Queen Victoria
A Personal History
Christopher Hibbert

For Amy, Lily and Rose with love

Table of Contents

Cover Page

Title Page

Dedication

ILLUSTRATIONS

AUTHOR’S NOTE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

VICTORIA’S FAMILY TREE

QUEEN VICTORIA’S PRIME MINISTERS

PART ONE 1819–1861

1 THE FAMILY

2 THE PARENTS

3 THE CHILD

4 CONROY

5 PROGRESSES

6 UNCLES

7 THE YOUNG QUEEN

8 MELBOURNE

9 CORONATION

10 THE HASTINGS AFFAIR

11 ‘A PLEASANT LIFE’

12 ‘A HEADSTRONG GIRL’

13 GERMAN COUSINS

14 PRINCE ALBERT

15 THE BRIDEGROOM

16 HONEYMOON

17 ROBERT PEEL

18 THE PRINCE AND THE HOUSEHOLD

19 ROYAL QUARRELS

20 OSBORNE

21 TRAVELLING

22 BALMORAL

23 THE PRINCE OF WALES

24 PALMERSTON

25 CHARTISTS

26 ‘PAM IS OUT’

27 THE GREAT EXHIBITION

28 ‘SCENES’

29 CRIMEAN WAR

30 NAPOLEON III

31 THE PRINCESS ROYAL

32 INDIAN MUTINY

33 THE GERMAN GRANDSON

34 DEATH OF THE DUCHESS

35 THE DISAPPOINTING HEIR

36 DEATH OF THE PRINCE

PART TWO 1861–1901

37 THE GRIEVING WIDOW

38 SEANCES AND SERVICES

39 PRINCESS ALEXANDRA

40 THE RECLUSE

41 DISRAELI

42 JOHN BROWN

43 ‘THE ROYALTY QUESTION’

44 ‘THE PRINCELY PAUPER’

45 TYPHOID FEVER

46 MAIDS-OF-HONOUR

47 SECRETARIES AND MINISTERS

48 REGINA ET IMPERATRIX

49 ‘THE HALF-MAD FIREBRAND’

50 GOLDEN JUBILEE

51 DIE ENGLÄNDERIN

52 THE DAUGHTERS

53 THE SONS

54 THE GRANDCHILDREN

55 WOULD-BE ASSASSINS

56 HOLIDAYS ABROAD

57 DEATH OF BROWN

58 THE MUNSHI

59 DIAMOND JUBILEE

60 LIFE AT COURT

61 DINNER PARTIES

62 BOOKS

63 BOOKMEN

64 FAILING HEALTH

65 DEATH

66 FUNERAL AND BURIAL

REFERENCES

SOURCES

INDEX

By the same author

Copyright

About the Publisher

ILLUSTRATIONS

COLOUR

Princess Victoria aged two with her mother, by Sir William Beechey. © Mary Evans Picture Library.

Princess Victoria aged four, by Stephen Poyntz Denning. By permission of the Trustees of Dulwich Picture Gallery.

Princess Victoria with her spaniel, ‘Dash’, after Sir George Hayter. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Sir John Conroy, painted by Alfred Tidey in 1836. By courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery.

Queen Victoria aged twenty, by Sir Edwin Landseer. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Watercolour of Prince Albert by Queen Victoria. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Prince Albert. A portrait by the miniature painter Sir William Charles Ross. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria in her wedding veil, by Franz Xaver Winterhalter. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Windsor Castle in Modern Times: Queen Victoria, Prince Albert and Victoria, Princess Royal, by Sir Edwin Landseer. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria, painted in 1843 by Franz Xaver Winterhalter. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

La Filatrice Addormentata, by Julius Froschel. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/A Disderi.

Florinda, by Franz Xaver Winterhalter. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria with the Prince of Wales in 1846. A portrait of Franz Xaver Winterhalter. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

The Swiss Cottage at Osborne. A watercolour by William Leighton Leitch. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

The Prince of Wales just before his ninth birthday. A sketch by Queen Victoria. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Princess Beatrice in a purple dress. A watercolour by Queen Victoria. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Painting of Queen Victoria holding Prince Arthur, with the Duke of Wellington and Prince Albert. A painting by Franz Xaver Winterhalter. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria opening the Great Exhibition. An illustration by André & Sleigh, after a painting by H. C. Selous. © Mary Evans/Edwin Wallace.

Fir trees decorated with lighted tapers at Windsor at Christmas. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Princess Alice in 1861. A portrait by Franz Xaver Winterhalter. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Sorrow by Sir Edwin Landseer. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

The Queen’s dressing room at Balmoral, by James Roberts. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

The Queen’s bedroom at Balmoral, by James Roberts. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

BLACK AND WHITE

Victoria, Duchess of Kent, by Franz Xaver Winterhalter. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Leopold I of Belgium. © Mansell/Time Inc/Katz.

Luigi Lablache. A sketch by Queen Victoria. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Baroness Louise Lehzen. A sketch by Queen Victoria in 1833. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria riding with Lord Melbourne, after a painting by Sir Francis Grant. © The British Museum.

Lord Melbourne. A portrait by Queen Victoria. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Baron Stockmar. A painting by John Partridge. © Mansell/Time Inc/Katz.

Queen Victoria holding a portrait of Prince Albert. A photograph by B. E. Duppa. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/B E Dupper.

Prince Albert in 1854. A photograph by B. E. Duppa. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

The Great Exhibition of 1851. © The Illustrated London News Picture Library.

Prince Alfred, Frederick Waymouth Gibbs and the Prince of Wales. A photograph by Roger Fenton. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Roger Fenton.

The Princess Royal (with butterfly net), the Prince of Wales, Princess Alice and Prince Alfred at Osborne in 1853. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Dr Ernst Becker.

Prince and Princess Frederick William of Prussia at Windsor in 1858. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Bambridge.

Napoleon III, a sketch by Queen Victoria. The Royal Collection 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

The Royal Family at Osborne in 1857. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Caldesi.

Queen Victoria and Princess Alice with a bust of Prince Albert. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Prince Alfred.

The Blue Room at Windsor Castle, with a bust of the Prince Consort by William Theed. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Hills & Saunders.

The Prince and Princess of Wales with Prince Albert Victor in 1864. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Prince Alfred.

Queen Victoria on the throne in 1876. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/W & D Downey.

Queen Victoria bestowing an earldom on Disraeli. © Punch.

Prince Leopold with Sir William Jenner and the Hon. Alec Yorke. © Hulton Getty.

Princess Louise in 1865. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Bingham.

Princesss Beatrice in 1885. © Hulton Getty.

Attempt to shoot the Queen at Windsor in 1882. © The Illustrated London News Picture Library.

Queen Victoria smiling. A photograph by Charles Knight in c. 1887. By courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London.

Sir James Reid. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria and the Empress Frederick in 1889. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria in the garden at Osborne in 1889, surrounded by members of her family. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/Mullins.

Queen Victoria in a carriage at Grasse in 1891. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II/F Busin.

Queen Victoria and the Munshi, Abdul Karim, at Balmoral in 1894. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria with Prince and Princess Henry of Battenberg at breakfast in the Oak Room at Windsor in 1895. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria wearing spectacles and reading a letter. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Victoria’s funeral procession. © Hulton Getty.

The Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore with marble effigies of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The Royal Archives 2000. © HM Queen Elizabeth II.

AUTHOR’S NOTE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In an essay read to fellows and members of the Royal Society of Literature in 1972, Giles St Aubyn said that on average Queen Victoria wrote about 2,500 words every day of her adult life, achieving a total of some sixty million in the course of her long reign. If she had been a novelist her complete works would have run to seven hundred volumes, published at the rate of one a month. To her eldest daughter alone she wrote at least twice a week, and sometimes twice a day, for over forty years. Much of this material has been published in the various books mentioned in the preliminary note to the References on page 503. There remain at Windsor, however, many letters both to and from Queen Victoria which have never before been printed; and in 1983 the late John Murray and I were kindly allowed to consult these papers and to reproduce parts of them in a selection published under the title Queen Victoria in Her Letters and Journals. I have to acknowledge the gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen for their publication as I do for the publication of all the other material of which she holds the copyright. I have been deeply indebted for their help to Sir Robin Mackworth-Young and Miss Jane Langton, Her Majesty’s former Librarian and her Registrar of the Royal Archives, and to Mr Oliver Everett, the Queen’s present Librarian at Windsor.

For their help in a variety of other ways I also want to thank Marian Reid, who edited the book, Juliet Davis, who helped me choose the pictures, Richard Johnson of HarperCollins, Bruce Hunter of David Higham Associates, John Kemmeer and Don Fehr of the Perseus Books Group, Dr Francis Sheppard, Captain Gordon Fergusson, John Paton, Margaret Lewendon, Richard Way, Diana Cook and the staffs of the British Library, the Bodleian Library, the London Library and the Ravenscroft Library, Henley-on-Thames. Hamish Francis and Ursula Hibbert have been good enough to read the proofs, and my wife has made the comprehensive index.

Finally I must say how grateful I am to Professor Paul Smith for having read the book in typescript and for having given me much useful advice for its improvement.

CHRISTOPHER HIBBERT

VICTORIA’S FAMILY TREE

QUEEN VICTORIA’S PRIME MINISTERS

A note on money:

According to figures recently compiled by the Bank of England, £41.03 would have been required in March 1999 for a person to have the same purchasing power as £1 in the middle of Queen Victoria’s reign. That is to say, for instance, today’s equivalent of the £45 10s a year paid to a maidservant at Windsor Castle in 1867 would be about £2,000 a year. The Lord Chamberlain received the equivalent of nearly £90,000 a year; and the President of Russia would now require over £1,000,000 to match the cost of the presents and gratuities given to the staff of the Royal Household by Tsar Nicholas I on his departure from the castle in 1844.

PART ONE 1819–1861

1 THE FAMILY

‘God damme! D’ye know what his sisters call him? By God! They call him Joseph Surface!’

SITTING AT HIS BREAKFAST TABLE in his rented house in Brussels in December 1817, Edward, Duke of Kent, fourth son of King George III, carelessly threw across the Morning Chronicle to his attractive mistress, Julie de St Laurent, and began to open his letters. ‘I had not done so but a very short time,’ he told Thomas Creevey, the witty, gossipy politician who was then also living in Brussels for reasons of economy, ‘when my attention was called to an extraordinary noise and a strong convulsive movement in Madame St Laurent’s throat. For a short time I entertained serious apprehensions for her safety; and when, upon her recovery, I enquired into the occasion of this attack, she pointed to [an] article in the Morning Chronicle.’¹

This article – adverting to the death in childbirth of Princess Charlotte, the only legitimate child of his eldest brother, the Prince Regent – called upon the Duke of Kent and the other bachelor royal dukes to marry for the sake of the family succession. For, although it was later calculated that King George III had no fewer than fifty-six grandchildren, at this time not one of these grandchildren was legitimate.

The Prince Regent, who was to become King George IV on his father’s death in 1820, was now fifty-five years old, separated from a detested wife and living languorously in sumptuous grandeur at Carlton House in London and the exotic Marine Pavilion at Brighton. The King’s second son, the Duke of York, was also married and also separated from a wife who, childless, lived an eccentric life at Oatlands House in Surrey where, surrounded by numerous pet dogs, monkeys and parrots, she was to die in 1820. The Regent’s next brother, the Duke of Clarence, who, following the Duke of York’s death, was to succeed to the throne as William IV in 1830, had lived contentedly for several years with the actress Dora Jordan, who had given birth to ten little FitzClarences, before dying the year before the death of Princess Charlotte. To be sure, the Duke of Clarence might marry now; and, indeed, after unsuccessfully pursuing various heiresses, both foreign and domestic, in the hope of paying off debts amounting to £56,000, he at last did find a bride in Princess Adelaide, the home-loving, good-natured but far from prepossessing eldest daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg Meiningen. But she was not to prove so successful a mother as Mrs Jordan had been: her two daughters both died as babies.

Of the Duke of Kent’s three younger brothers only one as yet had children. This was the asthmatic Duke of Sussex, a man whom Thomas Creevey described as ‘civil and obliging’ but about whom ‘there was a nothingness that was to the last degree fatiguing’. He had been married in Rome in 1793 to a rather bossy lady some years older than himself, Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of the Earl of Dunmore, by whom he had had two children; but since the marriage had been contracted in breach of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which made it illegal for any member of the Royal Family to marry without the previous consent of the Crown, the King had declared the marriage void and the Sussex children were accordingly illegitimate. The Duke of Sussex’s elder brother, the sardonic, much feared, widely disliked, reactionary and fiercely Protestant Duke of Cumberland, whose face had been given an alarmingly ugly cast by a head wound suffered while he was serving with the Hanoverian cavalry in the Low Countries, had managed to obtain permission to marry Princess Frederica of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the niece of his mother, Queen Charlotte. But the marriage had not been easy to arrange since Queen Charlotte was bitterly opposed to it, having heard scandalous reports of the past behaviour of the Princess who had been married twice before and was widely rumoured to have murdered one of, if not both, her former husbands. She and the Duke had had a child but she was stillborn.

