Royal Gossip
July 28, 2017, 01:39:10 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Queen Victoria & Prince Albert  (Read 4457 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FrederickLouis
courtier
**
Online Online

Posts: 431



« Reply #100 on: January 22, 2017, 09:48:44 pm »

The name of the Albert chain comes from Prince Albert. He wore his watch chain horizontally. He attached it from the right pocket to the left pocket.
Logged
FrederickLouis
courtier
**
Online Online

Posts: 431



« Reply #101 on: April 30, 2017, 12:30:17 am »

Top ten facts about Queen Victoria   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLKMOzF0Iq4
Logged
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1721


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #102 on: May 09, 2017, 10:52:11 pm »

Top ten facts about Queen Victoria   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLKMOzF0Iq4


  Sorry,  but some of the facts are not correct at all.
Logged

HRHOlya
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1396



« Reply #103 on: June 02, 2017, 01:13:28 pm »

Who said the Victorians had no sense of humour? Hilariously candid snaps show the lighter side of 19th century life (and even a certain Queen looks amused for once)

    Victorian people would often pose with blank faces as they had to stand still because of a long exposure time
    But a collection of amusing black-and-white photographs shows their quirky side as many pulled funny faces
    One woman rested two cups of tea on her breasts while Queen Victoria was even spotted smiling in Aldershot


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4565448/Candid-snaps-19th-century-Britons-messing-around.html

This photograph which was taken towards the end of the 19th century in Aldershot, Hampshire
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/02/10/4105198000000578-0-image-a-76_1496396678908.jpg
Logged
FrederickLouis
courtier
**
Online Online

Posts: 431



« Reply #104 on: June 03, 2017, 01:37:14 am »

Queen Victoria travelled to Ireland in 1900. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9gwnKH15Xo
Logged
FrederickLouis
courtier
**
Online Online

Posts: 431



« Reply #105 on: June 07, 2017, 01:22:45 am »

In 1866 Queen Victoria attended the opening of Parliament. She did not give the customary speech.
Logged
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3144


« Reply #106 on: June 07, 2017, 02:33:50 am »

^ I don't know anything about that. Perhaps she was ill?  dontknow
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2895


« Reply #107 on: June 07, 2017, 03:13:57 am »

Queen Victoria opened Parliament in February 1866 for the first time since Albert's death in December 1861. She didn't want to do it and made sure that everyone, including the Prime Minister, knew what a 'severe trial' it was to her. She was agitated, unable to eat, wore a diamond and sapphire coronet on top of her widow's cap, rode there and back in a carriage, and wore her customary black clothing. She used a different entrance to the usual monarch's one to avoid 'staring people' and felt as if she was going to faint.

Victoria did gradually come out in the public gaze under the influence of her favourite Prime Minister, Disraeli in subsequent years, and even opened Parliament again in 1867, provided she wasn't asked again.

However she opened Parliament again only seven times more in the rest of her reign (she died at the beginning of 1901.) Victoria didn't read her speeches from the throne at the openings of Parliament. She sat and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did it for her.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 03:16:23 am by Rosella » Logged
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3144


« Reply #108 on: June 07, 2017, 03:42:23 am »

^ That's really sad. It's too bad abdicating was not a common trend back then like it is for the continental royals today. She was unable to do her job so she probably should have let her son take over.  dontknow
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2895


« Reply #109 on: June 07, 2017, 04:32:48 am »

^ Oh no! Even though Victoria did moan and whine and *female dog* about performing public duties she didn't like, receiving foreign dignitaries she didn't care for, or showing herself in public more than the absolute minimum except for her last years, there is no way on God's earth Victoria would have abdicated and allowed her son to become King! He wasn't even allowed to read the red boxes she tended to every day, and to be fair on one or two occasions Edward spread some political gossip around he wasn't supposed to.

