Talk:Albert, Prince Consort
|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.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2011.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 10, 2005, February 10, 2006, February 10, 2007, February 10, 2008, February 10, 2010, February 10, 2011, and February 10, 2014.|
From the article: "Albert managed and improved the other royal estates; his model farm at Windsor was admired by his biographers, and under his stewardship the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall – the hereditary property of the Prince of Wales – steadily multiplied."
- 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)
Lack of Criticism
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.--22.214.171.124 (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
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 126.96.36.199 (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
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Heir to the throne of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Wording in family and public life
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)
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)