The youngest duke, the Duke of Cambridge, a man more respectable and financially responsible than his brothers, was not yet married; and when he did marry Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel in August 1818 the children of this marriage were so far down the line of succession that they could be dismissed by the Duke of Kent in his determined efforts to become the father of the future King or Queen of England.

The Duke of Kent was a disappointed man. Trained for a military career in Germany, he had not achieved the distinction or recognition which he believed he deserved. He had served in Gibraltar, in Canada and in the West Indies, and in all these places he had gained a reputation both for wild extravagance and the most strict and severe attention to military discipline: he would insist that the men under his command be roused at dawn and appear on the parade ground in impeccable condition and would punish infringements of his draconian rules by occasional executions and regular floggings of hundreds of lashes, as many as 400 being given for ‘trifling faults in dress’ and 999, the maximum permitted, for desertion. He left Canada accused of ‘bestial severity’; and, upon his recall from Gibraltar in disgrace, he was accused by his elder brother the Duke of York – who had been appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Army – of provoking a mutiny by his conduct which ‘from first to last was marked by cruelty and oppression’. He was given to understand that there would be no more military commands for him.²

Charles Greville, the diarist and Clerk to the Privy Council, contended that the Duke of Kent was ‘the greatest rascal that ever went unhung’,³ while the Duke of Wellington, to whom Thomas Creevey related the story of the contretemps at Kent’s breakfast table, regarded him as a figure of fun. At a ball in Brussels, where Wellington was serving as commander of the allied forces on the Continent after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, Creevey was approached by the great Duke who said to him, ‘Well Creevey, what has passed between you and the Corporal since you have met this time?’ Creevey then told Wellington of a conversation he had recently had with the Duke of Kent ‘Upon which,’ so Creevey recorded, ‘the Duke of Wellington laid hold of my button and said: “God damme! D’ye know what his sisters call him? By God! They call him Joseph Surface [the shameless hypocrite in Sheridan’s School for Scandal]!” and then sent out one of his hearty laughs, that made every one turn about to the right and left to see what was the matter.’⁴

Yet the Duke of Kent had his good points as well as his bad, as Wellington conceded: he was a good and intelligent, if rather garrulous, conversationalist with a gift for mimicry, and an even better after-dinner speaker; he was also a conscientious correspondent, keeping three or four secretaries busy at their desks. He was fond of music and, when in funds, employed the services of a large band.

However, like all his brothers except the Duke of Cambridge, he was more or less constantly entangled in debt. The several charities to which he lent his name were supported by money which, as often as not, had been borrowed from men who were not always repaid. It was a perennial grievance with him that he was not provided with an allowance adequate to his high position as a prince of the blood.

Yet for all his faults, the Duke was capable of affection and this affection had been returned not only by Mme de St Laurent but also by Princess Charlotte, whose favourite uncle he had been, and by Mrs Maria Fitzherbert, the Roman Catholic widow whom the Prince Regent had illegally married and with whom the Duke conducted a correspondence of easy and intimate friendship. For nearly thirty years the Duke had lived contentedly with Mme de St Laurent, and he did what he could to soften the blow when he declared that duty to his family forced him to send her away to live in Paris with her sister. ‘You may well imagine, Mr Creevey, the pang it will occasion me to part with her,’ he said to the Whig politician. ‘I protest I don’t know what is to become of her…But before anything is proceeded with in this matter, I shall hope and expect to see justice done to her by the Nation and the Ministers…Her disinterestedness has been equal to her fidelity.’⁵ He saw to it that she was provided with a generous allowance – which before long was much reduced – and he asked friends to go and see her to ensure that she was comfortable in Paris where she lived as the Comtesse de Montgenet, a courtesy title granted to her by King Louis XVIII. ‘Our unexpected separation arose from the imperative duty I owed to obey the call of my family and Country to marry,’ the Duke explained, ‘and not from the least diminution in an attachment which had stood the test of 28 years and which, but for that circumstance’ would have been kept up until one or other of them died.⁶ He later thanked Creevey and his wife for their kind attentions to the ‘dear Countess’ and earnestly asked him to give him his ‘opinion of her health, her looks and her spirits very particularly’.

The Duke at this time was forty-nine years old. He was tall and fat and stately in a ponderous way, with luxuriant whiskers dyed dark brown and a head without much hair. His breath smelled of garlic and his clothes of tobacco. He was attentive to women and very polite. He had the fleshy lips and rather protuberant eyes of the Hanoverians but he was handsome enough and carried himself like the soldier he was proud to have been.

He was of most regular habits, getting up at five o’clock, even earlier than his father, and eating and drinking sparingly. He had good reason to suppose that, if he found a suitable wife, he would soon be the father of children as healthy as he was himself. Already, before Princess Charlotte’s death, he had begun the search for a wife, in the hope that Parliament would grant him a decent allowance to support one in the same way that his brother, the Regent, had been helped financially upon his disastrous marriage to Princess Caroline of Brunswick. Edward considered that the £25,000 a year settled upon the Duke of York after his marriage ought ‘to be considered the precedent’.⁷ Having borrowed £1,000 from the Tsar for the cost of his journey, he had travelled to Germany to inspect the Tsarina’s sister, Princess Katherine Amelia of Baden, but he had not liked the look of the ‘old maiden’ of forty-one whom he had found at Darmstadt; and his thoughts had later turned to Princess Victoire – sister of Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who had married the Regent’s daughter, Princess Charlotte.

The Regent had been against the marriage of his daughter to Prince Leopold at first. He had conceded that Leopold was a good-looking, gifted fellow, charming in a rather solemn kind of way, and that he would probably treat Charlotte well. But there was something in the ingratiating suavity of his manner which was decidedly distasteful, and the ponderousness of his cautious approach to life was rather irritating. Adept at choosing nicknames, the Regent called him ‘le Marquis peu à peu’.⁸ The less inventive Lord Frederick FitzClarence dismissed him as a ‘damned humbug’;⁹ and Princess Lieven, the Russian Ambassador’s wife, found him ‘wearing and…with his slow speech and bad reasoning, a jesuit and a bore’.¹⁰ He had his supporters and admirers, however. Lady Ilchester, for example, told a friend that he was ‘enchanting as far as appearance and manner’ were concerned. He was ‘like an Englishman in all but the ease, elegance and deference of his manners’.¹¹ Having discouraged the match, the Regent had learned with annoyance that his brother, the Duke of Kent, was promoting it and allowing correspondence between the young couple to pass through his hands.

Princess Charlotte herself had not at first been much taken with her suitor, ‘Prince Humbug’. If she were to marry him, she had said, it would be ‘with the most calm and perfect indifference’.¹² But, as she had grown to know him better, she had fallen in love with him. He was, she decided, ‘the only being in the world who would have suited me and who could have made me happy and a good woman’.¹³ He, in turn, had been devoted to her; their short marriage spent mostly at Claremont Park, the handsome house built in 1771 for the first Lord Clive and bought for them on the outskirts of Esher, had been a very happy one, and Leopold had been distraught by her death, kneeling by her bed and kissing her lifeless hands for over an hour. He had not, however, been too upset to write to his sister at Amorbach, urging her to give an encouraging answer to the proposal of marriage which she had received from the Duke of Kent.

This proposal, conveyed precipitately in an extremely long letter soon after the Duke’s arrival at Amorbach, had not at first been favourably received. Although she was only thirty-one, Princess Victoire had been married before to the grumpy, gouty Prince of Leiningen and had two children by him, Prince Charles, who was eleven years old, and Princess Feodora, aged ten; she was concerned about these children’s future, about her son’s succession, as well as by warnings about the Duke from certain members of her late husband’s court. Besides, she had no wish to give up her independence, having been married at seventeen and not having enjoyed the experience much. But gradually the Dowager Princess was induced to change her mind. She spoke no English and was slow to learn it: later in England she was to have her speeches written out for her phonetically – ‘Ei hoeve tu regrétt, biing aes yiett so littl cônversent in thie Inglisch, lenguetsch, uitsch obleitshes miy tu seh, in averi fiu words, theat ei em möhst grêtful for yor congratuleschen’¹⁴ – but she was assured she would be well received in England where her brother, Prince Leopold, had made himself well liked since his wife’s death.

2 THE PARENTS

‘Look at her well, for she will be Queen of England.’

THE DUKE AND THE DOWAGER PRINCESS were married in the Schloss Ehrenburg, Coburg on the evening of 29 May 1818. The Princess’s mother, the Dowager Duchess of Coburg, led them to their bedroom where she saw them the next morning ‘sitting together in friendly intimacy’.¹ Soon afterwards they left for their honeymoon at Claremont Park, which had been lent to them by Prince Leopold who continued to hold the house as tenant for life in addition to his enjoyment of the use of Marlborough House in London and the remarkably generous allowance of £50,000 which the Government provided for him.

The marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Kent continued, as it had begun, in harmony. The Duchess was rather stout and no great beauty, but she was warm-hearted and affectionate and, in need of guidance and self-assurance, was ready to depend upon her much older husband in a manner that appealed to him. To the letter which the Princess had written to the Duke accepting his proposal, he had replied that he was ‘nothing more than a soldier, 50 years old and after 32 years service not very fitted to captivate the heart of a young and charming Princess who is years younger’; but that he would care for her with tenderness and affection so that she might forget the difference in their ages. And so he did. ‘She is really happy and contented,’ the Dowager Duchess of Coburg wrote of her daughter in March the following year, ‘and Kent makes an excellent husband.’ ‘She quite adored him,’ his sister, Princess Augusta, confirmed, ‘and they were truly blessed in each other.’

The Duchess of Kent was by then pregnant and expecting her baby in May. Her husband was determined that the child should be born in England, so that there could be no possible grounds for denying its right to succeed to the throne; a fate which, so it was alleged, a gypsy in Gibraltar had predicted for it and of which the Duke himself protested to have no doubt, dismissing the possibility that, although the Duchess of Clarence’s two babies had died, there was no reason to suppose she might not yet give birth to a child who would be nearer to the succession than his own. ‘My brothers are not so strong as I am,’ the Duke declared. ‘I have led a regular life. I shall outlive them all. The crown will come to me and my children.’²

Yet for the moment he lacked the means to return with his wife to England for the birth. One of his friends, Joseph Hume, the radical politician, deepened his fear that the time might come when the child’s legitimacy might be ‘challenged, and challenged with effect, from the circumstance of the birth taking place on foreign soil.’³

In his dilemma the Duke turned to his brother, the Regent, for help. He had already been much disappointed when an ill-disposed House of Commons proved unwilling to increase the allowance paid to the royal dukes on their marriages in the manner they had hoped; a rebuff which the Duke of Wellington considered only too understandable. ‘By God,’ Wellington said, ‘there is a great deal to be said about that. They are the damnedest millstone about the necks of any Government. They have insulted – personally insulted – two thirds of the gentlemen of England, and how can it be wondered at that they take their revenge upon them when they get them in the House of Commons? It is their only opportunity and, I think, by God! they are quite right to use it.’⁴

The Duke of Kent, who was hoping for a grant of £25,000 a year and a capital sum of £12,000, dismissed his debts with the observation that ‘on the contrary the nation [was] greatly [his] debtor’; and he added in his characteristically long-winded approach to his brother that he would also need a yacht to cross the Channel, the loan of restored and redecorated apartments in Kensington Palace, the provision of meals for the Duchess and himself and their attendants on their arrival in England and, should their physician recommend sea bathing for the Duchess, the use of a house at Brighton or Weymouth.

These demands exasperated the Regent, who had never much cared for his brother and was much annoyed by his improbable friendships with such radicals as Joseph Hume and Robert Owen, the social reformer, and by his attendance at Noncomformist services. He instructed his Private Secretary, after a long delay, to turn down all the Duke’s requests, with the suggestion that it would be much more sensible for the child to be born on the Continent, thus both saving money and relieving Her Royal Highness, the Duchess, from ‘the dangers and fatigues of a long journey at [this] moment’. If the Duke was still bent upon returning, and succeeded in raising the money to do so, he could ‘not expect to meet with a cordial reception’.⁵

Momentarily downcast, the Duke soon recovered his spirits and set about raising the money elsewhere. By the end of March, with the help of the Duke of Cambridge and of various friends, including Lord Dundas, Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Darnley and Alderman Matthew Wood (a chemist and hop merchant in a thriving way of business who was an extreme radical Member for the City of London), he had managed to collect over £15,000; and so, on the twenty-eighth of the month, the Duke’s party set off from Amorbach for Calais, with several pet dogs and songbirds, in a strange, unwieldy caravan of carriages. The Duke and Duchess led the way in a phaeton, the Duke himself driving to save the cost of a coachman. They were followed by the Duke’s barouche, containing the Duchess’s lady-in-waiting, Baroness Späth, and Frau Siebold, a skilled obstetrician who had qualified as a surgeon at the University of Göttingen. Then, trundling after them, came a spare, unoccupied post-chaise, followed by a second post-chaise containing the Duchess’s daughter, Princess Feodora, her governess and the English maidservants. Following these were a cabriolet with two cooks, a caravan with an English manservant looking after the royal plate, a second phaeton, two gigs (one containing the Duke’s valet, Mathieu, and the Duchess’s footman; the other, two clerks), and lastly a curricle with the Duke’s personal physician, Dr Wilson.

