. DrKiernan 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No proper evidence has been found for this alleged marriage. However even today, some celebrities, have secret marriages which are completely unknown of by the public until many years later. Janet Jackson and Bob Dylan for example have both had "secret marriages" which were not published openly. So the rumour of the marriage of Eddy and Miss A.E. Crook is not demonstrably untrue, but it may be untrue. The official records of the marriage could have been destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)

• No. You cannot get married without publication of banns. And there is no example of a marriage record being destroyed. Ever. In the whole history of marriage registration in the United Kingdom. I stand by my comments. DrKiernan 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No. For a secret marriage, for example between George IV and Maria Fitzherbert, banns are not published. For a marriage that would cause tremendous scandal, everything is done in absolute secret. Royalty don't always stick by the normal rules when it comes to marriage, because of the Royal Marriages Act, and because of their status/position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)

• No. Banns must be read out and marriages must be registered, as required by the Marriage Act 1753 and the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths Act 1837. Despite occurring before the 1837 act, George's marriage contract with Fitzherbert was recorded by the officiating Anglican priest, hence our ability today to say knowledgably that he married her (albeit illegally). DrKiernan 13:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, what I wrote is right. Take for instance George III and Hannah Lightfoot. And although marriages must be registered, the registration can be destroyed later on and covered up obviously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)

• No, you are wrong once again. The invented marriage of George III and Hannah Lightfoot was conclusively proven to be a fraudulent invention over a century ago. (If memory serves because it was shown that she died before the supposed date of the marriage.) I have already answered your second point: to repeat, there is absolutely no example of a destroyed registration. DrKiernan 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not wrong once again, I have never been wrong. I am right once again! The Hannah Lightfoot marriage has not been proven fraudulent, if only it was so simple. Look at the links on the Hannah Lightfoot page - and read them. Hannah did not die before the supposed date of the marriage. Evidence is so often destroyed, I stand by my comments that if the situation was important enough, that evidence could include a marriage registration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)

The marriage is supposed to have taken place on 4 April 1759. On 3 December 1759, when her first husband Isaac Axford re-married for a second time, he is described as a widower. Her mother's will, made in 1760, indicates Hannah has been dead for two years. She is known to be living in 1757, as she is left an annuity by Robert Pearne, a plantation owner from the West Indies, and she is probably the "Mrs Axford" painted by Joshua Reynolds in 1756. From this it is concluded that she died in 1758.

We know that there were rumors at the time that George had a Quaker mistress: on 10 December 1759 Sophia Egerton writes to Count Bentinck, " I am assured that he [George] kept a beautiful young Quaker for some years, that she is Dead, and that One Child was the produce of that intrigue." On 26 February 1776, a paper called The Citizen wrote "The History and advances to Miss L---htf--t, (The Fair Quakeress), Wherein will be faithfully portrayed some striking pictures of female constancy and princely gratitude which terminated in the untimely death of a young lady." However, we also know that Quakers were the butt of much maliciousness at the time, and analysis of George's correspondence of the period shows that he is full of his own importance as the embodiment of moral virtue. Further, when he fell in love with Sarah Lennox in 1759, he claimed that it was his first amorous feeling. Finally, we know that George was kept in seclusion in Leicester House by his mother throughout this period, and his meeting a woman like Hannah Lightfoot, a cordwainer's daughter, and a Quaker to boot, is unlikely in the extreme (leaving aside for the moment that she was a corpse).

The persistence of the Hannah Lightfoot legend is largely due to the 17 families who all spuriously claim descent from the liaison. But I'm afraid that has more to do with the desperation of social-climbers to associate themselves with royalty than with historical fact.

The Charlotte Dalton business in Carmarthenshire was dealt with by Pendered in 1910.

As we have moved away from discussing Albert Victor, I suggest we move further discussion to Talk:George III of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan 08:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not necessarily believe that Albert Victor married Annie. I also do not necessarily believe that George married Hannah. However such things should not be viewed as impossible, that is naive. Just because a marriage did not necessarily occur, doesn't mean a relationship and children did not occur. I have been trying my best to uncover the truth about the Crooks, and I have been told definitely by a member of the family that Annie Crook and her daughter Alice Margaret, who Annie claimed was fathered by Prince Eddy, were both born and raised Church of England. Where can I read about the 17 families who claim descent from George III and Hannah? Who is Pendered and how did he 'deal' with this apparent evidence, backing up the Lightfoot story? I also believe it has been claimed that Hannah married George before she married Isaac, making the second marriage bigamous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)

