Censoring Queen Victoria

by Yvonne M. Ward

  Victoria’s views on Russia were also deemed unfit for publication. King Leopold bore an ongoing distrust of the Emperor of Russia, Nicholas I, which had its origins in the negotiations at the time of the establishment of the constitution for an independent Belgian state. In 1844, the Tsar had just undertaken a very successful visit to Victoria and Albert at Windsor. Benson and Esher included some delightful letters from Victoria, revealing her anxiety about the visit and her subsequent triumph at its success. In early May 1844, she confided in her journal: ‘We are still threatened with a visit from the Emperor of Russia which alarms me somewhat …’ On 30 May she continued:

  [Foreign Secretary] Lord Aberdeen came immediately after luncheon and told Albert that after all the Emperor of Russia is coming and may be here on the 3rd! This rather upset me for I so dread the fatigue & hate appearing in my present condition. But it cannot be helped, disagreeable as it is. He will only remain a week.

  At the time Victoria was heavily pregnant with her fourth child; despite their usual coyness about such matters, Benson and Esher allowed this veiled reference to pregnancy to remain in the published text.

  The Tsar arrived in Windsor at the same time as another distinguished visitor, the elderly King of Saxony. Writing to Leopold, Victoria described the Tsar as a ‘striking man’ of large physique, with a ‘quite fearful’ expression ‘unlike anything I ever saw before’. He seldom smiled, she said, and when he did ‘his expression was not a happy one’. Yet, she continued excitedly:

  The children are much admired by the Sovereigns – (how grand this sounds!) – and Alice allowed the Emperor to take her in his arms, and kissed him de son propre accord. We are always so thankful that they are not shy.

  On a political level, she wrote:

  If the French are angry at this visit, let their dear King and Princes come; they will be sure of a truly affectionate reception on our part. The one which Emperor Nicholas has received is cordial and civil, mais ne vient pas du coeur [but it doesn’t come from the heart].

  At the conclusion of the visit, Leopold wrote to Victoria with a warning: ‘Concerning great Nick, I must express myself with great care, as I can see that my opinion may be judged as the result of some pique.’ He proceeded into a diatribe, accusing the Tsar of not fulfilling his promises and

  of displaying great inconsistency in his conduct towards us, for so powerful a Prince … having consented to the arrangement [of Belgian sovereignty by] four ratifications in his own handwriting, the hostility with which we have been treated is not to be explained.

  Secondary states may be forced to swallow unpleasant things from weakness; Constitutional Sovereigns of great countries may be forced by their Parliaments and may make a personal distinction and say officially I must deal with these people, but personally, I will avoid it as much as possible … But the most powerful Autocrat must either frankly refuse at first, or having consented to the arrangements, must keep up decent form … The Emperor has refused all and every acknowledgment of political existence to me and this country. The Polish affair is of so trifling a nature that it excuses nothing.

  Without France going with England, Austria cannot move. But enough of politics. I should not have mentioned them but I think it wise to be on the most friendly terms with Russia, without losing sight of what is going on in the immense sphere of action where the Russians already move as Masters. If Maria Theresa had been told that Moldavia Walackia and Servia [sic] would be governed by the Russians, who at the same time would have nearly the whole of Poland, she would have been astonished in good earnest [with good reason].

  Benson and Esher omitted nearly all of this letter, but provided only one set of ellipses (after ‘Concerning great Nick …’), giving the reader no sense of how much had been left out. It is a moot question whether, given the political climates of 1844 and 1906, the omissions were for economy of space or in deference to the King’s dictum, delivered by Esher, that the editors were ‘to avoid giving pain to living servants or friends of the King, or umbrage to foreign states’.

  Leopold was always keen to educate Victoria in history and royal precedent. The editors included several letters reflecting this. He was also fond of referring to his first wife, Charlotte, Princess of Wales, with whom he had lived in England until her death in childbirth in 1817. In a letter written to accompany a portrait of Charlotte he was giving to Victoria, he described Charlotte’s life and personality in detail. Three sentences were ordered for excision; they were critical not just of Charlotte’s father, King George IV, but also of her grandmother and namesake, Queen Charlotte (the wife of George III), and of the royal family as a whole:

  The power my wishes and arguments had on her [Princess Charlotte] was remarkable; the greatest sacrifice on her part was to be civil to the old Queen and to her father. She knew him but too well; he was very jealous of her, and she feared him without feeling any esteem for him. What you have seen of the remnant of the Royal family may give you a clue of what it was when they were all alive, and still in vigorous dispositions for every descriptions of mischief.