The weather was fine, the pace slow but steady, and the inns at which the cavalcade stopped were not intolerably uncomfortable. The travellers passed through Cologne on 5 April and a fortnight later they reached Calais where, the Regent having relented, a yacht was waiting for them to take them across the Channel. After a few days’ delay at Calais caused by unfavourable winds, they sailed on the 24th for Dover and were soon installed at Kensington Palace where, after a labour lasting just over six hours, at a quarter past four in the cold morning of 24 May 1819, a baby girl was born. She was ‘as plump as a partridge’,⁶ and ‘a model of strength and beauty combined’, so her grandmother, the Dowager Duchess of Coburg, was informed by the Duke, who had remained with his wife throughout her labour. ‘The dear mother and child are doing marvellously well…It is absolutely impossible for me to do justice to the patience and sweetness with which [the mother] behaved.’⁷

‘My God, how glad I am to hear of you,’ the Dowager Duchess responded in a letter to her daughter. ‘I cannot find words to express my delight that everything went so smoothly…I cannot write much…dear mouse…for I am much too happy.’ She hoped the mother was not disappointed that the baby was a girl: ‘The English,’ she said, ‘like Queens.’⁸ As for the child’s father, he was to show her proudly to his friends, telling them to ‘look at her well, for she will be Queen of England’.⁹

The Duke’s excitement at the arrival of his little ‘pocket Hercules’ at Kensington was not shared by the rest of the family. According to Prince Leopold, the Prince Regent did not trouble to disguise his hope that his brother would soon clear off to Germany again, taking his wife and child with him. Certainly the Regent’s behaviour at the baby’s christening was far from fraternal. He announced that the ceremony must be a strictly private occasion and that it should take place on 24 June at three o’clock in the afternoon. The godparents were to be himself, Tsar Alexander, the child’s grandmother, the Dowager Duchess of Coburg, and the baby’s aunt Charlotte, her father’s sister, widow of the King of Württemberg. None of these, apart from the Regent, was to be present and so they were represented by the Duke of York, and two others of the baby’s aunts, the unmarried Princess Augusta and Mary, Duchess of Gloucester. The only other persons to attend, apart from the parents, were the Duke of Kent’s cousin, the Duke of Gloucester, the Duchess of York and Prince Leopold.

As a matter of form, the parents sent a list of names proposed for the child to the Prince Regent – Victoire (her mother’s name), Georgiana (in deference to the Regent), Alexandrina (in deference to the Tsar), and Charlotte and Augusta (the names of her aunts). Nothing was heard from the Regent until the day before the christening when he wrote to say that he could not allow the name of Georgiana to be used as he did not choose to place his name before the Tsar’s, ‘and he could not allow it to follow’.¹⁰ He would indicate the other names at the ceremony, disapproving of Charlotte, the name of his dead daughter, and of Augusta as being too majestic.

The ceremony took place in the Cupola Room at Kensington Palace, the walls of which had been draped with crimson velvet for the occasion. In the room stood a splendid silver gilt font which had been ordered by Charles II and first used in 1688 for the christening of his nephew – Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, the ‘Old Pretender’. Waiting beside it stood the Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles Manners-Sutton, a grandson of the Duke of Rutland, and the Bishop of London, William Howley, a scholarly but otherwise (in Charles Greville’s opinion) ‘very ordinary man’ who was to succeed Manners-Sutton as Archbishop in 1828. Neither of them had any idea what the names were to be when the ceremony began and the Archbishop had the child in his arms. He looked towards the parents, then towards the Regent, for enlightenment. The Regent announced ‘Alexandrina’. There was a pause. The father proposed Elizabeth. The Regent dissented, then, looking at the Duchess of Kent who had been reduced to tears, he said sharply, ‘Give her the mother’s name also then, but it cannot precede that of the Emperor.’¹¹ So the child was christened Alexandrina Victoria, and in her early years was generally known by the diminutive of the first name, Drina.

The Regent had not spoken to the Duke of Kent during the ceremony; nor had he seen fit to suggest that his other brother, the Duke of Sussex (with whom he was, as usual, quarrelling), should be asked to attend the ceremony, though he was then living in Kensington Palace in an apartment furnished with 50,000 books and numerous clocks. Nor did the Regent attend the dinner party which was given afterwards; nor yet did he deign to notice the Duke of Kent’s presence a few weeks later at a reception given at the Spanish Embassy where he was seen actually to turn his back on him. That same month at a military review, to which the Duke and Duchess had ill-advisedly taken their baby daughter, the Regent was heard to expostulate, ‘What business has that infant here?’¹²

There could be no question of the Regent coming to the help of the Duke who was once more deeply in debt, having spent with characteristic extravagance far more than he could afford on furniture and improvements for his apartments in St James’s Palace, including several thousand pounds’ worth of looking-glasses. He had a country house, Castle Hill at Ealing, on which equally lavish sums had been spent and which, with its furniture and land, was estimated to be worth about £70,000; but when he applied for parliamentary consent to sell the property by means of a lottery, the Leader of the House of Commons declined to consider the proposal. He then considered selling the place in lots but was advised by auctioneers to wait until the spring. So the Duke decided to move to the West Country where he and his family and household could live more modestly in a rented house and where the mother of his child might benefit from ‘luke warm sea baths’ and the healthy air of the Devonshire coast.

Accompanied by his equerry, John Conroy, the Duke set off for Devonshire by way of Salisbury where he caught a bad cold. He had been looking round the freezing cathedral and had called on the Bishop, John Fisher, who had been his childhood preceptor and was the uncle of Conroy’s wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Major-General Benjamin Fisher. From Salisbury he sent a letter to his ‘beloved and very dear wife’ to whom he wrote affectionately every day.

In Devonshire the Duke and Conroy looked at various houses along the coast, none of which was satisfactory, until at Sidmouth they chanced upon a pretty house with a partly castellated roof and Gothic windows, Woolbrook Cottage, Woolbrook Glen.

The Duke decided to take it; and on Christmas Day he and his family moved in as snow covered the ground outside. For days it was dreadfully cold and wet. The Duchess and her daughter, Feodora, ventured out to take walks along the coast; but the Duke stayed indoors for most of the day, writing letters. His stomach had been upset when they first arrived and, so he complained, ‘the water had already begun to play the very deuce with [his] bowels’. Then, at the beginning of January 1820 he caught another cold which became so feverish that the Duchess called in his physician, Dr Wilson, who was much concerned by his case. On the evening of the twelfth his patient complained of pains in his chest and was overcome by nausea. Soon he was delirious. The Duchess, distracted, rarely left his side. She sent an urgent request to London for Sir David Dundas, the eminent physician, to come to Sidmouth; but Dundas was in attendance on the dying King George III at Windsor. Dr William Maton, who had been Queen Charlotte’s physician, came instead. His arrival was no comfort to the Duchess: he spoke little French and scarcely any German, and the Duchess’s English, despite her efforts to learn the language, was not yet good enough for her to communicate with him or adequately to protest against the tormenting treatment which he, like Dr Wilson, prescribed their helpless patient.

The Duke was bled and cupped day after day; blisters were applied to his chest; then he was cupped and bled again until, as the Duchess wrote to a friend, there was ‘hardly a spot on his dear body which [had] not been touched by cupping, blisters or bleeding…I cannot think it can be good for the patient to lose so much blood when he is already so weak…He was terribly exhausted yesterday after all that had been done to him by those cruel doctors.’¹³ Although ‘half delirious’ he was induced to sign a will, appending his signature to the document with the most pathetic determination before sinking back on to his pillow. He died the next morning. The Duchess, who had, she said, ‘adored him’, knelt beside his bed, holding his hand.¹⁴

She was now almost destitute and it was left to her brother, Prince Leopold, to come to her aid. Without his help, he later assured her daughter, Victoria, the Duchess could not possibly have remained in the country. The Regent’s ‘great wish was to get you and your mama out of the country,’ he told her emphatically. ‘And I must say without my assistance you could not have remained…I know not what would have come of you and your mama, if I had not then existed.’¹⁵

But Prince Leopold not only existed but still had so large an income that he could well afford to take his sister and his little niece into his care. He asked the Regent’s sister, Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester, to seek permission from her brother – who was as fond of her as she was of him – to allow the stricken widow and her daughter to return to her late husband’s apartments at Kensington Palace. ‘Her situation is most melancholy,’ Princess Mary wrote, ‘for Edward had nothing in the world but debts & now there are all his old servants without a penny piece to provide for them. She knows what your goodness of heart is & she is sure you will do what you can for them.’¹⁶ The Regent immediately gave his consent; and so the Duchess of Kent, assured of an annual allowance from Prince Leopold of £2,000, later increased to £3,000 a year, returned to Kensington Palace where they learned that the poor, blind, demented King had died at last on 29 January 1820 and the Prince Regent was now King George IV.

3 THE CHILD

‘I never had a room to myself. I never had a sofa, nor an easy chair, and there was not a single carpet that was not threadbare.’

THE KING’S LITTLE NIECE, VICTORIA, was now eight months old. She had not been well at Sidmouth, suffering from a heavy cold for most of the time; and she had been ‘very upset by the frightful jolting’ of the carriage that brought her back to Kensington. But she was a strong child, as her father had been pleased to note of his ‘little joy’; and at six months she had, in his opinion, been ‘as advanced as children generally are at eight’. She had been vaccinated without ill effects and having been weaned – her mother having caused some disapproval by indelicately insisting on giving what her husband described as ‘maternal nutriment’ – ‘she did not appear to thrive the less for the change’. The Duchess was delighted with her little ‘Vickelchen’, as she called her, although she had to admit that she was already showing ‘symptoms of wanting to get her own little way’.

This stubbornness and independence of spirit became more pronounced as she grew older. So did her impatience, her wilfulness, outbursts of temper and defiant truthfulness. Frustrated, she would stamp her feet and would burst into tears when told to sit still or to pay closer attention during her reading lessons; and once, in a tantrum, she hurled a pair of scissors at her governess. Before her lessons began one day, her mother was asked if she had been a good girl that morning. ‘Yes,’ the Duchess replied, ‘she has been good this morning but yesterday there was a little storm.’ ‘Two storms,’ corrected the little girl, pertly interrupting her mother’s account, intent as always on speaking and hearing the truth, ‘one at dressing and one at washing.’ She was similarly pert when her mother said to her, after one of her outbursts of temper, that she made them both very unhappy by such behaviour. ‘No, Mama, not me, not myself, but you.’¹

The Duchess’s nervous temperament was not well adapted to dealing with such a child. ‘To my shame,’ she admitted, ‘I must confess that I am over anxious in a childish way with the little one, as if she were my first child…She drives me at times into real desperation…Today the little mouse…was so unmanageable that I nearly cried.’

Wilful as she was, however, the little girl, intelligent and lively and with an astonishingly retentive memory, progressed satisfactorily with her lessons when these began to a regular timetable supervised by her Principal Master, the Revd George Davys, a Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge, later Bishop of Peterborough. Davys came to live in Kensington Palace before the Princess was four years old. He helped to teach her to read by writing short words on cards and, as he put it, ‘making her bring them to me from a distant part of the room as I named them’.² Admittedly, she was not very good at Latin, and piano lessons were often a trial: once, when told that there was ‘no royal road to success in music’ and that she must practise like everyone else, she banged shut the lid of the instrument with the defiant words, ‘There! You see there is no must about it.’ But she was patient and attentive in her history and geography lessons; she learned to speak French and German – the latter in particular with a ‘correct pronunciation’ – and a little Italian.* She soon became adept at arithmetic; her written English was exemplary and her soprano singing voice, trained by John Sale, the organist at St Margaret’s Westminster, was delightful. She danced with easy grace, she listened dutifully to Mr Davys’s religious instruction, she read poetry ‘extremely well’, he said, and understood what she read ‘as well, as at her age, could reasonably be expected’. She displayed a precocious skill in drawing at which she was given lessons by Richard Westall, the prolific historical painter and book illustrator, and later, by Edwin Landseer, Edward Lear and William Leighton Leitch, the distinguished watercolourist.³

In March 1830, when the Princess was ten years old, the Duchess decided that her daughter should be examined to ensure that her education was proceeding along the correct lines. The two invigilators chosen were Charles Blomfield, Bishop of London, described by Richard Porson, Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge, as a ‘very pretty scholar’, and John Kaye, Bishop of Lincoln, who had been elected Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge at the age of thirty and Regius Professor of Divinity two years later.