• Mary Pendered was the author of the 1910 book The fair Quaker: Hanna Lightfoot, and her relations with George III, she traced Charlotte Dalton's family line and found 17 families claiming descent from Lightfoot. I would recommend though that you first read the most recent work, such as Matthew Kilburn's 2004 essay on Lightfoot in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. DrKiernan 07:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, on another note, shouldn't this article be titled "PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR, DUKE OF CLARENCE AND AVONDALE" as his Uncle's is titled "PRINCE ARTHUR, DUKE OF CONNAUGHT AND STRATHEARN". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)

I concur on this one. john k 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand there is no actual evidence whatsoever that the Duke of Clarence having a ceremony whereby he secretly "married" Annie Crook. This is unlike the situation with other counter-RMA marriages, like those of George IV with Mrs. Fitzherbert, the two marriages of the Duke of Sussex, or that of the Duke of Cambridge to Mrs. Fitzgeorge, all of which are known from contemporary records. As far as whether he legally married Annie Crook, that is conclusively determined in the negative. Beyond the issues the Dr Kiernan has brought up, there is also the issue of the Royal Marriages Act, which requires that members of the royal family have their marriages approved by the sovereign. Queen Victoria most certainly did not approve any marriage between her grandson and Annie Crook, therefore they were not married. To even consider the first possibility, we'd have to find some real evidence of the normal sort to confirm it - some kind of record somewhere, of the sort present in those other marriages mentioned. john k 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is no proper evidence that Eddy married Annie Crook. Just family testimony, etc. I actually do not think, they were married. I do not think this is something Eddy would have been so silly to do. He was actively looking for a royal wife at the time, and was involved with various princesses and aristocrats. He very probably could have however, on a night out at Cleveland Street, met a girl there (Annie) had an affair and got her pregnant. This is not remotely impossible. I have seen pictures of his supposed daughter and she did have a resemblance to him, and to Queen Alexandra, except definitely not nearly as beautiful as Eddy's mother. So as for the marriage ceremony, which I agree was definitely not legal in any case because of the RMA, then I would say we should view it as a very unlikely possibility, and if we found any proper supporting evidence, then we should consider the alleged ceremony as fact.

On the other issue, John K, as you concur, maybe you could change the title of the article, to reflect the actual name of Eddy's Dukedom, as I'm not sure how to make this change myself.

Three Possible Brides...?

The section on the possible brides for Prince Albert Victor states that there were three possible brides lined up for him but only two are mentioned. Yanqui9 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimate Birth Claim section

• Dr. Kiernan wrote: remove inaccurate representation of the report's content

I just want to say that I never wrote any inaccurate representation of the report's content. The report says: Embarrassing letters in the woman’s possession were believed to have been purchased by lawyers acting for the duke.

This would seem to indicate that the letters between the Prince and Mrs. Haddon were of a compromising nature, since they had to be secretly purchased back.

The article also says: In a statement to police, a representative from Lewis and Lewis, a legal firm which had acted on behalf of the Duke of Clarence during the divorce proceedings, said: “Certainly there were some relations (between Haddon and the duke).” The unnamed representative denied, however, that there was any child from the union.

The documents reveal that the duke wrote a number of letters to Haddon. A Special Branch report in July 1914 stated: “There were grounds for thinking Lewis and Lewis obtained those letters from her upon payment."

If the Prince's own legal firm are admitting that the Prince and Mrs. Haddon had some relations, surely we can have the common sense to admit in this Wikipedia article that the Duke probably did have an affair with Mrs. Haddon, however whether he was the father of her son, is something that is completely unknown. It appears to me that the illegitimate birth claim section is written in a very biased way, with a lot of POV that Haddon's claims were rubbish. They should be treated as just a claim, not necessarily true, not necessarily false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.162.86 (talk • contribs)

