To think Queen Victoria was a nutter

[Loveweekends10]

I watched 'Queen Victorias children' last night and was shocked at what an absolute nutcase she was.

Did anyone else see it? Poor Victorian people. Her poor kids.

I think Arthur was most like Albert, wasn't he?

Apparently even though men being with other men was illegal a woman with a woman wasn't as she couldn't believe women would do that

No it is a complete myth, if by the middle of the nineteenth century, a monarch had started scoring out pieces of parliamentary legislation at will, there would have been a revolution. In all likelihood this stems from the fact that sex was defined as penetration with a penis. No penis - no crime!

I would like to read the letters, Northern. Is there a compendium of them that you'd recommend? Literally just the letters, even?

See - I can well believe how terrifying - for all sorts of reasons - finances, accommodation, impending poverty, disease, toll on mother's body etc - relentless pregnancy was for the vast majority of women in pre-contraception days (not just in Victorian times). But for a queen most of those concerns would not have existed. She may well have hated the "animalistic" aspect of pregnancy and birth, as was her right of course but a woman of her status, wealth and privilege wouldn't have had to have anything much to do with any of them once they were born. Their existence wouldn't have affected her lifestyle or standard of living, and she'd have had access to the best and most up to date medical attention of the day. Yes - 9 pregnancies may have taken it out of her - and would have interrupted state duties but on the face of it there was no need for her to have been quite so nasty as she often was because I can't see why she'd have resented them from a purely practical and/or financial view. Which I can imagine might have been more likely with less well off women for example.

As much as you can ever only get an impression of these things it almost seems as if she saw them as interrupting her time with Albert. And after he died, maybe she saw him in them and hated the fact they were here and he wasn't.

Jenai - yes try here and here and here There are other volumes too. They can be hard to get though. I've mostly read them through borrowing from the library. There is a site called Alibris - try there too. I really do recommend them - fascinating!

Just watching the daughters episode. Aside from the allegations of child abuse because in her first grief she clung to her baby (an exercise I'm sure many modern widows could find common ground with) The idea that Vicky had found independance in marrying a german prince is just lazy writing.
Vicky and Fritz had a marriage which was deeply loving but it was basically arranged by their parents and it's just lucky they were well suited. It did not provide Vicky with 'independence' She struggled to be an English princess in German and to be a German princess in England and her inlaws were genuinely difficult people despising her interests and often being harsh. Queen Victoria writes to them on one occasion asking them to make allowances for Vicky and not expect her to be up till 3am at society balls. They prevent her travelling to England with her children on some occasions and when Vicky's third son dies suddenly her mil will not wear mourning for him at all. A gesture which really, really upsets Vicky.

Yes I was really astounded when she wrote to Vicky and said ah you now undestand why I resented you children when all I wanted was to be with Albert (cant remember the actual words)

What a truly nasty thing to say

Thanks Northern. I will check those out. :)

raver - some of the things she wrote were jawdropping, weren't they. I mutter and swear under my breath about ds all the time but to even think some of the things Victoria wrote is pretty

But catsmother there are a lot of other potential negatives to pregnancy and birth that might have been unpleasant for her to even contemplate, some of which even the best victorian medical care couldn't have prevented:

Very real likelihood of death in childbirth from an obstructed labour or haemorrage, transverse baby, eclampsia, cord prolapse, placenta previa, placenta accreta, joint pain, incontinence, risk of dying from puerperal fever after the birth (lessened as her doctor, Dr Snow was aware of the need for hygiene), depression, mastitis, breast abcesses, high blood pressure, low blood pressure, anaemia, fistulas, damage from doctors using instruments, tearing and infection, prolapse, miscarriage, stillbirth, death of baby in first week or months, a long labour with no anaesthetic - I believe she tried chloroform with her seventh and eighth labours (or eighth and ninth) but the general expectation was that women were supposed to suffer in labour -its Eve's punishment for tempting Adam. There was also a general movement that said that labour pain was different to surgical pain and didn't need anaesthesia- see Dr Meigs etc. See here for doctors reaction to her using anaesthesia - subtext under the fear of her death is that she had perfectly normal labours so why would she want pain relief?