Having examined the Princess, these two eminent scholars expressed themselves as being ‘completely satisfied’ with her answers.

In answering a great variety of questions [they reported] the Princess displayed an accurate knowledge of the most important features of Scripture, History and of the leading truths and precepts of the Christian Religion as taught by the Church of England; as well as an acquaintance with the Chronology and principal facts of English History, remarkable in so young a person. To questions of Geography, the use of Globes, Arithmetic and Latin Grammar, the answers which the Princess returned were equally satisfactory; and Her pronunciation both of English and Latin is singularly correct and pleasing. Due attention appears to have been paid to the acquisition of modern languages; and although it was less within the scope of our enquiry, we cannot help observing that the pencil drawings of the Princess are executed with the freedom and correctness of an older child.⁴

In later years she spoke of her childhood as being lonely and ‘rather melancholy’ and Kensington Palace as being bleak in the extreme. ‘I never had a room to myself,’ she complained. ‘I never had a sofa, nor an easy chair, and there was not a single carpet that was not threadbare.’ The food was boring and unappetizing: she promised herself that when she was grown up and could eat as she liked, she would never have mutton for dinner again. Yet the events of her early life as she recorded them were far from being all unhappy ones. Certainly there were recollections of bogeymen: she had ‘a great horror of Bishops’ with their strange wigs and incongruous aprons and of the Duke of Sussex, ‘Uncle Sussex’, who, she was told, would appear from his nearby rooms in the Palace and punish her when she cried and was naughty. She remembered screaming when she saw him.⁵ But she was fond of her father’s old preceptor, the kindly John Fisher, Bishop of Salisbury, who used to kneel down beside her and let her play with the badge he wore as Chancellor of the Order of the Garter; and she was fond, too, of her uncle, the childless Duke of York, who was very fat and very bald and held himself in such a way that it always seemed as though he would tumble over backwards. He was ‘very kind’ to her and gave her ‘beautiful presents’ including a donkey, and once he presided over a memorable party for her at the house of a friend where there was a Punch and Judy show.⁶ As for her uncle, King George IV, he paid little attention to her when she was taken by her mother to see him at Carlton House; but one day while she was staying near Windsor with her aunt, the Duchess of Gloucester, at Cumberland Lodge, she was driven over to see the King at the Royal Lodge and found him in one of his happier moods. ‘Give me your little paw,’ he said, affectionately taking the hand of the seven-year-old child in his, and then pulled her on to his stout knee so that she could kiss him. It was ‘too disgusting’, she recalled more than half a century later, ‘because his face was covered with grease-paint’. But at the time she had responded to his ‘wonderful dignity and charm of manner’: he never lost his way of pleasing young children. ‘He wore the wig which was so much worn in those days,’ she remembered clearly. ‘Then he said he would give me something to wear, and that was his picture set in diamonds, which was worn by the Princesses as an order to a blue ribbon on the left shoulder. I was very proud of this – and Lady Conyngham [the King’s plump and stately intimate friend, supposedly his mistress] pinned it on my shoulder.’⁷

Next day, while she was out walking with her mother, the King, who was driving along in his phaeton with the Duchess of Gloucester, overtook her. As his horses were brought to a halt, the King called out cheerfully, ‘Pop her in!’ So she was lifted up and placed between him and her aunt Mary, who held her round the waist as the horses trotted off. She was ‘greatly pleased’, though her mother appeared ‘much frightened’, fearful that her daughter would either fall out on the road or be kidnapped.

The King drove her ‘round the nicest part of Virginia Water’ and stopped at the Fishing Temple. Here ‘there was a large barge and everyone went on board and fished, while a band played in another!’ Afterwards he had his little niece conducted around his menagerie at Sandpit Gate where she inspected his wapitis, his chamois and his gazelles.

In the evenings, while staying at Cumberland Lodge, Princess Victoria was invited to watch the Tyrolese dancers creating a ‘gay uproar’ or listen to ‘Uncle King’s’ band playing in the conservatory at the Royal Lodge by the light of coloured lamps. He asked her what tune she would like the band to play next. With precocious tact she immediately asked for ‘God save the King!’ ‘Tell me,’ he asked her later, ‘what you enjoyed most of your visit?’ ‘The drive with you,’ she said. He was clearly very much taken with her.⁸

As the Duke of Wellington’s friend, Lady Shelley, said, she paid her court extremely well. When giving the King a bunch of flowers, she said, ‘As I shall not see my dear uncle on his birthday I wish to give him this nosegay now’; and when wishing him goodbye she said with appealing if rather affected gravity, ‘I am coming to bid you adieu, sire, but as I know you do not like fine speeches I shall certainly not trouble you by attempting one.’⁹ Upon her return home she was most anxious that her mother should send ‘her best love and duty to her “dear Uncle King”’.¹⁰

Although she remembered with pleasure her days at Windsor, the Princess enjoyed her visits to her uncle Leopold’s house, Claremont, even more. So much did she enjoy these visits, indeed, that she cried when it was time to go back to Kensington. She remembered being allowed to listen to the music in the hall at Claremont when there were dinner parties there and being petted by Mrs Louis, Princess Charlotte’s devoted former dresser. She was petted, too, by her own nurse, Mrs Brock, ‘dear Boppy’, and by her mother’s lady-in-waiting, Baroness Späth, who had accompanied the Duchess from Germany. Indeed, Baroness Späth, so Princess Feodora said, idolized the child and would actually go on her knees before her.¹¹

Very different was the behaviour of the Princess’s governess, Louise Lehzen, a handsome woman, despite her pointed nose and chin, clever, emotional, humourless and suffering intermittently from a variety of complaints, mostly psychosomatic, including cramp, headaches and migraine. She claimed that she did not know what it was like to feel hungry: all ‘she fancied were potatoes’;¹² but she was forever chewing caraway seeds for indigestion, a habit which some maliciously attributed to a need to hide the alcohol on her breath.

In her mid-thirties at the time of her appointment, she was the youngest child of a Lutheran pastor from a village in Hanover. She was ‘very strict’, her former charge said of her in later years, ‘and the Princess had great respect and even awe of her, but with that the greatest affection…She knew how to amuse and play with the Princess so as to gain her warmest affections. The Princess was her only object and her only thought…She never for the 13 years she was governess to Princess Victoria, once left her.’¹³

At night she stayed in the bedroom which the Princess shared with her mother until the Duchess retired; and in the morning, when the child was being dressed by Mrs Brock, she read to her so that the little girl would not get into the habit of talking indiscreetly to servants.

Yet Louise Lehzen’s influence over Princess Victoria was not entirely beneficial, for the governess had her prejudices and these she implanted in her charge’s mind. She encouraged the child to distrust her mother and her mother’s friends and to tell people when they were wrong and ‘to set them down’.¹⁴

If Princess Victoria’s early childhood was not quite as melancholy as she afterwards decided when looking back upon it, it was – and was encouraged by Lehzen to be – certainly a lonely one. She was brought up in an adult world, rarely seeing children of her own age. ‘Except for occasional visits of other children,’ she said herself in later life, she ‘lived always alone, without companions’. She was devoted to her half-sister, Princess Feodora, but Feodora, a pretty, attractive girl, was twelve years older than herself and longing to escape from Kensington where, so she claimed, her ‘only happy time was driving out’ with Princess Victoria and Louise Lehzen when she could speak and look as she liked. In February 1828, when Princess Victoria was nine, Princess Feodora did escape, her only regret being her separation from her ‘dearest sister’ of whom she so often thought and longed to see again.* ¹⁵

Having married the impoverished, 32-year-old Prince Ernest Christian Charles of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Princess Feodora went away with him to the enormous, uncomfortable Schloss Langenburg, leaving Princess Victoria to comfort herself with her dolls (one hundred and thirty-two of them – little wooden, painted mannequins made by herself and Lehzen and dressed as historical personages and characters from the theatre and opera, all of them listed in a copybook).¹⁶

Her mother had been lonely too. Having overcome the first shock of her husband’s death, she had struck the few people with whom she came into close contact as being, in Lady Granville’s words, ‘very pleasing indeed’, friendly and approachable.

But she herself, as she said, felt ‘friendless and alone’ in a country that was not her own, endeavouring to speak a language which she had not yet mastered, being, as she said with not altogether sincere self-denigration, ‘just an old goose’.¹⁷

She was well aware that, as a German, she was not well liked in the country at large and, as the widow of the Duke of Kent and mother of Princess Victoria, much resented by the Duke of Clarence, heir to the throne after the death of his elder brother, the Duke of York, in 1827. Nor did King George IV care for her.

When the Prime Minister had suggested to the King that some provision ought to be made for his sister-in-law’s child, the fatherless Princess Victoria, the King declared that he would not consider it: her uncle Leopold was quite rich enough to take care of her as well as her mother. The Duchess accordingly had to borrow £6,000 from Thomas Coutts, the banker.¹⁸ Later, however, the Government came to her aid by proposing an allowance of £4,000 a year; but, since a grant of £6,000 was at the same time proposed for Princess Victoria’s cousin, Prince George of Cumberland, son of the deeply distrusted and malignant Duke of Cumberland, she refused to consider the proposal. The offer to the Duchess was then raised to £6,000 and she accepted it.

At the same time, Prince Leopold assured her that he would be happy to continue the allowance he made her of £3,000 a year. She was at first reluctant to accept this; but being still heavily in debt she eventually agreed to it, even though she was finding her brother increasingly and tiresomely irritating and, as she put it, ‘rather slow in the uptake and in making decisions’ as well as annoyingly preoccupied.

Prince Leopold had, indeed, other matters on his mind, not to mention sexual desires to gratify. After pursuing a succession of other women, he had fallen in love with a German actress who, looking ‘wondrously like’ his departed Charlotte, was brought over to England and ensconced alternately in a house in Regent’s Park and a ‘lonely desolate and mournful’ little house in the grounds of Claremont Park where he spent his time either gazing at her longingly while she read aloud to him or picking the silver from military epaulettes to make into a soup tureen.¹⁹

He had also become involved in negotiations for his elevation to a European throne. He had been offered the throne of Greece in 1830 after that country had secured its freedom from Turkish rule and, having declined to become King of Greece, he agreed two years later, after typical hesitation, to be crowned King of the Belgians once Belgium had secured its independence from the King of Holland. The next year he married Princess Louise, the daughter of Louis-Philippe, King of the French.

Before leaving for Brussels he volunteered to give up the grant of £50,000 a year he had received upon his marriage to Princess Charlotte but this gesture, gratefully accepted, was less well regarded when he announced that some £20,000 would have to be retained for various expenses, including the upkeep of Claremont.

Princess Victoria was very sad to have to say goodbye to her uncle. He had done his best to take the place of the father she had never known. Ponderous and, on occasions, exasperating as he could be, she loved him and admired him greatly. ‘To hear dear Uncle Leopold speak on any subject,’ she said, ‘is like reading a highly instructive book.’²⁰ He was the first of those several older men upon whom, throughout her life, she was to rely for help and reassurance. But her mother bore her brother’s departure for the Continent far more equably than she would have done at the time of her arrival in England. For the need she had always felt for support, protection and comforting advice had been met by her late husband’s beguiling equerry, John Conroy.

4 CONROY

‘I may call you Jane but you must not call me Victoria.’

PRINCE LEOPOLD described John Conroy as a ‘Mephistopheles’; but the Prince’s sister, the Duchess of Kent, did not know what she would do without him. He had been a ‘dear devoted friend’ of the Duke, she said, and he had not deserted the widow, doing all he could to help her by dealing with her affairs, financial and otherwise. Whereas Leopold was cautious and deliberate, inclined to see difficulties before advantages, Conroy exuded a confidence which the Duchess, comforted by positive men, found reassuring.

Although of Irish descent, with forbears who were proud to trace their lineage back to a royal chieftain of the early fifth century, Conroy had been born in Wales in 1786. He had obtained a commission in the Royal Artillery when he was seventeen and had been transferred to the Horse Artillery two years later. But thereafter he had not progressed as well in the Army as he considered his talents deserved, despite his marriage to a General’s daughter, the rather nondescript, indolent niece of the Duke of Kent’s friend, Bishop Fisher, by whom he was to have six children. He had not served in either the Peninsular War or the Waterloo campaign; and the Duke of Kent’s attempts to find him a suitable staff appointment had not been successful. He had entered the Duke’s household as equerry in 1817; and the death of the Duke three years later had given him the opportunity to worm his way into a position far more rewarding and influential than he could have hoped for in the Army.