• Your edit read "However, letters Prince Albert Victor wrote to Mrs. Haddon were bought back on his behalf, which would indicate the two did have an affair." Note what you said, "letters were bought back" and compare that to the actual report: "were believed to have been purchased" and "there were grounds for thinking that". There is no direct evidence that such letters were bought back. Further, in the absence of the letters, we cannot know what they did or did not contain. For all we know, they could just be saying "Gosh! It's hot in India, isn't it!" Your edits went too far the other way, by presenting a loose rumour as fact. DrKiernan 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No they certainly did not go too far the other way, I said that since the letters were almost certainly brought back, it would indicate that they had an affair, since they certainly knew each other, and the Duke was linked to her right from that time, even before the baby was born. It is a fair enough assumption. Especially considering how seriously the matter was treated by the government, Special Branch, etc. If it says in the Special Branch's report, that there were grounds for thinking that lawyers acting for the Prince bought back the Prince's letters from Mrs. Haddon, which it does, then that is extremely likely that that is what happened, since it would not have been included in the report otherwise. Since the letters were embarrassing it is safe to correctly assume that they included more than just comments on the weather. Especially considering the Prince's reputation when it comes to his love life, the documentary proof that he was treated for what was almost certainly a venereal disease by Alfred Fripp, I think that they did have an affair. Whether Eddy was the father of her son, is an unproved allegation, but it could be true. So these allegations are not a loose rumour at all, but they are not fact either. Realistically speaking, Eddy probably had an affair with her, and the evidence seems to point more in that direction than in the other direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.162.86 (talk • contribs)
    • But you did not say "they were almost certainly brought (sic) back"; you said they were bought back, which is not what the report says, nor does it say that they almost certainly were bought back. Secondly, the fact that they knew each other does not mean they were having an affair; I'm sure you know many people but I'd be surprised if you were having an affair with them all. So, no, it isn't a fair assumption. Thirdly, it does not say the letters were embarrassing, to paraphrase, it says the letters were believed to be embarrassing. Fourthly, you yourself say "almost certainly a venereal disease", so, we don't know whether it was or not (it could have been but it might not have been).
      We should present facts to the reader not our personal interpretation of them. DrKiernan 15:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well I have read in more than one place that it is highly likely, almost certain that letters were bought back. That leads me to conclude that they probably were. The fact that they are writing letters to each other and that the letters were deemed embarrassing, and the article does say they are embarrassing, leads me to conclude, as a person greatly interested in Prince Eddy who has an open mind about his conduct, that they probably had an affair. Also considering the tangled divorce proceedings that the Haddons had, it seems likely. It is a fair enough assumption that Prince Eddy and Mrs. Haddon had an affair, since she was estranged from her husband, and they wrote embarrassing letters to one another. It makes sense to me. As for the venereal disease, Alfred Fripp hinted it was and wrote in his diary the Prince confided in me his love affair, it says in numerous books that that's what it probably was, it was not syphilis. It was probably gonorrhea. It is treated as pretty much a fact even in the book by Andrew Cook, which is very well researched and is very positive towards the Prince, as it should be, since he was a very amiable person who suffered a tragic fate. We should present what was probably the case to the reader, not our own ideologies. Unproven claims should not be dismissed as ridiculous and false, simply because they are unproven, especially if they are quite possible. The only way to know for sure would be a DNA test. I am unaware if Clarence Haddon had any descendents, if he did a DNA test could be performed on them and a member or relative of the Royal Family to see if there is a relation.

Hagiography

The suggestions of the Andrew Cook biography need to be taken with a mountain of salt according to the Guardian 22/11/05: "there is no earthly reason to believe that Eddy was a radical freethinker, compassionate, able and progressive. Nor that he would have made a better king than his brother, George, having more empathy with ordinary people. George, despite his many limitations, was an amazingly good broadcaster." While the idea that the Prince was Jack the Ripper is certainly ridiculous, Cook is unable to prove that the Prince wasn't involved in the Cleveland Street Scandal. Any suggestion otherwise is false. Engleham (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement "nothing against Albert Victor was proven" is correct and referenced. I see no reason to delete it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ripper in the lead

There is some discussion above about whether Jack the Ripper should be mentioned in the lead. WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies...The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article...The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article...Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article...Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." This indicates to me that (both sides of) the Ripper claim should be explicitly stated in the lead. I have changed "prove" to "indicate" and removed "absurd" in an attempt to agree some sort of compromise between those that consider the claims made against Albert Victor idiotic and those that think that the claims cannot be disproven. DrKiernan (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Harrison references

I've put in some references from Harrison, despite the obvious flaws and inaccuracies in the book. See for example, p.110, where Harrison repeats assertions that Albert Victor was the father of Sarah Bernhardt's illegitimate son Maurice. As Maurice was born on 22 December 1864, Albert Victor would have to have conceived a child with Bernhardt when he was 3 months old. DrKiernan (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death

It is not completely clear. Did he die of influenza, pneumonia, or both? Werdnawerdna (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Influenza pandemic

The citation given does not say that the pandemic ended in 1890 and other citations clearly state that it occurred in 1891-2: "In 1890, the influenza outbreaks were as a rule single or isolated and occurred in only a few places...The third real epidemic spread of influenza was a true pandemic which began in October 1891 and lasted through the whole winter to the spring of 1892."Observations on Past Influenza Pandemics, by John M. Barry, who is an expert on the history of influenza pandemics. DrKiernan (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Homophobic parts to the article

