Talk:Prince John of the United Kingdom

Other Views
Princes John's eldest brother Edward VIII referred to him as "little better than an animal." Whatever the accuracy that time and sentiment has displaced, can there not be something other than the sentimental hagiography and internets-ASD diagnoses that proliferate even here? It seems so easy for the ignorant, cushioned by their short-bus-joke conditioned mentalities and their self-ascribed "I'm Asberger's me - cos I like Star Wars" nonsense to fail to understand anything about the problems Prince John may really have suffered - especially those that would have necessitated him being removed from others, especially being subjected to the public eye. No - it never occurs to any of you that he may have been prone to masturbating uncontrollably in public, for example - of course none of you have any idea what it is like for an adolescent with such disabilities, never mind the need to ever contemplate such. None of which is encyclopedic any more than the gushing 'nature's innocent special child' bullshit portrayed and endorsed so enthusiatically here. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about John's condition being romanticized. Contemporary reports seem to show he was uncontrollable and sometimes violent and destructive. 4.174.14.56 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Roxana

The first line of the article states that his epilepsy was the sole reason for him being hidden from the world. Was that really the only reason? Is there evidence of him having any other problems? Werdnawerdna (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Without more evidence, who knows? I'm inclined to agree with Plutonium. I'd like to see any other contemporary accounts, like what Roxana cites. They should be added to the article. --Bluejay Young (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Lost Prince
Why should the material about The Lost Prince be removed? The article on Michael Oher, for example, includes a comparable passage about The Blind Side. john k (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Because this is an article about Prince John, his life, and the people around him. A mention of dramatic or documentary presentations of his life lends a sense of John's place in popular consciousness, but who played whom tells us nothing about John -- the link to the article on the drama itself is there for readers who wish to learn such details.
 * (2) For the record, notability is (part of) the test for whether a topic should have its own article, not a test for article content -- see WP:NNC.
 * (3) Anyway, I feel I have to say that your idea that facts such as ,"The dramatist Stephen Poliakoff wrote and directed ...Charlotte 'Lalla' Bill's character was played by Gina McKee ..." and so on are "the most notable thing about" Prince John, would be laughable if not so weirdly insensitive.
 * EEng (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weirdly insensitive? He was a thirteen year old boy who died almost 100 years ago.  Everyone who knew or cared about him personally is long dead.  Who, exactly, am I being insensitive towards?  The existence of an award-winning dramatic film based on Prince John's life is one of the most notable things about him, and probably the main reason that anybody today knows who he is.  In such circumstances, it's totally appropriate to have a paragraph discussing the movie.  For comparable examples beyond the one I already gave you, see Eric Liddell, Harold Abrahams, Lionel Logue, John Reed (journalist), James J. Braddock.  All of those people probably have considerably more independent notability than Prince John does. john k (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite the remoteness in time of his death, and his youth thereat, your subordination of the person to the biopic evinces a sensibility I find hard to fathom. And while you're free to limit the modes by which you learn about history to TV (albeit excellent TV) you'd be wise not to assume that everyone else's view of the past is similarly limited.
 * You keep confusing topic notability with article content; please read [[WP:NNC}} as suggested. I repeat that the fact that there's a film is certainly of interest to readers of the article about him, because they may wish to see it, or read more about it, which they can do by following the link to the article on it. But who played the prince in a film has nothing to do with the prince himself and listing such stuff here is just trivia; it belongs in the article on the drama itself.
 * That fact that other article contain similar trivia just means that other articles still need a lot of cleanup.
 * By the way, I put a good deal of effort into copyediting the article overall. Any compliments on that, or criticisms, or did you notice any typos, or have suggestions for improvement?
 * EEng (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly appropriate to discuss fictional portrayals of historical figures in their articles. Do you really think it's inappropriate to note, for instance, Peter O'Toole's famous portrayal of T.E. Lawrence in that article?  Maybe I'm using the term "notability" in an imprecise way, but my point is that sometimes much of the coverage of a historical subject in reliable sources comes from a fictionalized portrayal of that subject.  The most obvious example would be Macbeth of Scotland.  An article about that medieval king would surely be incomplete without a brief discussion of his portrayal in Shakespeare.  I believe that the case of Prince John is fairly comparable to this.  He may make tangential appearances in biographies of his family members, but Poliakoff's film is probably the most sustained portrayal of the prince, and also the one that has attracted most comment from other sources.  I don't think the biographical information should be subordinated to the movie, but I do think it's totally reasonable to include a not all that long paragraph about this very notable film about a rather marginally important historical figure (if we can even call him that). Beyond that, I'll just note that the fact that you've put a lot of work into copyediting the article is totally irrelevant to what we are discussing.  It's great that you've done that, but I haven't really looked at what you've done and can't comment on it.  The only reason for you to bring it up, that I can see, is basically for an assertion of ownership over the article, to suggest that your opinion is more valid than mine. I'd also add that there's no need to bring personal insults into this.  It is totally unnecessary to suggest, for example, that because I think a paragraph about a film should be included in a biographical article that this somehow means that I "limit the modes by which [I] learn about history to TV."  I have a PhD in history and teach history to undergraduates - I don't know, maybe you do too.  But there's no reason to make snippy judgments about strangers you're arguing with on the internet. john k (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

For those who may be wondering, we're discussing my removal of this:
 * The dramatist Stephen Poliakoff wrote and directed the television serial The Lost Prince that covered many of the events that transpired on the world stage during the reign of King George V through the eyes of the youngest son, Prince John. It aired on BBC One in 2003 and November 2009, on BBC Two in 2006, on PBS in 2004 and again in 2005, on Television New Zealand TV One in 2005 and on Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC in 2007. The title role was played by two young British actors, Daniel Williams (young Prince John) and Matthew Thomas (older Prince John). Charlotte "Lalla" Bill's character was played by Gina McKee. The film won three Emmy Awards.
 * John's story was also the subject of a Channel 4 documentary entitled Prince John: The Windsors' Tragic Secret. 

