History Talk: The Victorian Era

[Pallas]

53 minutes ago, floridamom said:

When it looked like they were going to be King and Queen, why didn't they try for a son or two?

Edward became King in January 1936, and abdicated that December. No one in the family wanted to believe what they nonetheless did suspect: that even as King, he would yield to his greatest weaknesses and step down in order to marry the twice-married-yet-unmarriagable Mrs. Simpson.

The Duchess of York was 36 by then, and her husband was never robust. They may not have wanted or been able to conceive more than two children in pursuit of a son: that was not their duty. Elizabeth turned 10 during her uncle's reign, and was already a notably responsible, conscientious child. The "two little princesses" were established favorites of the public and a tame press which had no similar dynastic or domestic news to report of the heir. By the time Edward took the throne -- whether or not he might go on to rule another several decades -- no one was crying out for another Prince of Wales.

[Kohola3]

1 hour ago, floridamom said:

When it looked like they were going to be King and Queen, why didn't they try for a son or two?

Not being privy to their reproductive activities, they may have tried and failed.

[dubbel zout]

Plus, they might have been happy with two daughters.  It's not as if only men could ascend the throne.

[Blergh]

On 3/2/2018 at 10:08 PM, Brn2bwild said:

That makes me wonder if the show will ever be able to showcase some of the grandiosity Victoria displayed.  Somehow I don't see Show Victoria calling herself "the doyenne of sovereigns!" as the real one did.  

ETA: One question I've always had: was "Willie" really Victoria's favorite grandchild, as some sources claim?  I could see her feeling that way at first, as he was one of the only grandchildren Albert knew, but I've also read that she found him irritating, etc.  Other sources claim Alix was her favorite grandchild.  My guess is that she had several she favored, but ultimately loved all of them.   

 Willy had been her fave due to being the firstborn of her many grandkids. However; things somewhat soured re his ill treatment of his mother Vicky (Vic's fave child) and his openly supporting the Boers against the British in South Africa. Also Vic considered his wife the Empress Augusta (called 'Dona') to be a mindless, pompous bore- despite the fact that Dona was a granddaughter of her own beloved half-sister Princess Feodora of Leiningen! Still, somehow they were able to put that aside when he made it to her deathbed and actually supported her with his good arm as  Vic breathed her last. One of the frustrating things about Willy was that, occasionally, he could actually show some decency and even compassion but those moments seemed very short lived. At the tail end of WWI, he even tried to have the widowed Grand Duchess Ella of Russia  rescued (who had been worked tirelessly as a nun for helping the destitute after her own husband's assassination ) due to his having admired her as a youth- despite the fact that their nations had been engaged in a horrific war on the Eastern Front  and had only recently made an uneasy truce when the White Revolution overthrew the Czardom.    Alas, she was executed anyway.

 

 I think, apart from Vic's anxiety re Alix's choice of mate happening to be Russian,  Alix and her siblings being the children of the too-soon-departed Princess Alice never wavered re being among Vic's faves!

  Of course, Vic was by no means above playing the faves against each other when it suited her!

[Blergh]

On 3/5/2018 at 9:00 AM, dubbel zout said:

Plus, they might have been happy with two daughters.  It's not as if only men could ascend the throne.

George VI never attempted to make his daughter Elizabeth anything but the heiress presumptive so that tells me that he thought that somehow he and his wife might possibly have a late-in-life son. Amazingly enough, there WAS gossip of the 51-year-old Queen Mother being in the family way upon her husband's death but it fizzled out almost immediately. Had that gossip proved true and she'd actually borne a SON, it would ended QEII's reign within months.

 

To bring this back to the Vic world: there was some gossip that William IV's wife the 44-year-old Queen Adelaide  might have been pregnant upon the 72-year-old's death  but, again, this fizzled out. However; Queen Adelaide (as Duchess of Clarence) HAD borne two daughters who'd died in infancy so had she had a third child that would have displaced Vic-regardless of the gender.

