Already a subscriber? Log in
The monarchy remained so influential that the Queen’s residences, as well as her ladies of the bedchamber, became political factors. Osborne and Balmoral both advertised and weakened her power. The exhausting 500-mile journey to Balmoral or crossing of the Solent to Osborne caused ‘huge inconvenience’, and wasted what the constitutional expert Walter Bagehot called ‘precious hours and still more precious strength’. Nevertheless, Victoria insisted that ministers, whatever their age or schedules, came there for audiences and signatures. Her wilfulness, worthy of her grandson the Kaiser, is suggested by this remark in 1885: ‘Ministerial crises must not happen again in Ascot weeks and during Balmoral times.’ If she had stayed in London or Windsor, despatches could have been rewritten, and ministers summoned, more easily. Despite the ‘woeful dullness’ of evenings at Windsor, ministers obeyed the royal commands to ‘dine and sleep’. One lady-in-waiting struggled so hard to suppress her yawns in the Queen’s presence that she almost dislocated her jaw.
The limits on Victoria’s power were far greater than those on Somerset’s previous subjects, Elizabeth I and Queen Anne. Learning that Lord Clarendon called her ‘the missus’, and ‘spread tales’ about her friendship with her handsome Highland servant John Brown, she wanted to veto him as foreign minister: ‘The Queen will not have him. She could not stand it.’ In the end, however, she had to stand it. Despite loathing Gladstone and his policy of Irish Home Rule, and preferring Lord Hartington, she had to accept the ‘elect of the people’ as prime minister – ‘merely on account of the number of votes’, she wrote indignantly. By 1885, in contrast to the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839, popular votes mattered more than royal wishes. At the end of her reign, Victoria could not appoint her favourite son Arthur, Duke of Connaught, commander-in-chief of the army, despite relentless pressure on her ministers. ‘As my ministers think otherwise, I suppose I cannot object,’ she concluded.
Nevertheless, she read despatches – a far higher proportion than Napoleon III read – and remained ‘extraordinarily politically active’. Lord Granville gave her, in secret, details of cabinet discussions which Lords Derby and Palmerston withheld. More European than the ministers, benefitting from information provided by their numerous foreign relations, Victoria and Albert softened Britain’s domineering attitude towards other powers – France in 1840; Portugal, Naples and Greece constantly; and the United States in 1861. If they had spent less time at Balmoral in autumn 1853, the ‘cruel and unnecessary’ Crimean War, which they opposed, might have been delayed. In 1864, after Albert’s death, Victoria helped to stop ‘the horrors of war’ with Prussia over Schleswig-Holstein – ‘a war in which no English interest is involved’ – although the prevention of Prussian expansion was already considered by her prime minister to be an ‘English interest’.
In India, the Queen tried to mitigate British brutality, opposing the ‘vandal destruction of towns’ after the uprising in 1857, rewriting the proclamation making India ‘so bright a jewel in her crown’. As a result of her initiative, supported by Disraeli in the face of cabinet and parliamentary opposition, she was granted the psychologically unifying title of Empress of India in 1877 – a clear example of royal influence on events. Less prejudiced than many of her contemporaries, she deplored the contempt for Indians shown by ‘snobbish, vulgar officials’, and included Indian servants in her household.
Perhaps because her mother’s odious favourite Sir John Conroy was Irish, however, she feared and disliked Ireland. She spent only five weeks there compared with a total of seven years in Scotland. ‘The abominable Irish… they really are a dreadful people… shocking, abominable people’ are characteristic remarks. During the reign of the ‘famine queen’, as some Irish called her, approximately two-and-a-half million Irish died or emigrated. Out of jealousy or prejudice, she prevented the Prince of Wales acquiring a residence there, which in Gladstone’s opinion would have had ‘very powerful effects on the popular mind in Ireland’ – as Balmoral presumably did on ‘the popular mind’ in Scotland. Another example of royal influence on events.
Time made her, like many of her subjects, increasingly jingoistic, a word invented in her reign. In contrast to 1853, in 1877 she was described as ‘very Turkish’. She supported war with Russia to defend Turkey, as she did the British occupation of Egypt in 1882 and of Burma in 1885, and the war against the Boers in 1899.
Lord Salisbury deplored the ‘desire to take everything we can, to fight everybody’. The Queen, however, believed that Britain’s mission was ‘to protect the poor natives and to advance civilisation’. No other country was fit to have colonies. By the end, Cecil Rhodes assured her, ‘the whole world would come under my rule’. She did not agree with the politician Henry Labouchere or the writer Wilfred Blunt that British imperialists were ‘the greatest robbers and marauders that ever existed on the face of the globe’ or ‘great white thieves’. She enjoyed the loot of empire, adding treasures from India, Beijing and Burma to her extensive collections.
This wonderful book is the result of immense research in ministers’ private papers as well as in the royal and national archives. Despite the tragic living conditions of many of her subjects (Victoria saw with her own eyes the ‘painfully unhealthy and sickly population’ of Manchester and crippling poverty in Ireland and Scotland), the Queen remained popular – thanks to British patriotism, British successes and what she called the ‘deep devotion and loyalty of my people’. Cheers followed her from her first carriage ride on 14 July 1837, from her mother’s residence in Kensington Palace to the glorious freedom of Buckingham Palace, until her last triumphant drives through London after the relief of Lady-smith, on 8 and 9 March 1900.
As it did in Germany, Italy and Austria, the monarchy remained hugely effective in uniting the country and strengthening the political system. ‘Quite deafening cheers’ greeted the Queen even in Ireland on her last visit in April 1900. In the 19th century, most people wanted more monarchy, not less.
Because you read about balmoral
Also by Philip Mansel
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in