Talk:Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old Discussions

I think Fichte was an important German Romantic writer and Schlegel a Philosopher, but I could be wrong, since I'm way out of my depth here...JHK

Actually Schlegel was the romantic and Fichte an idealist and follower of Kant, or so says our rival, the Columbia Viking Desk Encyclopedia.

This is a perfect example of why it isn't a good idea to leave things from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica untouched. See Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for suggestions on how to fix up articles like this. I don't think these eminent philosophes made much of an impression on Albert, whose claim to fame is that he loved Victoria and that after he died she wore mourning the rest of her life.

This article doesn't even deign to identify him as the husband of Queen Victoria until a subordinate clause at the end of the second paragraph. And even then the vulgar word "husband" is eschewed. Of course, they all knew who he was in 1911. In 2002 we need a little help. Kids don't even call up tobacco stores to ask "Have you got Prince Albert in a can?" any more. Ortolan88

Initial text from 1911 encyclopediaOrtolan88

Why isn't this articlle titled "Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha"? Surely that is the name by which he is best known in English. Of course kids can't ask about Prince Albert in a can if they've never heard of "Prince Albert," and doesn't his name's being an trade name just go to show what name he's known by? -- isis 27 Aug 2002

Well, gee, if you don't like the title, move it or change it! I left it the way I found it and just busted my hump making it readable and understandable and also created a redirect from Prince Albert so people could find it. Your turn to do some lifting. Why not move it there. I don't think Albert of S-C-G is any better than F-C-A-A, but these royals with their names are ridiculous to me. Ortolan88

Hannover

Regarding the 2nd footnote at the bottom, I think the correct English spelling of the house is Hanover (Not Hannover) SHould this be changed? --Dudeness10 29 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)

I don't think it's undisputed that he had a surname... -- Someone else 03:53 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Was not Prince Albert christened "Franz Karl August Albrecht Emmanuel," rather than "Francis Charles Augustus Albert Emmanuel"?

I think this page should be moved to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, as that was the name of his house (Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha). User:Opera hat, 9 p.m. 16 April 2005 (BST)

Belgian King

Belgian King Albert I's name was Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. (see Belgian_monarchy)

Prince Albert piercing

I updated the link to "Prince Albert piercing" to say "Prince Albert genital piercing" since there had been complaints on that page that people had been linked there without appropriate knowledge of what they were being linked to.

Daydream believer2 17:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

This article says that the story of Prince Albert having a genital piercing was "certainly" originated by Doug Malloy, but the Prince Albert piercing article only says that this is suspected to be the case. How certain is this? Rodparkes 03:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the text to say it is "believed to have been" invented by Malloy. Unless anyone can come up with evidence confirming his orignation of the name? See also discussion at the Prince Albert piercing article. Rodparkes 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I wasn't expecting that link! Really, does this belong in this article? If there isn't a citation, shouldn't it just be removed? It just seems completely out of context. Liverhead (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Death caused by stomach cancer?

According to the biography of Victoria by Stanley Weintraub, Albert may have died of stomach cancer. I don't have the book with me now, but this is a summary of what he said:

Albert was diagnosed with typhus by the physician who had distinguished between typhus and typhoid, and thus the diagnosis was considered unquestionable. Even so, several other physicians at the time did question it.

Albert was a heavy smoker.

Albert had been having trouble with his digestion, and with his teeth. Trouble with teeth is often a side effect of trouble with the stomach; acid fumes come up the throat and attack the teeth.

A diagnosis of stomach cancer fits these facts, and other things known about his condition.

Weintraub made it sound as though stomach cancer were the current scholarly consensus, and just hadn't percolated out into the general public yet. Is this worth a note in the article?

There is nothing in the article about the theory that he died of stomach cancer, yet it is stated as probable / fact in multiple sources. Is it likely that a doctor at that time could have mistakenly diagnosed typhoid instead of stomach cancer? Can the symptoms of those two very different diseases be similar enough to cause a wrong diagnosis? What does the death certificate say? What do historians say about Albert's death? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See footnote 98. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Prince Albert of Prussia