[CousinAmy]

On 2/28/2018 at 10:51 PM, Brn2bwild said:

I wonder if anyone would have ultimately succeeded in that role.  Nicholas's grandfather was assassinated.  His uncle Sergei was blown up -- who's to say his father, Alexander III, might not have been assassinated as well had he not died prematurely of other causes?  Alix's mother-in-law, Marie Feodorovna, dazzled high society as Empress, but I don't know how the other classes viewed her.  After WWI, her popularity didn't save her -- she still ended up fleeing Russia forever.  Popularity also didn't stop Alix's older sister, Elisabeth, from being murdered by Bolsheviks. 

Definitely.  And yet I've read that she wasn't as hung up on Rasputin as many sources claim.

To bring this back to Victoria herself, a lot of people think that the hemophilia came about because she and Albert were first cousins.  I read, though, (wish I remembered where) that it was caused by a mutant gene from one of her parents, probably her father.

Was it known at the time that the hemophilia was inherited, and passed down from Victoria and Albert to their children and grandchildren? I don't know if they knew much about genes, or how they were passed - did Victoria feel any guilt over it? I don't see how she could have - a "condition" that mothers pass on to their boys would have taken several weeks of DNA 101and I doubt the Queen would have been that interested.

[Pallas]

An article that speaks to how Prince Leopold's death advanced research into hemophilia. The disease was understood to be hereditary, though neither the transmission process nor the exact pathology were understood. Care was taken by Victoria's physicians and the British press in addressing the subject in public. The article, likewise, skirts the issue of exactly what Victoria knew -- or at least, what action she took.

[dubbel zout]

I think the women in the family were aware they passed it on, and I've read in various places they did have terrible guilt, because it caused their sons terrible pain and suffering. Alexei's constant illness was one reason Alexandra glommed onto Rasputin, as he claimed he could heal the tsarevich.

1 hour ago, Pallas said:

Care was taken by Victoria's physicians and the British press in addressing the subject in public.

When George VI was sick, the same thing happened. Patients had very little agency for a very long time.

[Pallas]

 

8 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

When George VI was sick, the same thing happened. Patients had very little agency for a very long time

True. In this case, though, it seemed that the physicians were being circumspect with Victoria about a subject both parties understood was real and dire and not to be spoken of. The physicians' public statements were Palace statements. The newspaper colluded in this politesse by making no mention of Prince Leopold's hemophilia in their obituaries, while running large features about the disease in the same edition. 

[Motor City]

Didn’t anyone in the court, the Prime Minister, the archbishop or the press object to first cousins marrying and think it was unwise? 

[Zella]

Wasn't cousin marriages for royals still fairly common at that time? Or were they usually between more distant cousins?

Edited to add: Used a little Google-fu, I think I answered my own question. It does look like the first cousin aspect would be considered unusual and undesirable by the 1800s. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Zella

[Driad]

One of the more horrible examples of inbreeding was Charles II of Spain, who died in 1700.  His ancestry included "several matches between first cousins and two between uncles and nieces. Charles’s own mother was the niece of his father, and his grandmother was also his aunt."  

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/04/14/how-inbreeding-killed-off-a-line-of-kings/

[Anothermi]

Oh dear. I remember reading out him.

[Zella]

Randomly enough, I was reading about him earlier today. I've seen images of him before, but I still never get over the shock. 

[Pallas]

Darwin did it. And it's still legal in the U.K.

[Zella]

I thought it was interesting that in most of Europe it is legal today. (Interesting mostly because I'm originally from Appalachian North Carolina and have heard way too many jokes over the years about my ancestors/family all being cousins.)

[Brn2bwild]

5 hours ago, Motor City said:

Didn’t anyone in the court, the Prime Minister, the archbishop or the press object to first cousins marrying and think it was unwise? 

No, because it was just something people did back then.  The Church did, on the other hand, prohibit widowers from marrying their wife's sister on the grounds that it was incest, so go figure...