She felt he wasn't serious minded enough, unlike dearest Albert, disapproved of his wine, women and sporting lifestyle, and she herself enjoyed being Queen. She just wanted to be left alone, that's all, to mourn Albert!
Logged
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3144


« Reply #110 on: June 08, 2017, 08:02:26 am »

^ Seems odd that she would complain so much. What about the stiff upper lip? Hadn't she been trained for the role since birth in case her uncles died without issue? I notice her father had three older brothers and he died before it would have been his turn to be King. Her father and one of her uncles died shortly after she was born and another uncle when she was 11. She had no cousins ahead of her in the line of succession except Princess Elizabeth, who was a year-and-a-half younger than Victoria and only lived to be less than three months old, so she was raised as heiress presumptive.

George III (grandfather) 4 Jun 1738-29 Jan 1820 (aged 81)

George IV (uncle) 12 Aug 1762-26 Jun 1830 (aged 67)
Princess Charlotte (cousin) 7 Jan 1796-6 Nov 1817 (aged 21)
(stillborn first cousin once removed)

Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (uncle) 16 Aug 1763-5 Jan 1820 (aged 63)
no issue

William IV (uncle) 21 Aug 1765-20 June 1837 (aged 71)
(10 illegitimate children)
Princess Charlotte of Clarence (cousin) 27 Mar 1819-27 Mar 1819 (aged <1 day)
(stillborn child)
Princess Elizabeth of Clarence (cousin) 10 Dec 1820-4 Mar 1821 (aged 2 months 24 days)
(stillborn twin boys)

Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn (father) 2 Nov 1767-22 Jan 1820 (aged 52)
Queen Victoria 24 May 1819-22 Jan 1901 (aged 81)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2017, 08:04:49 am by leogirl » Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2163



« Reply #111 on: June 08, 2017, 08:26:52 am »

Victoria was not properly prepared to be Queen by her mother. She was kept away from court as much as possible and was never allowed anywhere at all alone. Her mother and her mother's Comptroller of the Household tried to get Victoria to even ask for a Regency for when she did become Queen while she was ill but she was able to keep her wits about her long enough to prevent that.

When she did become Queen she had to learn the job basically from scratch. She was only just 18.

Then she married when she was 21 and proceeded to have 9 children in 17 years. By the end of those years Albert was doing most of the 'monarchy' stuff and she had forgotten a lot of it and so had to relearn her role after he died.

She would never have abdicated. That was unthinkable back then - just as it still is for HM Queen Elizabeth II, Victoria's great-great-granddaughter.

After Albert died Victoria did the essential part of her job - red the boxes and signed the laws into effect. She met with her PMs weekly when parliament was sitting. She didn't do much of the ceremonial - some of which was even created largely by her son - certainly in their present form. Victoria didn't see any necessity for her to be seen to be a loved and revered Queen. In many ways she was just as popular as Elizabeth is today with both having approval ratings well into the 70+% range.

Even when there was a republican movement in Victoria's reign the republicans used to sing God Save the Queen at the end of their meetings.

There were many people who said 'when she dies the monarchy will end', 'her son isn't up to the job', 'her son is an adulterer', 'her son meddles in politics too much' (sound familiar) and yet he ended up being a much-loved King in his own right and the monarchy is stronger now than it was at the end of Victoria's reign.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35802


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 08, 2017, 11:11:39 pm »

Edward VII didn't marry any of his mistresses and his wife Alexandra wasn't publicly insulted by the nanny (as Tiggy did with Diana) and the mistress (Camilla did to Diana). Edward didn't become a New Age fruit who espoused becoming "defender of Faiths" and didn't publicly blame his mother for his mistakes in the mass media. Edward also did not allow his sons to marry someone like a Middleton.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2163



« Reply #113 on: June 09, 2017, 12:06:03 am »

Alexandra was frequently insulted by Edward by the very fact he made her entertain his mistresses and have them stay in his homes. He regularly slept with them with her in the house.

