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.

Matthew Dennision's book about Beatrice - The last princess - is also a good read.

There is a brilliant picture of Victoria, Albert and Vicky on Vicky's wedding day. Father and daughter are still, mother was trembling with nerves and emotion so much she's all blurred.

yes I liked Matthew, and his jumper.

this is it

I'd also tend towards trusting the BBC history dept

having seen and worked with their researchers I would disagree, they look for the archival material that suits the programs slant -as we all do if we want to show something in a particular way.

As for children not being cherished, many children died before the age of 5 years old at the turn of the last century the mortality rate was horrendous ( without looking it up I believe it was 1 in 4 children would died before they reached 5) and therefore it was better to keep your distance from loving a child as it may well be taken from you rather quickly - death didn't distinguish between rich and poor either. This is just one social differnence and there are many more examples of why it would appear that in cases children were not cherished in they way they are today - but they were loved.

Of course she was a control freak. She ruled half the fucking world. Idiots.

In 150 years time our own Queen will be looked at by a society that views her very differently as they will live very differently from how we live now.

They didn't show the marble casts did they? Victoria had models made of their children's arms and legs as well as of their faces. It makes a rather macabre exhbition but it shows again an interest in her children, a desire to record their babyhood I think.

In 150 years time our own Queen will be looked at by a society that views her very differently as they will live very differently from how we live now

Yes and I don't think history will judge her particularly kindly, once the dust has settled.

I think that the Queen is already "judged" to some extent & thought of as a "stand offish" mother, isn´t she?

Looked this up for you all - in June 1866 Vicky's son Sigismund died suddenly. He was 21 months old and his mother writes:

'My little darling, graciously lent me for a short time to be my pride, my joy, my hope is gone - gone where my passionate devotion can not follow, from where my love can not recall him.......What I suffer none can know - few know how I loved! It was my own happy secret...I wish you to know all - you are so kind darling mama.....I kiss your dear hands and wish I could be in your dear arms your broken hearted child Victoria'

In a letter a couple of months afterwards (there were many, many letters in betwen, they both wrote to each other twice or three times a week, more in times of crisis) Victoria writes to Vicky 'You are so dear, so loving, so simple and warm hearted that it goes to my heart to hear of all you went through alone! Well can I understand how terribly trying and harrowing for you it must have been to have to order all for the funeral, which is always so dreadful and revolting to one's feelings, with your own darling, little child and do wonder how you could have gone through it without being seriously ill'

Gives a different impression from the controlling loon and the rebellious daughter doesn't it?

George 3rd was not insane - he suffered from porphyria.
Unknown at the time, in its last stages can lead to mental imbalance.
And as the royal family is so inbred, it's entirely possible Victoria suffered from it too.
She was a vile woman, awful mother but had a dreadful upbringing herself...her uncles used her as a pawn in their games and her uncle Leopold being the ultimate winner when his nephew Albert married her.
(Leopold was married to princess Charlotte, whose death in childbirth caused the succession crisis)
Our current queen is a very odd too IMHO.
The idea that she is some sort of matriarch is hilarious! She saw her kids for about half an hour per day if that. She seems very uninterested in them or their lives (unless it involves horses)
And when they got too close to their Nanny's said nanny's were sacked.
Awful.

I dont agree that children weren't loved in the past.
Yes, infant mortality was horrific but you only have to read some of Shakespeare's writing after his son hamnet died aged 11 to know how dear their children were to their parents.

Yes diddl she has, but nothing compared to the fulsome praise she's had lavished on her.

It is hard because those of us under 70 have no memory of any other monarch and no point of comparison.

It is a semi-educated guess but I think she will be remembered and celebrated for her longevity and taken to task by historians over other aspects of her life/parenting

As Badvoc says the portrayal of the Queen as a Matriarch is a myth, the marketing of the Royal Family as a 'normal middle class family unit' first perpetuated by George V and perpetuated by his second son and granddaughter must be one of the best marketing jobs of all time.

Just as long as we're going to lay into all the kings about their parenting too.

Right?

No?

Just the women then?

FFS

Vicky's letter to Victoria about the loss of her son is just heartbreaking, northernlurker. Thanks for posting that, it shows a very different relationship.

Having reined for 60 years there will be parts of her rein that are viewed in one way and other parts that are viewed differently - but that 60/70 years long or even longer rein will be viewed as if it was 5 hours and all mushed together.

Reality is we change as people from our 20's to our 90's and we don't stand still as a person we are forever changing in that very long time. But that 5 generation time span will be called the second Elizabethain.

Badvoc - the porphyria is a very persuasive theory not a known fact and it wasn't known at all by contemporaries hence 'insanity'.

Just as long as we're going to lay into all the kings about their parenting too.

Right?

No?

Just the women then?

well the thread was about queen victoria

And Victoria was a widow for a looooong time.

And Victoria was a widow for a looooong time.

oh and this as well ,

"They didn't show the marble casts did they? Victoria had models made of their children's arms and legs as well as of their faces. It makes a rather macabre exhbition but it shows again an interest in her children, a desire to record their babyhood I think."

That was always struck me about Osbourne House. it was full of statues/memorabelia of the children. All of her daughters bridal bouquets were framed. There were statues of the children everywhere.

There are letters between Victoria and Fedora which detail symptoms of porphorya and other descendants have definitely been diagnosed with it.

I agree with the comments about context. I'm reading a book about Queen Mary (George V's wife) at the moment and obviously there are lots of extracts from Victoria's letters in there, in most of which she doesn't come across as a controlling loon. Although she did do things like engineer the marriage between George and May (Mary), there are letters in which she acknowledges that she doesn't want to interfere in the internal matters of her family's marriages.

Plus you have to remember that the Royal Family was vvv different then. Victoria thought she was an executive monarch with real powers, unlike the present Queen, and she really believed that she was Queen because God had placed her on the throne. I think those things alone would make you think that you had a perfect right to control everything around you.

And the other European royals of the day also really believed that they were, I guess, ontologically different from everyone else. They were very snotty about princes and princesses who were descended from morganatic marriages, or who were merely Serene Highnesses instead of Royal Highnesses.

Plus the French Revolution would have been relatively not so long ago when Victoria was young - she probably thought she really had to keep a grip on her family or risk things going the same way.

Not that any of this would have made her any easier to have as a mother, of course. But I think it's about context, rather than about her having a particularly warped personality.

That point about revolution is a very good one. Louise was born in 1848 - Europe's year of revolutions and Victoria and the new baby and the family left London in a bit of a hurry because of the Chartists planned protest. In the event it was a bit of a damp squib but beforehand the threat seemed very real.

YANBU... she was a CAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! But I expect she was, as most of us are, of her time and messed up by her own upbringing and situation. If someone plonks a crown on your head age 18 and you spend the next 60-odd years surrounded by obsequious flunkies that don't question you, it's unsurprising if you turn into a bit of a monster. It's another reason to admire QEII for seeming to be reasonably normal.

mrsjay - it was the point where someone said in the future people will criticise Elizabeth II for her parenting as well, without there having been any much mention of any kings in the same context, that I started to feel a bit