[TVFAN]

On 3/1/2018 at 7:17 AM, Eri said:

Prior to watching this series, I was reading one of my history books on monarchs and decided to read up on Queen Victoria just to get an idea of how accurate they'd be.  After the fallout with Lehzen, I had read that after the death of the Duchess of Kent (Victoria's mother), Victoria had sorted through her private papers left behind and concluded that her mother had in fact loved her (despite the rigid upbringing), and that Conroy and Baroness Lehzen were to blame for the breach in their relationship that had continued for so long. This sank Victoria into a deep grief which resulted in Albert taking over most of the royal duties and it took its toll as his health was already deteriorating from 1859 and was suffering from chronic stomach problems.

Naturally, I went into the show already with a distaste for Lehzen and was not sorry to see her go, but has any of the other history buffs heard of this before?

My experience was just the opposite.  I read The Heir Apparent: A Life of Edward VII, the Playboy Prince, and it painted Lehzen in a more sympathetic light.  Albert was more than a bit of a control freak, and he detested her influence over Victoria, so he got rid of her.  Both she and Victoria were devastated.  He later did the same thing to Prince Edward.  Albert became jealous of a tutor to whom little Edward was close and sent him packing.  I will be very curious to see how the show portrays Albert the father.  He was incredibly harsh to his children, particularly his sons.  Poor Edward was criticized at every turn and forced to work with his tutor from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. six days a week.  Understandably, he acted out, which brought brought about even more criticism.  (Victoria was no better.)

[Blergh]

8 hours ago, Motor City said:

Didn’t anyone in the court, the Prime Minister, the archbishop or the press object to first cousins marrying and think it was unwise? 

No, not at the time. However; some featherbrain actually went on a rant about the calamities wreaked from cousins marrying to the widowed Victoria who icily put an end to it by exclaiming 'We were cousins!'

Still, I think it's likely that that particular union went to cousin well one time too many which brought down two dynasties on opposite ends of Europe (Russia and Spain) via the hemophilia the close union triggered from obscurity (and there IS evidence that some early deaths of boys in  the Saxe-Coburg line may actually have been evidence of it before V&A).

[CarpeDiem54]

This book looks fascinating.  Victorians Undone

[Atlanta]

Found this cool podcast: http://thehistorychicks.com/

They cover Queen Victoria and other Victorian era women (among other eras).

[andromeda331]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:05 PM, Brn2bwild said:

No, because it was just something people did back then.  The Church did, on the other hand, prohibit widowers from marrying their wife's sister on the grounds that it was incest, so go figure...

There was also a law in England forbidden marriage of widowers and their wife's sister Victoria tried get around it after Alice died and for awhile she had the idea of marrying Beatrice to Alice's widower but was unable to make it happen.  Ironically, most got around the law by going to France and getting married their and returning to England.  It often was the easiest solution for a widower who needed mother for his children.                         

[andromeda331]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 5:17 AM, Eri said:

Prior to watching this series, I was reading one of my history books on monarchs and decided to read up on Queen Victoria just to get an idea of how accurate they'd be.  After the fallout with Lehzen, I had read that after the death of the Duchess of Kent (Victoria's mother), Victoria had sorted through her private papers left behind and concluded that her mother had in fact loved her (despite the rigid upbringing), and that Conroy and Baroness Lehzen were to blame for the breach in their relationship that had continued for so long. This sank Victoria into a deep grief which resulted in Albert taking over most of the royal duties and it took its toll as his health was already deteriorating from 1859 and was suffering from chronic stomach problems.

I've really wondered about that. I've read many Victoria biographies Lehzen usually comes off being nice and really seems like the only person who listened to Victoria and had her back growing up. But then after Victoria marries she seems unable to accept Victoria listening to someone else or doesn't seem to pay much of any attention to Albert. But always takes Victoria's side in fights and agrees when ever Victoria says anything bad or is mad with her husband. That she sometimes added fuel to the fire.  Lehzen and Albert clash over everything especially over her running the nursery which it does seem like she's doing a bad job. But Victoria always takes her side until that time when Vicky gets really sick and neither will listen to Albert about how sick the baby really is. When he proves to be right that seems to be at least in most biographies I've read the moment when Victoria sees he's right and she gets sacked. There were a few parts that always confused me. If she was looking out for Victoria's interests like she supposedly was when why the sudden change when Victoria got married? Why did Lehzen suddenly become so bad at running the nursery? She did a good job carrying for Victoria. What changed? Was it her age? If she was taking Victoria's side when Victoria was angry, venting or whatever about her husband, did she do that when Victoria was growing up and angry at her mother for something? It would be really easy for her to do while Victoria was isolated and growing up with no one else to turn to except Lehzen. Maybe she thought she could do the same thing after Victoria married but it didn't work she loved her husband. Why did she refused to listen to anything being wrong with Vicky? She was so insistent that she was right to the point the baby almost died. Victoria and her mother ended up repairing their relationship.          