Why does Prince Albert of Prussia redirect here? He was never a Prussian prince. He was born a prince of Saxe-Coburg, not Prussia, so I can't understand what the redirect is for. Morhange 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Chl 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Albert was a consort. Should he not be titled the way WP states consorts are to be titled? Charles 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Male consorts and female consorts are different. Albert was "Prince Albert" for his whole life, wherease female consorts (on some male consorts) become Queen (or King) upon their spouse's accession. He should go back to "Prince Albert of...", since he's universally known as "Prince Albert." john k 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If he is universally known as Prince Albert, he should be at Prince Albert. Since that would probably not be acceptable, he is at the form that is currently specified for consorts. Charles 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The form specified for consorts was specifically designed for female consorts. It should not apply here, or to Prince George, or to any other male consort who is merely a prince. john k 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing that indicates that it cannot or should not apply to males. Charles 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the rule is because women consorts becomes Queens, and thus having the title of the article call them "Princess" is confusing. On the other hand, Albert and George were called "Prince Albert" and "Prince George." Moving them back, again. john k 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it should be Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Astrotrain 22:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Male and female consorts are not different. (See Other royals item #10, "The same rule applies to male royal consorts." Marie-José of Belgium was born Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess in Saxony (which would parallel Albert's titles); the convention used is that of her name and her birthplace, presumably because she held a title there. As for the Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom, she is listed as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (more affectionately known as the "Queen Mum"). She was the mother of the present-day Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Before her marriage, her highest title was "Lady", so she is not known as "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon of Great Britain". Does this make any more sense?—Chidom ^talk  03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You make no sense at all whatsoever. I'm convinced you have no idea what is really going on. In the UK, Lady isn't a real title, at least as far as daughters of earls go. Marie-José is so named because she was a royal princess of Belgium and her father was the king of Belgium, as opposed to just a ducal princess of a place that her father was not even the sovereign of. Charles 04:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody please tell me why the article can't be at "Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom"?

Because there's no other "Albert, Prince Consort", so the territory isn't needed DBD 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Crockery

One day the prince had a conversation with a great manufacturer of crockery and sought to convert him to the idea of issuing something better than the eternal willow-pattern in white with gold, red, or blue, which formed the staple of middle and lower class domestic china. The manufacturer held out that new shapes and designs would not sell; but the Prince Consort induced him to try, and he did so with such a rapid success that it revolutionised the china cupboards of Britain.

the above vague paragraph reads like something out of a children's book and is largely nonsense, possibly a vague ref to Henry Cole. I have removed it for now. --mervyn 15:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Duke in Saxony

To style Albert as "Duke in Saxony" is incorrect. See Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; Ernst I was Duke until his death in 1844; his successor was Ernst II, who died in 1893, after Albert's death. The title passed to Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, fourth child (second son) of Victoria and Albert; Albert himself never held the title.—Chidom ^talk  23:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He was not reigning Duke; whether he held the style is a different question. Have you a source on the house law of the Saxon duchies? Septentrionalis 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, and I see that the last queen consort of Italy, Marie-José of Belgium, was born Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess in Saxony, so I withdraw my statement that the title is incorrect. I think that "Duke _of_ Saxony" would have been incorrect; I'm not sure what the significance is of "_in_" as opposed to "_of_". How anyone figures all this stuff out is beyond me at this point. Just when I think I understand how it works, it changes.—Chidom ^talk  03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

All members of the House of Wettin held the title of duke or duchess in Saxony, a reflection of shared status as members of the reigning families of what was essentially a large family of states. Each ruler was also a Duke of Saxony, differenced with the name of his capital or principal city. The title Duke in Saxony is a dynastic title linking the family's status to the territory. Charles 04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually, the Saxony dynasts actually did not use "in", as opposed to "von" (Bavaria was a different thing), and therefore much of the above is erroneous. Many of the non-reigning dynasts of the Wettin house used "Herzog von Sachsen" which should be translated "of" and not "in". It's wrong to put "in" as the English translation to signify "von", and yet more incorrect is it to use that as translatoon of "zu". ObRoy 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Was it "Herzog zu Sachsen" or "Herzog von Sachsen"? john k 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is Herzog zu Sachsen... The princes were all Dukes in Saxony while the sovereign dukes were sovereigns of the various Saxonies. Charles 02:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"zu" is not properly translated as "in" as far as I'm aware. Could you present some evidence that this translation is in use? It's also worth noting that "Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Saalfeld," or whatever, only appears as a proper title in the 19th century. In the 18th century all the Ernestine dynasts, ruling or not, were styled "Duke of Saxony, Angaria, and Westphalia; Landgrave in Thuringia; Margrave of Meissen; and Princely Count of Henneberg" Some of the branches had appended additional (and wholly notional) Jülich-Kleve titles, but none of the branches had any Saxon titles besides "Herzog zu Sachsen" that I'm aware of. The title is "Duke of Saxony," even if this doesnt quite convey the nuance of the German. john k 19:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify on this, there are three noble particles in German - in, zu, and von. "in" is normally translated "in," as in "Duke in Bavaria," or "King in Prussia." Both "zu" and "von" are normally translated as "of," except when you have "von und zu" as you do with the Princes of Liechtenstein, where I'm not sure how it's dealt with. The only way to be completely clear about which Particle is meant is to give it in German. john k 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Albert, Prince Consort per the poll below. This was acceptable to everyone and several people placed it high on their preference list, so, although there is no supermajority, the page will be located there. —Mets501 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2006

Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha → Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha — comply with naming conventions Deb 22:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the current title, "Albert, Prince Consort" is that it sends the message that he was only a prince because of his marriage to Victoria. In fact, he was born a Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gothe. Under the naming conventions mentioned, he should be either Prince Albert (due to his commonly being known as that in English) or Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gothe (dead consorts reverting to title before marriage). But the current title does not follow the stated guidelines. RockStarSheister (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

1. Support. See below for explanation. Deb 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, although I don't think an RM is necessary. john k 23:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I read back through the archives at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) looking for discussions on this point, and the examples that I could find (prior to the discussion there that is simultaneous with this one) are exclusively of female consorts. Male consorts differ fundamentally from female consorts because the latter automatically take the feminine version of their husbands' titles (in most cases), whereas that has been the exception for male consorts (and the more recent the case, the more exceptional it is). Lethiere 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, aside from the current title, which is supported by conventions, the most used titles are of Prince Consort (used for Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) or "Prince Albert". Charles 23:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   The current title is no more supported by convention than the proposed one. john k 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   Apparently, there is an unwritten "convention" which you are referring to. Charles 23:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   I agree that the written convention does not support my view, but nobody has ever interpreted it to support yours before, either. john k 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Doesn't address the main point which is whether Saxe-Coburg-Gotha should be mentioned at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Prince Albert, despite the unsourced claim about Prince Albert in a Can, is primarily and unambiguously used, in English, for the subject of this article; sufficiently that the present name is surprising. The proposed change ignores this. Septentrionalis 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   The Prince of Monaco is a living person who is often called "Prince Albert" - I think there is sufficient ambiguity to warrant disambiguation. john k 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Support move to Albert, Prince Consort // DBD 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals items 4, 9, and 10; dead consorts revert to their pre-marital titles. In this case, that would be Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which is where the article now resides. I disagree that male and female consorts are fundamentally different. Marital naming conventions have, and do, change. Wikipedia strives for conformity across all articles; this would be in line with the conventions for consorts. While only female examples are given, the conventions refer to "Royal Consorts", not "Queen Consorts" to the exclusion of "Prince Consorts". The item for existing Royal Consorts (currently #10) contains the phrase, "The same rule applies to male royal consorts." The phrase has been there since 2003-01-31; it's a bit late to be saying that these conventions were only intended for female consorts. Other usage is irrelevant, if Wikipedia tried to follow every naming convention the world over there couldn't possibly be any consistency in article naming.—Chidom ^talk  23:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Para #9 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) states that "Past Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name". Albert was Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha both before and during his marriage, and is still generally known by this title in the UK. The present title suggests a monarchical status which he did not hold. The proposed title is preferable to the alternative of "Prince Consort" because it avoids possible ambiguity by making it clear from which territory the princely title originated. Deb 22:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Where Albert is from (other than "Germany") isn't relevant to most people anyway and the territorial designation is more a matter of the deeper history of the prince's character than it is of his broader identity. He is known as Prince Albert (compare Marie Antoinette) or the Prince Consort to most. The current name is no less ambiguous than potential conflicts between varying queens regnant and queens consort of the same name. Charles 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert is ambiguous. I don't understand why you are proposing a name which is even less like his most commonly known name than the alternative. Your opinion seems to be "this title isn't the most common name, so let's move to a title even less like the common name." john k 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)\

We have to ignore the possibility of using "Prince Albert" as an article title -- it would not be admissible except as a disambiguation article (which it already is). Deb 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We do not have to do any such thing. It is possible to have Prince Albert and Prince Albert (disambiguation). Charles 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is if there are conventions then implement them as is done for other royals who are arguably better known by other names. The most common name is not Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but Prince Albert or even Albert, Prince Consort (of the United Kingdom). Charles 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The conventions do not mean what you keep on saying they mean. The conventions have always been interpreted to mean that Albert should be at Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Prince Albert, Prince Consort might be an alternative, but there is certainly nothing in the conventions which requires him to be at this location, or even suggests that this is the best location, save a faulty interpretation of a convention designed to deal with queens. john k 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That convention is itself disputed, and should not be used to steamroll the matter in the absence of consensus. Septentrionalis 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But surely any convention can then be swept aside by whoever says that they "dispute" it? By de-valuing previous efforts to resolve issues, Wiki's process of striving toward consensus through building on previous discussions is mocked. Moreover, this poll doesn't include the option "Prince Albert". It calls for an expression of which term is preferred between "Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" and "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". By voting on that first, then other choices, we can avoid mixing up distinct issues. Lethiere 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and several of us oppose both of these choices. That's what approval voting is for. I'm not setting it up now, however. Septentrionalis 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm one of them. Why does that prevent anyone from indicating which is preferred of the two choices that are currently under consideration? People were urged during discussion here and at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) to put the issue of "treating male consorts like female consorts" to a vote, and now it seems as if that vote is being undermined so that we will not get to learn prevailing views on that point. I don't understand. Lethiere 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, guys: is it time to make this an approval poll, since there are at least four options here (besides the suggestion below to give the German praenomina, which I oppose)? Septentrionalis 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. Otherwise we end up in the ridiculous situation (which has unfortunately occurred several times before) where an article remains at a title that is clearly wrong because people can't agree on which of several more appropriate titles to use instead. Please, someone, list the alternatives. Deb 16:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some I've observed:

