Talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale article.
Article policies
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

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)

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS WAS NOT RETARDED!

[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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)