History Talk: The Victorian Era

[Calvada]

14 hours ago, jumper sage said:

I have had the book Queen Victoria's Mysterious Daughter on my reading list for some time and finally checked it out.  It is about her daughter Louise and she was born during all the hullaballoo in this season.  The show made it look like she was born on the very night they left for Osborne House but she was, in reality, 6 months old.  I am finding the book fascinating.  Apparently all records of this daughter have been collected and sealed.  She lived in Canada while her husband was a higher up in the government.  None of the records from Canada have survived as they were all collected and sealed in UK.  Louise was a sculptress and thought of as not very pretty by her mother.  The book goes into the time of the age and how Victoria, as we all know, was an unfeeling mother.  The children got on much better with Albert.

Louise is an interesting case.  An accomplished artist, including works on paper and sculpture, she supported the suffragist movement and was considered a feminist.  For example, she visited the first women to qualify as a physician in England.  She had a somewhat contentious relationship with the 2 sisters closest to her in age (Helena and Beatrice).  She did not want to marry a foreign prince, and instead married the Marquess of Lorne, the future Duke or Argyll.  They never had children, and there were rumors that he was gay.  They led increasingly separate lives, but she nursed him through his final illness and then had a nervous breakdown after his death in 1914.  She lived to be almost 92, dying in 1939.

[Nolefan]

4 hours ago, Calvada said:

Louise is an interesting case.  An accomplished artist, including works on paper and sculpture, she supported the suffragist movement and was considered a feminist.  For example, she visited the first women to qualify as a physician in England.  She had a somewhat contentious relationship with the 2 sisters closest to her in age (Helena and Beatrice).  She did not want to marry a foreign prince, and instead married the Marquess of Lorne, the future Duke or Argyll.  They never had children, and there were rumors that he was gay.  They led increasingly separate lives, but she nursed him through his final illness and then had a nervous breakdown after his death in 1914.  She lived to be almost 92, dying in 1939.

Was it Louise that sculpted the statue of of Victoria that is in front of Kensington Palace? Aren’t there also rumors that she had a child out of wedlock with one of her brother’s tutors and Victoria covered it up?

[Brn2bwild]

Ugh, found this at the PBS website:

Quote

Prince Albert Edward Wettin (1841-1910)
Prince Albert became King Edward VII in 1901. He took the family name of his father, Prince Albert, and hence on his coronation the monarchy moved from the House of Hanover to the House of Wettin.

WTF?  How hard is it to do basic research and confirm that Albert's house was Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?

[Calvada]

4 hours ago, Nolefan said:

Was it Louise that sculpted the statue of of Victoria that is in front of Kensington Palace? Aren’t there also rumors that she had a child out of wedlock with one of her brother’s tutors and Victoria covered it up?

Yes to both  of these.  Someone wrote a book about Louise, or about Victoria's daughters, and they had all this circumstantial evidence that she had a child with her brother's tutor when she was 18.  

[jumper sage]

They are really taking liberties with history!  Half of this stuff is made up.

[irisheyes]

8 minutes ago, jumper sage said:

They are really taking liberties with history!  Half of this stuff is made up.

Including the Duke of Monmouth!  Though, I admit, it would have been interesting to see Victoria treat him the same way the one and only Duke was treated. 😜

[Notwisconsin]

On 3/2/2019 at 10:58 PM, Brn2bwild said:

Ugh, found this at the PBS website:

WTF?  How hard is it to do basic research and confirm that Albert's house was Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?

Wetten was the "house" of many of the north German dukedoms, including Hanover and Coburg.

[Brn2bwild]

3 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

Wetten was the "house" of many of the north German dukedoms, including Hanover and Coburg.

True, but it had not been called Wettin for centuries.  The house at the time was known as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (or more colloquially, Coburg).

[arvene88]

it is so amazing that queen Elizabeth II had the chance to know queen Victoria's children! so many years ago, they had been born 2 centuries ago and she knew them 😄 I am very curious if they had talked about their mother, how she was in everyday life, queen Elizabeth was a teenager then but maybe she was curious like me 😛 maybe she talked about it in some media but I didn't find anything about it on the internet, do you know something about it? 🙂 sorry for some grammar mistakes but english is not my first language 😛

[Notwisconsin]

3 hours ago, arvene88 said:

it is so amazing that Queen Elizabeth II had the chance to know Queen Victoria's children! so many years ago, they had been born 2 centuries ago and she knew them!