• Albert, Prince Consort
• Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom
• Prince Albert (with Prince Albert (disambiguation used for other Prince Alberts)
• Prince Albert, Prince Consort
• Prince Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom

There are more, possibly. Charles 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

By my perception of what is usually protocol for listing royals, Albert, Prince Consort would be correct - as he is listed then by his highest royal title, and his rank and name (although, in this case, 'Albert' rather then 'Prince Albert', because the latter is implied in that he was Prince Consort). Like, for instance, Charles, Prince of Wales // DBD 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be argued that princes who inherit peerages or other such titles are Prince X, title of Y. I see no need to discount including prince before the forename when it is really two distinct dignities. The Prince of Wales is a prince of the United Kingdom and the Prince of Wales. I don't think an exception that should be fixed should dictate the naming of Albert when all other royal peers have Prince affixed in front of their forenames. But that is another discussion. What of the territorial designation (UK)? Is it cumbersome and can be omitted or is it necessary? Charles 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally see both the preceding Prince (seeing as it is, for all intents and purposes, repeated) and the UK territorial designation clumsy and unnecessary - is there any otehr person to whom "Albert, Prince Consort" can apply? Is it an ambiguous title? Is it immediately clear as to whom it refers? // DBD 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While it is clear that there is only one Albert, Prince Consort, there is also only one Prince Andrew, Duke of York (not named Andrew, Duke of York). But anyway, your point as to the length of the title is well noted. Charles 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Duke of York is at Prince Andrew, Duke of York, because his title is a dukedom, rather than a princedom like Albert's, thus Andrew's prenominal Prince is required to distinguish him from a non-royal duke... // DBD 21:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The current title seems to be liked by nobody. Would everybody agree to "Albert, Prince Consort"? That seems to be the title most likely to achieve consensus. Also, can I just go ahead and move Prince George back to Prince George of Denmark? The current title suggests that he was King of Denmark. john k 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the first question, I prefer "Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom". In answer to the second, I think the move is appropriate.Lethiere 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't; the absence of title should not suggest sovereignity any more than it does with Joan of Arc. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Those two are my top choices. Charles 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the current title is liked or not is irrelevant; it is correct. The conventions do apply to male royal consorts. Item #10 says they do, and the conventions have said so since 2003-01-31. (original version).—Chidom ^talk  02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding both of the nature of WP guidelines and of the content of WP:NC (names and titles). See below.Septentrionalis 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of John's proposals suit me. I don't think Prince Albert can be said to refer overwhelmingly to the Prince Consort, given that Albert of Monaco is alive and well and being written about in Hello!, et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines

• How can we editors presume ourselves wiser than a guideline?
  • Because we wrote them.
• What is a guideline?
  • An approximation to the consensus of editors on similar questions, held together by Scotch tape and piano wire. See WP:PR therefore, as Template:guideline says, it has exceptions.
• What is the status of the section on consorts?
  • That's one of the things we're here to find out. It's a generalization of actual usage, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Isabelle of Bavaria; there is some trifling </irony> dispute on how it should apply, for example, to Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. We disagree on how rough an approximation it is; at least one of us denies that it applies to this case at all.
• How does it apply to this case?
  • Setting aside all questions of what the guideline should be, that's still debateable. All of the choices proposed are more or less defensible under the guideline as it stands; for example, Prince Albert is an appeal to exception 4 on monarchial names: If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, use it. I will now go add a note that that applies generally, and see if anyone reverts me. Septentrionalis 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Approval poll

Please indicate all you can tolerate, with brief comments to distinguish degrees of approval. Feel free to add choices.

Albert, Prince Consort

1. Second choice Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. First choice. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Acceptable. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. I heartily endorse this choice // DBD 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Acceptable, but well down my list of preferences. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Second choice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom

1. Third choice, adds no real information. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I could probably tolerate this choice // DBD 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Acceptable. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert with Prince Albert (disambiguation) used for other Prince Alberts

1. First choice; the Prince of Monaco is always going to be disambiguated from it. Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Slightly ambiguous, but arguably a primary usage. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Distant third choice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert, Prince Consort

1. Acceptable, but why repeat? Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Third choice. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. This would be acceptable. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Acceptable to me, too. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
5. First choice; I can live with tautology but perhaps others cannot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom

1. As above Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. This would be acceptable. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Acceptable. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

1. Last choice Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Tied for last with below. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. This would be acceptable, save that we generally refer to "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" rather than "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" on wikipedia. If we are to change this article, we should change all such references. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. First choice for me (but I take the point John makes above). Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