...in favor of this:
 * John's life was the subject of the two-part television drama The Lost Prince, as well as the Channel 4 documentary Prince John: The Windsors' Tragic Secret.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programme, already in progress...
 * A particular portrayal of an historical or mythological figure (let's call him or her X) is worth noting (or depending on the situation, discussing or even elaborating on) -- in the article on X -- to the extent that such a discussion adds to an understanding of X and his or her place in history or popular perception. By that measure O'Toole as Lawrence, and Shakespeare on Macbeth, deserve mention in the Lawrence and Macbeth articles -- in fact they deserve not just mention, but substantial discussion, because details of Lawrence of Arabia and Macbeth (to repeat myself) add to an understanding of Lawrence of Arabia and Macbeth and their place in history or popular perception. (Of course, the film Lawrence of Arabia and play Macbeth have their own articles too, for independent reasons.)
 * Now then. How do the following facts add to the reader's understanding of Prince John's place in history or popular perception?
 * A1. There was a TV drama about him, and here's its title and a link to more about it.
 * A2. Poliakoff wrote the drama.
 * A3. It aired on BBC One in 2003, BBC Two in 2006, and PBS in 2004 and again (!) in 2005! Oh, and on Television New Zealand TV One in 2005!!!  And on Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC in 2007!!!
 * A4. John was played by Unknown Actors 1 and 2.
 * A5. The nanny was played by well-known actress GK.
 * A6. It won three Emmys (Emmies?). (Actually, The Lost Prince says "an Emmy" -- not three.)
 * B1. There was a Channel 4 documentary as well. No link, but here's enough info to identify it in a library catalog or on Netflix.
 * My opinion:
 * A1 and B1 don't themselves tell the reader much about John, but they do lead the reader to things (the drama or documentary) which themselves would tell the reader more, so they're worth including. (And on reflection, they best belong not in the article text proper at all, but rather under "See also" and/or "External links"; I left the "Channel 4" in because, since the documentary doesn't have its own article, that helps the reader identify it on Netflix or whathaveyou.)
 * A2. Because Poliakoff is so prominent, the fact that he chose John as a subject might in a sense tell us something about John, so it might be worth including. Or not.
 * A3-A6. Tell us nothing at all about John's "place in history or popular perception" (quoting myself here again, of course).  They're just trivia.
 * So I kept A1 and B1, and dropped the rest.
 * EEng (talk) [2am 07Mar2012 UTC]

coronation
The channel 4 documentary "The Lost Prince" showed photographic evidence that the Prince John was at his grandfather's funeral in 1910, and was frequently seen in public until the First World War. This article seems inaccurate because mentions him mostly being shut up at Wood Farm. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Seclusion not evidence of neglect
It is not true that his "seclusion has subsequently been brought forward as evidence for the inhumanity of the royal family". Seclusion is not neglect, but the reverse. It is desirable for members of the royal family to be brought up out of the public limelight.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Autism Being Force-fed
In all honesty this article seems to be trying VERY HARD to force feed the Autism angle to us. Would be nice if we had an article free from bias and agenda pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.104.9 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. I am rewriting this opening comment / observation:
 * "In 1909, John was discovered to have epilepsy and was also believed to have some form of intellectual disability and possibly autism."
 * And I am making a few other related changes. Autism was not even in the lexicon in 1909, this is a 21st century speculation, (and one that seem a bit of a reach).  The discussion in the main text on his possible autism is clearer in that it is acknowledged that it is a 2004 diagnosis.  The sentence also suggests that "intellectual disability" was also part of the 1909 diagnosis / discovery, but the timeline is not substantiated in the main article.  When was the discovery?
 * Despite this criticism, it is generally a readable well written article.

GeeBee60 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction?
The article currently says:

Both these details seems to be sourced to the Channel 4 documentary which I'm not going to try and view but these seems to be a contradiction or at least a poor wording here. I'd interpret the second paragraph to mean from ~1913, he "slowly disappeared from the public eye". But the earlier paragraph seems to suggest he was "appearing frequently in public" until after 12 July 1916 which is a weird if he was slowly disappearing from 1913. There was obviously an abrupt sudden change in 1916 when he was sent away but I sort of think the latter paragraph is more likely to be true and the former is an oversimplification. I wonder if it's better to just remove the bit after the comma, and maybe merge the two paragraphs and then re-jig the lead (which also mentions the eleventh birthday bit). But we'll need someone who knows the documentary to help. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Spurious alleged quote
The note #2 claiming that George V said his father was afraid of his mother, he was afraid of his father, etc, etc. has not been proven to have actually been said by George. In fact, something that George DID say when his father died was that he had lost his best friend. That doesn't sound like someone who was afraid of his father. Also, if you look at photos of him with his children, you can see that they ALL have genuine smiles on their faces. His kids certainly didn't look like they were afraid of him in any way, and he looked like he cared very deeply for his children. This fake quote should not be used as any kind of source or proof of anything. It is completely unproven that he said it, and the known facts do not support the statement. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

New image

 * Someone will need to look into copyright status, but the photo here would be an invaluable addition to the article: . EEng 04:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Followup: I see now that, which was previously deleted due to copyright concerns, has been recreated. Great photo, but I don't see how the copyright issue was resolved. EEng 05:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)