The same age as the Duchess, he was a good-looking man of insinuating charm, tall, imposing, vain, clever, unscrupulous, plausible and of limitless ambition. Overbearing with those whom he sought to dominate, he was both short-tempered and devious. Charles Greville, the diarist and Clerk of the Privy Council, dismissed him as ‘a ridiculous fellow’.¹ Conroy immediately recognized that by exerting a compelling influence over the susceptible and self-doubting Duchess of Kent, by isolating her household at Kensington from outside contacts and interference, he might be able to exercise unbounded control over her bright, spirited, affectionate and popular but obstinate and ‘naturally passionate’ child.

At the same time, Conroy made up his mind to win the confidence of King George IV’s sister, Princess Sophia, who had apartments at Kensington Palace. She was nine years older than himself. Cloistered at Windsor in her father’s lifetime, in what she and her sisters referred to as ‘the nunnery’, she had fallen in love with one of her father’s equerries, General Garth, and had secretly borne him a child. Conroy had little difficulty in charming the impressionable and mentally rather unstable woman whose considerable finances he controlled, and with the help of whose liberality he was able to acquire a house in Kensington for £4,000 as well as a country house near Reading, Aborfield Hall, and an estate in Wales for £18,000.² Princess Sophia – whose generosity was said to be at least partly owing to Conroy’s skill in dealing with the ‘bullying importunities’ of her illegitimate son, Captain Garth³ – having appointed Conroy her unofficial Comptroller, was induced to apply to her brother, the King, for suitable ranks to be bestowed upon the Duchess of Kent’s household. The King, who was fond of his adoring sisters, responded promptly: Louise Lehzen was created a Hanoverian baroness by His Majesty in his right as King of Hanover, while Conroy was created a Knight Commander of the Hanoverian Order.

Sir John Conroy, while so successfully beguiling both the Duchess of Kent and Princess Sophia, failed lamentably in his efforts to win the confidence of Princess Victoria whom he treated with that kind of bullying jocularity which children find so offensive. He told her she reminded him of the Duke of Gloucester, one of the least well-favoured members of her family; he said her economical habits, including the saving of her pocket money, must have been inherited from her parsimonious grandmother, Queen Charlotte; he teased her in the naive belief that she would be amused by his facetiousness rather than offended by what she described as ‘personal affronts’. She grew to hate him. The Duke of Wellington believed that this hatred sprang from her having witnessed ‘some familiarities’ between her mother and Conroy; and when Charles Creevey remarked to the Duke that he ‘concluded he was her lover’, the Duke replied that he also ‘supposed so’.⁴ In later life Victoria strongly denied that her mother and Conroy could have been lovers, and she was no doubt right to disbelieve that they were; but her detestation of Conroy was nonetheless virulent and the Duchess’s fond feelings for her Comptroller soured the feelings between mother and daughter. So too did they sour the friendly feelings which the Princess had earlier felt for Conroy’s daughter, Victoire, a rather dull girl, and one of the few children of her own age with whom Victoria was allowed to associate.

Having established his position at Kensington, Sir John Conroy – who did not now trouble to conceal his occasional irritation with the Duchess who, so he said, lived ‘in a mist’ – set about what became known as ‘the Kensington System’, a process by which, in Conroy’s words, Princess Victoria would become the ‘Nation’s Hope’, the ‘People’s Queen’.⁵ This entailed ensuring that the child became completely dependent upon her mother who – should the girl’s uncle, the Duke of Clarence, die before she came of age at eighteen – would become Regent. In the meantime, there must be no risk of anyone beyond the Kensington household gaining any influence over the Princess. She must continue to sleep in her mother’s room; she must never be left alone in any other room; when going downstairs she must be accompanied by an adult to hold her hand; she must never have the opportunity of talking to a visitor unless a third person were present. She must be strictly shielded from anyone who might endeavour to gain her confidence; furthermore, she must be separated from other members of the Royal Family, in particular from her uncle, the wicked Duke of Cumberland, who, so Conroy liked it to be supposed, as an additional reason for keeping her isolated, was quite capable of having her poisoned or otherwise disposed of so that he could succeed to his brother’s throne.

Well aware of the system being adopted at Kensington, the Duchess of Clarence wrote to her sister-in-law to advise her against a policy which was attributed – ‘rightly or wrongly’, she could not judge – to Sir John Conroy, ‘a man of merit’ but one whose family was ‘not of so high a rank that they alone should be the entourage and companions of the future Queen of England’. She must not allow Conroy to exercise ‘too much influence over her but keep him in his place’. The Duchess of Kent, a willing accomplice in the ‘system’, paid no attention.⁶

As well as being separated from the Royal Family, the Princess must also be shielded from any English lady who might have undesirable connections and friends; and Baroness Lehzen, being German, and ‘entirely dependent’ upon the Duchess, happily had none of these. The Princess must also, like her mother, ‘acquire popularity and a wide following’, clearly distinguishing her from all her dissolute relations.

Fortunately, though little was known about her, the glimpses which the public were permitted to see had already created a favourable impression of Princess Victoria. She had been seen riding her white donkey in Kensington Gardens with ‘an old soldier, a former retainer of her father’s, leading her bridle rein’, ‘riding in a pony chaise over the gravel walks, led by a page’, and walking along the paths there followed by a very tall footman looking like ‘a gigantic fairy’.⁷ Lord Albemarle, a member of the Duke of Sussex’s household, had watched from a window of the Palace ‘a bright, pretty little girl’ in a large white hat ‘impartially’ dividing the contents of a watering can ‘between the flowers and her own little feet’.⁸ Charles Knight, the publisher, also caught a glimpse of her one day having breakfast with her mother on the lawn outside Kensington Palace and running off to pick a flower in the adjoining meadow. ‘I passed on,’ Knight wrote, ‘and blessed her.’⁹

Charles Greville saw her at a children’s ball, given by the King and attended by the ten-year-old Queen of Portugal, and he thought that ‘our little Princess’ was a ‘short, vulgar-looking child, and not near so good-looking as the Portuguese’.¹⁰ But this was not a characteristic verdict. Most of those few people who came across her were more likely to share the opinion of Lady Wharncliffe, who was invited to dinner at Kensington where the Princess was occasionally allowed down from her bedroom to sit at the table, eating her ‘bread and milk out of a small silver basin’. Lady Wharncliffe was delighted with ‘our little future Queen’.

She is very much grown, though short for her age [she wrote], has a nice countenance and distingué figure, tho’ not very good; and her manner the most perfect mixture of childishness and civility I ever saw. She is born a Princess without the least appearance of art or affectation…When she went to bed we all stood up and after kissing Aunt Sophia, she curtsied, first to one side, and then the other, to all the Ladies, and then walked off with her governess. She is really very accomplished by taste, being very fond both of music and drawing, but fondest of all of her dolls. In short I look to her to save us from Democracy, for it is impossible she should not be popular when she is older and more seen.¹¹

The Duke of Wellington’s friend, Harriet Arbuthnot, was equally taken with the little girl, ‘the most charming child’ she ever saw. ‘She is a fine, beautifully made, handsome creature,’ Mrs Arbuthnot continued, ‘quite playful & childish [she was nearly nine], playing with her dolls and in high spirits, but civil & well bred & Princess-like to the greatest degree.’¹² She was graceful in her movements and walked with a regal air, an accomplishment attributed to her having had to submit on occasions to a bunch of prickly holly pinned to the front of her dress to keep her head up.

It was not until she was nearly eleven years old that the Princess learned how near she was to the throne. Of course, she knew that she was an honoured little personage. Servants behaved to her with noticeable deference; when she was out walking, gentlemen touched or raised their hats to her. She herself once told a child who put a hand out to play with her toys, ‘You must not touch those, they are mine. And I may call you Jane but you must not call me Victoria.’ According to Baroness Lehzen, a few days after her charge had been cross-examined by the Bishops of London and Lincoln, and having discussed the matter with the Duchess of Kent, the Baroness placed a genealogical table into one of the Princess’s history books. ‘I never saw that before,’ Victoria said; and, after examining the table, she commented, ‘I see I am nearer to the throne than I thought.’¹³ She then burst into tears. Lehzen reminded her that Aunt Adelaide was still young and might yet have children and, of course, if she did, it was they who would ascend the throne after their father died.

A few weeks later, on 26 June 1830, King George IV died at Windsor Castle and the short reign of King William IV began.

5 PROGRESSES

‘When one arrives at any nobleman’s seat, one must instantly dress for dinner and consequently I could never rest properly.’

WHEN SHE WAS TWO YEARS OLD, Princess Victoria had received a letter from her ‘truly affectionate Aunt’, the Duchess of Clarence, in which the Duchess referred to her as ‘my dear little Heart’; and, when she lost her second baby daughter, she wrote to the Duchess of Kent to say ‘My children are dead, but yours lives and She is mine too.’¹

A good-natured, unselfish and religious woman, almost thirty years younger than her husband, she was quite sincere in expressing these sentiments, and upon his accession to the throne she was as kind to her little niece as ever, doing all she could to persuade her guardians at Kensington to allow her to appear at Court. Her husband also strongly expressed his wish to see her there.

On becoming King, William, as good-natured as his wife, ‘began immediately to do good-natured things’. He clearly loved being a king; and, excited by his rank, he strode about the London streets, nodding cheerfully to right and left, relishing his popularity. Expressing a general opinion, Charles Greville said that he was ‘a kind-hearted, well-meaning…bustling old fellow [sixty-five years of age] and, if he doesn’t go mad, may make a very decent King.’ Contrasting his gregarious familiarity with the seclusion in which his predecessor had chosen to spend the last years of his life, the Duke of Wellington, the Prime Minister, told Dorothea Lieven that this was not so much a new reign; it was ‘a new dynasty’.

At Kensington Palace, however, the new reign had no effect whatsoever upon the ‘system’ practised there. Sir John Conroy remained as the Duchess of Kent’s Comptroller, organizing the household and all the particularities of its life, telling the Duchess to report to him upon ‘everything’ that happened to the Princess down to the ‘smallest and insignificant detail’. As soon as he heard of King George IV’s death, Conroy wrote a letter which, signed by the Duchess, was sent to the Duke of Wellington for onward transmission to King William IV. This letter, referring to Princess Victoria as now being ‘more than Heiress Presumptive’ to the throne, required the appointment of the Duchess as Regent ‘without any interference whatsoever’. It also required the appointment of an English lady of rank to be appointed governess to the Princess, superseding Baroness Lehzen, and requested the recognition of the Duchess as Dowager Princess of Wales with an increased allowance for her in her new position in the kingdom.

Dismayed by both the tone and the contents of this importunate letter, Wellington replied that he earnestly entreated her Royal Highness to allow him to consider it as ‘a Private and Confidential Communication; or rather as never having been written’.² Angered by this rebuff, the Duchess, advised by Conroy, immediately returned a sharp reply, contending that she would find it irksome to be Regent but that she owed it to her conscience for her daughter’s sake to undertake the duty. Wellington answered her letter in a mollifying tone but thought it as well to offer a guarded warning by urging her Royal Highness ‘not to allow any Person’ to persuade her to entertain the idea that there was any ‘Party or Individual of influence in the Country’ who wished to injure the interests of the Duchess and her daughter. Deeply offended by this reference to her Comptroller, the Duchess declined to see the Duke when he proposed to bring her a draft of a Regency Bill, telling him to communicate with Sir John Conroy, and refusing to talk to him for ‘a long time after’.³ The Regency Bill, introduced by the Lord Chancellor in Lord Grey’s government which succeeded Wellington’s in November 1830, did, however, provide for her appointment as sole Regent in the event of King William dying before her daughter reached the age of eighteen, the House of Commons recoiling in horror from the thought that the dreadful Duke of Cumberland might otherwise lay claim to share the appointment with her. When she was told of Parliament’s decision, the Duchess, reduced to tears, said that it gave her more pleasure than anything else had done since the death of her husband.⁴

Yet the settlement of the Regency question, and the appointment of the Duchess of Northumberland as the Princess’s English Governess, did nothing to improve relations between the Duchess of Kent and the Court which were also soured not only by the Duchess’s attitude towards the King’s illegitimate children but also by political differences; the King and Queen Adelaide both being strong Tories and known to be opposed to the Reform Bill which Lord Grey was endeavouring to push through Parliament; the Duchess of Kent, following her late husband’s example, being as committed a Whig, and welcoming Whigs and reformers to Kensington Palace.

