Queen Victoria and John Brown

[nahthatsnotforme]

Several news articles lately and a new Channel 4 documentary on Thursday presented by Rob Rinder suggesting they had a child.

I can believe they were in a relationship; she was a young woman when widowed but a child seems a
little far fetched.

Will give it a watch though.

But she did have a prolapsed uterus and she loathed childbirth. Also I think it would have required too many people to keep the secret.

My verdict is

Was there a romance? Guilty!

Were they married? I think, guilty, but not proven.

Was there a child? Not guilty.

Crathie church is tiny and they could have gone there on one of their pony rides. They would only need the minister and a couple of witnesses (is that right?). I imagine her ladies in waiting would have been in on the secret.

Someone told me that they didn’t actually need to do this in the church - the minister could have come discreetly to Balmoral. Perhaps a Scottish poster might know the rules on this!

That’s harsh!

I know what you’re saying about her physical appearance but attract ion is about more than that and from what I’ve read she had a vivacious personality. That’s not the image, of course, but we’d be stupid to base our judgment on awful posed formal sepia photos in those appalling clothes and with that ridiculous tiny crown on the top of her head.

Ive literally never seen anyone look good in either Victorian clothes (they were vile) or sepia images, which make everyone look pasty and haggard.

Someone told me that they didn’t actually need to do this in the church - the minister could have come discreetly to Balmoral. Perhaps a Scottish poster might know the rules on this!

This is true. Scottish marriage rules are quite different from England and Wales. People can get married anywhere they like - outside, on a beach, top of a mountain - by a member of the clergy. This has always been the case and I have seen lots of examples of people being married in their own house, at the minister's house or elsewhere. This (in my experience) was more common when people wanted to get married in a hurry - when the groom was being sent off to war or when the bride was pregnant. Banns are not necessarily read. There was also the option to marry "by warrant of sheriff" in front of a solicitor and witnesses rather than religiously and this option was often used by couples who either weren't religious, or who were already living together.

However, there is still paperwork. The minister still fills in the marriage certificate which is sent to National Records of Scotland. There still needs to be 2 witnesses other than the person officiating.

There is no way that they were married legally - there would have had to be at least three other people involved in making that happen on the day, and then more people making the official record disappear and changing lots of other records too so that the numbers run consecutively. No way. As with all other conspiracies it would need a lot of people colluding to make it happen and I don't believe that not one of those people ever talked.

Similar to the "baby" - Queens typically don't give birth alone on the bathroom floor, there would have been medical attendants during what would have been her 10th pregnancy and assistance during labour. She may have been dumpy but seriously, concealing a pregnancy/birth when you're the bloody queen and spend your life having other people do stuff for you? Again it would need so many people in on it.

She was clearly fond of John Brown and yes I can believe they had some sort of unofficial handfasting ceremony or whatever. But official marriage and baby definitely not.

@KassandraOfSparta

i think you’re right. I can imagine that was the scenario.Victoria was a passionate woman who could be daringly unconventional at times and I think this fits what we know. From her perspective she would be married in a spiritual sense to JB without causing a tsunami of scandal for them both. How else would she have his mother’s wedding ring?

Perhaps they did. But recollections may vary.

I'd not heard that story, but my late husband who was brought up on the estate told me the following. (His dad worked in Abergeldie gardens when they were still leased to the Crown and effectively part of Balmoral. DH was in the forestry division of Balmoral and also worked as a ghillie.)

DH told me that the statue of John Brown (erected by Queen Victoria) was moved out of sight after her death because the rest of the Royals disapproved of the relationship. (That was the story passed down the estate workers.)

You didn't even actually have to get married in a church, I think.

Not as far back as that, of course, but my FIL's second marriage in the 1930s was conducted by a CoS minister and took place in his home. I have other family members who were married in the manse rather than the church.

ETA FIL only had two witnesses - the next door neighbour and a family member.

Thanks Weary - that’s interesting.

Given what a high sex drive she had I don’t think it’s realistic she was celibate for 40 years after Albert died

And John Brown was a handsome chap.

I'm sorry - I've just remembered a silly cartoon I once saw - I think it was a photo with Peter Sellers dressed as Queen Victoria and possibly Spike Milligan as JB.

Queen Victoria is saying 'And is anything worn under the kilt?' and JB replies, 'No, it's all in perfect working order!'

Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion but that made me titter...

They resented that she let him speak disrespectfully to them, and confided in him. It was shocking at a time when social status was so clearly defined.

That doesn't mean they were married. It can be explained by disapproval of letting a servant get 'above himself', especially as she was fairly critical and autocratic with her family.

I think she took her position as monarch very seriously, also her idolisation of Albert, so doubt they were married. More of an 'emotional affair'...

Honestly, I’m notoriously sceptical, but several things have made me think some sort of marriage - maybe a hand fasting ceremony such as Kassandra suggests - may indeed have taken place - just between the couple and a minister.

i think lots of things point to it but for me the clincher is that she possessed, and specifically requested to wear, JB’s mother’s wedding ring in her coffin. As a man (who could not presumably afford to splash out on new jewellery), what would be the motive for giving a woman your own mother’s wedding ring other than a betrothal, official or otherwise? I don’t think there can be another motive.

I think it was a different era, and that sentimental (but chaste) relationships were seen differently.

Especially as QV liked to be number 1 with everyone! And might well have considered it her right - as monarch - to be Female No 1 to JB, without being married to him!

God the woman is so irritating. Rinder is so melodramatic.

However do I think they married - possibly. Not sure how they could hide a pregnancy & birth. Too many would need to know.

Also were illegitimate royal children given to servants to raise? It’s known that Victoria's uncles had children. Off to see where and how they brought up…

I know the great grandson of the minister, Rev. McLeod who was very close to the queen, a confidante, even, as she valued the Church of Scotland as her spritual home. My friend jokes about the 'Great White Queen and her pony boy' but believes it absolutely unthinkable that his ancestor would have married them. His father (who founded the Iona Community) would have remembered the Victorian minister and he didn't believe it either.
I'd love it to be true, though.

Yes, the woman was so soppy, but nevertheless the evidence she presented regarding the relationship cpas powerful. I didn’t buy the child and thought the part with 5h3 American woman was oddly rushed, with little scrutiny. And my cat looks more like Queen Vic than she did.

Rob was also very emotional and soppy. Why do TV people think we like our documentaries like this?

I like Rob, but considering he’s a barrister by training, he’s easily convinced! I remember the Princes in the Tower one where he just swallowed Philippa Langley’s ideas whole. They did NOT prove that the princes survived R III’s reign and in fact evidence which has come to light since very much confirms the account of their assassination given by Thomas More.

Yes, her uncles had lots of illegitimate children, all (most?) of whom they acknowledged!

She didn't exactly approve!

There were huge differences in gender roles, plus she was more like 2 generations later, given how old her father was on marriage. It was a different era, and her uncles behaviour had damaged the monarchy.

That’s interesting, MaxnMeg, but I’m sorry your friend is so cynical about their relationship!

Notwithstanding (always wanted to use that word in MN) his cynicism, do you think he is aware of all the evidence which was shown last night with regard to their closeness? I ask because I too was dismissive until I saw this stuff with my own eyes.

But whatever anyone thinks of the marriage claim (and I don’t think the illegitimate child is likely to) it’s undeniable that these two were extremely fond of each other and Victoria clearly went out on a limb to favour John. I think they deserve respect and sympathy, not to be mocked.

I’d like to think that they did marry. That would be wonderful (for her) rather than her being broken hearted over Albert for the rest of her life.

She idolised Albert for the rest of her life. She resented her daughters for being able to have sexual relations with their husbands, and tried to prevent her youngest daughter from marrying. She was a very selfish person, which she justified through her position as monarch.

I think she got a lot of comfort from her relationship with John Brown - appointed by Albert and therefore their closeness 'blessed' by him - as i said, probably in many ways an emotional affair. And another with the Munshi.

But I think she was always VERY conscious of her position. And of Albert's position as her One True Love

Our current royals will be aware of the belief that the king's grtx3 grandmother married her servant and they produced a child. Is it possible they just aren't interested? Perhaps they know the truth. I know the royals are shielded from all kinds of uncomfortable situations but this one?

As for the Rob Rinder programme he's a showman. Courtroom barristers act this way and I don't think he can shake off the role. I didn't find the historian lady painful to watch as others seemed to. She was the one with all the vital info without which there was no programme. RR was just the presenter. His reference to Billy Connolly at the beginning was a little tiresome and predictable.

You can't prove a negative. Perhaps the 'truth' they know is that QV had an emotional relationship with a servant (one appointed by her adored husband before he died), and that it was nothing more.

Or perhaps there is a conspiracy and cover up.

I suspect the former.

Sexual relationships and marriage were seen very differently in those days, given religious beliefs and lack of contraception, plus sentimental beliefs about a One True Love (look at Dickens, Trollope and Eliot for the belief that once a woman - not a man.of course - has given her heart she can never Belong To Another! Even if the one she gives her heart turns out to be Unworthy. Lily in the Allington series, Maggie Tulliver, pretty much any female character in Dickens!)

Billy Connelly did scrub up well, to be fair…..