[andromeda331]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 11:40 AM, Blergh said:

I can't help but feel that WWI wound up being the excuse virtually every member of the Windsor family was looking for in ending their ties with the annoying Kaiser (even after he was said to have Abdicated and living in a tight exile in Holland, George V didn't so much as write him again much less visit him despite the two having virtually grown up together).

 

   OTOH, I can't help but think that Edward VII and, especially, Victoria would have been absolutely livid at George V patently refusing refuge to one of Vic's fave grandchildren and her family (the Romanovs). I mean, Vic herself had no less than TWO deposed French dynasties living in Great Britain at one time and she'd have just told anyone to 'naff off' had they dared complain about her giving refuge to a grandchild (and if the government had attempted any flak, she'd have made a   public spectacle of her disdain as she did Gladstone re Khartoum).

This always drives me crazy! Either in biographies or in documentaries when they try to explain why George V refused to allow the Romanovs to come to Great Britain. That he was worried about it would end up being a revolution or something in his own country. TWO deposed French dynasties lived in Great Britain. Including Napoleon III and yet the country survived. Nothing happened. But that never gets pointed out.      

[dubbel zout]

11 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That [George V] was worried about it would end up being a revolution or something in his own country. TWO deposed French dynasties lived in Great Britain. Including Napoleon III and yet the country survived. Nothing happened. But that never gets pointed out.      

The world was a very different place in 1917: WWI had toppled a lot of monarchies, so I think the danger of political unrest by allowing the Romanovs into Great Britain was a legit concern. That it didn't happen is something we know only in hindsight. I feel for George—he was put in a terrible position, and I think his hands were tied to a certain degree by constitutional limitations.

[Driad]

13 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

There was also a law in England forbidden marriage of widowers and their wife's sister ...  It often was the easiest solution for a widower who needed mother for his children.

In the early U.S., widowers with children often married their wife's sister.  The sister and the children already knew each other, and the widower probably expected that she would treat her own nieces and nephews better than an unrelated woman would treat them.

[Brn2bwild]

12 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

The world was a very different place in 1917: WWI had toppled a lot of monarchies, so I think the danger of political unrest by allowing the Romanovs into Great Britain was a legit concern. That it didn't happen is something we know only in hindsight. I feel for George—he was put in a terrible position, and I think his hands were tied to a certain degree by constitutional limitations.

Supposedly George V had secret plots to save the Romanovs, but that might be wistful thinking on the part of his descendants. 

[nx74defiant]

Given the Ernst & Harriet storyline do they plan to ignore his poor wife completely?

I found it interesting to read about her. She adored Ernst, calling him "my treasure".

[Driad]

"The Victorian Pharmacy" -- a short series (4 episodes?).  Episode 1.

[Anothermi]

19 hours ago, Driad said:

"The Victorian Pharmacy" -- a short series (4 episodes?).  Episode 1.

Thanks for bringing this.  I've liked their previous "lived" history programs (at least Ruth Goodman has been in all of them i.e. The Victorian Farm, The Edwardian Farm and the like).  Got this one bookmarked now.

[Roseanna]

On ‎7‎.‎3‎.‎2018 at 2:36 AM, Blergh said:

George VI never attempted to make his daughter Elizabeth anything but the heiress presumptive so that tells me that he thought that somehow he and his wife might possibly have a late-in-life son. 

Maybe there was medical reasons why the couple had difficulties to conceive and/or it would endangered the duchess of York's health to give birth to more children?

I don't think it was in George VI's power to alter Elizabeth's position that was due of her gender. And from the government's POV, there was a theoretical possible that if Queen Elizabeth had died, George VI would have remarried and had a son.