The family quarrel was exacerbated when the King proposed that the Princess’s name of Victoria should be changed for an English one. Since Victoria had been named after herself, the Duchess naturally was upset by this request; but since the two names, Alexandrina and Victoria, her daughter bore had not been chosen by her but had been forced upon her by the late King, and since she was ready to concede that both, being foreign, were ‘not suited to our national feeling’, she agreed that they might be ‘laid aside’. Soon afterwards, however, she changed her mind and much annoyed the King, who, persisting in his objection to Victoria as a name ‘never known heretofore as a Christian name in this country’, proposed Elizabeth instead. The Duchess declined to consider it.⁵

Then there was trouble over Princess Victoria’s appearances at Court, which the King and Queen wished were more frequent and which the Duchess and Conroy wanted to be ‘as few as possible’.*

One reason which the Duchess persistently gave for keeping her daughter away from Court as much as possible was the presence of the King’s bastard children, the FitzClarences, who moved into Windsor Castle, one after the other, until it was ‘quite full with toute la bâtardise’.⁶ Queen Adelaide raised no objection at all to this, but not so the Duchess of Kent. She insisted that nothing would induce her to allow her daughter to mix freely with the offspring of such a shameful relationship. ‘I never did, neither will I ever, associate Victoria in any way with the illegitimate members of the Royal Family,’ she told the Duchess of Northumberland. ‘Did I not keep this line, how would it be possible to teach Victoria the difference between vice and virtue?’⁷

Quarrels over Princess Victoria’s attendances at Court were followed by a dispute over the Princess’s style as Royal Highness, the word Royal having been omitted in a message to Parliament from the King concerning a proposed increased allowance of £6,000 for the Duchess. Then there was trouble over the Princess’s precedence at the coronation, the King declaring that she must follow his brothers in the procession through Westminster Abbey, the Duchess insisting that she follow immediately after the King. When the King stood firm, the Duchess declared that, in that case, the Princess would not attend the coronation at all – maintaining that she could not afford the expense and that, in any case, the child’s health made her attendance out of the question. The Princess, who had not been consulted, cried bitterly. ‘Nothing could console me,’ she said, ‘not even my dolls.’⁸ She would have loved to go, she said: it would have been a special treat like her rare visits to Windsor, even though, being well aware of how much her mother disapproved of them, she was sometimes so nervous in the King’s presence on these visits that he once complained of her stony stares. ‘I was very much pleased there,’ she wrote of one such visit, ‘as both my Uncle and Aunt are so very kind to me.’ She felt nothing but ‘affectionate gratitude’ to the King whose wish it was that ‘she should be duly prepared for the duties’ which she was destined to perform.⁹

Kept apart from the King and Queen for months on end, with her uncle Leopold preoccupied with affairs in Belgium and with her half-sister, Feodora, now living in Germany, the Princess was more and more isolated at Kensington where she felt increasingly defenceless against the rule of Conroy so unquestioningly supported by her mother. Baroness Späth, who had presumed to question the ‘Kensington System’ and was believed to indulge the Princess unduly, had been dismissed after having been in the Duchess’s service for a quarter of a century. It was decided that the time would also soon come to get rid of the Duchess of Northumberland who was not sufficiently subservient to Conroy’s rule. At the same time an extra lady-in-waiting was appointed to the Duchess of Kent’s household in the person of Lady Flora Hastings, daughter of the first Marquess of Hastings.

In the meantime steps were being taken to bring about the removal, or at least to lessen the influence, of Baroness Lehzen who was treated so rudely that it was hoped she would resign. This merely resulted in Princess Victoria becoming more attached than ever to Lehzen. ‘I can never sufficiently repay her for all she has borne and done for me,’ she wrote. ‘She is the most affectionate, devoted, attached and disinterested friend that I have.’ She was, the Princess added later, ‘my ANGELIC dearest mother Lehzen, who I do so love’. It could not but give grim satisfaction to the Princess, as well as embarrass her, when the King, who warmly supported Lehzen, dismissed Conroy from the Chapel Royal – where his niece, looking so demure in a white lace dress and rose-trimmed bonnet, was about to be confirmed – on the grounds that the Duchess’s retinue was too large. Upon her return to the Palace, upset as much by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s admonitory sermon as by the stuffiness of the Chapel on that hot July day and by her mother’s anger at the King’s behaviour, she burst into tears.

On this day, 30 July 1835, Princess Victoria received a firm letter from her mother telling her that her relationship with Lehzen must now change: the Baroness was to be treated with more formality, less intimate affection. Dignity and friendly manners were ‘quite compatible’. ‘Until you are at the age of 18 or 21 years,’ the Duchess added, ‘you are still confided to the guidance of your affectionate mother and friend.’¹⁰

Nothing about the Duchess of Kent’s behaviour exasperated King William more than what he termed the ‘Royal Progresses’ upon which she and Conroy took Princess Victoria so as to make her better known to the people over whom she was destined to rule and to introduce her to the leading families in the counties through which she passed.

The first of these journeys was undertaken in the summer and autumn of 1830 when the Duchess and Sir John Conroy and, as an unwanted companion for the Princess, Conroy’s daughter Victoire, drove to Hollymount in the Malvern hills, calling on the way at Stratford-on-Avon, Kenilworth and Warwick, and paying a visit to the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough at Blenheim Palace. They also went to Earl Beauchamp’s house, Madresfield Court, Malvern and to the Duke of Beaufort’s Badminton House. They visited Hereford, Gloucester and Stonehenge; at Bath on 23 October the Princess opened the Royal Victoria Park; at Worcester she was taken round the porcelain works.

There was another tour two years later when, in the summer of 1832, the Princess and her incompatible entourage set off for north Wales by way of the Midland counties. With the utmost annoyance, the King read of these ‘disgusting parades’, of the vociferous welcome accorded to his niece, of the bands and choirs, of the loyal addresses delivered and graciously accepted, the decorated triumphal arches, the salutes of cannon from the walls of castles, the flags and flowers, the cheering crowds, the escorts of regiments of yeomanry, the presentation of medals. Drawn by grey horses, caparisoned with ribbons and artificial flowers, the post-boys wearing conspicuous pink silk jackets and black hats, the royal party – ‘the Conroyal party’ as the disapproving called it – passed through Welshpool to Powis Castle and Caernarvon, then on to Pla?s Newydd on the island of Anglesey, home of the first Marquess of Anglesey, the one-legged cavalry commander, who had offered them the use of it. They returned by way of Eaton Hall in Cheshire, home of Lord Grosvenor, calling at Chester, where the Princess opened the Victoria Bridge spanning the river Dee, on their way to the Devonshires at Chatsworth where the Princess played her first game of charades and enjoyed her first tableaux vivants.

From Chatsworth they drove to the Earl of Shrewsbury at Alton Towers and then to Pitchford in Lancashire, seat of the Earl of Liverpool, half-brother of the former Prime Minister, whose daughter, Lady Catherine Jenkinson, a young woman of whom the Princess was fond, had been appointed lady-in-waiting to the Duchess of Kent two years before.

In November the royal party reached Oxford where, in the Sheldonian Theatre, to which they were escorted by a troop of yeomanry commanded by Lord Churchill, the Princess was obliged to watch the honorary degree of Doctor of Civil Law being awarded to Sir John Conroy and to listen to the speech of the Regius Professor of Civil Law who, having referred to the ‘singular prudence’ and ‘much industry’ with which Sir John had carried out his duties for the Duke of Kent, declared, ‘Can you wonder that he who had gained the esteem of the Husband, should also have pleased His surviving Consort.’¹¹

Despite the presence of Sir John and his daughter, the Princess had enjoyed the tour, the drives in the carriage, the rides at ‘dear Plâs Newydd’ where her horse, Rosa, had taken her across the fields at an ‘enormous rate. She literally flew.’¹²

The Princess had kept a journal of their travels as her mother had told her to do. The earlier entries were most precisely dated and, since both the Duchess and Lehzen read them, rather stilted in style and matter of fact in content, not to say boring:

Wednesday, August 1st 1832. We left Kensington Palace at 6 minutes past 7 and went through the lower-field gate to the right. We went on and turned to the left by the new road to Regent’s Park. The road and scenery is beautiful. 20 minutes to 9. We have just changed horses at Barnet, a very pretty little town. 5 minutes past half past nine. We have just changed horses at St Albans…¹³

It was not until she was free to do so that she wrote from the heart and made full use of her powers of acute observation and a Boswellian ability to recall a conversation, the details of a man’s appearance, a woman’s dress. Even now, however, her writing was graphic when her imagination was aroused as it was, for instance, in her description of the mining districts of the Midlands, her first experience of such sights, such pitiable poverty which, in later years, she was rarely to witness again:

The men, women, children, country and houses are all black [she wrote]…The country is very desolate Every Where…The grass is quite blasted and black. Just now I saw an extraordinary building flaming with fire. The country continues black, engines flaming, coals, in abundance, everywhere smoking and burning coal heaps, intermingled with wretched huts and carts and little ragged children.¹⁴

What a contrast these dark scenes were with country towns, with her reception elsewhere, in other places where, as at Oxford, her party ‘were most WARMLY and ENTHUSIASTICALLY received!’¹⁵

The King read the reports of his niece’s enthusiastic welcome with mounting annoyance and serious concern: the Princess was being presented, not so much as his rightful successor, as his rival, a friend of the people who, as the daughter of committed Whigs, was presumed to be in favour of the Reform Bill to which the Tory King and Queen were opposed.

So, when in 1833 the Princess was taken on another tour, this time to the south and west of England, the King decided to curb so far as he could the ‘disgusting’ excesses of these ‘Royal Progresses’ by putting an end to what he called the ‘pop pop’ of naval salutes whenever the Duchess, her daughter and their entourage sailed by one of His Majesty’s vessels.

The Duchess was informed that since she was sailing for her own pleasure she must no longer expect to be saluted by any of the King’s ships. Sir John Conroy replied that ‘as H.R.H.’s confidential adviser’ he could not recommend her to give way on this point.¹⁶ So the King called a meeting of the Privy Council and issued an order requiring salutes to be given only for ships in which the King or Queen happened to be sailing.

Yet while the King was able to silence the naval ‘pop pops’, he could do little to prevent the unseemly excitement of the welcome accorded to his sister-in-law and niece on land; and reports of the ‘progress’ of 1833 were quite as irritating as those of previous years. On this occasion the royal party went to stay at Norris Castle on the Isle of Wight and at the beginning of August were sailing in the Emerald, tender of the royal yacht, the Royal George, when the ship ran foul of a hulk and broke her mast. The Princess was full of praise for the sailor in command of the Emerald who picked up her precious King Charles Spaniel, ‘dear sweet, little Dash’, and kept him ‘under his arm the whole time, but never let him drop in all the danger’.¹⁷

That summer the Princess went to Portsmouth where she inspected Nelson’s flagship, the Victory, and tasted some ‘excellent’ beef, potatoes and grog as a sample of the sailors’ rations.¹⁸ The Emerald anchored off Plymouth so that she could present new colours to the 89th Regimeñt; she was taken over the Eddystone lighthouse; she visited Torquay and Weymouth and Exeter; and she was driven in an open carriage, escorted by the Dorsetshire Yeomanry, to stay at Melbury House, Lord Ilchester’s house near Dorchester.

No sooner had the disagreement about naval salutes been settled than there was further trouble over the provision of a country house for the Duchess of Kent and her daughter. The Duchess wrote to the Prime Minister asking for one. The King offered her Kew Palace for that summer. The Duchess did not want a house just for that summer but a permanent country residence; besides she had made arrangements to go to Tunbridge Wells in the summer. Well then, she might have Kew Palace on a more permanent basis. The Duchess went to see it. She did not like it: it was ‘very inadequate in accommodation and almost destitute of furniture’.¹⁹ The King replied that Kew had been considered perfectly satisfactory by his ‘royal father and mother’. He had nothing else to offer.²⁰

Disgruntled though she was by her brother-in-law’s response, the Duchess seems to have enjoyed her autumn holiday at Tunbridge Wells in 1834. The Princess certainly did so, all the more so because she had been confined by illness to her room for over three weeks earlier that year, dutifully writing of her ‘dear Mama’s’ anxiety throughout her indisposition and ‘dear Lehzen’s unceasing’ care. She described her rides in the lovely countryside around the town and the public dinners which were held for them, at one of which Sir John Conroy surprised his fellow-guests by singing a song called ‘The Wolf’. The Princess left ‘dear’ unbridge Wells for St Leonard’s-on-Sea and Hastings on 4 November with ‘GREAT REGRET’.²¹ At St Leonards, where she was given ‘a most splendid reception’, she showed her resourcefulness when the carriage in which she, her mother, Lehzen and Lady Flora Hastings were riding overturned, bringing the horses down with it. She called for her dog, Dash, to be rescued, then ‘ran on with him in my arms calling Mama to follow’, and then, when one of the horses broke loose and started chasing them down the road, she told them to take cover behind a wall.*²²

Meanwhile another tour of England, this time in the northern and eastern counties, was being planned to start at the beginning of August 1835. There were to be excursions to some of the principal towns in Yorkshire, to Stamford and Grantham in Lincolnshire, to Newark in Nottinghamshire, to Belvoir Castle, home of the Duke of Rutland, and to the Marquess of Exeter’s Burghley House, near Stamford.

