Talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Title

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

And amongst others:

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

[edit] Second in Line of Succession "after Queen Victoria"

This is wrong, Prince Albert Victor was indeed 2nd in the line of succession but not "after Queen Victoria", since Victoria was the monarch at the time she can't have been in the line of succession to herself! He was second in succession after his father only.

[edit] 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•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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrince_Albert_Victor%2C_Duke_of_Clarence_c5f3.html"