[AZChristian]

58 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I don't think it was in George VI's power to alter Elizabeth's position that was due of her gender. And from the government's POV, there was a theoretical possible that if Queen Elizabeth had died, George VI would have remarried and had a son.

The desire for a son to inherit the throne is why Henry VIII kept divorcing/beheading wives who couldn't fulfill that wish for him.  Jane Seymour (his third wife) finally gave him a son, who became king for about 5 years, starting when he was 10.  He had a Regency Council to lead him as he ruled.  Then Mary (Henry's firstborn daughter) became queen, and then Elizabeth took over when Mary died with no children.  

Succession regardless of gender only became the law in 2013.  So if George had eventually had a son - with the Queen Mum or a different wife - that son would have become king, and Elizabeth and Philip would have probably lived out their years as a happy naval officer and his wife.

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, AZChristian said:

The desire for a son to inherit the throne is why Henry VIII kept divorcing/beheading wives who couldn't fulfill that wish for him.  Jane Seymour (his third wife) finally gave him a son, who became king for about 5 years, starting when he was 10.  He had a Regency Council to lead him as he ruled.  Then Mary (Henry's firstborn daughter) became queen, and then Elizabeth took over when Mary died with no children.  

Yes, but in Henry's time there had had no reigning Queens in England (but Empress Mathilda who lost). In George VI's time, England had had several reigning Queens and one he had known personally - his great-greatmother Victoria. 

In addition, Henry was stubborn, unlike the French king who married his daughter to her cousin. Henry was also old-fashioned, unlike Gustav II Adolf of Sweden who had no difficulty to accept his daughter and only child Christina as his heir and who, before he fell in the battle of Lützen, had modernized his realm such that its government was not depended on the monarch. 

[CousinAmy]

In a documentary I saw, they said that George was disappointed when Elizabeth planned to get married so young, since he thought that the four of them would have stayed together just a bit longer. I think he loved and trusted Elizabeth and knew she could handle the demands and obligations of The Crown.

[Roseanna]

On ‎19‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 3:29 PM, Notwisconsin said:

In the interview shown after the latest episode, the showrunner said how little girls loved how strong Victoria was. Do they want to ruin that by having a better part of a season with HM as a basket case similar to George III? One of the good things about this show was the willingness to tackle big historical problems like the Irish famine.

So best to have it end with the very start of Albert's final illness and a title card stating that he died, and she would live on until 1901.

I don't think a person can be described strong if she has not met any serious problems and/or sorrows. Even modern little girls should learn that how hard life earlier was when people generally died younger and parents lost at least one child. 

If Victoria had been ordinary women, they could not have have wallowed in self-pity for years because she would have taken care of her children, perhaps even had problems with livelihood.

Of course, the actress is so youthful that she can hardly present even the middle age Victoria.     

[Notwisconsin]

On 3/2/2018 at 11:09 AM, dubbel zout said:

Or perhaps she felt a minor German princess wasn't a good enough match for the heir to the Russian throne. Or that she couldn't control Alix from that far away. Victoria was a meddler who put herself first a lot of the time when it came to her relatives' loves and lives. I'm sure she could be a great support, but she also had to have been a nightmare to deal with, whether you were a favorite or not.

Fun fact: Catherine the Great was a minor German princess and so was her husband (which is why she had him killed).

Edited April 9, 2018 by Notwisconsin

[Roseanna]

Abut breaking the engagement: in Whited sepulchres by Anne Perry it's a very serious matter, not only because it was honorably that a man kept his word but even legally. The father of the fiancee even sued the man for "breach of promise". His daughter's reputation would have been damaged as people would have made a conclusion that she had no virtue.   

[dubbel zout]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

His daughter's reputation would have been damaged as people would have made a conclusion that she had no virtue.   

That argument was used—successfully—by Prince Philip on Charles when Charles was dithering about Diana.

[yorklee2]

Quote

How can a man be "giddy with happiness" proposing a marriage just after losing his lover and woman accepting him but but knowing he loves another? Either they pretend feelings they don't feel or they betray themselves. Or, most likely, the writers are lazy.

