She who must be portrayed
We are told, in a series currently being aired on BBC Two (“Queen Victoria’s Children”) & by a book flaunted on their website (Jane Ridley, A Life of Edward VII) that the home life of Victoria, Albert, et famille, was not an embodiment of perfect bliss; that paintings & photographs projecting “an image of a virtuous, devoted young couple surrounded by obedient, fair-haired children” may have been misleading.
This can come as a surprise only to the television audience, not to those previously exposed to a little history. Victoria’s temperament may be construed from her letters, & the anecdotes were circulating in her own day; though at least then the newspapers had the decency not to print them. That her relations with everyone around her were tempestuous, & those with her first-cousin husband compounded by a barely hinged sexual infatuation, were among those things “everyone who was anyone” knew, & none of them needed to know.
At Queen’s University up here in Kingston, Ontario, we have a huge collection of the letters of the late Benjamin Disraeli, novelist & sometime prime minister of the United Kingdom. Their number is astonishing — he turned them out like emails, sometimes thirty at a sitting, & of course in the good old days they were delivered around London at almost the speed of emails by the Royal Mail.
The late John Matthews, who was editing them (they will continue to appear in great thick annotated volumes for centuries to come), used to regale us at lunch with items illustrating the flirtatious tension between Disraeli & the old-widow Queen. A smart, but incredibly wilful woman, with an eye ever fixed on the trivial irritation, she adored Disraeli a little too openly, & hated his arch-rival Gladstone with a compensating serpentine passion. At one point Britain neared constitutional crisis, as she told her advisers that, election or no election, she would not have Gladstone as her prime minister. An ill & despondent Disraeli, loser of said election, had to be brought into the Palace to explain the situation to Her Majesty, & continue explaining until she scrawled a note to the effect that she was appointing Mr Gladstone, but only on the advice of her dear friend.
A little black-clothed bundle of crackling fire, through the decades after Prince Albert’s decease, she became almost ostentatiously reclusive, & left the impression she had no remaining interest in worldly affairs. In light of her correspondence & the anecdotes however, this will be seen as the opposite of the truth, & her meddling in the lives of her unfortunate children was among her many tracks of interest.
“Bertie,” later to become King Edward VII, was the first of her nine acute disappointments (four sons & five daughters). He was slow with his tutors, & she thought him a halfwit, referring obsessively to his narrow pointed head, & saying she shuddered at the sight of him. He had inherited her temper, & perhaps also her sexual intensity, but without her capacity to bottle them up, so that he lurched from scandal to scandal. But the flip side, also shared between them, was an inability to give anything up, so that the relationship between them remained constantly, & explosively, close. He made, in retrospect, as fine a King, as she made a Queen.
Some clever feminist should, by now, have written a biography of Her Late Majesty depicting her as the original “shriekie sister.” (Perhaps one has & we missed it.) Through all her pregnancies she remained revolted by the biologically distinguishing facts of womanhood, & later referred to her own grown daughters breastfeeding their babies as “cows.” She took inordinate relish in putting men down, & often reduced her own sainted husband to shoving gibbering apologetic notes under her door. Her “royal we” in conversation & correspondence has about it an air of the White Goddess, & when stipulating royal household arrangements she could leave her courtiers wincing from the blows of what felt like misandry; or perhaps, sudden emancipation from the female repression of the last ten thousand years.
As we hold, a magnificent Queen, all four-foot-eleven of her (at her accession; she had shrunk four inches by her Diamond Jubilee). To our mind her only flaw, besides not being Catholic, was her curious notion that she should hang the royal family up as an icon of “family values.” This had never been part of their job description, & was bound to lead to misunderstandings, & even muted suspicion of hypocrisy. She bequeathed this modernizing, public role to each of her successors (except Edward VIII), & through her progeny & example to many of the (mostly ill-fated) monarchies of the Continent. Add the paparazzi media, & we have these “democratic” monarchs today, with their offspring crushed under the burden of celebrity.
Whereas, a monarch should be remote; & journalists who get too close, for pictures, should be barracked in the Tower. People should mind their own business; & royal families should mind theirs.
A King or Queen in the post Reformation era (especially in the evil empire bequeathed by the repulsive murderer Henry VIII) … King Arthur would never be as they are. I cannot yield them any respect …
Cromwell … Robespierre … Those post-Reformation Commonwealthers and Republicans sure knew how to handle their monarchs. Progress strikes again.
With regard to bio-pics in general and movies about the British monarchy in particular, and how closely they hew to the historical record: on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is any Oliver Stone movie, and 10 is, let’s say, Patton (it’s hard to come up with a 10), where does Mrs. Brown rate? How about The King’s Speech (which I watched last night)? How about The Queen? I enjoyed all of those movies.