1. Tied for last with the above. Charles 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

1. First choice. john k 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Second choice for me. Deb 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (present location)

1. First choice. Adheres to my initial interpretation of Wikipedia Naming Conventions; why have them if we don't use them?—Chidom ^talk  01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert of Germany (just to make it more interesting)

1. Second choice. Parallels Sofia of Greece, which is what Queen Sofía of Spain's article will be named after her death, even though she was born Princess of Greece and Denmark. Albert's birthplace is now part of Bavaria, but was in Germany at the time. See Marie-José of Belgium, the last Queen Consort of Italy (The Princess of Piedmont). She was born in Belgium as Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duchess in Saxony. She was the daughter of a reigning king, however, Albert was the son of a duke in Germany. Were sons of dukes accorded the title "prince"? Who ruled Germany in those days? Lastly, common usage doesn't apply unless one of the other conventions doesn't work. I think one does, I'm just not really sure which one.—Chidom ^talk  03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are terribly confused. Germany wasn't unified. Albert was born in Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, which wasn't Germany at the time and nor was it Bavaria. Titling is not retroactive. Charles 04:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion

I !vote for Saxe-Coburg-Gotha only because Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is even less desirable. I have never seen this as English usage for any member of the family; and I have never seen it for Albert in any language.

As for inclusion of SCG, why? Please do not just quote the guideline; this seems one of the situations where it is unusually silly, even if it applies to males. Would we move Ferdinand of Bulgaria to Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Septentrionalis 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• For the same reason that Ferdinand's consort is found at Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma instead of at Marie Louise of Bulgaria or at Princess Marie Louise?
• "Burke's Guide to the Royal Family", 1973, p.295, lists the husband of Victoria of the United Kingdom as "HH Prince Francis Albert Augustus Charles Emmanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony..."; Marlene Eilers' "Queen Victoria's Descendants", 1997, page 121 calls him "HSH Prince Franz August Karl Albert Emanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; Dan Willis's "The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain", 2002, page 47: "Franz August Karl Albert Emanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony, The Prince Consort"; Theo Aronson's "Grandmama of Europe: The Crowned Descendants of Queen Victoria", 1973, page 268 states, "Now, a mere sixteen years after her death, her grandson changed the name of her beloved Prince Albert's dynasty of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor"; Walter J.P. Curley, Jr.'s "Monarchs-in-Waiting", 1973, page 27 says, "The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, one of the oldest Germanic dynasties, spawned the royal houses of Bulgaria, Great Britain, Belgium, and Portugal." The first three authors are well-known royal genealogists, while Aronson was probably the English language's most popular writer of biographies of modern "royalty" until his death two years ago. None of which contradicts the fact that in popular parlance "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is probably more common -- but the "and" version is not rare in English. Lethiere 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a source for SC and G. I could only wish it were a more reliable one than Burke's. I still do not prefer it; we should pick the simplest form of the country; as we prefer Constantine I of Greece to Constantine I of the Hellenes. Septentrionalis 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the two is that Saxe-Coburg and Gotha means Saxe-Coburg and Saxe-Gotha. It's a basic used of the form "of A-B" except "B" in this case is two things and not one. Charles 04:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nonsense

Deleted this:

"Prince Albert was considered a dandy in his time, and was well-known for wearing corsets and engaging in tightlacing. This is evident in many of the photographs that exist of him.[citation needed]"

I don't think that citation is going to turn up.

I think he tight laced his tool though! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.68.145 (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

As above

Without the content the heading above this comment is entirely correct. "Albert, Prinz von Saxe-Cobug zu Gothe" is the correct name for this man. He might have been consort to the Queen of GB and Ireland and Empress of India, but the man deserves his common name, ie Prince Albert. The title for this article has obviously been created by persons that do either: do not know their history, do not know the correct protocol, or does not care. Exempli gratia How about calling Jackie Kennedy, Jackie, First Lady;or Laura Bush, Laura, First Lady? Brendandh 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue was battled over long and hard. It mostly stems from the fact that Prince Albert is best known as Prince Albert, and 2nd to that, Prince Consort, which he held as a substantive title. Now, here, on Wikipedia, we drop Prince/ss from the beginning if their style begins Prince/ss, like HRH The Prince of Wales is at Charles, Prince of Wales, rather than Prince Charles, "Prince of Wales". Therefore, the page for the man known commonly as "Prince Albert" (who can't reside at "Prince Albert" because there have been so many) is at Albert, Prince Consort. Hope this clears it up for you! ^† DBD 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Brendandh, your titling is off, way off. First, the German title would be "Prinz Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha", not the format you suggested which is just plain wrong. Secondly, Albert is known as the Prince Consort; in fact, the title is almost entirely synonymous with Albert. Both "Prince" and "Albert" appear in the title. With the content of the article, I am sure must people will figure out who he is. Charles 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

