Queen Victoria's Children.

1567911

Comments

  • TiggywinkTiggywink Posts: 3,687
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ~Twinkle~ wrote: »
    How right you are. I caught up with the episode yesterday afternoon and then watched last night's broadcast.

    She came across as a very selfish woman but I suspect that she was damaged due to the experiences of her own childhood.

    I say that because I had a mother who was much the same in nature, instead of learning from the mistakes of her own mother, she seemingly punished her own children for their grandmother's heartlessness. Thankfully, I made sure that my own children knew that they were loved and treasured, it's a shame that Victoria wasn't intelligent enough to follow the same route.

    The final straw was when she wished her own first born son dead before herself. What mother would wish that??? :eek:

    Yes, that must be the ultimate lesson - not to emulate a toxic parent. It is odd, on the one hand, that Victoria became exactly the same control freak as her own mother. But on the other hand, she knew nothing else - she went from being dependent on her parent to being dependent on her husband - and never grew up in between. It seems incredible that a young woman desperate to escape her mother's tyranny should become exactly that same person herself.

    She was over protected as a child and young woman and became consumed by her own importance always believeing that nobody else had any rights. An egoist and self consumed narcisist. Honestly I don't kow how Albert could stand it.
  • aggsaggs Posts: 29,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tiggywink wrote: »
    Yes, that must be the ultimate lesson - not to emulate a toxic parent. It is odd, on the one hand, that Victoria became exactly the same control freak as her own mother. But on the other hand, she knew nothing else - she went from being dependent on her parent to being dependent on her husband - and never grew up in between. It seems incredible that a young woman desperate to escape her mother's tyranny should become exactly that same person herself.

    She was over protected as a child and young woman and became consumed by her own importance always believeing that nobody else had any rights. An egoist and self consumed narcisist. Honestly I don't kow how Albert could stand it.

    She was heir presumptive from being a baby. I think the chances of any of the other brothers fathering a legitimate child by that time were extremely slim - so she was brought up being taught that she was important.

    I assume that if a child is told from infancy that they are going to be the most important person in the country then it would be a bit of an ego-trip - especially if it was actually correct! I think she even had to propose to Prince Albert because protocol said that a monarch couldn't be proposed to by an 'underling'
  • jerseyporterjerseyporter Posts: 2,332
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can I just ask why anyone who just happens to like the Royal Family, or supports the institution of Monarchy to any degree, is nearly always - eventually - labelled with that word 'sycophant' in response?

    The dictionary definition of 'sycophant' is this: a person who uses flattery to win favour from individuals wielding influence; toady.

    Now, I don't think I've actually read many posts in which anyone is seeking to use flattery to win favour - in fact, if you think about it it's totally illogical to do that because even if they did, the person to whom the flattery is intended is never going to read it! Sycophancy, by it's very definition, must either be done in person, or at least involve some sort of direct communication towards/with the person who is being flattered! The only places/forums in the form of discussion boards where the terms may - just about, possibly - have any place at all would be on the Royal Family's official websites (if they have forums - I don't know, have never looked). But elsewhere - here, newspaper comments boards or similar - it isn't relevant.

    To constantly throw the word 'sycophant' out there is such a lazy generalisation, not to mention inaccurate most of the time, and yet I read it constantly on any discussion board which involves the Royal Family. Everyone is, of course, entitled to like, or dislike, people as they see fit, but that is no excuse for insulting those with opposing views with adjectives that are simply not appropriate or accurate - it says more about the person using the word 'sycophant' than it does about the person to whom they are using it (and not in a good way!).

    Oppose the views of those who like/support the Royal Family if you like - that is your right - and if you think they're wrong, fine, but at least try to express your opposing view with a modicum of intelligence, rather than lazy and inaccurate generalisations!
  • valkayvalkay Posts: 15,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CarlLewis wrote: »
    I wonder how fair the series was.
    Didn't Victoria ever write nice letters to her children?
    Maybe they just selected ones which showed her in a negative light.
    I have no evidence for that but it wouldn't be the first time a series did that.

    I wondered that too. perhaps the BBC had an ulterior motive in showing the Royal family in anti royalist light.
  • TiggywinkTiggywink Posts: 3,687
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    aggs wrote: »
    She was heir presumptive from being a baby. I think the chances of any of the other brothers fathering a legitimate child by that time were extremely slim - so she was brought up being taught that she was important.

    I assume that if a child is told from infancy that they are going to be the most important person in the country then it would be a bit of an ego-trip - especially if it was actually correct! I think she even had to propose to Prince Albert because protocol said that a monarch couldn't be proposed to by an 'underling'

    Well, no, I don't doubt that. What I was musing on was how she could be as strict (if not worse) a mother to her children as her own mother had been - considering as how she ahted the restrictions put on her.
  • MrGiles2MrGiles2 Posts: 1,997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CarlLewis wrote: »
    I believe it was Bertie's son, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence.

    It was rumoured for years, but it is a myth that the Duke of Clarence was in any way involved with any of the murders. he was not even in London when the murders were committed.

    One rumour which has persisted to this day however is that Sir William Gull, doctor to the royal family was a suspect. Nothing was ever proven though.

