Talk:Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

	Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 21, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 10, 2005, February 10, 2006, February 10, 2007, February 10, 2008, February 10, 2010, February 10, 2011, February 10, 2014, February 10, 2017, and February 10, 2020.

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). project's importance scale .

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Discussions: RM, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha → Albert, Prince Consort, Moved, 14 October 2006, discussion RM, Albert, Prince Consort → Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Not moved, 11 September 2010, discussion RM, Albert, Prince Consort → Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Moved to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, 15 August 2023, discussion

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

1

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.--79.221.31.71 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I know it's hard to believe, but occasionally there are also people who, fundamentally, were well regarded and lived without attracting much criticism, controversy or controversy. 37.183.120.216 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 155.198.184.90 (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sometimes works a little differently, see

WP:NAMEGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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 86.135.204.209 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [1].

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)[reply]

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

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. DrKay (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he be listed as Albrecht in the box with the personal details? His name was indeed Albert from birth, as the German Wikipedia page shows. Not an uncommon name in Germany in those days either. Mbshu (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Germans are often called Albert (e.g. Albert Einstein, Albert Speer) and the German National Library calls him Albert[2], I've removed it. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117031208/http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/the-collectors/prince-albert to http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/the-collectors/prince-albert

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 23:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Hermoine Hobhouse's 1983 biography of Prince Albert, Prince Albert: His life and work:

Prince Albert said in later life that he had known since he was three that it was intended that he should marry his English cousin. This is the favourite scheme of their common grand-mother, the Dowager Duchess Augusta. In 1821, she wrote to the Duchess of Kent: 'The little fellow is the pendant to the pretty cousin; very handsome, but too slight for a boy; lively, very funny, all good nature and full of mischief.'

The book cites "Dowager Duchess to Duchess of Kent, August 11, 1821, quoted Grey [Charles Grey, author of The early years of His Royal Highness the prince consort], p 19." I have the book in front of me as confirmation. Reversinator (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the PBS series Victoria is not a documentary, so it contains instances of fictionalization. It is highly researched, though.

Upon the death of Albert's father, Ernest I, his uncle (King Leopold) tried to comfort Albert by telling him that he was the Prince's father, due to an affair he had with Albert's mother. Albert became very angry and told Leopold that because of him, Victoria was married to a "bastard" and that their child were "illegitimate". (When he ultimately tells Victoria about his altered parentage, to her, it doesn't signify.) Since neither this article, nor Ernest's nor Leopold's mentions this, I gather that this whole birth episode is one of the fictionalizations?

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A.N. Wilson talks a bit about this in nhis recent biography. There was a rumour that Leopold was Albert's father but on balance Wilson says there is just no evidence for this. LastDodo (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Objectively, it is difficult to find irrefutable evidence for or against an alleged illegitimacy of historical figures, unless we exhume them and make the DNA. I believe that this, like many other cases, will remain rumors, possible, but not certain.--37.183.120.216 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Prince Alfred, Prince Consort of the United Kingdom.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Life section states that "Like many other German princes, Albert attended the University of Bonn", but nowhere in the article is it established that Albert and his brothers were princes. Could someone please fix this for accuracy? Perhaps a better word would be nobility. In any case, the word "princes" is undefined and seemingly inaccurate. It needs to be changed or clarified or specifically spelled out as to what it means and why. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert was not only a "prince", but a

London Gazette when he was raised from "Serene" to "Royal" Highness. FactStraight (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Then that all needs to be stated and cited in the article, and also the specific word "prince" needs to be stated and defined in that section. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't provide citations for dictionary definitions. A prince is the son of a reigning Sovereign. Albert was the son of a reigning Sovereign. This is not contentious at all, and it's difficult to assume good faith when someone who claims to have a degree in history does not know what a prince is.

Celia Homeford (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Albert's pre-marital title was ... "His Serene Highness Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", along with "Duke of Saxony" as a subsidiary title.

Also, it would be good to state his birth titles right off the bat in the lede, as done in German Wikipedia: [3], or in the first sentence of Early Life. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all way over-the-top in my opinion. At most, all that's needed is 'Albert was born a prince of Saxe-Coburg at Schloss Rosenau, near Coburg, Germany...'

Celia Homeford (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There does not seem to be a consensus for adding Albert's dynastic background into the lede at this time. While I understand,

Celia Homeford that the explanatory and contextualizing information is 1. probably too much for the lede, and arguably not necessary in the article's body, yet 2. is accessible for readers interested enough to click article links. While it's nice to have it all clarified up front in an article for those unfamiliar with the subject matter, as an encyclopedia we try to keep in mind the typical reader's focused interest, limited attention span and our responsibility to succinctly summarize (with links to further detail), rather than to over-burden an article with comprehensive but inessential background. FactStraight (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

From the Lucy Worsley article: fyi

In May 2019, Worlsey's speech about Prince Albert, subsequent to her 2018 book Queen Victoria: Daughter, Wife, Mother, Widow, included comments indicating that the prince did not deserve all of the accolades he had received. (title=We're too nice to Albert – he was no perfect prince, claims historian|date=30 May 2019|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/30/were-too-nice-to-albert-he-was-no-perfect-prince-claims-historian%7Cwork=The Guardian|access-date=31 May 2019|quote=Albert kept those babies coming,” said Worsley. “And that’s because he could see that while she was busy with that, he could get on with making himself king in all but name – taking over some of her duties, taking over some of her power.)

"I sense that some of you are thinking, 'No, I just don’t believe this. Albert is a great man. He’s brilliant, he's a polymath, he organised the Great Exhibition, he supported science and art and industry.' Well that is true. But I don’t think he should necessarily have been doing those things. ... I think he should have been fulfilling the more traditional role of a Queen or a princess in this relationship, which was single-mindedly to support his spouse, which he didn't do."

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "midwife" referred to in the article as Charlotte von Sieborg was Marion Theodore Charlotte Heidenreich von Sieborg. She graduated with a degree in obstetrics from Giessen University in Germany in 1817, two years before she assisted in the births of Albert and Victoria. According to her Wikipedia page she was considered Germany's first gynocologist.

I submit that relegating her to the status of midwife is disrespectful and inaccurate.

I have never made an editing change to a Wikipedia article, so perhaps someone with more experience could change her to "German physician" instead of midwife?

68.110.9.53 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Sam[reply]

Per

WP:CIRCULAR, we can't use wikipedia as a source. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I see little to no difference between either image, so the previous consensus should hold until consensus changes. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you not see a difference it’s extremely obvious. The image currently looks absolutely horrible. But it’s obvious that you and

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect