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.

He most certainly did! Brilliant casting.

I totally respect the evidence regarding their relationship and deep affection. I just found her manner soppy and Mills & Boon. I can’t imagine, for example, Lucy Worsley’s voice breaking with emotion or her eyes welling with tears, thank God!

But the documentary evidence was astounding. I am prepared to buy the secret marriage or at least a kind of unofficial betrothal, but not the child.

I've seen Mrs Brown twice years ago but very tempted to watch it again 😃

Ooh I need to watch this! I love Rob Rinder as a historical presenter, the two princes documentary he did with the woman who found Richard III was absolutely fantastic

My professional historian husband (and I) thought it was awful. Philippa is not an unbiased investigator and Rob swallowed the highly selective evidence she produced whole. For a barrister, that’s bad!

They did not prove that the princes survived the reign of R III. Practically no questions were asked of the so-called new sources that presented. Recently strong evidence in support of the account of the assassination reported by Thomas More (himself a rigorous lawyer) has come to light (can expand if you’re interested).

Of course Richard had them killed. He’d have been crazy not to!

100%

I don’t know if they were married and had a child but the letters Queen Victoria wrote to John Brown were beautiful.

I thought she was very interesting and good at what she did.

@CoffeeCantata

(can expand if you’re interested)

Im interested.

Back in a mo then

Oh no weepixie…what am I like?!

I’ve realised I’ve and replied to your question on the Princes in the Tower thread on AIBU. Sorry! I’ll see if I can transfer or copy it here.

Back in a mo….

@Weepixie
It's complicated....but...
Philippa's main argument rested on the discovery of a document about Margaret of Burgundy (Edwards IV's sister) giving support to an armed attempt to put one of the princes (I think, Edward,the older prince) back on the English throne in 1487, when he would have been 17. The fact that she was his aunt was irrelevant though, because she left England in 1468, 2 years before he was born, so she would not have been in a position to recognise him or to confirm his identity. She may have been very keen to oust the new dynasty in favour of the Yorkists, though, so would have been motivated to help raise troops in order to destablise the new Tudor regime.

The programme focused on the authenticity of the document, which is one thing, but completely ignored the point above (Rob Rinder - call yourself a laywer???)
Since the programme was made, another Channel 5 documentary focused on a number of fascinating and tantalising discoveries which throw light on the Princes in the Tower mystery. It was called 'Princes in the Tower: A Damning Discovery. I think it's on YouTube and may still be on 5 Catch up.

Thomas More, writing about 30 years after the event, says that Sir James Tyrell was tasked with 'disappearing' the princes and that accordingly, Miles Forest and John Dighton were dispatched to do the deed, which they did by suffocating the boys in their sleep. There have been attempts to discredit More as a Tudor propagandist, but historians agree that his account has the ring of truth about it, especially in the detail.

It's recently been discovered that when More was on one of his foreign embassies one of his servants/secretaries was the son of Miles Forest, giving him a direct connection to one of the perpetrators.

And also - a will of Sir James Tyrell has been discovered in which he bequeaths the gold chain belonging to Edward V (I think he actually describes it as such) to his heirs. How else could he have obtained this if he hadn't been involved in the assassination? It might have been given to him as a reward by Richard III, or he might have just held on to it after Richard's death.

There's more but I'd better stop there! Hope this makes sense. I recommend the Channel 5 documentary!

Aarrgghh...I mean 1497 in that first para.

I think I'll go and lie down and have a glass of something!!!

No…as you were. It’s definitely time for me to put MN down for the day!🤣🫣😖

@CoffeeCantata thank you so much. I love the history that so many of our posters on the Royal board bring to the discussions.

I think if I’d ever married into the RF I’d have spent my days rummaging around as many vaults I could find just looking at ‘bits of paper’. Can you imagine being in a position to do that? And the people we see on TV who say, “yes, I have something to show you” and the next thing they do is don a pair of gloves and take an ancient document out of a folder for us to see. I so want to be that person. 🤣

Absolutely! I think the exciting thing is, there’s clearly plenty of dusty old stuff still out there and you wonder what little nugget of information will emerge…after someone has spent hours ploughing through the funny script and the Latin!

I was reading about an American couple at the end of the 1800s who decided that there must be more information about Shakespeare than what we know already (which is hardly anything) so made it their project to plough through old documents in London and elsewhere. The finally found a reference to a court case in which he was a key witness, and although just a glimpse, it did provide interesting detail, such as where he was living in London, who was lodging with him etc and even reported his answers to questions. There’s a book called Shakespeare in Silver. Street all about this - very interesting!

Wow! I want to read that!

It’s really interesting, Lush. I’m interested in Shakespeare and it’s incredible just how few hard facts there are about his life. (Bill Bryson is very good on this subject). Of course lots of old records of the City of London would have perished in the Great Fire in 1666 and later in the Blitz.

The researchers in this case sifted through old records for years to come upon this little nugget, but nevertheless it gives us a glimpse of what he was doing and the life of his neighbours at that particular time. There’s always hope for new discoveries!

I’ve ordered that book so thanks for mentioning it.

I watched the CH5 documentary last night and was instantly stuck by Angela Webb-Milinkovich's similarity to Queen Victoria. I thought straight away no need for a DNA test, it is obvious that she is a descendant. I respect her family for keeping the secret for so long.

I didn’t see that at all. Sorry to sound contrary, but she couldn’t have looked more different, for me. I thought that bit of the programme was weak with little explanation. There must have been a photo of the child but we weren’t shown it. But I think the existence of such a a child is extremely unlikely.

I do believe you were being naughtily sarcastic. I wish it was true though and Angela is indeed a descendant of Queen Victoria and John Brown 👍😀.

Very strong resemblance. I saw it immediately. Rob Rinder saw it in the documentary and I was nodding in agreement! Surprised if others cannot see it.

Sorry but much as I'd love to agree with you I truly can not see any likeness. Can you pinpoint particular features which have caused you to conclude they are related?

The face shape and the eyes in particular. I could see it as soon as she came on the screen.