[lundavra]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

I would be interested to know where the descendants of her all her children are now, seeing as she had 9, surely all her great great great grandchildren can't be titled - or can they?

There is quite a bit on Wonkypedia, you can follow the children down through their marriages.

There was a discussion on USENET recently about a "Royal GEDCOM", there seem to be quite a number of websites with family history reports and files on the Royal family.

[asp746]

i thought it was an interesting programme, i've always found victoria quite intriguing but a bit odd - the main thing being about her extended mourning for albert.

i suppose if she didnt have a great childhood herself then she had no benchmark to go by but the documentary did portray her as cold as a fish and the children just being an inconvenience to her sex life.

quite shocking to hear the reasons they married poor vicky off - and only 17 too - that says it all about her parents tbh and gives credenance to victoria not particularly liking her children.

i too would love to know what happened to her children during adulthood - i gather most went to marry europeans - i'll spend some time on wiki trying to find out !!

[CarlLewis]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

I will also have to look up about the old Duke of Cambridge and the alleged murdering of his valet scandal. I've never heard of that one before.

It was the Duke of Cumberland, not the the Duke of Cambridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_...th_controversy

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by CarlLewis

It was the Duke of Cumberland, not the the Duke of Cambridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_...th_controversy

Thanks. I use subtitles and I thought it came up as the Duke of Cambridge. Anyhow, I will have a good read of that later.

[aggs]

Originally Posted by asp746

i thought it was an interesting programme, i've always found victoria quite intriguing but a bit odd - the main thing being about her extended mourning for albert.

i suppose if she didnt have a great childhood herself then she had no benchmark to go by but the documentary did portray her as cold as a fish and the children just being an inconvenience to her sex life.

quite shocking to hear the reasons they married poor vicky off - and only 17 too - that says it all about her parents tbh and gives credenance to victoria not particularly liking her children.

i too would love to know what happened to her children during adulthood - i gather most went to marry europeans - i'll spend some time on wiki trying to find out !!

We have to draw back from putting modern sensibilities on things that happened 150-odd years ago though.

A girl of 17 was well within marriagable age - the sooner the better to give a chance for more live heirs.

Princess Alexandra, who married Edward, later Edward VIII, was engaged at 16 and married at 17.

Their heir - Prince Albert was engaged to Mary of Teck. The fact he died before the wedding didn't affect anything - other than the fact that Mary was married to his brother and the new heir a year later.

Children for Royals - and the aristocracy - at that point in history were for the purpose of ensuring the succession and marrying into titles/money/land/power.

[PinkPetunia]

Originally Posted by aggs

We have to draw back from putting modern sensibilities on things that happened 150-odd years ago though.

A girl of 17 was well within marriagable age - the sooner the better to give a chance for more live heirs.
.

.

Yes , I see your point but we are watching the programme in 2013 and making commnet on what we see . I loved the film The Young Victoria and will watch again for entertainment but with more open eyes . I presumed when I saw it the first time that Victoria loved her children at least as much as she loved Albert .Sadly it seems I was wrong . Even 150 years ago people were capable of loving a newborn and a toddler , especially their own .Its seems Victoria didnt and the way I now see it they got in the way of her adoration of Albert .

[the_lostprophet]

Originally Posted by PinkPetunia

Yes , I see your point but we are watching the programme in 2013 and making commnet on what we see . I loved the film The Young Victoria and will watch again for entertainment but with more open eyes . I presumed when I saw it the first time that Victoria loved her children at least as much as she loved Albert .Sadly it seems I was wrong . Even 150 years ago people were capable of loving a newborn and a toddler , especially their own .Its seems Victoria didnt and the way I now see it they got in the way of her adoration of Albert .

Agreed but I thought aggs was specifically responding to the poster who was perturbed at Vicky being married off at 17. Whilst Victoria's odd relationship to her children was a shame, it's true that marrying someone off at 17 wouldn't have been strange at the time - especially not for royal families. It was all about uniting dynasties and power play between countries back then. And just to add that we were told that Victoria did have some regret that Vicky had to go to Germany. She said something like "After all, it is just like sending a lamb to slaughter".

[PinkPetunia]

Originally Posted by the_lostprophet

Agreed but I thought aggs was specifically responding to the poster who was perturbed at Vicky being married off at 17. Whilst Victoria's odd relationship to her children was a shame, it's true that marrying someone off at 17 wouldn't have been strange at the time - especially not for royal families. It was all about uniting dynasties and power play between countries back then.

Yes, I agree that 17 then was not the 17 of now and was the done thing .I am just responding to aggs about the children and lack of love .While I agree that Victorias childhood lacked love too it is still very strange how she spoke of the infants and toddlers .Its not like hse had to feed them and change dirty nappies !!

Oh just an observation from what they said about Bertie and his education etc .I wondered if he had ADHD ?