In 1817 Princess Charlotte died after 50 hours in labour, the baby was stillborn. It was her death that set in motion Victoria taking her place on the throne (and the childlessness of her uncles- in one case due to several infant deaths) so recent (and past) history would have demonstrated the importance of having lots of children and the potential risk.

There have been some suggestions in previous programmes that Queens Victoria may have suffered from Porphyria - this could help to explain her temper I think.

I'm sure I read some research that they were looking for family to exhume and see if they could confirm this, but I am not sure if that ever happened.

I've just watched the daughter episode.

The historian at the end summed it up very well as she said Victoria had passed on her strong will and tenacity to her daughters, she just didn't like it when they stood up to her.

I enjoyed the programme but think it needs to be viewed in its social context as others have said.

But i just want to point out it was understood that childhood had an effect on personalities pre Freud. It was a an enlightenment opinion and pretty established post Rousseau. Perhaps the working classes wouldn't have understood this but i think the educated did. Dickens certainly did too.

It's the context that is so important. Vicky and Victoria write for years and years about their passionate attachment to their husbands and Victoria is up front about resenting pregnancy before she had even had a year with Prince Albert. Again (sorry to keep on this theme) but how many modern women talk about delaying ttc so they can enjoy time as a couple? It's not a monstrous wish and Victoria's expression of it is as part of a overall frank and honest relationship.

I agree that the context is important. It's too easy to judge with our modern ideas about parenting.

I also think that it's worth bearing in mind that only snippets of letters were used.

I felt much of the programme was biased against her to be honest, it would have been better to have discussed Victoria's own upbringing more to give a balanced argument.

I do love Victorian history, although I should be writing my dissertation about it right now, not watching it.

Yes exactly - this is a fascinating story and all the more so when the conflict and complexity is properly laid out. This programme started off with Victoria the TYRANT as it's theme and only used the material that seemed to support that. Such a shame actually because all the personalities are fascinating and it's all the more interesting when the grandchildren start playing a role.

Didn't see the program, though if that dreadful photo is anything to go by, she must have been seriously odd by anyone's standards. Freud would have loved her!

Did Victoria not suffer from PND? I'm sure I recall reading a quote from a letter to one of her daughters referring to that....

Just got to the end and I notice it ignores Alice's tragic death. Perhaps the Queen's sorrow at that awful event didn't fit with the editorial slant?

DP and I watched the first episode, but found it seriously flawed. It was very much a 'use only evidence and talking heads who agree with my hypothesis' piece and a fine example as to why history graduates used to regularly go sideways into Law without any trouble at all .

Stubborn - Matthew Dennison covers that in his biography of Beatrice - that she was the baby they weren't supposed to have because the Queen had been so unwell with PND after Leopold's birth that the doctors feared another would send her completely off mental balance - like her grandfather George III whose 'insanity' loomed large in the memory.

I think they who victorian-ness of life was so structured, rigid, overwhelming and claustrophobic, it must have been so repressive to live day by day. QV found no problem with being open and honest in all her letters, imagine now if we emailed some family member with our innermost thoughts, I could have written this after a family lunch over Xmas

"Dear Brother John, they way you ate the cheese and pickle sandwich at lunch reminded me of a pig, can one not keep one's mouth shut? and you wife was no better sniffing all through lunch when they use of a tissue was well within reach, your manners are a disgrace you made me feel quite ill"

But you don't do you, you just think it. Grief can make you quite unhinged and I think she did not have people around her to challange her a bit to help her, kind of like famous people of today eg: Michael Jackson, no on said no to him.

It was just tragic she seemed so unhappy for so much of her life when she had everything anyone could possible have.

Is there even one picture of any of them smiling? I know it was the style to look miserable as shit, I have some pics of female relatives from the same period and they too look so down in the mouth!

I think it took so long to actually take a picture their jaws would ache from smiling

Carocaro, it's because taking a single photo meant you had to sit absolutely still for about a minute. If anyone moved the photo would be ruined.

You try sitting with a big on your face for a full minute.

I did like the historians on there...especially Matthew.