I take exception to the part of the article which states "In 1972, Michael Harrison was the first modern author to re-assess Albert Victor and portray him in a more sympathetic light.[93] In recent years, Andrew Cook has continued attempts to rehabilitate Albert Victor's reputation, arguing that his lack of academic progress was partly due to the incompetence of his tutor, Dalton; that he was a warm and charming man; that there is no tangible evidence that he was homosexual or bisexual; that he held liberal views, particularly on Irish Home Rule; and that his reputation has been diminished by biographers eager to improve the image of his brother, George." The idea that denying he was homosexual or had bisexual tendencies is a sign of Andrew Cook's attempt to "rehabilitate" Albert Victor appears to imply that being homosexual or bisexual is a bad thing, something that needs to be rehabilitated - hardly a positive image of desires that deviate from the heterosexual! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.31.230 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "re-assess" could be used instead? DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Conjecture"

This line ("though there is no firm evidence that he ever went there or was even homosexual") was deleted from the lead by |an IP, on the grounds that it was "Conjecture [and] a purely subjective statement". I disagree, so assumed the role of the second player in BRD and reverted it. I have now been reverted, and another IP has deleted it again. Now we can move to the third part and discuss:

I believe the line should be in the lead, as it reflects statements made further on in the article, ("...[I]t is suggested that Somerset's solicitor, Arthur Newton, fabricated and spread the rumours to take the heat off his client....none of the clients were ever prosecuted and nothing against Albert Victor was proven....there is no conclusive evidence of his involvement or that he ever visited a homosexual club or brothel,...some biographers...suppose that...he was "possibly bisexual, probably homosexual"....[O]thers...refer to him as "ardently heterosexual"...The historian H. Montgomery Hyde wrote "There is no evidence that he was homosexual, or even bisexual"") all of which are referenced. Removing the line from the lead gives a false impression of Eddy. I'm putting it back in while (if) it is discussed, as i believe that's how BRD works. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the clause should be retained for the very sound reasons above. DrKiernan (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all those 'verifiable' sources denying his involvement appear themselves to be entirely inconclusive. Nowhere is it stated that there is conclusive evidence against his involvement. Much of it sounds like Denial (in the clinical sense) of the word. It is true that the evidence was not 'firm' but the way in which it is worded makes it sound like the whole thing is pure fabrication but with identical 'no firm evidence' that it is NOT true. An article is not a legal conclusion where one declares a subject "not guilty" as one would in a court of law. You write what is known, viz. that no one knows for sure from the evidence. "I wonder if it is really a fact or only an invention" simply expresses that fact. "There is no evidence that he was homosexual, or even bisexual" could equally be expressed, "There is no evidence that he wasn't," (in light of the persistent rumours.) I have rephrased the sentence to make it neutral from BOTH points of view, not the one denying it which is biased in one direction and insufficiently non-POV to meet Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. Mike Hayes (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

twelve-year old schoolboy

The emphasised bit reads badly:

Lord Goddard, who was a twelve-year old schoolboy at the time of the scandal,

I surmise the point is that Goddard's information must be second-hand or fabricated rather than first-hand; but either this is WP:SYN and should be expunged or else it is sourceable in which case it should be stated and sourced explicitly. jnestorius^(talk) 13:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and fabrications

I have a problem with stating in Wikipedi's voice: "Conspiracy theories surrounding Albert Victor's death—that he died of syphilis or poison, that he was pushed off a cliff on the instructions of Lord Randolph Churchill or that his death was faked to remove him from the line of succession—are fabrications". If they are baldly inaccurate, why record them at all? If certain, or most, sources regard them as fabrications, then let us say so, and attribute it. The wording we have at present looks weak, especially on an FA, and especially on TFA. --John (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

All reliable secondary sources say explicitly that they are fabrications. Hence, we should do the same. Adding unsourced editorialising such as "regarded as" weakens the wording rather than strengthening it and adds wikipedia's voice to the sentence instead of removing it. DrKiernan (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh, you're not getting the point at all. If I say something is a "conspiracy theory", I'm already putting it into a minority viewpoint. If I then add that they are all "fabrications" (in Wikipedia's voice!), what am I actually adding? It will sound to many discriminating readers as if thou dost protest too much; repeating the judgement actually makes it less convincing. It jars somewhat in a FA, and it would be good to fix it. I suggest just leaving it out if it is such an extremely deprecated fringe POV. As it stands it looks terrible. --John (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Height

