[david1955]

Originally Posted by lotty27

For want of anything decent to watch tonight I ended up watching the last of these at my mum's tonight as she highly recommended it. Great programme and I've now downloaded the first two, can't believe I missed them TBH!


BIB: I've never seen anything so bizarre and utterly selfish in my life! What on earth was the stupid woman thinking? Her son's wedding day and she's using it as an opportunity to mutely declare 'never mind them, what about poor ME!' I can't also help but think that it was a dig at her son, didn't she (ridiculously) blame him for Albert's death? Horrific woman.

It also angered me the way she was spoke about her children's looks - fancy being judged by that lump?! But what kind of mother talks about their children like that? Even taking into consideration the unflattering styles of the day Victoria was one plain/unattractive woman! I can only think she had so many people fawning over her and telling her she was something she wasn't that the flattery went to her head. Either that or she had magic mirrors in her various palaces/houses

Looking forward to watching the first two episodes now and seeing how much more old Queen Vic can wind me up!

Not a fan of hers eh Lotteh?

Another bizarre aspect of her character was the way she conducted Privy Council meetings after Albert had died. These are just formal meetings and last about 20 minutes ( they still go on today in the same format ) She refused to leave Osbourne House or indeed speak to virtually anybody.

The meant that 4 cabinet ministers would have to travel all the way to the Isle of Wight every month for a brief meeting . However she refused to meet the Privy Counsellors , but made then wait outside her room. The Clerk of the Council would then read out each item to Victoria's private secretary, things like the appointment of a bishop , the private secretary would then convey this to the Queen , she would say approved and the PS would come back and tell the Clerk., There would be about 20 items to be approved so this process would keep repeating itself .

[mousy]

Im thinking William and Catherine will call their daughter (if it be)..Maud Elizabeth

[Tangledweb7]

Originally Posted by seejay63

Quite. He obviously only got in because of who he was. It sounds like he spent most of his time there womanising.



That was Louise. There's no way on god's earth she would have been allowed to marry the sculture teacher. I should imagine Queen Victoria would be spinning in her grave knowing who her descendants have married!

BIB i was getting mixed up with them only right one i could remember was Vicky. Oh i know she would'nt of been able to marry the sculpture teacher but it was sad he died in her presence what ever the circumstances. Seen the last episode my god poor Leopold the rest i did'nt much care for.

[SheShe]

Originally Posted by PinkPetunia

I thought they all looked like the now Duke of Kent .Least I think its the Duke of Kent ,sorry not good on the royals , the man who turns up at Wimbledon every year

So did I! He's the Queen's first cousin, of course. I thought a lot of them had a strong look of Prince Charles around the eyes.

Really enjoyed the series (did anyone else think the narrator had a gorgeous voice?) but what a monster Victoria was!

[Tigermama]

I thought it was very one-sided (there are lots of nice letters etc they could have read out, but obviously these don't make for a shock horror story). Despite her alleged efforts all the children, even Leopold, got married and lived as much of their own lives as any royal or even upper-class person would have in those times. And I thought the lack of context was a real flaw (a child was seen as having a duty to its parents, not the other way around, and poor children were still being sent up chimneys and down mines) as well as a lot of over-statement from the academics who were clearly out to plug their own books.

So I was disappointed.

[ChrissieAO]

Originally Posted by Tigermama

I thought it was very one-sided (there are lots of nice letters etc they could have read out, but obviously these don't make for a shock horror story). Despite her alleged efforts all the children, even Leopold, got married and lived as much of their own lives as any royal or even upper-class person would have in those times. And I thought the lack of context was a real flaw (a child was seen as having a duty to its parents, not the other way around, and poor children were still being sent up chimneys and down mines) as well as a lot of over-statement from the academics who were clearly out to plug their own books.

So I was disappointed.

She did write those letters though, even if she also wrote 'nice' ones. There was nothing nice about calling her children ugly. There was nothing nice about the way she treated Bertie, blaming him for the death of Albert. How could she have put that burden on him just because he slept with someone.
These are facts not over statements from academics so I'm afraid I don't agree with you at all...I think she was a bad mother and not a great queen either....

[lotty27]

Originally Posted by david1955

Not a fan of hers eh Lotteh?

Another bizarre aspect of her character was the way she conducted Privy Council meetings after Albert had died. These are just formal meetings and last about 20 minutes ( they still go on today in the same format ) She refused to leave Osbourne House or indeed speak to virtually anybody.

The meant that 4 cabinet ministers would have to travel all the way to the Isle of Wight every month for a brief meeting . However she refused to meet the Privy Counsellors , but made then wait outside her room. The Clerk of the Council would then read out each item to Victoria's private secretary, things like the appointment of a bishop , the private secretary would then convey this to the Queen , she would say approved and the PS would come back and tell the Clerk., There would be about 20 items to be approved so this process would keep repeating itself .