    Also, another rumour which persisted for some time is that the Duke of Clarence was murdered because he was totally unfit to become a king. This has never been proven either, although it was acknowledged that the Duke of Clarence would have been unsuited to be a king since there is some evidence that he had learning difficulties and was profoundly deaf. He also suffered from venereal diseases which meant he would not have been able to produce a heir, although he was engaged to be married to Mary of Teck who subsequently married his brother George.

    The royals have more than their fair share of skeletons in the cupboard.
  • CarlLewisCarlLewis Posts: 6,232
    Forum Member
    valkay wrote: »
    I wondered that too. perhaps the BBC had an ulterior motive in showing the Royal family in anti royalist light.

    Or maybe it was just an upmarket version of those bitchy celeb magazines. ;)
  • woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes Victoria should not have shut herself away for decades:eek: but to say the current Royal forum is the same is incorrect

    Would that be the current royal forum (?) who stood by and let us be signed over to your favourite institution, the EU, rather than standing up for the country? What a head of state! :D
  • woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MrGiles2 wrote: »
    It was rumoured for years, but it is a myth that the Duke of Clarence was in any way involved with any of the murders. he was not even in London when the murders were committed.

    One rumour which has persisted to this day however is that Sir William Gull, doctor to the royal family was a suspect. Nothing was ever proven though.


    Also, another rumour which persisted for some time is that the Duke of Clarence was murdered because he was totally unfit to become a king. This has never been proven either, although it was acknowledged that the Duke of Clarence would have been unsuited to be a king since there is some evidence that he had learning difficulties and was profoundly deaf. He also suffered from venereal diseases which meant he would not have been able to produce a heir, although he was engaged to be married to Mary of Teck who subsequently married his brother George.

    The royals have more than their fair share of skeletons in the cupboard.

    And also nonsensical - a rumour which only came to popularity in the 1970s! Gull was in his 70s and had suffered a stroke by the time of the ripper killings.

    I agree about the Duke of Clarence, though - a sad figure. Interesting that one of the reasons he was viewed as 'unfit to be King' is that he would likely be unable to procreate, and another that he had learning difficulties. What a system!
  • Mrs MackintoshMrs Mackintosh Posts: 1,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I read a book in the 80s which claimed Jack the Ripper was 3 people, the Duke of Clarence, Dr Gull and the painter Walter Sickert. Utter shite.
  • eveningstareveningstar Posts: 19,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    aggs wrote: »
    She was heir presumptive from being a baby. I think the chances of any of the other brothers fathering a legitimate child by that time were extremely slim - so she was brought up being taught that she was important.

    I assume that if a child is told from infancy that they are going to be the most important person in the country then it would be a bit of an ego-trip - especially if it was actually correct! I think she even had to propose to Prince Albert because protocol said that a monarch couldn't be proposed to by an 'underling'

    This evening Timewatch on BBC2 at 8 o'clock is about 'how an unassuming little girl grew to be Queen Victoria' and the battles she had with her mother.
  • IphigeniaIphigenia Posts: 8,109
    Forum Member
    This evening Timewatch on BBC2 at 8 o'clock is about 'how an unassuming little girl grew to be Queen Victoria' and the battles she had with her mother.

    Thanks for that, I'll definitely look in.

    I was quite surprised at quite how nasty Victoria was to her children, something I hadn't previously realized.

    I knew about her very distant style of parenting, that was just what the upper/upper middle classes did, and there are plenty of children raised that way who were entirely happy: they had attendants who cared for them and parents who adored them - it may seem odd to us in these "the child is the god of the family and must be present in all circumstances" days but not impossible at all.

    Victoria's apparent desire to control all aspects of their adult life sounds cruel and unusual to me.

    I'd like to have known more about Bertie and Affie and their learning difficulties.

    What also intrigued me is that in some of the photos of most of the children as young adults, I kept catching glimpses of our queen's father, the eyelids in particular.
  • the_lostprophetthe_lostprophet Posts: 4,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭

    To constantly throw the word 'sycophant' out there is such a lazy generalisation, not to mention inaccurate most of the time, and yet I read it constantly on any discussion board which involves the Royal Family. Everyone is, of course, entitled to like, or dislike, people as they see fit, but that is no excuse for insulting those with opposing views with adjectives that are simply not appropriate or accurate - it says more about the person using the word 'sycophant' than it does about the person to whom they are using it (and not in a good way!).

    Oppose the views of those who like/support the Royal Family if you like - that is your right - and if you think they're wrong, fine, but at least try to express your opposing view with a modicum of intelligence, rather than lazy and inaccurate generalisations!

    Quite. And the people who can't understand that some people merely think the monarchy is a good thing for the country (rather than sycophancy which, as you suggest, is something completely different) are the very same kind who seem to think Obama is the second coming. But that's okay is it because he's a president?

    The problem is that republicans in the main are so hot-headed and full of bitterness that they can't calm down for a minute to even realise that they're using the incorrect terms. :)
  • ViridianaViridiana Posts: 8,017
    Forum Member
    CarlLewis wrote: »
    I wonder how fair the series was.
    Didn't Victoria ever write nice letters to her children?
    Maybe they just selected ones which showed her in a negative light.
    I have no evidence for that but it wouldn't be the first time a series did that.