Maybe "giddy" was not the right word but they both did seem to be very happy. This is what I saw. Did you watch? I'm beginning to think we are taking about different episodes. 

You mean he "loved" another. You will always carry that love in your heart but you can't love a ghost. A ghost of a love can not be your companion, friend and confidante. I see your point about loving another so soon after losing a love. But this was not a ordinary situation. Miss Coke had showed him compassion and empathy when he lost Drummond so he knew he could talk to her about and grieve over Drummond and she would give him the time needed to do that.

As I've said I don't know where the writers are going with this. Lord Alfred could just as well stay and grow to love her or he could find another man to love within the understanding of the marriage. You seem to know how they would feel as you said they "pretend feelings" or they "betray themselves". You assume to know Lord Alfred is strictly homosexual when he could just as well be bisexual. I have seen bisexuals end up with only one sex or at the very least learn to love either sex. So him falling for his wife over time is within the realm of possibility if that be the case. Maybe that's where the writers are going. 

Or maybe not. They both have things to gain from the marriage so maybe it will be more like a amicable and rewarding business partnership. But your contention seems to be that there is no way they can be happy together. My observation from watching the episode is quite the contrary. They seemed to be, if happy isn't the right word, content. Yes they acted very content. 

But again we will see.

ETA: After checking I see we were talking about different episodes. Sorry if I've spoiled anything. It had been awhile since I had watched so when I got your notification I automatically answered back not realizing there was another episode to go.

Edited May 19, 2018 by yorklee2

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, yorklee2 said:

ETA: After checking I see we were talking about different episodes. Sorry if I've spoiled anything. It had been awhile since I had watched so when I got your notification I automatically answered back not realizing there was another episode to go.

Oh, what a relief! 

I saw them walking after the funeral and thought it really weird if he had proposed in such a situation and then they had been "giddy with happiness". 

[Roseanna]

On ‎19‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 7:30 AM, yorklee2 said:

You mean he "loved" another. You will always carry that love in your heart but you can't love a ghost. A ghost of a love can not be your companion, friend and confidante. I see your point about loving another so soon after losing a love. But this was not a ordinary situation. Miss Coke had showed him compassion and empathy when he lost Drummond so he knew he could talk to her about and grieve over Drummond and she would give him the time needed to do that.

As I've said I don't know where the writers are going with this. Lord Alfred could just as well stay and grow to love her or he could find another man to love within the understanding of the marriage. You seem to know how they would feel as you said they "pretend feelings" or they "betray themselves". You assume to know Lord Alfred is strictly homosexual when he could just as well be bisexual. I have seen bisexuals end up with only one sex or at the very least learn to love either sex. So him falling for his wife over time is within the realm of possibility if that be the case. Maybe that's where the writers are going. 

Or maybe not. They both have things to gain from the marriage so maybe it will be more like a amicable and rewarding business partnership. But your contention seems to be that there is no way they can be happy together. My observation from watching the episode is quite the contrary. They seemed to be, if happy isn't the right word, content. Yes they acted very content. 

But again we will see.

I must confess that my problem in watching this show is that I have difficulty to believe in the story such as the writers present it because so many matters are different, indeed unlikely, from history.

I can't believe that an innocent and inexperienced girl like Miss Cooke who probably didn't even know anything about sex before she married could be so tolerant towards homosexuality.  That's simply too modern. Her grandmother is another matter.      

[Roseanna]

On ‎19‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 7:30 AM, yorklee2 said:

You mean he "loved" another. You will always carry that love in your heart but you can't love a ghost. A ghost of a love can not be your companion, friend and confidante. 

I disagree that you can't love a dead person. If love means only what your lover can give you, you would seek for another to love also when your lover is away, f.ex. in war. 

Some people can easily find another to lover, but to others there is only one love that nobody else can replace. 

The reason isn't only ethics but probably at least also psychologhy. Some fit together with many persons. F.ex. Miss Cooke can evidently love almost any man who is kind to her. Others can fit with only one person.