Why was he called Albert? His full name was Francis Charles Augustus Albert Emmanuel, so what made the family decide to call him Albert? Why not use this name first? Morhange (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look and no biography lists a specific reason. It was the norm, though; Queen Victoria's first name was "Alexandrina" and her mother was called "Mary Louise Victoria". Unfortunately I can't put my finger on specifics, sorry... PeterSymonds | talk 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace

I've reverted an edit claiming that Albert was born at Schloss Ehrenburg. According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, it was Rosenau.[1] According to Grey's Early Years...of the Prince Consort, it was Rosenau.[2] According to Bolitho's Albert the Good...Victorian Reign, it was Rosenau.[3]. (Those two links need subscription). Queen Victoria often made trips to the Rosenau to see Albert's birthplace. Are you sure that Weintraub explicitly says that he was born at Ehrenburg? PeterSymonds | talk 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC) :In his book, Weintraub does actually say Albert was born in the Ehrenburg Palace, and that the family moved to Rosenau for the christening. But that doesn't explain why in the ODNB Weintraub says instead that Albert was born in Rosenau. Incidentally, Victoria did often stay at Ehrenburg, her room is one the attractions on the tourist route. According to tour operators, her room was the first in all Germany to be fitted with a flushing toilet.

I suggest that we cut mention of both Ehrenburg and Rosenau and say "Albert was born in Coburg (formerly in the Duchy of Saxony, now in the..." and that way escape any confusion between his birthplace and baptismal place by being inexact. It also then removes the repetition of "Schloss Rosenau". DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed "Duchy of Saxony" to "Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, later Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, now in Bavaria". Charles 11:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If most of the sources say Rosenau, and only one says Ehrenburg, shouldn't we stick with what the balance of the sources say? Also, which did Weintraub write first, the book or the article? john k (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The book was published in 1997, the article in 2004. DrKiernan (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC) My mistake, misread it. DrKiernan (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, good faith and all that. I wonder why he said Ehrenburg... PeterSymonds | talk 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Albert's elder brother was born there, and in Weintraub the sentence about both their births runs on. The verb Weintraub uses to describe Albert's birth is "arrives". This led me to misread the sentence as meaning both were born there and then taken later to Rosenau. My mistake, not Weintraub's (although he might have avoided using such euphemisms—it sounds as if he was delivered by a stork). DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:) I see. PeterSymonds | talk 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince Albert piercing removed

It seems reference to this piercing named for Prince Albert has been removed from the article. Why is that? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? I'd really rather not have to dig through the history to restore it. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[4][5] Unsourced material may be removed at any time. DrKiernan (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The provenance of the piercing is in doubt, yes. But there is no doubt, and ample evidence, that there exists a piercing known as the Prince Albert, which is purportedly named for this Prince Albert. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is given on the disambiguation page, linked at the top of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's not in the article although it's clearly relevant to this person. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Balmoral

Our article on Balmoral Castle says that the Royal Family bought the freehold; and most long leases would have expired by now. A point of no real importance, but our articles should not disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"In 1852, Albert obtained the freehold of Balmoral" DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arms Update

I've added a new rendering of Albert's arms. I believe there might have been some copyright concerns over the harp that was used in the previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1 Aardvark (talk • contribs) 06:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move September 2010

(See also the later move request in the following section.)

