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 the idea that 'children were expendable' has been reassessed in recent years and found to be very much not the case. There are, of course, terrible stories of babies smothered rather than face starvation etc (and horrendously, of course, this still happens today) but the idea that this was somehow done without feeling, or that people didn't grieve has been shown to be something of a fantasy! It's probably only be challenged in the last 20 years or so, however, so as historiography it throws an interesting light on how people have IMAGINED the past!

Fair enough, Manatee

knitknack - it reminds me of that dreadful Sting song about Russians loving their children. "Do they Sting, do they really, you knobhead?"

I think that at least in part the idea that parents 'didn't care' is a construct we use to protect ourselves from empathy with the distress that parents will have felt. There are plenty of Victorian gravestones revealing the decimation of families due to disease. If you start thinking too much about that - it's really awful. Princess Alice was still grieving for her son (haemophiliac, fell from a window ) when pretty much the whole family fell ill with diptheria. Her youngest child died and then Alice caught it. Victoria said immediately that she (Alice) would never have the strength to get through it and indeed she didn't.

I think the programme said that having a bad relationship with your heir was pretty much the norm for the Hanoverians? So that would have been true of the men's parenting as well, and the pattern repeated itself for some of the Saxe-Coburgs/Windsors. George V certainly had a disastrously bad relationship with Edward VIII.

And there were definitely royal women of Victoria's period who had close relationships with their children - Princess Mary Adelaide, Queen Mary's mother, although she was so bad with money that the family had to go into exile for a period to escape their debts, seems to have been a really good mother who was very close to her children.

I don't know that history will be so kind to QEII. I think she is very like Victoria in some ways - achieved personal happiness in her marriage at the expense of her children, and has been deeply conservative regarding the structure/functions of the Royal Family, which hasn't changed an awful lot since George V. Any innovation is coming from her children's generation.

Phyllis, I would say more from her grandchildren - Charles was trapped in a time warp being the heir to the throne the minute he was born (or when a baby?) whereas William is more normal.

OP, how would you feel about this thread moving to Hist

Phyllis, I would say more from her grandchildren - Charles was trapped in a time warp being the heir to the throne the minute he was born (or when a baby?) whereas William is more normal.

OP, how would you feel about this thread moving to History Club?

Wasn't aware of a history club although it seems most threads die a death when they get moved.

Anyway it's spurred me on to read more about the Victorians.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/history_club

Link to history club!

No, I actually do think the impetus has come from her children's generation. Charles does live like an Edwardian on a day-to-day basis, but he is the one driving the restructuring of the family - remember when only the most senior royals appeared on the balcony at the Diamond Jubilee? Apparently Charles is planning ahead for a slimmed down public face of the family that will only include the most direct heirs to the throne. The Queen has lots of cousins hanging around who still carry out royal duties - that will not be the case in the future.

And Anne and Edward are clearly thinking along similar lines - they have tried to keep their children out of the public side of it - in Anne's case by refusing a title for her husband (and hence her children), and in Edward's by not styling his children as HRHs, prince and princess even though that is what they are legally. Edward and Sophie clearly want their children not to be burdened by having royal status. 100 years ago they would have been fighting for them to be central members of the family. I also would include Diana in that generation for making the style of things more touchy feely.

William and Harry haven't actually done anything in particular re shaping the way the family works - they seem to spend most of their time trying not to be royal. They are too junior to actually change anything and are for the most part following what their mother did. I wouldn't really call them innovators, although they are obviously a lot more personable than Charles.

Meant to say: the restructuring that it looks like Charles is planning makes him much more like George V, who, as well as making his relatives give up their German titles, made the Royal Family smaller by restricting who was royal to the children and grandchildren of sovereigns (previously there were lots of Serene Highnesses and Highnesses floating about). Charles looks effectively to be contracting royal status to include only the children of sovereigns and the children of direct heirs.

She was just a control freak and very self centred-plenty of parents around like that today! (in all classes).

She had a set view of the way that she wanted her children to turn out-realistically children have a very different view!

(Damn this programme .... I've spent god knows how many hours over the past few days Wiki-ing Victoria, her children, their children etc etc - keep getting distracted as I go off on yet another tangent - there are blooming hundreds of them !!)

There is a programme on now about young victoria

So which of Victoria's sons was rumoured to be Jack the Ripper?

Prince Albert, Duke of Clarence.

He was her grandson . The theory wss not that he was the ripper. The women were killed to cover up his secret marriage to one of them

I enjoyed it too, but I am surprised that the BBC History allowed the "historians" to refer to Queen Victoria - on more than one occasion - as Queen of England

OTheYuleManatee - t is hard to compare two long reining Queens in the last two centuries ( since 1837 we have had two Queens reining over 120 years ) There haven't been any Kings in the last two centuries that have reined for a long period with a large family for the time period that we can compare in the same light 25 years for a King seems short compared to the Queens

QEII seems a cold fish, QV seemed full of life untill she was widdowed.

I have really enjoyed these programmes - watched the first one twice to ensure I'd understood it properly! A lovely way to end the holidays. It's interesting to hear you Victorian historians putting it all in context, so many thanks for that. The Girls one was fascinating, and I enjoyed the part in the Princes about them being sent out into the Empire and shooting anything that moved
And, to be completely vacuous, if Helen Rappaport is reading this thread I would love to know where you got that beautiful onyx and pink necklace...

If you loved the programmes then read some of the books - loads of interesting stuff out there!

Thank you Northern, I think I will, and clicked on your links! I actually studied Ancient History, and have taught GCSE, but don't know too much about this period. Am enjoying Wolf Hall at the moment, but feeling the call of the Victorians after the QV fest this week!

The old Jean Plaidy books about Victoria are very good and supposed to be faiely accurate.