 

No, they had been born 160 years ago and HM is nearly a century old herself (her hubby is 97). It's not that amazing at all. When I visited Britain as a kid, there were still coins with her face on it in circulation.

[LiveenLetLive]

re Princess Louise, wasn't she considered the beauty of the girls? The rumor was that she had a passionate love affair with an artist, and I think that most certainly her husband was gay, but that gave her the freedom to pursue her art instead of being constantly pregnant. As for the business of Victoria saving the Duchess from the loony bin our Vickie is turning out to be a real Mary Sue eh?

[Zella]

1 hour ago, LiveenLetLive said:

re Princess Louise, wasn't she considered the beauty of the girls? The rumor was that she had a passionate love affair with an artist, and I think that most certainly her husband was gay, but that gave her the freedom to pursue her art instead of being constantly pregnant. As for the business of Victoria saving the Duchess from the loony bin our Vickie is turning out to be a real Mary Sue eh?

She is one of the most aggressively Mary Sue-ish characters I've come across in something that wasn't fan fiction. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Zella

[Driad]

Happy 200th birthday, Victoria!  "Jeopardy!" celebrated with a category about you.

[dubbel zout]

The NYT had an extremely lame crossword puzzle that had QV as the main across clue and then one even lamer secondary clue. And that's it! Rex Parker was rightly enraged by the "tribute." (You might have to scroll for the 5/24 entry.)

[Roseanna]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 5:14 PM, Notwisconsin said:

...which to a small extent, Alix caused. While the kiddies could be considered martyrs, Nicholas and Alexandra deserved what they got.

I don't think anyone "deserves" to be murdered. 

As for rulers, it's not those who deliberately have murdered people usually get the punishment but weak ones like Nicholas II and Louis XVI. And killing also their spouses is due to sheer misogyny. Not that Alix and Marie Antoinette were blameless but they were hated because they were "aliens" and their reputation was deliberated destroyed with sexual charges.  

[Notwisconsin]

Hitler and Qaddafi, just to name two. Nicky ordered pogroms against Jews in the 1890s and 1900s and gave an official okay to the terror squad that started WWI. Alix egged him on.

[Kohola3]

1 hour ago, Notwisconsin said:

Hitler and Qaddafi,

Can't think of two better candidates for assassination.

[Roseanna]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 1:27 PM, Notwisconsin said:

Nicky ordered pogroms against Jews in the 1890s and 1900s and gave an official okay to the terror squad that started WWI. Alix egged him on.

Nicholas II didn't order pogroms. WW1 wasn't started by him - he only, as all other states, ordered mobilization. 

[Notwisconsin]

8 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Nicholas II didn't order pogroms. WW1 wasn't started by him - he only, as all other states, ordered mobilization. 

AS to the Pogroms, yeah, he gave the okay. His daddy started the program. As to starting WWI, the foreign minister of Serbia asked permission to launch the terrorist attack and he gave the go-ahead. 

[andromeda331]

7 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

AS to the Pogroms, yeah, he gave the okay. His daddy started the program. As to starting WWI, the foreign minister of Serbia asked permission to launch the terrorist attack and he gave the go-ahead. 

Yes he did. Nicholas II was a great husband, he loved his wife and kids, and a great family man. But he was not a good Tsar. He was incompetent and made and/okay a lot of horrible policies that hurt and killed a lot of people. His wife was equally incompetent. They did not deserve to be shot in basement with their children. But they weren't innocent. They were in charge, buck stopped with Nicholas and he did nothing to fix any of Russia's problems. True he inherited most of the problems but he made them worse, he refused to listen to anyone, refused to share power or give any rights to anyone.  The policies under his reign were horrible. The Bloody Sunday massacre where his troops opened fire on a peaceful protest.  He only gave into the Duma because he was forced to after the Bloody Massacre, strikes and Revolution of 1905. The Duma could have been a really good starting point. But he stripped it of its power and kept opening and closing it until he got one that would do whatever he wanted. He wouldn't do anything and he didn't do anything. Alexandra wasn't helpful at all. She banned anyone who disagreed with them or anyone she thought was a threat to her husband's power. As things were getting worse Nicholas left for the front and left the country in her hands. She hired and fired ministers based on whatever Rasputin thought and whether or not she liked them or not. 