Of course there is also a danger that one idealizes the dead person and therefore misses an opportunity to love a living person.  

[Razzberry2]

 I think the marriage can work if there's equally compelling reasons, but I'm not sure what Miss Coke's are.  She seems fairly young but perhaps we're to believe she's running out of options and approaching the horror of "spinsterhood".  The real Lord A had like 14 children, so maybe taking it for the team he ends up falling in love with her and they live happily-ever-after.   It is a fairy-tale after all.  ;-) 

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, Razzberry2 said:

 I think the marriage can work if there's equally compelling reasons, but I'm not sure what Miss Coke's are.  She seems fairly young but perhaps we're to believe she's running out of options and approaching the horror of "spinsterhood".  The real Lord A had like 14 children, so maybe taking it for the team he ends up falling in love with her and they live happily-ever-after.   It is a fairy-tale after all.  ;-) 

To me, 14 children doesn't prove so much happy marriage as that a husband doesn't care a bit for the health of his wife.

There were methods of cntraception also at that time which is shown by France's low population growth after Napoleon gave rights to inherit also to others than the eldest son and peasants naturally didn't want to divide the farm.  

[Roseanna]

I don't remember whether the background of King Leopold is told in the show. He seems only a meddler, but actually death robbed him the role of Prince Consort when his wife, the heir presumptive Princess Charlotte died after giving birth to a stillborn child. No wonder he is so interested in his niece Victoria and his nephew Albert, especially as dynasties weren't bound to nations but wanted get their members to rule so many countries as possible.   

[andromeda331]

12 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I don't remember whether the background of King Leopold is told in the show. He seems only a meddler, but actually death robbed him the role of Prince Consort when his wife, the heir presumptive Princess Charlotte died after giving birth to a stillborn child. No wonder he is so interested in his niece Victoria and his nephew Albert, especially as dynasties weren't bound to nations but wanted get their members to rule so many countries as possible.   

A little. They mentioned how much money he was getting paid by Parliament after Charlotte's death and there was another episode where he talks to Victoria about her death. I don't remember if it was the same episode where Victoria was worried about dying in childbirth or not. 

[Razzberry2]

On 5/23/2018 at 2:16 AM, Roseanna said:

To me, 14 children doesn't prove so much happy marriage as that a husband doesn't care a bit for the health of his wife.

There were methods of cntraception also at that time which is shown by France's low population growth after Napoleon gave rights to inherit also to others than the eldest son and peasants naturally didn't want to divide the farm.  

I'm so thankful not have been born in those times.  Every so often remembering what my grandmother and her mother's life were like is to appreciate anew the choices I have today.

It's no wonder that Irish emigration was unique in that single women far outnumbered the men.  For generations kin groups lived on plots of land divided up like a collective as insurance against starvation.  Cousins did marry cousins, but occasionally new names are recorded from neighboring farms, so perhaps enough to refresh the blood line. 

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Razzberry2 said:

I'm so thankful not have been born in those times.  Every so often remembering what my grandmother and her mother's life were like is to appreciate anew the choices I have today.

I have studied my family which is quite easy as the Lutheran Church kept records for centuries. Actually, couples usually had 4-5 children. The only exception is my paternal grandmother who married young and had 11 children (two infants died) but got only 12 grandchildren. 

As for Victoria, A. N. Wilson tells in his biography why Albert wanted many children: they were potential pawns in the royal marriage market where her own mother had splendidly succeeded.  

[Driad]

What education did Victoria get?  Apparently she learned German and French as well as English.  As heir presumptive she should have received a good background in history and law.

[Nolefan]

On 5/27/2018 at 12:03 PM, Driad said:

What education did Victoria get?  Apparently she learned German and French as well as English.  As heir presumptive she should have received a good background in history and law.

Seemed like she learned a couple of languages, music, and drawing. The show seemed to indicate that Lehzen was in charge of her education, and there was a scene where Lehzen had a pile of books about government that they had not gotten to yet. You would think that with Victoria locked in Keningston Palace all those years with nothing to do, there would have been plenty of time to read, learn math, etc. But maybe with Lehzen in charge of her education, it was the blind leading the blind.