Does anyone know how tall Albert Victor was? He was short and slight. I think 5'4" or 5'5". Don't remember where I read that though. His father was only 5'7", his mother was about 5'6". 74.69.9.224 (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Time at university

I was just reading Queen Mary by David Duff, where at the appropriate time in her life the author mentions prince Albert as possible suitor. He there remarks on Albert's unsuitablity to be anyones husband, and amongst other thing notes that Albert was removed from Cambridge by his father "in a rage" because "strange rumours began to float about regarding his goings on there", and in particular because of a punch cartoon published 24 November 1883 where "Eddy was shown on a balcony, two undergraduates looking up at him. One says isn't it beautiful? The other adds, 'Too lovely to look at'. The inference was obvious". Is this in fact why he was removed from Cambridge?

Dalton seems to have been a questionable role model if heterosexual probity was valued, he seems to have delighted in the company of naval cadets, took home a sailor as his personal servant for the rest of his life and obtained an arranged marriage bride from one of his young acquaintances. Now I read Eddy had a second questionable tutor, James Stephen, who seems to have himself died of some mental instability brought on by news of Eddy's death. One must wonder how Stephen came to have this job?

Duff quotes a magazine 'Truth' 25 December 1890, which published an imagined interview with Eddy following his tour of India, which suggests an extreme interest in a laundryman from Shuttadore. This is described as fiction, but plainly is evidence of public debate on his sexuality. It isnt quite clear from Duff whether there might have been some facts behind this, but he goes on to suggest that the phrase 'Shut that door', with camp connotations, stems from this article and remained in the public consciousness for a century.

Duff also refers to one of Eddy's tutors as saying "He hardly knows the meaning of the words to read". The article quotes a tutor as saying he learnt by listening rather than reading, which isnt quite the same thing. Being, for example, dyslexic, could well explain his failure to learn as it has for many other intelligent people. I notice the article suggests a number of possible explanations for his failure at academic studies but not this one. I also got no real explanation aside from his appearing uneducated and showing apparent indolence, whether he in fact appeared stupid or intelligent to other. I havnt read it, but I notice a comment above alludes to the Cook biography's view on this, where the Guardian disputes what it presumably suggests that he was a "radical free thinker, compassionate, able and progressive"

The question of how he came to be attending Trinity at all similarly does not seem to be addressed. While this might be purely down to patronage, it does suggest that someone thought him capable of benefiting educationally from being there. Sandpiper (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Was Eddy of Low Intelligence

In the Education section, it seems to suggest that Prince Eddy was educationally deficient. I have attempted to show some balance by making it clear that this idea is contentious. My revision was undone because it was mentioned later on in the article. However, I would argue that it is more important to mention it during the actual subject than as a footnote as not to relegate the opposite view (that it was Dalton's character and abilities at fault rather than the Prince's) as being an insubstantial argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tynmar66 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinions on his intellect are called speculation in the lead; the opposing views are given in the first paragraph of the "Education" section itself and are reiterated in the "Legacy" section. Neither is relegated to a footnote. The opposing views on Albert Victor's abilities are again reiterated in the final paragraph of the Education section. We must give due weight to each of the views, but there are more sources (such as Nicolson, Pope-Hennessy, etc.) giving poor opinions of his intellect than there are giving good ones (basically Cook). And Nicolson and Pope-Hennessy are more widely known and used and more notable than Cook. The article is not imbalanced and both views are represented with due weight. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

However, as far as I can see Nicholson and Hennesy only mention Eddy in passing as part of works about someone else? They cannot therefore have spent as much time on researching Eddy? Also, being an official biographer imposes restrictions as well as opportunities about included material. Sandpiper (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. So are we saying until there are enough revisionists to add weight to the argument, people who only read the education section will be given the idea that he had low intellect because, for years it has perhaps been politically expedient to view King George as the better candidate for the monarchy? However, having said that, I think that the article would be less imbalanced if the medical reasons for his supposed problems of intellect were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tynmar66 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a middle path of adding a clause for Dalton's lack of inspiration and cutting a clause on mental vacuity: viz. the final sentence of the first paragraph to read: "Possible physical explanations for Albert Victor's inattention or indolence in class include absence seizures or his premature birth, which can be associated with learning difficulties,[Citation 1] Aronson, pp. 53–54; Harrison, p. 35. but Lady Geraldine Somerset blamed Albert Victor's poor education on Dalton, whom she considered uninspiring.[Citation 2] Aronson, p. 74." DrKay (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that the term "intellect" is old-fashioned and not in current use, and should be replaced with a term such as "intellectual abilities". Totorotroll (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleveland street brothel