BIB: You could say that David, did it show?

I've seen quite a few documentaries of this woman in recent years and very few have been flattering. But I'm still sitting her agog at how she had the temerity to judge her children's looks (or lack of) when she looked like that! (and I would never have brought up her look if she hadn't attacked her children in such a grotesque manner.)

What you also told me in your post show how 'up her own rear end' she was! But I suppose if you've been treated as something special your whole life, like you're the most important person on the planet, that you matter more than anyone else then it would most likely go to your head wouldn't it? Your time etc would be much more important than anyone else's.

Originally Posted by Tigermama

I thought it was very one-sided (there are lots of nice letters etc they could have read out, but obviously these don't make for a shock horror story). Despite her alleged efforts all the children, even Leopold, got married and lived as much of their own lives as any royal or even upper-class person would have in those times. And I thought the lack of context was a real flaw (a child was seen as having a duty to its parents, not the other way around, and poor children were still being sent up chimneys and down mines) as well as a lot of over-statement from the academics who were clearly out to plug their own books.

So I was disappointed.

I have no doubts that nice Queen Victoria letters do exist but unfortunately for her so do the nasty ones which tend to eclipse anything nice she could say. She actually wrote that she hoped her son wouldn't survive her! Who on earth would think something like that never mind commit those thoughts to paper? It could be argued that she was putting duty first and worrying about the monarchy as in her eyes he just wasn't good enough therefore it's quite ironic that he did very well in his short time as King and was infinitely more popular than her! (I read somewhere that she wasn't popular with her subjects as she locked herself away and they rarely saw her - something that her son put right.)

She was an utterly selfish woman. It was incredibly sad that she was widowed at 42 but so were lots of other women and unlike her many couldn't wallow in misery. They were probably too worried about how they were going to feed their children now the bread winner was dead. Basics like how on earth was she was going to feed her children or pay the rent. Would she have to fall on the charity of family (if the family could afford it) or worse, end up in the workhouse? THESE women have my sympathy not a pampered Princess (literally) who had nothing else to occupy her than wallowing in her own self pity while she sat in the lap of luxury trying to control her children's lives.

Horrific but I have to say absolutely fascinating woman.

[Honestweegie]

Originally Posted by lotty27

It was incredibly sad that she was widowed at 42 but so were lots of other women and unlike her many couldn't wallow in misery.

.

Indeed, my own grandmother was widowed at that age too, but found that the children and subsequently grandchildren were the ones who kept her going. She also had extreme money worries after her husband died, which Victoria obviously didnt

[johnloony]

Originally Posted by Tangledweb7

punctuation?

[david1955]

One thing that Queen Victoria must be given credit for is the way she once again made tho monarchy popular. Her two predecessors George IV and William IV were hugely unpopular with the people due to their wasteful drunken lifestyles. They both gambled huge sums of money and expected the Treasury to pick up the bill. They were ridiculed in the popular press of the time..

Victoria was determined not to let this happen again which may be why she attempted to control her children's lives. Certainly when Albert was alive the monarch was very popular , though less so when she retreated from public view. Edward VII became a well liked monarch despite a few shenanigins in his early life

[bebecat]

Just watched this series on Youtube. I have read many book of Queen V and her children and a book of QV's letters, so nothing much new for me, but I still found it intriguing. I think the Queen had indeed lost her mind after Albert died and became more and more mad as the years passed. Her venom toward her kids is breathtaking at times, even taking into consideration the very different times and customs. Some of her letters to Vicki, while amusing to read now, are pretty dreadful. She was indeed a tyrant and extremely selfish. As she was queen, there was no one to check her bizarre behavior when A died, the hot water, clothing put out daily, etc.

It is amazing that some of her children managed to become relatively "normal" and even productive adults.

I remember reading that Beatrice at aged five (after Albert died) apologized to her nurse for having a pleasant thought, as she knew well that it was against the house rules to enjoy anything at all. Even a thought in her mind.

[seejay63]

Originally Posted by bebecat

I remember reading that Beatrice at aged five (after Albert died) apologized to her nurse for having a pleasant thought, as she knew well that it was against the house rules to enjoy anything at all. Even a thought in her mind.

How sad Children should only be joyful at that age.

Maybe Victoria was barking all her life, even before Albert died. She'd been brought up to believe she could never do anything wrong though hadn't she, so there was no hope for normality really.

[bebecat]

Originally Posted by seejay63

How sad Children should only be joyful at that age.

Maybe Victoria was barking all her life, even before Albert died. She'd been brought up to believe she could never do anything wrong though hadn't she, so there was no hope for normality really.

Victoria worked hard to behave well in Albert's eyes. She did not always manage it, but he was the only one who could get her to behave. Whatever else may have been wrong with her, she idolized him, that is for sure. Once he was gone, the gloves were off, lol. She was free to be completely self-centered.