[Tiggywink]

I always thought Victoria mourned Albert for so long because she missed her beloved husband. But now I think that that was only part of it. She was probably afraid fo the future and how to manage without his support. He had after all, taken on a lot of the daily "work". So she was probabaly as much scared as unhappy. Understandably so.

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by PinkPetunia

Yes , I see your point but we are watching the programme in 2013 and making commnet on what we see . I loved the film The Young Victoria and will watch again for entertainment but with more open eyes . I presumed when I saw it the first time that Victoria loved her children at least as much as she loved Albert .Sadly it seems I was wrong . Even 150 years ago people were capable of loving a newborn and a toddler , especially their own .Its seems Victoria didnt and the way I now see it they got in the way of her adoration of Albert .

If you watched the BBC Turn Back Time series, it was shown there how even a middle class family in Victorians times would leave the children to a nanny / governess and the parents see little of them.

[aggs]

Originally Posted by PinkPetunia

Yes, I agree that 17 then was not the 17 of now and was the done thing .I am just responding to aggs about the children and lack of love .While I agree that Victorias childhood lacked love too it is still very strange how she spoke of the infants and toddlers .Its not like hse had to feed them and change dirty nappies !!

Well, no - because children were the 'property' of the nursery and the nannies

Royal, aristocratic and upper-class babies were born and handed over to the Nanny mainly without a backward glance. I really don't think that how Queen Victoria viewed her children when they were children was any different to how the vast majoriy of ladies of her class in her day viewed their off spring. Boys stayed the provence of the Nursery until they were old enough to go away to school, girls until they were old enough to come out and be married.

Not only was it a different world, it was a different world within a different world. It probably explains a heck of a lot about the character build up of our more modern royals, though.

[PinkPetunia]

Originally Posted by lundavra

If you watched the BBC Turn Back Time series, it was shown there how even a middle class family in Victorians times would leave the children to a nanny / governess and the parents see little of them.

Yes , I remember the modern day children being so upset about that . Times were different and so it was and I guess as aggs says it even filters down to the Roylas of now and how they were shaped and formed ,.

[Fibromite59]

Originally Posted by PinkPetunia

Oh just an observation from what they said about Bertie and his education etc .I wondered if he had ADHD ?

I have heard it said on other programmes that he most probably did have ADHD and of course was being handled totally wrongly.

[Fibromite59]

Originally Posted by mindyann

I think her dad is called Michael.

Of course, the name taken when someone becomes King isn't necessarily their given name - the Queen's Dad was George VI but that was only his fourth name - Albert/Bertie was his name name

Oh dear, we also have a Prince Michael too. As you say though it is quite possible that he could take another name when becoming King.

[Fibromite59]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

With her cousin - gross.

You can marry a cousin, so it is not wrong in the eyes of the law. However, Victoria and Albert were not first cousins.

Don't forget that the Queen and Prince Philip are cousins too. I think in their case they are third cousins. They both decend from Queen Victoria.

[CarlLewis]

Originally Posted by Fibromite59

You can marry a cousin, so it is not wrong in the eyes of the law. However, Victoria and Albert were not first cousins.

Don't forget that the Queen and Prince Philip are cousins too. I think in their case they are third cousins. They both decend from Queen Victoria.

Victoria and Albert were first cousins.
HM and Philip are third cousins via Victoria but also second cousins once removed via Christian IX of Denmark.

[Fibromite59]

Originally Posted by CarlLewis

Victoria and Albert were first cousins.
HM and Philip are third cousins via Victoria but also second cousins once removed via Christian IX of Denmark.

Oh right, I hadn't realised they were first cousins. However, that doesn't mean they can't get married so there is nothing gross about it as someone suggests.

[MissCulture]

Victoria's mother was the sister of Albert's father so they certainly were 1st cousins.

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by MissCulture

Victoria's mother was the sister of Albert's father so they certainly were 1st cousins.

A DNA test of both would be interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...egitimate.html

[MissCulture]

Several years ago a batch of letters written by Prince Albert were found and they gave a surprising insight into not only his marriage but how difficult a woman Victoria was - in one letter he wrote of despairing about her behaviour (she threw tantrums) and gave the impression that he felt very much trapped within the marriage. Victoria had had a sheltered childhood, intensely protected and watched by her mother the Duchess of Kent, certainly indulged of every whim, so one can imagine she grew into a highly dependent young woman who transferred that dependency onto her husband. I think it is a shame that her daughter Princess Beatrice destroyed her mother's diaries after Victoria's death and the diaries we have today are ones rewritten by Beatrice. Victoria was a prolific writer and a candid one at that, it would have been great to read of her life and of events through her own account rather than sanitised by her daughter.