The press wouldn't have printed the stuff that they printed in the 1980s in the 1800s as half or more of the public were illiterate for much of the period and they were more deferential. There wasn't a Princess of Wales going to the press all the time telling them where she was going to be and then complaining when they turned up - nor a Prince of Wales going to the press to wail about things but he certainly did complain about the way his parents treated him to his friends and it was reported in the press with a number of commentators arguing that they were too strict with him even in the 1850s. He regularly complained to successive PMs about the way his mother treated him as an adult and most of them agreed that she was unfair and unreasonable and so found ways to work with him behind her back.

True Edward didn't allow his only son who married to marry a Middleton but then he didn't give the consent anyway. That was done by Queen Victoria not Edward VII and Victoria chose May as the future Queen Consort so George was largely expected to marry her after his brother's death. Luckily they ended up loving each other. In those days even a Diana wouldn't have been good enough for a future King though - not even good enough for a younger son. Times have changed - largely due to Charles having a limited field from which to choose and it ending so disastrously they made the decision to allow the princes to marry whomever they please so long as they love them so we end up with Kate and Mette-Marie and Mary and Letizia - none of whom would have been deemed suitable a generation ago and yet all now destined to be Queens Consort.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35802


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 09, 2017, 12:35:53 am »

I think Queen Victoria was probably very frustrating in her determination to be as miserable as possible. Wearing black and indulging in so much mourning; I don't think that anyone should be forgotten, but Victoria forgot to remember that she was still alive and had the right to live life to the full.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
FrederickLouis
courtier
**
Online Online

Posts: 431



« Reply #115 on: June 09, 2017, 01:35:12 am »

When Victoria was still Princess, did not her Uncle Leopold give her advice about royally reigning?
Logged
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1721


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #116 on: June 09, 2017, 03:34:29 am »

  Leopold married Charlotte, heiress presumptive, who died in 1820, when Victoria was 3 years old, Leopold then left British shores.   Leopold was not British royalty.  Albert and Stockmar trained her to be Queen and after Albert  died she became more or less a recluse and expected the rest of Great Britain to grieve with her. 
Logged

leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3144


« Reply #117 on: June 09, 2017, 06:26:47 am »

I read about Victoria's cousin, Princess Charlotte of Wales. Her parents had an unhappy marriage and split when she was young. She got married at 20 and actually had a happy marriage and then she died at 21, just hours after giving birth to a stillborn son. Very sad.  sob

Interesting that Wikipedia says not to be confused with Princess Charlotte of Wales on Princess Charlotte of Cambridge's page and vice versa. But won't Princess Charlotte of Cambridge become Princess Charlotte of Wales when her father becomes Prince of Wales? I guess they'll have to rename the articles to Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796-1817) and Princess Charlotte of Wales (b. 2015), like Princess Alexandra of Hanover (1882–1963) and Princess Alexandra of Hanover (b. 1999) for Princess Caroline of Monaco's daughter.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2895


« Reply #118 on: June 09, 2017, 06:58:51 am »

^ The future King George IV's daughter Charlotte was very very popular and deeply mourned when she died prematurely in 1817. Indeed the mourning for her all over the country rivalled Diana's over a century later. However, she's scarcely remembered today except by historians and history buffs and I doubt that most of the general population has ever heard of her. When Char of Cambridge becomes Princess Charlotte of Wales I don't think it's likely that there will be any muddling of the two.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2163



« Reply #119 on: June 09, 2017, 07:20:00 am »

That of course assumes that Charles gives William the title Prince of Wales. It isn't automatic - unlike Duke of Cornwall. The instant the Queen dies Charlotte will become HRH Princess Charlotte of Cornwall and Cambridge. How long she will hold onto that moniker is anyone's guess but it could be for a few minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or even years. It is up to Charles to decide if, and when, he gives the Wales and Chester titles to William. All the others will pass to William automatically as the heir apparent in both England and Scotland.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!