Hmm. The article says " the rumours and cover-up has led some biographers to speculate that he did visit Cleveland Street,[35" which is referenced to aronson p.170. What Aronson actually says on that page is "reading this correspondence (some of which was destroyed), there can be little doubt Prince eddy did visit the Cleveland Street brothel, and that the prince of wales entourage were desperate to quash the rumours of his involvement, not because they were false but because they were true." Now, it could be argued that Aronson is speculating, but in fact suggesting that is speculation by whoever wrote the text on this page. Aronson stated be believes it to be true. By contrast, the article continues " The historian H. Montgomery Hyde wrote, "There is no evidence that he was homosexual, or even bisexual."[38]". ie, wiki implies hyde is correct, and Aronson wrong. this strikes as POV handling of the two different views.Sandpiper (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Later the article cites a letter to Lord Esher from Somerset. I changed the article because it did not correctly paraphrase that text. The two source books being referred to, Aronson and Cook, cite the letter but do not quote it in full, so hard to say what it does say in its entirety. However, from the excerpts included a conclusion is drawn that since Somerset wonders " if it is really a fact or only an invention of that arch ruffian H[ammond]", that Somerset's source of information was in fact Hammond and not direct knowledge of events he had witnessed. He does claim to have specific knowledge from somewhere. It is not clear in context whether this might be directly from Hammond to Somerset, or indirectly via his lawyer Newton, who is being talked about in the letter re what he might reveal if he is cornered. Thus I inserted 'certain people', because while it is more than hearing a general rumour, and the information would seem to have come from Hammond, it is not certain he heard it directly from Hammond rather than Newton (or indeed someone else not mentioned). He does appear to have heard the general rumours in society, and I think mentions this in another letter excerpt, so I also left in that he mentions hearing rumours. However his specific source of information is clearly more than just a rumour doing the rounds of society, because he refers specifically to Hammond. He does not state directly his source is Hammond, and thus I changed 'denies' to 'implies not'. He does not deny knowing anything directly, this is merely a deduction drawn by the book's author. Of course, there is no guarantee he is telling the truth in what he wrote, but that issue does not seem to come up in the sources. One does mention that some letters have been destroyed, which might imply they had the most sensitive references and that these went further than whatever we have available. Cook states boldly that Somerset must have had the information from Newton rather than Hammond, but I did not see any explanation of why he believes Somerset could not have had the information directly from Hammond, the keeper of the brothel he admitted frequenting. Incidentally, there seems to have been some sort of record book which the police impounded but which mysteriously disappeared. Someone might have used this as a source of information. (sorry thats a bit complicated)Sandpiper (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In your own words, it is "a deduction drawn by the book's author". Your own deductions are irrelevant. This isn't the place to publish your personal opinions. DrKay (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really understand what you are saying. All books report the deductions drawn by the author. Authors do research and report their findings. We at wikipedia report what they have concluded. Thats how it works. Aronson concluded Eddy was homosexual and went to Cleveland stret. So that is what we say. If you report this in a way as to imply Aronson is wrong, then it is you who are speculating and posting your own opinions, which is what is not allowed on wiki. The article ought to be written saying author 1 says this while author2 says that, but cannot be written as author 1 speculates this while author2 has proved the other.Sandpiper (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is. DrKay (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it is not, and I explained why above.Sandpiper (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am also a little bothered by the fact we mention one historian by name, H montgomery Hyde, for no obvious reason. Wikipedia is not an advertising board for authors and publishers. Sandpiper (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Aronson, Harrison, Magnus, Cook, Pope-Hennessy, and Nicolson, are all mentioned by name. Hyde is one among many, and is given no more prominence than any of the others. DrKay (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Not in the section I was editing, they are not. It is a very disturbing trend that wiki is increasingly becoming a highly selective board for staging a debate betweeen certain selected sources. I have no doubt the people named are not the only people to have written about this, just the ones which happened to be available at the time. Why name any of them in the text? I see someone likes to use selective disparagement to ridicule Aronson, too. tut. Sandpiper (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read Aronson and am working through Cook. Its quite fascinating to note the total opposite positions they take on certain things. For example, Cook says, about Eddy's time in the army, "If his horsemanship had been elegant before, he must have cut a fine figure after this"...."He had no difficulty mastering the other military skills of an officer". "...in the army, Eddy learned without difficulty" (p.123.) Whereas Aronson says "Prince Eddy showed himself no more of a soldier than a scholar".... "neither at Aldershot, nor at York, nor at the Curragh near Dublin, did Prince Eddy show much interest in soldiering." (p.76-77). "Once his first six months of training were over, prince Eddy seems to have spent almost as much time away from his regiment as with it" (p.78). "His son's continuing backwardness annoyed the Prince of Wales considerably. Prince Eddy's remaining in the Army, he sighed on one occasion, was 'simply a waste of time-and he has not that knowledge even of military subjects which he ought to possess'". (p.78, reffed to pope-hennesy, who both cook and Aronson also quote as Eddy saying he disliked riding training)