I always liked the scene in the movie Nicholas and Alexandra from 1971 when Count Witte is talking to Nicholas after the tsar demands explanation for the Bloody Massacre it pretty much sums up Nicholas.
Nicholas: Why wasn't I told they were marching? 
Count Witte: Would you have met them? 
Nicholas: How could I? 
Count Witte: Would you have given them a Duma? 
Nicholas: Of course not! 
Count Witte: Elections? Schools? 
Nicholas: No... 
Count Witte: THEN WHY BOTHER TO INFORM YOU? YOU WOULDN'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING.

 

[Roseanna]

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Yes he did. Nicholas II was a great husband, he loved his wife and kids, and a great family man. But he was not a good Tsar. He was incompetent and made and/okay a lot of horrible policies that hurt and killed a lot of people. His wife was equally incompetent. They did not deserve to be shot in basement with their children. But they weren't innocent. They were in charge, buck stopped with Nicholas and he did nothing to fix any of Russia's problems. True he inherited most of the problems but he made them worse, he refused to listen to anyone, refused to share power or give any rights to anyone.  The policies under his reign were horrible. The Bloody Sunday massacre where his troops opened fire on a peaceful protest.  He only gave into the Duma because he was forced to after the Bloody Massacre, strikes and Revolution of 1905. The Duma could have been a really good starting point. But he stripped it of its power and kept opening and closing it until he got one that would do whatever he wanted. He wouldn't do anything and he didn't do anything. Alexandra wasn't helpful at all. She banned anyone who disagreed with them or anyone she thought was a threat to her husband's power. As things were getting worse Nicholas left for the front and left the country in her hands. She hired and fired ministers based on whatever Rasputin thought and whether or not she liked them or not. 

In order to understand history one should always look at the wide picture.

Alexander II had freed the serfs and in 1881 he was going to give Russia its first, although very limited, constitution. But before that he was assassinated by the revolutionaries who didn't want reforms as it would meant that there would be no revolution.  And they succeeded: the peaceful, progressive way for Russia was blocked as Alexander III, understandably angry because of his father's murder, refused to sign the constitution. 

As for Nicholas II, he was weak and that's always the most dangerous quality in a ruler in the time of revolution. He didn't even respect his most able prime ministers, Witte and especially Stolypin.  In order to put down wide spread terror (anyone in uniform could be a target in 1906-7) and other unrest (e.x. burning manors), Stolypin ordered to set up special courts-martials who could try prisoners within 24 hours of arrest and execute them immediately after that.

Comparing with the later times, however, the way the Russian government treated its political opponents was in many cases astoningly lenient. When the general guvernor of the Grand Duchy of Finland, Nicholas Bobrikov, was murdered in 1904 and the murderer committed suicide after his deed, his relatives were interrogated but not punished. When Finnish newspapers were abolished, editors just set up new ones. When the speaker of the Finnish Parliament, P. E. Svinhufvud, was exiled to Siberia, he lived there comfortably, enjoying hunting and his wife's regular visits.  

But of course it would be fairer to compare Nicholas's time with the British actions in Ireland, India etc.      

[andromeda331]

15 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

In order to understand history one should always look at the wide picture.

Alexander II had freed the serfs and in 1881 he was going to give Russia its first, although very limited, constitution. But before that he was assassinated by the revolutionaries who didn't want reforms as it would meant that there would be no revolution.  And they succeeded: the peaceful, progressive way for Russia was blocked as Alexander III, understandably angry because of his father's murder, refused to sign the constitution. 

Do you think Alexander ever really would have finally given Russia their first Constitution? I've read arguments both for and against. The against point to him pushing it back more then once. Its not a bad argument when you consider how freeing the Serfs didn't end up working out the way he thought it would. But obviously killing the one person seems to be most likely to sign one its really a bad idea. How they never realized that or that his son and the brand new Tsar they just put on the throne would most likely rejected all of that because they just killed his father I don't know. But when you think of how far they could have come had he lived until whenever his natural death would be and to when ever Nicholas would reign. They could have been further along with the Constitution and helping the Serfs.  There probably would still be problems when it was Nicholas's turn but they'd be further along. 

[andromeda331]

33 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

As for Nicholas II, he was weak and that's always the most dangerous quality in a ruler in the time of revolution. He didn't even respect his most able prime ministers, Witte and especially Stolypin.  In order to put down wide spread terror (anyone in uniform could be a target in 1906-7) and other unrest (e.x. burning manors), Stolypin ordered to set up special courts-martials who could try prisoners within 24 hours of arrest and execute them immediately after that.