The King made it known that he was firmly opposed to yet another ‘progress’; and he wrote to say that he strongly disapproved of his niece being taken ‘flying about the kingdom as she had been for the past three years’.²³ But the Duchess demanded to know from Lord Melbourne, who had succeeded Lord Grey as Prime Minister in 1834, ‘on what grounds’ she could be prevented from making these visits; and when Princess Victoria protested that she did not want to be taken on another one since the King did not approve of them, her mother wrote to remonstrate with her: the King was merely jealous of the reception accorded her; of course she must go; it was her duty to go: ‘Will you not see that it is the greatest consequence that you should be seen, that you should know your country, and be acquainted with, and be known by all classes…I must tell you dearest Love, if your conversation with me could be known, that you had not the energy to undertake the journey or that your views were not enlarged enough to grasp the benefits arising from it, then you would fall in the estimation of the people of this country. Can you be dead to the calls your position demands? Impossible…Turn your thoughts and views to your future station, its duties, and the claims that exist on you.’²⁴

They left the next morning. They attended the York Musical Festival and a performance in the Minster of Messiah which she acknowledged was considered ‘very fine’, but personally she thought the music ‘heavy and tiresome’, not sharing her grandfather George III’s passion for Handel. She liked ‘the present Italian school…much better’. They were entertained by her grandfather’s friend, the elderly, benevolent Archbishop Harcourt;* they went to Doncaster Races; they passed through Leeds and Wakefield and Barnsley; they inspected the Duke of Rutland’s family mausoleum at Belvoir. Passing into East Anglia, they visited the Earl and Countess of Leicester at Holkham Hall where the Princess was so tired she nearly fell asleep at dinner; and they went to the Duke of Grafton’s house, a rather decrepit Euston Hall. At Burghley House, after opening a ball with her host, the Marquess of Exeter, she had such a ‘dreadful headache’ that she went to bed after that one dance.²⁵

‘It is an end to our journey, I am happy to say,’ the Princess wrote in her diary when it was all over. ‘Though I liked some of the places very well, I was much tired by the long journey & the great crowds we had to encounter. We cannot travel like other people, quietly and pleasantly.’²⁶

For most of the time on this tour she had been feeling unwell and had quite lost her appetite. There was no need now for those warnings occasionally despatched to her by her uncle Leopold who, in one of his arch letters, had written to say that he had heard that ‘a certain little princess…eats a little too much, and almost always a little too fast’.²⁷ Her ‘dearest Sister’ Feodora had also warned her that she ate too fast, and that in addition she helped herself to far too much salt with her meat.

Now the very thought of food sometimes made her feel sick. She was also suffering from intermittent headaches, back ache, sore throats, insomnia, and dreadful lassitude. ‘When one arrives at any nobleman’s seat,’ she wrote, ‘one must instantly dress for dinner and consequently I could never rest properly.’²⁸

6 UNCLES

‘There would be no advantage in having a totally inexperienced girl of eighteen, just out of strict guardianship to govern an Empire.’

THE PROSPECT OF an autumn holiday at Ramsgate did little to raise the Princess’s spirits, even though her uncle Leopold, whom she had not seen for over four years, was also to be staying in the town at the Albion Hotel.* ‘What happiness it was for me to throw myself in the arms of that dearest of Uncles, who has always been to me like a father, and whom I love so very dearly,’ she wrote in her diary. ‘I look up to him as a Father with confidence, love and affection. He is the best and kindest adviser I have…I have such great love for him and such great confidence in him.’ ‘I love him so very much,’ she added later. ‘Oh, my love for him approaches to a sort of adoration. He is indeed “il mio secondo padre”, or rather “solo padre”, for he is indeed like my real father, as I have none.’ His young wife, Queen Louise, daughter of Louis-Philippe, King of the French, whom he had married when she was twenty a bare three years before, was also ‘quite delightful’, ‘an Angel’ who behaved towards her in the most friendly manner, playing games with her in the evenings, praising her drawings, sending her hairdresser to rearrange her light brown hair and pressing upon her all kinds of presents from her own wardrobe which were followed by boxes of dresses and hats sent to her when Queen Louise had returned home.¹

Yet the Princess was still feeling unwell; and when she returned to Ramsgate from Dover, where she had said goodbye to King Leopold and Queen Louise, she found life ‘terribly fade & dull without them’ and tired herself out with crying. She was, indeed, really ‘very ill’. The Duchess’s doctor, James Clark, was called but did not stay long. The Duchess considered that her daughter’s indisposition could largely be attributed to the girl’s ‘childish whims’ and Baroness Lehzen’s imagination.² Conroy hinted that it was all brought about by the Princess’s childishness and he hinted that it was a mere maladie imaginaire, further evidence of the fanciful girl’s inability to reign without her mother’s constant guidance. One day he took advantage of her indisposition to endeavour to induce her to sign a paper authorizing his appointment as her Private Secretary. ‘They (Mama and John Conroy) attempted (for I was still very ill) to make me promise [to do so],’ she later said. ‘I resisted in spite of my illness and their harshness, my beloved Lehzen supporting me alone.’³

When Dr Clark had returned to London, it was clear that his patient was now seriously ill, suffering perhaps from severe tonsillitis or typhoid fever exacerbated by mental stress: she was feverish with a racing pulse. Lehzen proposed that Dr Clark should be sent for again; but the Duchess accused her of making an unnecessary fuss. ‘How can you think I would do such a thing?’ she said. ‘What a noise that would make in town; in short we differ so much about this indisposition that we had better not speak of it at all.’⁴

When the Princess grew worse, however, both Conroy and the Duchess agreed that Dr Clark must be summoned immediately; and when he replied to the effect that he could not come until late that night, a local doctor was called in. But by now the patient was recovering. Even so, after his return, Dr Clark thought it as well to remain in Ramsgate for over a month, while Lehzen, the ‘most affectionate, devoted, attached friend’ the Princess had ever had, nursed her ‘as attentively as ever’.

On 3 November 1835 Princess Victoria felt strong enough to report to King Leopold that she was ‘much better’, but she had to admit that she had grown ‘very thin’ and her hair was falling out ‘frightfully’; she was ‘litterally now getting bald’.⁵ Dr Clark advised a new regime for her at Kensington: she should be moved to apartments on a higher floor; she should go for regular walks, not sit too long at her lessons, exercise her arms with Indian clubs, and chew her food thoroughly, curbing her inclination – reproved by Baroness Lehzen as well as King Leopold and Princess Feodora – to eat too fast, even though of late she had not been eating much at all: a dose of quinine had been followed by potato soup for luncheon, and a thin slice or two of mutton with rice and orange jelly for dinner.⁶

By the end of January 1836 she had settled once more into the tedious routine of life at Kensington Palace, longing ‘sadly’, as she put it, ‘for some gaiety’, but for days on end seeing no one of her own age from the outside world and having to endure the company of ‘the usual party’ including Sir John Conroy, now more detested than ever, the boring Lady Conroy, the ‘2 Miss Conroys’, Victoire and Jane, and the friend of the Conroys, the clever and incompatible Lady Flora Hastings. She was still convalescent, living on a spare diet which now included bread and butter, performing exercises to strengthen her legs and arms and taking drives to the villages north of Kensington, Hampstead, Finchley and Harrow, and to places she was taken to on her mother’s charitable rounds. She went one August evening to St George’s Chapel at Windsor and stood looking mournfully at the tombs, one of which was her ‘poor dear Father’s’, sadly reflecting how cruel it was to lose those whom we loved and to be ‘encumbered’ by those we disliked.

There were, of course, breaks in this boring and frustrating existence: there was her first drive down the course at Ascot during race week; there were rare visits to Windsor Castle for dinners and dances, and even rarer appearances at St James’s on drawing-room days; there were walks on Hampstead Heath with Dash, ‘DEAR SWEET LITTLE DASH’, whom not so long ago she had been in the habit of dressing up like one of her dolls. There were singing lessons with the amusing, good-humoured and wholly delightful bass, Luigi Lablache, of whom she was so much in awe at first that no sound came out, though she later grew so fond of him that she would have liked to have had lessons every day instead of once a week. She eagerly discussed music with him in French and could not agree with his high estimation of Mozart. ‘I am a terribly modern person,’ she wrote in her journal, ‘and I must say I prefer Bellini, Rossini, Donizetti, etc., to anything else; but Lablache who understands music thoroughly said, “C’est le Papa de tous.”’⁷

‘Oh!’ she wrote in her diary of Lablache’s birthplace, ‘could I but once behold bella Napoli with its sunny blue sky and turquoise bay dotted with islands!’⁸

There were, above all, exciting evenings at the theatre and the opera, where she delighted in the performances of the half-Italian, half-Swedish ballerina, Marie Taglioni, who ‘danced quite exquisitely’, of Taglioni’s brother, Paul, ‘the most splendid man-dancer [she] ever saw’, of the tenor Rubini, the baritone Tamburini, her hero, Luigi Lablache, and the lovely soprano Giulia Grisi, ‘a most beautiful singer and actress’ whom she saw in her favourite opera, Bellini’s Puritani, and in Donizetti’s Anna Bolena by which she was ‘VERY MUCH AMUSED INDEED’.⁹

There were interesting afternoons at the Zoological Gardens in Regent’s Park; and evenings when she was brought downstairs by Lehzen to be introduced to distinguished guests, on one occasion to Sir Robert Peel, on another to Lord Palmerston who was ‘so very agreeable, clever, amusing & gentlemanlike’ and with whom, a year or two later, she had ‘much pleasant and amusing conversation’. There were birthday parties and birthday presents including, one year, a print of Marie Taglioni from Lehzen, earrings from the King, a brooch containing a strand of her mother’s hair, a writing-case from Sir John Conroy, a paper-knife from Lady Flora Hastings and a prayer book from ‘a bookseller of the name of Hatchard’. There were occasional balls at Kensington Palace; and above all, there were very occasional visits by German cousins whose departure, as she lamented in her diary, made her ‘quite wretched’, grieved and sad, missing them ‘dreadfully’, feeling that it was ‘like a dream that all our joy, happiness and gaiety should thus suddenly be over’. King Leopold wondered in his cautious way if these bursts of excitement were good for her. Might they not undermine her health? But no; it was the tedium of life at Kensington and the stress of the relationships there that upset her and made her ill. ‘Merriment and mirth’ were a tonic. ‘I can assure you,’ she wrote to him, ‘all this dissipation does me a great deal of good.’¹⁰ So did a change of air at King Leopold’s house at Esher, and a subsequent few days at Buxted Park in Sussex, the family home of her friend, Lady Catherine Jenkinson, daughter of the Earl of Liverpool.

Yet even away from Kensington Palace the tensions of life there followed her about like inescapable shadows. Lady Catherine got on well with Lehzen, so was persona non grata with the Conroy faction, and was soon to leave the Duchess of Kent’s household, ostensibly on the grounds of ill health. The Duchess of Northumberland had also fallen out with Conroy who considered she was undermining his authority, since she had written to Princess Feodora requesting her to approach her uncle, King Leopold, and ask him to do what he could to protect Baroness Lehzen, who was still being treated ‘with contempt and incredible harshness’ in an attempt to get rid of her and replace her with someone of Conroy’s own choosing. At the same time there was no love lost between Princess Victoria and the Conroys’ sharp-tongued friend, Lady Flora Hastings. As for the Duchess of Kent’s relations with the King they went from bad to worse.

There was trouble when the King declined to receive the Duchess’s daughter-in-law, the wife of Charles, Prince of Leiningen, on the grounds that she was not of royal blood and therefore by tradition barred from the Closet at St James’s Palace.¹¹ Then there was further trouble when the King required the gentlemen of the Duchess of Kent’s household to leave the Throne Room during the course of a drawing room there because, so he said, only gentlemen of the King’s and Queen’s household enjoyed the privilege of attendance at such a reception in such a place, the households of other members of the Royal Family being limited to ladies only.¹²

These, however, were relatively minor incidents when compared with an outrageous and distressing contretemps at Windsor Castle on 21 August 1836. This was the King’s birthday. He had invited the Duchess of Kent and Princess Victoria to come to Windsor for the Queen’s birthday party on 13 August and then to stay on for his own on the 21st. The Duchess, rudely taking no notice of the invitation to the Queen’s birthday party, replied that she intended to be at Claremont for her own birthday celebrations on 17 August but would bring her daughter to Windsor on the 20th.