Cook remarks that the Duke of Cambridge was shocked by Eddy's lack of knowledge about military matters before he joined the army.(p.123) Aronson remarks Cambridge was asked by the regimental colonel not to ask Eddy to carry out some 'elementary movement' while cambridge was visiting and Eddy was training at Aldershot, because Eddy would have 'not an idea how to do it'. (P.77) Cook mentions brawling and visitng brothels as typical soldierly behaviour, Aronson discusses the common practice of supplementing your meagre income as an ordinary soldier by acting as a male homosexual prostitute. Seems to me both authors have a marked agenda: Aronson's being to draw out the extraordinary degree to which he was involved with gay (in the modern sense) society, Cook's to rehabilitate him as an exceptionally able candidate to be king. Sandpiper (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cook really does have an agenda about proving Eddy being entirely heterosexual, and singularly fails to do so. I noticed the article seeks to ridicule Aronson by his arguments for homosexuality, but Cook had some right corkers of his own. He says Eddy was straight because he followed fashion. That he failed to find a pretty 16 year old woman attractive because his mother had told him not to. Such as Eddy's sudden interest in marriage while the Cleveland st scandal was at its height showed he had always been interested in women. That the singular lack of paperwork from the scandal actually mentioning Eddy shows it was not his name they were trying to prevent being discovered. Interestingly David Duff on Queen Mary seems to take it as read that half the aristocracy of europe knew him to be gay. Hunting about i noticed a review of another book by Cook, arguing he is very partisan there too about only acknowledging evidence for his thesis and not against.Sandpiper (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A dissipated simpleton

I note in Cook's Afterforward to his book, where he covers previous biographers of Eddy, he acknowledges Pope Hennessy did "pretty extensive research in the royal archives for Queen Mary, but doesn't state that PM also spoke to people still living who knew Eddy. So when PM wrote that Eddy's "dissipations" were a cause of deep concern, he knew what he was writing about. And dissipations wasn't a word lightly inserted into an authorised royal biography then! But reading Cook's assessment of PM's biographical view of Eddy in Queen Mary, you wouldn't gain the impression – as I think most readers do – that PM thought Eddy a complete dropkick. In A Lonely Business, PM's collected diaries and essays he also calls Eddy "an unsatisfactory young man" (p214) which is probably worth inserting into the article. Because when an immensely discrete official royal biographer writes that, you know it's code for 'disastrous'. PM not only had open access, he was also upper-class and gay, so undoubtably had access to additional sources of relevant information. Ur-gossip James Lees-Milne was one of his closest friends. In the same book he quotes Grand Duchess Xenia telling him about a time at Fredensborg when Eddy threw a small dog into a lake just for the hell of it. In the description Eddy comes across as a complete simpleton. "She agreed with my delicate suggestion that it had been better for Queen Mary not to marry the Duke of Clarence..." (p259) Speaking of access: when the late Theo Aronson was writing his book on Eddy he was refused access to the Salisbury papers. In a letter to me he tellingly wrote "I was given permission - in theory....until they discovered what I wanted. Then they clammed up. One would think it all happened yesterday, instead of a century ago." Engleham (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Venereal Disease

@DrKay (without citing any reason) has removed a section I added on recently discovered letters that have come up for auction revealing the Prince was being medicated for gonorrhea. The story has appeared in the Daily Mail and Mirror with the risible Jack The Ripper allegation woven in: no doubt all cobbled together from what one presumes was a media release designed to create as much attention as possible. That said, the letters are being auctioned a reputable specialist auction house in Nottingham, International Autograph Auctions, and so would have been subject to reasonable assessment of their validity. As citations I linked to the Daily Mail article merely to cite the backstory of their appearing on the market, and also to the auction lot listing which provided a partial transcript. I also linked to another letter from the Princes' equerry that substantiates Roche was the Princes' doctor at Aldershot and had been asked to stay on to manage him. The citation was the lot listing from Argyll Etkin, another reputable business that have been in operation since 1958. I placed it at the end of the Education section immediately after the sentence "Of his private life, a childhood friend of Albert Victor later recalled that it was uneventful: "his brother officers had said that they would like to make a man of the world of him. Into that world he refused to be initiated."