Comparing with the later times, however, the way the Russian government treated its political opponents was in many cases astoningly lenient. When the general guvernor of the Grand Duchy of Finland, Nicholas Bobrikov, was murdered in 1904 and the murderer committed suicide after his deed, his relatives were interrogated but not punished. When Finnish newspapers were abolished, editors just set up new ones. When the speaker of the Finnish Parliament, P. E. Svinhufvud, was exiled to Siberia, he lived there comfortably, enjoying hunting and his wife's regular visits.  

But of course it would be fairer to compare Nicholas's time with the British actions in Ireland, India etc.      

Yes, Nicholas was weak. The annoying part was his father knew he was weak but did nothing to try and fix that. Why would you do nothing when your son is going to inherit your throne and given all the problems that the country had. Doing nothing insure Nicholas was weak and going to do a bad job. Had he been better prepared for it then maybe things would have turned out differently. Weakness is dangerous and so is incompetence. He continued the same bad policies and didn't do anything to fix the problems that he inherited. He was unable to do and/or incapable of doing that. He really didn't seem to see how bad things even when everyone else (except Alexandra) could see it. He really shouldn't have been so against the Duma. That really could have been a turning point. 

Stolypin , yeah there was someone who was executing people fast. The noose got the nickname Stolypin 's necktie for a reason. 

[andromeda331]

By the time they got around to executing him and his family, there was zero reason to do so. Nicholas wasn't shot for being a bad ruler and any bad decisions he made or allowed. They could have tried and convicted him on that. There had been talk of putting him on trial but that never happened. After abdicating he and his family became unimportant while everyone else battled it out to who would end up running the country, Basically everyone had more important things to worry about then the Tsar and his family. There was no reason to execute them all. They could have made a deal to transport them or even simply drop them off at any border and make them someone else's problem. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 1:11 PM, andromeda331 said:

By the time they got around to executing him and his family, there was zero reason to do so. Nicholas wasn't shot for being a bad ruler and any bad decisions he made or allowed. They could have tried and convicted him on that. There had been talk of putting him on trial but that never happened. After abdicating he and his family became unimportant while everyone else battled it out to who would end up running the country, Basically everyone had more important things to worry about then the Tsar and his family. There was no reason to execute them all. They could have made a deal to transport them or even simply drop them off at any border and make them someone else's problem. 

Of course there was a reason. If the Whites had capture Nicholas and his family alive, they could have used him or his son as a figurehead, saying that his abdication wasn't legal because he was forced to do so. Perhaps even one of his daughters would do in an emergency although they had been barred from succession. Only Alexandra was murdered for no reason than she couldn't have left alive as a wittness - the same applies to the servants.

In addition, the English killed Charles I and the French had killed Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, albeit after a (show) trial - killing binds the revolutionaries together for good for after it they can't turn around but must fight to save their own lives.     

[MadyGirl1987]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

In addition, the English killed Charles I and the French had killed Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, albeit after a (show) trial - killing binds the revolutionaries together for good for after it they can't turn around but must fight to save their own lives.     

It's funny... In all three of those examples, the killing of the sovereign(s) ended up either not working, as in how the English monarchy was restored, or making things worse, such as with the French Reign of Terror or Stalin leading Russia. Just goes to show how futile violence can be, often having disastrous consequences. 

[Driad]

Some monarchs have had epithets (nicknames), e.g. Pepin the Short and Ethelred the Unready.  If you could give Victoria a nickname, what would you call her?

[chitowngirl]

Victoria the Mourner?

[Razzberry]

Victoria the Unseeable

Victoria the Disagreeable

Another PBS special claims that she and Winston Churchill used to get high together on chewing gum laced with cocaine and marijuana baked goods.

Victoria the Unknowable?

[kassygreene]

1 hour ago, Razzberry said:

Victoria the Unseeable

Victoria the Disagreeable

Another PBS special claims that she and Winston Churchill used to get high together on chewing gum laced with cocaine and marijuana baked goods.

Victoria the Unknowable?

Wha?  Churchill, born in 1874, was first elected to Parliament in 1900, mere months before Victoria died?  a PBS special claimed this????

[Razzberry]

6 hours ago, kassygreene said:

Wha?  Churchill, born in 1874, was first elected to Parliament in 1900, mere months before Victoria died?  a PBS special claimed this????

Yep, it was a British production with actual historians, but I can't remember the name of it.  He had to be fairly young at the time and back from the war in Africa.  They talked about how much she hated smoking, hence the gum and other stuff.   Back then it was all legal and probably made the old girl feel better.