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.

Come on. I mean, seriously. This woman is supposedly what, a great great great granddaughter at the best? Do you know how much DNA you share with a 3 x great grandmother? Shall I tell you? 3%. And if Victoria was her 4 x great grandmother, she'd share 1.5%.

The "strong resemblance" is utter nonsense and confirmation bias at its very best.

I see no resemblance! 🤷‍♀️

She has similar eyes, but tbh my DD has similar eyes and we're 100% not descended from Victoria.

Had they shown photos of the supposed daughter, and others in the line to Angela their point may have been stronger.

Also would be very interesting to compare how alike she is to Hugh Brown's wife

I used to like Rob Rinder but he's everywhere and it's the Rob Rinder show every time yes even his documentary progs. He's reading his scripts or autocues and him saying he could see the resemblance was a joke imo.

We shall have to agree to disagree @VintageDiamondGirl

It also needs kept in mind that even if an illegitimate royal baby was entrusted to John Brown's brother that it doesn't automatically mean it was born to Victoria.

By 1866 at least 7 of her children were old enough to father or carry an illegitimate child. Three were already married, and Princess Helena had a somewhat controversial, and unexpected, marriage in 1866 as well.

Homing an illegitimate grandchild would be much more likely, imo, than Victoria herself having one.

Hopefully my last comment but sometimes if you want to see something badly enough then you will

Genes are funny things though. Princess Beatrice looks similar in many respects to Victoria (similar nose, same Hanoverian eyes) and she is her 4 x great granddaughter.

I do see a resemblance there but not with the other woman .

Weird reply. You don't think that you can see family resemblances through the generations? Odd.

I don’t see the resemblance. Beatrice, yes - she has those heavy Hanoverian features. But not this woman.

However, I still hope the marriage rumours are true and that V found happiness with John after she was widowed young, whether a baby was born or not.

Parents yes. Grandparents maybe. Great great great (great) grandparents? Really?

It's confirmation bias. People want to believe this ridiculous "baby" and "wedding" theory even though there is zero proof. The whole programme was the most dodgy research. The academic had her theory and then went off looking for evidence, rather than coming from an unbiased standpoint. The fact Victoria was 46 (?) and had been told never to risk another pregnancy was not mentioned, neither was the legal requirement to register a marriage to make it valid. Rinder did an appalling job of challenging the evidence - it was presented as him being there to cross examine in a way and he didn't do that at all, he just swallowed what he was being told. Ooooh look, this French gossipy paper said the queen was pregnant and it was retracted right away, that is a clear cover-up!! Or alternatively, letter received from London lawyers telling them to stop printing lies.

The other historian - Matthew Sweet - who was the one raising concerns and asking questions - was given a lot less prominence.

I mean. It's clear they were close. I would even accept there was a handfasting, a Megs and Hazza style "marriage" in the garden with the local minister but they would have all known 100% it wasn't official/binding.

Just a thought here. It doesn't automatically follow that a female child will have the mother's nose/eyes/or any other physical feature. It's not at all unusual for a female child to look like her father or a son to strongly resemble his mother so has anyone anywhere compared the Angela woman's face to John Brown's? Perhaps unlike Victoria there aren't many or any close up portraits of J Brown.

I have two female cousins (sisters) and while one is the double of her mother the other very clearly has inherited their father's eye colour and face shape.

It would be interesting to see a photo/painting of John Brown's sister in law to see if she looks more like her alleged 4x great grandmother, or the one on the birth certificate

Parents yes. Grandparents maybe. Great great great (great) grandparents? Really?

I think this probably happens quite a lot, actually. The main difference is for normal families, you won’t have a whole stock of pictures and even photos) that show you want your genetic forebears looked like. So you won’t know. But for a family like the Royal Family, exceptionally well-documented down the generations, you can see certain features being passed down.

was not mentioned, neither was the legal requirement to register a marriage to make it valid

Scottish law did allow for "irregular marriages" which did not require formal registration. These marriages involved a simple exchange of vows in front of witnesses, and while they could later be registered, it was not mandatory.

There's a diary entry by Mr Harcourt’s diaries:
On February 17, 1885, he wrote: "Lady Ponsonby [the wife of the Queen's private secretary] told the HS [the home secretary: the author's father] a few days ago that Miss Macleod declares that her brother, Norman Macleod, confessed to her on his deathbed that he had married the Queen to John Brown, and added that he had always bitterly regretted it.

It's a death bed confssion that goes though a few people before it gets written down by someone so hardly hard proof just more suggestion/hearsay.

TBH I don't think we'll ever know as there's nothing concrete left in records - think maybe some declaration was made - but it was never made public - some behavior that could possibly be interpret as supportive of it or not.

Really don't credit Queen Victoria having a child though.

The documentary was fascinating

the JB family had some interesting articles in their archives

My view precisely!

I totally agree.

I don’t think it would be possible for two people to be more different!

QV was tiny with a small mouth, popping, heavy Hanoverian eyes and a beaky nose (but a small, receding chin). I see none of those features in this woman. I couldn’t believe Rob Rinder’s reaction to her.

Um, puts a different spin on the idea of Victorian. I thought she was prim, proud and prude.

No - she liked sex and said so.

She wasn’t fond of pregnancy, childbirth or babies (I can relate!)

She wasn’t fond of her own woman in many ways and clashed with advisers and courtiers over several issues, including racist attitudes.

Aaaaarrrggghhh - bloody autocorrect.

It should say ‘She was her own woman in many ways…’

I’ll swear it’s trying to sabotage me.

If she was just a random woman on screen and nothing to do with the documentary would you have declared "wow that woman looks like Queen Victoria"

🫤

I feel your pain.

Going by the photos - I'd say no real resemblance to QV.

Beatrice absolutely does, but then her father, grandmother, great grandfather, great great grandfather etc were also descendants of QV, so it's not surprising really.