However, letters dated 1885 and 1886 from Albert Victor to his doctor Surgeon Roche at Aldershot, detail that he was taking medicine for 'glete' (gleet), then a term for gonorrhea discharge.[Citation 1] Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence: Two letters on the delicate matter of his sexual health, International Autograph Auctions; 5 March 2016, Nottingham, Lot 438; https://web.archive.org/web/20160304071305/http://www.autographauctions.co.uk/bidcat/detail.asp?SaleRef=0061&LotRef=438[Citation 2] McLelland, Euan Jack The Ripper suspect Prince Albert Victor is revealed to have been suffering from gonorrhoea – most likely caught from a prostitute, Daily Mail 26 February 2016; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3463735/Jack-Ripper-suspect-Prince-Albert-Victor-revealed-suffering-gonorrhoea-likely-caught-prostitute.html#ixzz41utXT23u In another letter of 1896, from his equerry Arthur Greville, he requested that Roche stay on to look after him.[Citation 3] https://web.archive.org/web/20160304070701/http://www.ebay.com/itm/GREVILLE-LETTER-EQUERRY-PRINCE-ALBERT-VICTOR-DUKE-OF-CLARENCE-TO-SURGEON-ROCHE-/350990360046?nma=true&si=Ymx%252FCqmq0LoTRQnddlJaHuGF5wA%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

The Mirror article may be slightly better than the Mail, give it closes with an expert who dismisses the Ripper allegation: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/letters-prove-member-royal-family-7439039

Aside from that, are there any issues with incorporating this into the article? Engleham (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't removed it. I moved it to where the gonorrhea is discussed, cutting out "1896" (because the letter is 1886, which is already given in the preceding sentence and he was dead by 1896) and the ebay source, which is not reliable. It's extraneous anyway as it doesn't mention glete and the important information is already given. I didn't provide an edit summary because I thought the move down to place related material together was obvious and didn't require explanation.

BTW, this isn't a new discovery. These or similar documents have been known about for a long time and are discussed in the books listed at the end of the article. DrKay (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay Apologies, I didn't notice the reinsertion. Yes, the earlier allegations regarding VD refer to his friend/doctor Alfred Fripp who was supposedly treating him for it. It comes from Aronsson, who as Andrew Cook notes, didn't provide a source. Michaela Reid's book on Queen Victoria's doctor Sir James Reid, 'Ask Sir James', also has nothing. The appearance of the Roche letters therefore provides substantive evidence and supersedes some of the earlier text in the article e.g."Although there is no known source directly confirming this"(Cook), so I shall rewrite that paragraph as it's now too self-contradictory and wordy. The point should be made succinctly. I also think it's better placed at the first incidence of it at Aldershot in the 1880s as per the Roche letters. Placed there it also serves as balance to the preceding sentence which is" Of his private life, a childhood friend of Albert Victor later recalled that it was uneventful: "his brother officers had said that they would like to make a man of the world of him. Into that world he refused to be initiated." That's from the Rev. William Rogers, and clearly nonsense, so needs the counterbalance showing he was living a fast life even then. The order of the two mistress paragraphs could also be swapped to read better, so will do that too. Have also sourced a telling quote from a journo who attended most of his public appearances which I will place in the Death section. Engleham (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it because the nature of the 1890 illness is still not known. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, apparently, @DrKay is using sleazy tabloidesque and unreliably, if at all, sourced allegations that do not fit in this encyclopaedia (see [2]). I am not going to edit war but I will seek dispute resolution if we can't settle it here, as this is an ongoing thing, apparently, based on the above colloquies with @Engleham. Quis separabit? 06:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale. 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/20080610061321/http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/tour/tour_albert.asp to http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/tour/tour_albert.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Honours

Perhaps some medal experts among us can check it up, but his 1891 photograph shows him wearing among others two decorations both instituted in 1887 - that can be identified as the Queen Victoria Golden Jubilee Medal and the British Order of St John of Jerusalem.Cloptonson (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how/where to edit this, but the image labeled "Sketch of Albert Victor by Christian Wilhelm Allers, 1887" has a caption in German that translates to "The Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward of England, Duke of Clarence." However, he was not created "Duke of Clarence" until 1890, three years after the sketch was allegedly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.53.149 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The sketch is from 1887. It was published in a book in 1894. The image file is a scan from the book. DrKay (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)