This put the King into a fury [Charles Greville was informed by one of the King’s illegitimate sons, Adolphus FitzClarence, who was living in the Castle at the time]. He made, however, no reply, and on the 20th he was in town to prorogue Parliament, having desired that they would not wait dinner for him at Windsor. After the prorogation He went to Kensington Palace to look about it; when He got there He found that the Duchess of Kent had appropriated to her own use a suite of apartments, seventeen in number for which She had applied last year, and which he had refused to let her have. This increased his ill-humour, already excessive. When he arrived at Windsor [suffering from the effects of sleepless nights and asthmatic attacks] and went into the drawing-room (at about ten o’clock at night), where the whole party was assembled, he went up to the Princess Victoria, took hold of both her hands, and expressed his pleasure at seeing her there and his regret that he did not see her oftener. He then turned to the Duchess and made her a low bow, almost immediately after which he said that ‘a most unwarrantable liberty had been taken with one of his Palaces; that He had just come from Kensington, where He found apartments had been taken possession of not only without his consent, but contrary to his commands, and that he neither understood nor would endure conduct so disrespectful to him.’ This was said loudly, publicly, and in a tone of serious displeasure. It was, however, only the muttering of the storm which was to break the next day. Adolphus went into his room on Sunday morning, and found him in a state of great excitement. It was his birthday, and though the celebration was (what was called) private, there were a hundred people at dinner, either belonging to the Court or from the neighbourhood. The Duchess of Kent sat on one side of the King and one of his sisters on the other, the Princess Victoria opposite. Adolphus sat two or three from the Duchess, and heard every word of what passed. After dinner, by the Queen’s desire, ‘His Majesty’s health, and long life to him’ was given, and as soon as it was drunk He made a very long speech, in the course of which he poured forth the following extraordinary and foudroyant tirade: – ‘I trust in God that my life may be spared for nine months longer, after which period, in the event of my death, no Regency would take place. I should then have the satisfaction of leaving the royal authority to the personal exercise of that Young Lady (pointing to the Pss.), the Heiress presumptive of the Crown, and not in the hands of a person now near me, who is surrounded by evil advisers and who is herself incompetent to act with propriety in the station in which She would be placed. I have no hesitation in saying that I have been insulted – grossly and continually insulted – by that person, but I am determined to endure no longer a course of behaviour so disrespectful to me. Amongst many other things I have particularly to complain of the manner in which that young Lady has been kept away from my Court; she has been repeatedly kept from my drawing-rooms, at which She ought always to have been present, but I am fully resolved that this shall not happen again. I would have her know that I am King, and that I am determined to make my authority respected, and for the future I shall insist and command that the Princess do upon all occasions appear at my Court, as it is her duty to do.’ He terminated his speech by an allusion to the Princess and her future reign in a tone of paternal interest and affection, which Adolphus told me was excellent in its way.

This awful philippick (with a great deal more which I forget) was uttered with a loud voice and excited manner. The Queen looked in deep distress, the Princess burst into tears, and the whole company were aghast. The Duchess of Kent said not a word. Immediately after they rose and retired, and a terrible scene ensued; the Duchess announced her immediate departure and ordered her carriage, but a sort of reconciliation was patched up, and she was prevailed upon to stay till the next day.¹³

The Duke of Wellington’s comment upon all this was characteristically laconic: ‘Very awkward, by God!’

The Princess’s distress was alleviated by the thought that her beloved Uncle Leopold was coming to England to stay at Claremont in three weeks’ time. Her delight in his company was as profound as ever: ‘He is so clever,’ she recorded in her diary, ‘so mild and so prudent; he alone can give me good advice on every thing.’ She loved Queen Louise, too, she protested, and ‘very much regretted’ that she was unable to come to England with her husband as she was expecting a second child. Louise sent ‘lovely’ presents, however, a silk dress and a satin bonnet, the dress ‘made by Mlle Palmyre, the first dressmaker of Paris’.

Her uncle’s visit was soon over, however; and thereafter week after week passed at Claremont with ‘the usual society’, including that of Conroy’s daughter, Victoire, whom she increasingly grew to dislike the more she hated the girl’s father, and she longed to return to London for the season, yearning for the opera and the theatre and ‘for some merriment after being so very long in the country’ with such companions as she was obliged to live with there. Yet, when she did return to Kensington, life there was far from gay: Conroy was as detestable as ever and more than ever determined not to lose his influence in the Duchess of Kent’s household when her daughter came of age. The Duchess herself was just as much under Conroy’s influence as she had ever been.

Shortly before her eighteenth birthday Princess Victoria received a letter from the King in which he told her that he proposed applying to Parliament for a grant of £10,000 a year to be entirely at her own disposal. He intended her also to have the right to appoint her own Keeper of the Privy Purse, suggesting Sir Benjamin Stephenson whom the Duchess much disliked, for this post. The Princess was, in addition, to have the right to form her own household. When the Lord Chamberlain brought this letter to Kensington, Sir John Conroy insisted upon its being delivered to the Princess in the Duchess’s presence. Once the Princess had read it she handed it to her mother who was, of course, appalled by its contents. Having satisfied herself that the King had consulted the Cabinet before writing the letter, she wrote an extremely angry reply to Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister, then, having summarily dismissed suggestions by her daughter that her tutor, the Revd George Davys, now Dean of Chester, might be appointed her Keeper of the Privy Purse, and that the Princess might have a private conversation with Lord Melbourne, the Duchess, with Conroy’s help, wrote a letter to the King which the Princess, who had felt ‘very miserable’ the evening before and had refused to go down to dinner, was required to copy. ‘I wish to remain in every respect as I am now in the care of my Mother,’ ran this letter which the Princess had for a time resisted in copying. ‘Upon the subject of money I should wish that whatever may be necessary to add, may be given to my dear Mother for my use, who always does everything I want in pecuniary matters.’¹⁴

When he read this letter the King commented, before laying it aside, that Victoria had not written it.¹⁵ To a later letter, offering a compromise – £4,000 a year for the Princess and £6,000 for herself – the Duchess replied curtly, rejecting it without even consulting her daughter who by now no longer spoke to her when they were alone together.

By this time the King was clearly very ill. He had arranged to give a ball on the evening of 24 May when the Princess came of age; but he was not well enough to greet his niece who drove to St James’s through streets crammed with people whose anxiety, so she wrote, ‘to see poor stupid me was very great, and I must say I am quite touched by it, and feel proud, which I always have done of my country and the English nation’.¹⁶ At the Palace she was told that His Majesty had directed that she should occupy his own chair of state. She did not greatly enjoy the ball, though. She felt Sir John Conroy’s eyes on her the whole evening, like those of a disapproving hawk; and when it was over she wrote resignedly in her diary: ‘Today is my eighteenth birthday! How old! And yet how far am I from being what I should be.’¹⁷

It was a sentiment which both Sir John Conroy and her mother did all they could to endorse. ‘You are still very young,’ the Duchess, with Conroy clearly at her shoulder, wrote to her, ‘and all your success so far has been due to your Mother’s reputation. Do not be too sanguine in your own talents and understanding.’ Conroy himself asserted that Victoria was ‘younger in intellect than in years’ and that she had too flippant a mentality to dispense with the guidance of those who knew her best.

The day after her birthday her uncle Leopold’s friend and counsellor Baron Stockmar, a Coburger of Swedish descent, arrived in London. Then forty-nine years old, Christian Frederick Stockmar was a qualified physician who had been head of the military hospital in Coburg. Having come across him there, Prince Leopold had been impressed by his honesty and knowledge of the world, and he had asked him to become his personal physician. When Princess Charlotte died, Prince Leopold had begged Stockmar never to leave him. Stockmar had promised never to do so and thereafter he spent more time with Leopold and on various missions for him than he did with his wife and children. Small, rotund, hypochondriacal, trustworthy, sardonic, moody, obsessively moral, and with a rather too high opinion of his understanding of political manoeuvres and psychological insights, he was to become a familiar figure at the English court, where, until his retirement to Coburg in 1857, he was to be seen walking into dinner of an evening without decorations and wearing ordinary trousers instead of the regulation knee-breeches.

He soon grasped the realities of the imbroglio at Kensington. On previous visits to England he had got on quite well with Sir John Conroy who spoke of him with the ‘greatest respect’; but as he came to understand the extent of the man’s ambition and of his influence over the Duchess of Kent – an influence which King Leopold was later to describe as ‘witchcraft’ – Stockmar began to agree with his master that Conroy’s conduct was ‘madness’ and ‘must end in his own ruin’.

Certainly Conroy’s machinations became almost desperate as King William’s health rapidly deteriorated and the accession of Princess Victoria as Queen grew ever closer.

On 22 May Sir Henry Halford, the King’s doctor, reported that his 72-two-year-old patient was ‘in a very odd state and decidedly had the hay fever and in such a manner as to preclude his going to bed’. Four days later Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary, wrote of the King being in ‘a very precarious state’ and, ‘though he would probably rally’, it was not likely he would last long. ‘It is desirable he should wear the crown some time, however,’ Palmerston added, ‘for there would be no advantage in having a totally inexperienced girl of eighteen, just out of strict guardianship, to govern an Empire.’

In the meantime, Conroy was doing all he could to ensure that his guardianship was maintained, while the Princess, supported by Baroness Lehzen and Baron Stockmar, was doing all she could to break free from her guardian’s control. He again proposed to her that he be appointed her Private Secretary, a proposal which she naturally again rejected. After a conversation with her on 9 June, Stockmar reported to King Leopold:

I found the Princess fairly cool and collected, and her answers precise, apt and determined. I had throughout the conversation, the impression that she is extremely jealous of what she considers to be her rights and her future power and is therefore not at all inclined to do anything which would put Conroy into a situation to be able to entrench upon them. Her feelings seem, moreover, to have been deeply wounded by what she calls ‘his impudent and insulting conduct’ towards her. Her affection and esteem for her mother seem likewise to have suffered by Mama having tamely allowed Conroy to insult the Princess in her presence, and by the Princess having been frequently a witness to insults which the poor Duchess tolerated herself in the presence of her daughter…O’Hum [Conroy] continues the system of intimidation with the genius of a madman, and the Duchess carries out all that she is instructed to do with admirable docility and perseverance…The Princess continues to refuse firmly to give her Mama her promise that she will make O’Hum her confidential adviser. Whether she will hold out, Heaven only knows, for they plague her, every hour and every day.¹⁸

The Princess also managed to have a private conversation with the moderate Tory, Lord Liverpool, of whom she was so fond. Like Stockmar, Lord Liverpool urged her not to consider for a moment appointing Conroy her Private Secretary, a post for which he was quite unsuited. She must rely on the Ministers at present in office, particularly Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister, to advise her. Of course for the moment she must continue to live with her mother. To all this the Princess agreed. With Lord Liverpool, Baron Stockmar and King Leopold all supporting her, she now felt quite capable of resisting Sir John Conroy’s threats and blandishments. Lord Liverpool suggested that, as a compromise, the Princess might consider appointing Sir John her Privy Purse, provided he did not stray from that department. But, primed by Lehzen, the Princess protested that Lord Liverpool ‘must be aware of many slights & incivilities Sir John has been guilty of towards her, but besides this she knew things of him which rendered it totally impossible for her to place him in any confidential position near her…She knew things which entirely took away her confidence in him, & that she knew this of herself without any other person informing her.’¹⁹

Before parting from Lord Liverpool she suggested he spoke to Baron Stockmar who would tell him many things she did not like to talk about herself. Also, Lord Liverpool’s daughter, Lady Catherine, would confirm what she had told him about Sir John Conroy’s intolerably rude behaviour towards herself.

The day after this conversation with Lord Liverpool, Baron Stockmar reported that ‘the struggle between the Mama and daughter’ was still going on and that the Duchess was ‘being pressed by Conroy to bring matters to extremities and to force her Daughter to do her will by unkindness and severity’. Conroy claimed he had been advised by James Abercromby, a former Judge-Advocate-General and the future Lord Dunfermline, that the girl must be ‘coerced’, if she would not listen to reason. But, so he later maintained, he decided not to go to such lengths because he ‘did not credit the Duchess of Kent with enough strength for such a step’.²⁰

The King was now very close to death. When told this on 19 June the Princess ‘turned pale and burst into tears’. The next morning, her mother woke her at six o’clock to tell her that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Conyngham, whose horses had galloped all the way, had come to the Palace and wished to see her. She got out of bed and went downstairs, the Duchess holding her hand and carrying a candle in a silver candlestick, Lehzen following with a bottle of smelling salts. ‘I went into my sitting room (only in my dressing gown) and alone’, she wrote in her diary, ‘and saw them. Lord Conyngham then acquainted me that my poor Uncle, the King, was no more, and had expired at 12 minutes past 2 this morning and consequently that I am Queen.’²¹

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.