Albert, Prince Consort → Prince Albert —

We don't have a convention on Princes consort; most of them (including Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) are at the title they would hold if single. We should therefore follow usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as the Monacan monarchs named Albert, go by Albert I, Prince of Monaco & Albert II, Prince of Monaco. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although I'd prefer Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I'll add that I'm not sure I understand Septentrionalis's rationale. Albert was explicitly granted the formal title "Prince Consort." The same is not true of the Duke of Edinburgh or Prince George. They were princes consort, but not Princes Consort. But I think this title is highly awkward and not common usage. john k (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That we are bound to consistency, not to what is formally correct. If we can be consistent and recognizable by being formally correct, fine; but there is nobody for Albert to be consistent with, but Prince George of Denmark. If (as with the overwhelming majority of peerage articles, where we are formally incorrect by including surnames) we can be consistent and recognizable, but incorrect, that's fine too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support clear case of WP:COMMONNAME. --JaGa^talk 23:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per NCROY:Consorts of sovereigns Deceased point #4 ("Sometimes a person may remain best known by the title they held as consort") and NCROY:Royals with a substantive title point #1 ("If an individual holds a princely substantive title, use '{first name}, {title}'."), our guideline covers his case and he's located in compliance with it since no proposal to change it at NCROY has won consensus (although no doubt Elizabeth II's husband is next up on the chopping block to make someone's POINT), perhaps the Prince Consort was the "Prince Albert" of his day but the "most common" usage of the term in today's parlance is (or will be the longer he reigns) the Monegasque monarch and moving someone else to that location seems like pre-emptively blocking rather than disambiguating. AINT FactStraight (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There are other Prince Alberts. The move of the disambiguation page from Prince Albert to Prince Albert (disambiguation) was done unilaterally without discussion. I appreciate that it took just under three years for someone to notice: Talk:Prince Albert, but I'm not convinced that it was wise. If one does internet searches for "Albert, Prince Consort", one only picks up pages related to this man. If you do a search for "Prince Albert", the Monegasque prince and the piercing both appear in the top 10 pages. I also see within the top 10 google links a bar in Camden[6] and a fishing club[7]. As previously discussed at Talk:Albert, Prince Consort/Archive 1#Requested move 2006, the current title was the most widely accepted of the available choices because it was both clear and concise. Two important scholarly biographies: Hector Bolitho's Albert, Prince Consort and Robert Rhodes James's Albert, Prince Consort: A Biography, are happy to use this title. I see no reason why we should not stick with the current title: it's unambiguous, short, and verifiably used in scholarly sources. DrKiernan (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - he is Prince Albert as much as the present, reigning and living monarch of Monaco is. The article about him might be titled Albert II, Prince of Monaco, but that doesn't make "Prince Albert" a less appropriate name for him. In fact, it calls for moving this article to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not for ignoring the Monegasque sovereign. Surtsicna (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this man seems to me the primary topic for the term "Prince Albert", and "Prince Albert" is the name by which he's best known, so no need to look further.--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose In his time he was sometimes just known as "Albert", as with the Albert Hall. I'm not sure he is the primary meaning, the list of people on the disambiguation page is fairly lengthy, he may still be fairly well known in Britain but may not be well known elsewhere. We have the Monegasque ruler, it can be awkward to judge the notability of a living person who may well rise in notability e.g. a recently elected MP. Beware of systemic bias (see WP:BIAS) it takes quite a high degree of international recognition to decide that someone is the primary meaning of a common name like "Prince Albert". PatGallacher (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, move Prince Albert (disambiguation) to Prince Albert. I don't think there is a clear primary topic for this name(it's split between the piercing, the prince from Monaco and this guy), so the main page for this name should be a disambiguation page.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Way too many "Albert" royals to consider the prince consort as the hands down primary topic. That before even taking a Prince Albert piercing or the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada into consideration. The article should stay where it is.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • See WP:PRIMARYUSAGE; the subject of this article is primary with respect to the town, the piercing, and the tobacco, all named for him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:PT says nothing about tha origin of name having any relevance to what is the primary topic. The planet Mars is named after a Roman god, yet still the article about the planet is placed as primary topic at Mars. To be a primary topic a topic needs to be more likely than all other subjects combined to the subject a person is looking for when writing the term in the search box.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It ought to be. While derived names can be of equal importance to original, there is an implicature that they are not; for an example of the argument and its acceptance, see Talk:Smeagol (gastropod). No evidence has been presented that these are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • You still need a way to distinguish between the different items, even if a number are named after the consort. WP:PRIMARYUSAGE provides no direction on the subject and as already mentioned there has been no demonstration, through stats or otherwise, that this article is the primary usage.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Will common sense not suffice? (no, I suppose not). Or the fact that, even if this isn't strictly the primary topic, we should lean towards making it so because of the difficulty in finding a satisfactory alternative title, since if we were to apply the regular "Common name (disambiguator)" style, we would be forced into something ugly like Prince Albert (consort of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom).--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
            • What's wrong with Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? john k (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
              • Nothing. It's perfect. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, the way I read WP:PT, the default option when there is more than two possibilities for what a title can mean is to have a disambiguation page at the main name. Only if it can be determined that one topic is much more likely to be searched for should the primary topic be an article or a redirect. I see nowhere in WP:AT, WP:DAB or any other wiki policy that the origin of a name has any say in naming articles.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose and move Prince Albert (disambiguation) to Prince Albert. There are too many prominent Prince Alberts to make any one the primary topic. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please don't move the dab page; this is bad enough without destroying the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with DrKiernan and PatGallacher. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was not how he was primarily known in his own time in English-speaking lands; it's not how he's primarily known now. Plus it's misleading. He wasn't the prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; he was the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Prince Albert, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No, he was a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and a Duke in Saxony. So, "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" would not be misleading. If it were misleading or incorrect, it would not be used as the subject of the lead sentence of a featured article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There are lots of Alberts who were princes, to say nothing of places named after them. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move October 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Per discussion below, the proposed title would be less familiar to an English-speaking general audience. - GTBacchus^(talk) 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Albert, Prince Consort → Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha — Would Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha be a bad choice? There you have "Prince Albert", a not so rare and perfectly natural way of disambiguation ("of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha") and a title that would make the article consistent with so many others. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, though the question of recognizability arises: of the many people who know who Prince Albert was (Queen Victoria's husband), how many know that he was of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? --Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought many were aware of his German background. Anyway, the most recognizable name would be Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria - but I believe that's a bit awkward. I am not sure that many know he was officially titled "Prince Consort" either - those that do know probably know he was a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as well. Surtsicna (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said above, this would be by a considerable margin my preference. john k (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. I can't support the proposal because of the Prince of Monaco, and the intelligibility of "Prince Albert" seems a trifle too context-dependent. Srnec (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Per DrKiernan above, the current title is acceptable. This suggestion is also acceptable, but the current title is probably best. Srnec (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to oppose that because the names and spelling are unfamiliar (especially to Americans), and because Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are far less important to Prince Albert's achievements and notability than Great Britain and Ireland. I think that if "Prince Consort", which is what is most important about Prince Albert, is to be kept, then perhaps we could add "the", to reflect the way people actually speak and write English sentences, i.e. either "Albert the Prince Consort" or "Albert, the Prince Consort". —— Shakescene (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hard to spell? Can't we create redirects for all the alternative spellings and misspellings? Honestly, I have never encountered that argument before :) Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides, we don't have articles titled Beatrix of Holland or Victoria of England because Americans (or anyone else) might have hard time recognizing or spelling "United Kingdom" or "Netherlands". Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't tempt me! :-) I want to throw out all of those "United Kingdoms" because they sound redundant with King or Queen, they're not natural and weren't used by all the UK monarchs anyway. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, "Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" (remember, now, it's not even the more familiar Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) is just not a commonly-used name. "Prince Albert" and "Albert the Prince Consort" are. Those who already know about Victoria and Albert, or about British history from 1837 to 1918, will know Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, but those are far from the only people who read an article like this. And this encyclopedia's written for those who speak English, with varying degrees of ease, not for Teutons. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Those who know that Albert was officially titled "Prince Consort" surely know that he was a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Those that don't would look for Prince Albert, just like those looking for the sovereign of Monaco. The difference between Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is trivial - choosing one over another would change nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Prince Consort is and was a well-known title in Britain, especially since Prince Phillip is one. I'm not saying that "Prince Albert" isn't even better-known, but I've been persuaded somewhat by those arguing that "Prince Albert" now often means the current, athletically-prominent, Prince of Monaco and will do so even more in the future (like Prince Rainier). I don't think there are significant other Prince Consorts named Albert. "Saxe-Coburg", "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" and "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" are less well known popularly, with I think the first being the most commonly-used of the three. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Albert is so far the only person granted the title of Prince Consort. Philip is a prince consort. Albert was styled "HRH The Prince Consort"; Philip is "HRH The Duke of Edinburgh". Philip has not been made Prince Consort and is never styled as such. Albert is best known as "Prince Albert", but that's ambigious - the next logical step is to say what he was prince of in order to disambiguate him from his namesakes. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support this too. As the primary topic should be occupied by a dab page, I think this would be a natural way of disambiguating by using a more precise name instead of the common name with some disambiguater after. I think this practice would be permitted under WP:PRECISION and WP:NCDAB.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Support from me too. Good, consistent naming, and with redirects to assist the Germanically challenged, it should work. Favonian (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose He is mainly known as the husband of Queen Victoria. Many people will know he had a German background, but although "of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" may be formally correct, there are all sorts of variants which some people might use e.g. they might drop the "of" or use "Saxe-Coburg" or "Saze-Coburg-Gotha". His present title is not likely to be confused with anybody else, but we already have his grandson Alfred, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, another person with a similar name would be undesirable. PatGallacher (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem in having redirects from Prince Albert Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (?!), Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg or Prince Albert of Saze-Coburg-Gotha. His grandsons are Alfred's and the titles of their articles are much different. We don't aim to title Joan of Acre differently because someone might somehow confuse her with Joan of Arc. The main concern seems to be that the present title does not include the name "Prince Albert" at all. The proposed name is a combination of the most common name and an obvious disambiguator. Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's apparently also wrong since he wasn't a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. If he's the only British Prince Consort (what was Queen Anne's husband George of Denmark called?), then that makes Albert, (the) Prince Consort even more likely to be a unique identifier, no pesky geography needed. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Who says he wasn't a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? He most certainly was! Otherwise the lead sentence would not call him "Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". Prince George of Denmark had no official titles as a consort, much like the Duke of Edinburgh. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I wasn't familiar with dukes and duchesses having their children called "prince[ss]", but now I see it right in Whitaker's. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think that the majority of UK would known him as "Prince Albert" (wife of Victoria). Adding "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" will make most believe that this is someone else.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive 1

penis ring

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. DrKay (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Should this not be mentioned in the article? The genital piercing is probably more well known than the person, at this point.2A00:23C4:4F07:1000:51ED:B111:9877:ABB1 (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiplied?

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. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)