Not sure from our eirôn-o-meter how many took our subversive point. The comparison of Queen Victoria to Robespierre is instructive. She was the matriarch of a family which she held in subjection. Her own children feared her; most turned out well. The public generally looked upon her as a benign presence, the cause of pageantry, & symbol of peaceful continuity; of British freedom, Magna Carta & all that. And oh yes, British Imperialism: “Road on which all might come & go that would, / And bear our freight of worth to foreign lands.” (Wordsworth.) A few bitter republicans chafed. None were butchered.
Cf. Robespierre, the idealist champion of the Rights of Man, & pioneer of revolutionary terror. Who, in addition to the regicide, left mountains of corpses from persons of all classes & a wide range of political persuasions. Or Cromwell & his Roundheads, imposing Puritan righteousness with his New Model Army: another idealist psycho.
Up here in the High Doganate we are partial to the old widow woman. We also liked her grandfather, the basically harmless George III.
Neither of them even held slaves.
Another edition of The Anachronism Chonicles. I’m pleased to learn some were not slaveholders. It’s always nice to find a redeeming feature where one does not expect it.
Whether you agree with the monarchy or not, it is hard to criticize the amount of work and the seriousness with which Vickie, Georgie (largely through the Queen Mom) and Lizzie took on their roles.
Marriages in royal families have always been more a matter of convenience and consolidation of power than it has been about love, which isn’t to say that some royal couples were not in love and faithful. But their infidelities, never really hidden, were also never considered newsworthy until recent times.
Whether or not an infidelity has legs has more to do with the image that the person puts across than about the infidelity itself. That is why Larry Craig’s wide stance in an airport bathroom had more of an impact on his career than Clinton’s infidelities did on his. The same could be said for Tiger Woods. Does anyone think that if John Daly were caught with his pants down like Tiger was that it would be news?
What everyone despises more than anything, regardless of political stripe, is a hypocrite.
Good point from our CTC. It was after all the English monarch, Elizabeth I, who through her knight-pirate John Hawkyns — sponsored & supplied with her ships — established the English domination over the African slave trade that their Royal Navy later shut down. Queen Victoria was a huge improvement.
Elizabeth was among the great liberals, & mistress of liberal ways of talk. She instructed Hawkyns publicly, for instance, not to capture any “Negroes” without their consent. … Sending troops to dispossess the Irish by scorched earth, starve them by the tens of thousands & slaughter Catholic man woman & child, she publicly advised them to “treat the natives mildly.” (Did you know they sent Irish slaves to the West Indies?) … Declaring herself a champion of Christendom, she conspired with the Ottomans & Barbary States.
So as we say, George III was basically quite harmless.
Elizabeth was also guilty of regicide (cf. Mary, Queen of Scots). The two women were cousins, to boot.
Hollywood marriages are always about love. Or should I write Love? Everyone (a plurality at any rate) loves hypocrisy as long as it is economic and social … jumbo jet for me and not for thee … private health care for me and not for thee … lavish million dollar vacations for me, but not for thee … armed bodyguard for me but no gun for thee … equality for thee, but not for me … private school for mine, but not for thine … and so on ad boredom. People get a thrill up their leg to see such hypocrisy.
In defence of the English monarchy, we should add, Elizabeth Tudor was never a legitimate heir, as even the Protestants realized, when they were put to the trouble of making the daughter of Henry’s tart legitimate “retroactively.”
I became a staunch monarchist when I came to know today’s republicans. Need anyone say more?
There’s more interest in slaves than movies, evidently.
Hey, when Elizabeth I’s cronies were butchering the Irish (morosely of course), Edmund Spenser was the secretary to Lord Grey, one of the most violent of the bunch. How typical of the English that such a man as Spenser was capable of writing such fine and fun poetry.
When the Irish Potato famine was killing off the Irish in horrific numbers, Queen Victoria did appeal for funds to be sent to relieve her starving subjects. Not much happened, of course, because the Irish were viewed by most of the English upper-crusters as lower than farm animals (as old Swift suggested in his wonderful “A Modest Proposal”.)
Despite everything, it must always be remembered that there is not a single “progressive” liberal who doesn’t loathe the English monarchy. That is why we absolutely must support it in any way possible.
As for Robespierre, he was the most ardent disciple of that great hypocrite Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the wimpering scoundrel who trumpeted the rights of man while dumping his bastard children into the French orphanages where they were sure to have perished.
God save the Queen!
God save the Queen indeed. Scoundrels or heroes, at least they knew the meaning of DUTY which is what they were bred for.
Per the creator of that neologism, “feminazi,” the term describes a woman who seeks to increase womens’ political power by enabling and supporting the greatest possible number of elective abortions. I do not believe Her Majesty Queen Victoria fits the description.
Arkanabar makes a good point, & I have deleted the term from my text.