Talk:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale

Second in Line of Succession "after Queen Victoria"

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.

Ripper claim

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)

In fact, this spurious claim appears twice in the article. Once at the end of the opening general section, and again under Fictional Portrayals (where it is correctly labelled as a 'conspiracy theory'). In my view, this fictional claim, which dates from the late twentieth century and has been comprehensively debunked, should be relegated to the 'Fictional Portrayals' section and not feature in the opening section at all. Fine to address it lower down in the article because the claim has been in such wide circulation in recent decades, but not balanced to include a fictional claim in this opening section. The emphasis here should be on facts, not fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a46b:8acf:1:6cbf:ce75:4f1a:230f (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of first paragraph of article

At present this ends with the words "... but did not become king as he died before his father and grandmother.". I would argue that the reference to his grandmother (ie Queen Victoria) should be deleted. The fact that Queen Victoria outlived Albert Victor is irrelevant to whether or not he could become king; there are no circumstances in which he could have become king given that he predeceased his father. If QV had died before Prince Albert Victor himself died, King Edward would have come to the throne sooner that much sooner; but he would still have continued to be king until 1910 and would still have been succeeded by George V. ~~Sbishop~~

I think "he did not become king because he died before his father" would imply that died before his father but after his grandmother. "He did not become king because he died before his father and grandmother" clarifies that he died when he was second-in-line, before his father inherited the throne. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Or: "He did not become king because he died while still second-in-line to the throne, after his father". Is that clearer? Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What about the conspiracy theory that he died in the 1930s?

Is it worth including reference to the conspiracy theory that Prince Eddy was kept prisoner at Glamis Castle and died in the 1930s? There is an apparent picture of him in the twentieth century which shows a person painting using an easel (which might be him or might not be as the case may be). I'm not arguing strongly for inclusion, just asking the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.220.103 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Murder & Gay conspiracy theories

There is no way the sections I have removed about conspiracy theories involving him being "jack the ripper" and being gay, should be even remotely included in the lede of the article. They are unencyclopedic rumours, with zero evidence, and are mere speculation, that aren't relevant to the lede of the article. Those sections, if they should even be included due to their inaccurate, gossipy nature, be left for the main body of the article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

See above: #Ripper claim. DrKay (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I can see that Dr Kay is at risk of breaching WP:3RR, by reverting edits three times in quick succession, without any discussion about them when asked to start one here. There is a clear need to discuss the situation and come to a consensus, instead of you barrelling your way by reverting any edit you disagree with.Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS: Pot calls kettle black. DrKay (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sexuality

Was he gay? Was he straight? Why does it matter? Historically, and particularly during this period, people's lives were ruined if they were charged with being gay, which was punishable by imprisonment and hard labor which resulted in death. The charge could be leveraged, even if someone wasn't gay, for political purposes, to ruin people's reputations, get them fired, etc. This practice continues today and being gay is punishable in some countries still by death. At the time all effort would have been made to cover up the homosexuality of the heir to the throne. No evidence would have been allowed to exist. Plus to "prove" someone was homosexual was nearly impossible at the time. That accounts survived points to the fact that he could have been gay. It's important not to erase homosexuals from history, as has been attempted since history began. Trevordavid (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RGW. DrKay (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I think simply deleting the sentence about him not being gay lets readers come to there own conclusion. We don't know if he was gay or straight or bi. But by explicitly stating he was not gay is biased. Trevordavid (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's what the source says. DrKay (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

While I'm tracking down that source, don't you think that both the sentences about him not being at the brothel and not being gay, as well as the sentence about him being Jack the Ripper are "trying to right past wrongs?". They are seeking to clear him name, when simply stating what was rumored at the time should suffice. Trevordavid (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Your characterization of Hyde as "homophobic" is wholly unfair. He did more than any other contemporary politician campaigning for gay rights, even to the extent of sacrificing his political career. DrKay (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)