Talk:Albert, Prince Consort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Albert, Prince Consort is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2011.
December 21, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

penis ring[edit]

Any truth in the popular belief that his dong was impaled by a ring ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it was made up in the 1970s by Doug Malloy. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


From the article: "Albert managed and improved the other royal estates; his model farm at Windsor was admired by his biographers,[48] and under his stewardship the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall – the hereditary property of the Prince of Wales – steadily multiplied.[49]"

Multiplied seems a bit remarkable (but not impossible), if someone have access to the source, please check, perhaps "increased" is a better word. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The source says "Pursuing his interest in agriculture, he set up a model dairy farm at Windsor that was soon making a profit, and he multiplied the revenues from the duchy of Cornwall estates held in trust for the prince of Wales." I've changed it anyway because Elizabeth Longford says in "Victoria R.I." (p.73) that the revenues rose from about £27k at the start of her reign to over £60k "at the end". So, I doubt it more than doubled during Albert's stewardship. DrKiernan (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism[edit]

The entire article reads a little too "one sided".

There is a lack of Criticism section and throught the article the tone taken seems to be pouring one accolade after another onto Albert, with the use of language suggesting some piece of biography from the monachry's website.

I'll admit i am not familiar with the exploits of this man(though now much informed thanks to the article) but i find it hard to believe that nobody(neither then nor until now)had any criticism of some of his actions regarding anything in particular. From the article i'd get the impression that he was universilly acclaimed for all his actions as consort.-- (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, criticism sections tend to suck, valid criticism should be in the right place in the article. There is some, foreign bastard when he came, stiff and reserved, beat the son, unpopular again at the start of the Crimean war. But the overall tone seems positive to me, which might be as it should be. He was (as I understand the article) fairly enlightened, faithful to his wife, even good with money. Of course, he never held formal power, and that helps too. Perhaps there is some feud/harsh words from The Duke of Wellington (about the army), Palmerston or the clergy that could be expanded somewhat? Since he didn´t actually have the piercing.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Prince Albert von Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha[edit]

Hi real name was Prince Albert von Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha. Shouldn't that be the title of the wikipedia article then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia sometimes works a little differently, see WP:NAMEGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Albert and the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and the Civilisation of Africa[edit]

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

Heir to the throne of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha[edit]

See [1].

Wording in family and public life[edit]

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

That's fine by me, thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

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