[Mrscee]

She really didn't like her babies or was it more a royal thing to distance yourself by giving them to somebody else to look after so you don't bond..
I should add I like the comments of the shock of them marrying their daughter off at 17 as if it's a young age..I should point out that I married at 18 (still married 23 years later) so I don't find it odd at all..though I wasn't married off

[MissCulture]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

A DNA test of both would be interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...egitimate.html

Certainly, but I would be more interested in knowing if her father was actually her father for the reason being that the porphyria that came from her father's royal line suddenly disappeared with Victoria - strange. It did not come out in any of her children and has disappeared completely from the royal family. There was a theory that Victoria's mother had a dalliance with a close courtier named Sir John Conroy and that he is Victoria's real father and not the Duke of Kent. Consider this; the porphyria was inherited through the German line and by all reason should have appeared in one of Victoria's offspring or subsequent generation...it didn't. What did suddenly and mysteriously appear out of nowhere was the haemophilia that blighted her son Leopold's life and that of his descendants. Where did it come from...the Conroy line...? there's a portrait of Sir John Conroy and if you look at the nose of Victoria and Conroy (in profile) they are oddly similar. Imagine if this were proven to be true...when they took DNA to verify the remains of the Romanov royal family they took the DNA from Prince Phillip, not the Queen

[MissCulture]

Originally Posted by Mrscee

She really didn't like her babies or was it more a royal thing to distance yourself by giving them to somebody else to look after so you don't bond..
I should add I like the comments of the shock of them marrying their daughter off at 17 as if it's a young age..I should point out that I married at 18 (still married 23 years later) so I don't find it odd at all..though I wasn't married off

17 was old compared to many previous royal brides....


1)Henry VIII, aged 49, married Catherine Howard when she was about 16 years old.
2)Lady Jane Grey was about 15 when she married her child groom who was about 16 or 17.
3)King James I, aged 23, married Anne of Denmark when she was 14.
4)Charles I, aged 25, married Henrietta Marie of France when she was 13.
5)William III and Mary II ruled jointly. Mary was 15 when she married her 27 year old 1st cousin.
6)Richard III, aged 19, married Anne Neville when she was 16.
7)Henry VI, aged 23, married Margaret of Anjou when she was 15.
8)Henry IV, aged 14, married 1st wife Mary de Bohun when she was 12.
9)Richard II, aged 14, married 1st wife Anne of Bohemia when she was 15.
10)Edward III, aged 13, married Philippa of Hainault when she was 13.

Of course they married young because they tended to die young in childbirth and the marriages were very often political.

[aggs]

Originally Posted by MissCulture

Certainly, but I would be more interested in knowing if her father was actually her father for the reason being that the porphyria that came from her father's royal line suddenly disappeared with Victoria - strange. It did not come out in any of her children and has disappeared completely from the royal family. There was a theory that Victoria's mother had a dalliance with a close courtier named Sir John Conroy and that he is Victoria's real father and not the Duke of Kent. Consider this; the porphyria was inherited through the German line and by all reason should have appeared in one of Victoria's offspring or subsequent generation...it didn't. What did suddenly and mysteriously appear out of nowhere was the haemophilia that blighted her son Leopold's life and that of his descendants. Where did it come from...the Conroy line...? there's a portrait of Sir John Conroy and if you look at the nose of Victoria and Conroy (in profile) they are oddly similar. Imagine if this were proven to be true...when they took DNA to verify the remains of the Romanov royal family they took the DNA from Prince Phillip, not the Queen

I thought there was evidence to suggest that the porphyria continued through to Queen Victoria's daughter, Victoria, and also to her daughters and grand-daughter?

A full grown man with haemophillia at that time of day would have been a bit of a rarity, wouldn't it - especially to have left no record of an illness? The young Tsarevich was constantly ill, even with all the money and experts they could throw at him.

[katie]

Originally Posted by MissCulture

Certainly, but I would be more interested in knowing if her father was actually her father for the reason being that the porphyria that came from her father's royal line suddenly disappeared with Victoria - strange. It did not come out in any of her children and has disappeared completely from the royal family. There was a theory that Victoria's mother had a dalliance with a close courtier named Sir John Conroy and that he is Victoria's real father and not the Duke of Kent. Consider this; the porphyria was inherited through the German line and by all reason should have appeared in one of Victoria's offspring or subsequent generation...it didn't. What did suddenly and mysteriously appear out of nowhere was the haemophilia that blighted her son Leopold's life and that of his descendants. Where did it come from...the Conroy line...? there's a portrait of Sir John Conroy and if you look at the nose of Victoria and Conroy (in profile) they are oddly similar. Imagine if this were proven to be true...when they took DNA to verify the remains of the Romanov royal family they took the DNA from Prince Phillip, not the Queen

BIB: It's extremely unlikely the Queen would have consented to provide DNA, not through any risk of something being proved or disproved but just because she wouldn't do that (provide DNA) and I doubt anyone would dare ask her Prince Philip is much more open about such things as I understand.

It certainly is interesting about Victoria's supposed parentage, stories have been flying for ages, the porphyria allegedly stopped at her (she didn't have it or not confirmed) out with her and haemophilia appeared. However I seem to remember reading that Prince William of Gloucester, the current Duke of Gloucester's older deceased brother and the Queen's cousin was alleged to have had porphyria. If it wasn't that, it was something else, need to do some re-reading.