Talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articlePrince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 8, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 25, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
June 25, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 6, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Biography / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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 Peerage and Baronetage (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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

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.

A dissipated simpleton[edit]

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)

Honours[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Venereal Disease[edit]

@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 [1]). 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[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

Ripper claim[edit]

Since the allegations about Eddy as Jack the Ripper have been conclusively disproved, I think they should form only a small footnote in this article, with a link to the 'Jack the Ripper suspects' wiki page for Ripperologsts to linger over. Valetude (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles should cover material with due proportion, taking into account their relative coverage in reliable sources. The Ripper claims are a major part of his notability and so are represented fairly in this article. DrKay (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
There's only one paragraph on it anyway. That's hardly excessive. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)