    The idea of the program was to describe the tone her relationship with her children, it does not mean at all that all exchanges with her children were negative. From an historical point of view, the program is quite well done actually. Her behaviour to her children shaped their lives, and sometimes in a very negative way. But I think it's pretty clear she took a huge interest in them, and the fact that they kept such huge correspondence and at the at the end of the day rally around her, shows a certain degree of intimacy that you can only have with someone that you admit to have a fractured relationship with but still see as a mother in the full definition of the word.

    I think it's a bit the same as with the majority of us, we can describe the relationship with a parent as overall being a total failure and how it damaged us in the long run, i certainly can, but it doesn't mean at all that the parent was a some sort of typical villain from a book or that should be put in jail for abuse. This same parent may have played with us and tucked us in at night, but it can also mean that some personality traits of that person may have made the life of his/ her kids unbearable.
  • ViridianaViridiana Posts: 8,017
    Forum Member
    are the very same kind who seem to think Obama is the second coming. But that's okay is it because he's a president?

    Maybe because he was voted in. It's just a guess.:)
  • seejay63seejay63 Posts: 8,800
    Forum Member
    Tiggywink wrote: »
    But on the other hand, she knew nothing else - she went from being dependent on her parent to being dependent on her husband

    But that was the way it was for women in those days, even if you weren't Queen-in-waiting.
    Iphigenia wrote: »
    What also intrigued me is that in some of the photos of most of the children as young adults, I kept catching glimpses of our queen's father, the eyelids in particular.

    I noticed that too. The Hanoverian look seemed to be very strong genetically - George V, Kaiser Bill and Tzar Nicholas were all so similar looking they could have been identical triplets.
    Viridiana wrote: »
    Maybe because he was voted in. It's just a guess.:)

    Just about.
    Can I just ask why anyone who just happens to like the Royal Family, or supports the institution of Monarchy to any degree, is nearly always - eventually - labelled with that word 'sycophant' in response?

    Very good post. I couldn't agree more.
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MrGiles2 wrote: »
    It was rumoured for years, but it is a myth that the Duke of Clarence was in any way involved with any of the murders. he was not even in London when the murders were committed.

    One rumour which has persisted to this day however is that Sir William Gull, doctor to the royal family was a suspect. Nothing was ever proven though.

    Also, another rumour which persisted for some time is that the Duke of Clarence was murdered because he was totally unfit to become a king. This has never been proven either, although it was acknowledged that the Duke of Clarence would have been unsuited to be a king since there is some evidence that he had learning difficulties and was profoundly deaf. He also suffered from venereal diseases which meant he would not have been able to produce a heir, although he was engaged to be married to Mary of Teck who subsequently married his brother George.

    The royals have more than their fair share of skeletons in the cupboard.

    There was the Cleveland Street Scandal too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Street_scandal
  • ViridianaViridiana Posts: 8,017
    Forum Member
    seejay63 wrote: »

    Just about.

    Eh? He was certainly not born into it.
  • Fibromite59Fibromite59 Posts: 22,518
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    seejay63 wrote: »
    I noticed that too. The Hanoverian look seemed to be very strong genetically - George V, Kaiser Bill and Tzar Nicholas were all so similar looking they could have been identical triplets.

    I thought that in the photos of Leopold when an adult, he looked just the same as the future Edward VIII (The Duke Of Windsor). There is a very stong likeness with a lot of them to the royal family of today.
  • Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    Bumpity Bump Young Victoria on BBC 2 20:00
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f6m71
  • seejay63seejay63 Posts: 8,800
    Forum Member
    I thought that in the photos of Leopold when an adult, he looked just the same as the future Edward VIII (The Duke Of Windsor). There is a very stong likeness with a lot of them to the royal family of today.

    Prince Michael of Kent looks just like George V et al too.
  • seejay63seejay63 Posts: 8,800
    Forum Member
    Just caught up with the first episode. They mentioned Albert's father leaving his mother, but they didn't mention that his father then married his own sister's daughter!
  • ganderpoke66ganderpoke66 Posts: 2,128
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    seejay63 wrote: »
    Prince Michael of Kent looks just like George V et al too.

    Princess Diana's genes have done some good, thanks to her and, in time, Kate's chromosones, we will have a few attractive royals for a few generations to come. A few non-royals in the gene pool is a good thing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,517
    Forum Member
    Bumpity Bump Young Victoria on BBC 2 20:00
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f6m71

    Thanks for that . A wonderful film , and it portrays Queen Victoria in quite a different light, though of course it only goes as far as about 1841. Classic cameo performance of King William IV as a drunken buffoon .
  • PinkPetuniaPinkPetunia Posts: 5,479
    Forum Member
    I thought that in the photos of Leopold when an adult, he looked just the same as the future Edward VIII (The Duke Of Windsor). There is a very stong likeness with a lot of them to the royal family of today.

    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
Sign In or Register to comment.