  Leopold had never been welcomed into Charlotte’s family, so this criticism was not surprising. In another letter – which was published without excisions – he recalled events following the death of Victoria’s father and in particular the reprehensible behaviour of George IV (given here with the editors’ ellipses and italics):

  [Your Father’s] affairs were so deranged that your Mother would have had no means even of leaving Sidmouth if I had not taken all this under my care and management. That dreary journey, undertaken, I think on the 26th January, in bitter cold and damp weather, I shall not easily forget. I looked very sharp after the poor little baby [Victoria], then about eight months old. Arrived in London we were very unkindly treated by George IV, whose great wish was to get you and your Mamma out of the country and I must say without my assistance you could not have remained … I state these facts because it is useful to remember through what difficulties and hardships one had to struggle.

  Victoria’s own criticism of her family was also toned down. One passage ordered for excision concerned her half-brother, Charles, who had been appointed Foreign Affairs Secretary in the new federation of German states. Victoria wrote to Leopold:

  I do not think the fate of the Minor Princes of Germany is so completely decided as Charles, (whose conduct rather reminds me of Egalité in the old French Revolution) is so anxious to make one believe.

  She believed Charles to be siding, with indecent enthusiasm, with the revolutionary Frankfort Assembly of 1848, whose more radical members wished to dispossess the minor princes of Germany such as Victoria’s brother-in-law, Duke Ernest II of Coburg. She was comparing Charles with Philip Egalité, a relation of Louis XVI who, during the French Revolution, championed (for a time) the cause of the revolutionaries who eventually executed the Bourbon king (Egalité was the father of Louis Philippe, who had just sought refuge in Britain). Why was this comment removed? Charles was Edward VII’s uncle; perhaps Esher thought the King would be uncomfortable with such a close relative being described as a revolutionary, even if by Victoria herself.

  In seeking to accommodate the idiosyncrasies and potential objections – both known and imagined – of the King, the editors were willing to sacrifice aspects of Victoria’s life and personality. These last-minute excisions of material initially approved for publication reveal their anxiety, after waiting so long for royal permission, to have the book published at last.

  Conclusion

  THE EDITORS’ QUEEN

  JOHN MURRAY HAD HOPED to publish sometime in 1906, but as time wore on and the courtiers prevaricated, publication was delayed several times. By 2 September 1907 all three volumes were ready to print. The books were finally in the hands of booksellers on 16 October 1907, ready to go on sale, at the price of three guineas, the following day. Murray told Benson happily that five thousand copies had been despatched. Thanks to Murray’s strenuous efforts, editions were publis
hed simultaneously in America and in translation in France and Germany.

  The Letters of Queen Victoria was reviewed widely; Esher collected thirty-seven mostly favourable reviews and had them bound for his archive. Benson recorded a few desultory remarks about the reception in his diary: he was pleased by reviews which praised the editing, but disappointed that among the many letters of congratulations he received, none was from his ‘attached friends of Eton’. Discussions began about reprinting almost immediately and a cheaper edition was produced in 1908, priced at one guinea for all three volumes. This 1908 edition, with its smaller format, cloth cover and thirteen plates (compared to the thirty-nine plates of the first edition), is the one most widely found in libraries today.

  Not long after publication, Benson had a nervous breakdown and was finally admitted to a clinic in Mayfair in November (after checking the proofs of the preface in September, he had told his diary, ‘depression lurks in the background, moving dimly like a figure in a mist’). Esher went on to establish the Royal Archives and to publish extracts of Victoria’s girlhood journal in 1912 (Benson, still recovering from his depression, declined to be joint editor and suggested Esher ask Hugh Childers to assist him, which he did).

  *

  Biographers and historians have drawn on the published letters ever since, treating them as a representative and comprehensive primary source. These letters have shaped our understanding of Victoria’s life, and this has led to some serial misrepresentations.

  Lytton Strachey’s biography of Queen Victoria, which has remained in print since its publication in 1921, is typical. Using Benson and Esher’s structure as its template, it describes the young, innocent girl-queen who becomes a wife and mother, with the greatest emphasis placed on the strong men who surrounded her. Six of Strachey’s ten chapters focus on these men. His assessment of Victoria’s role in the rise and fall of the power of the Crown sums up his depiction of her reign more generally: ‘Victoria in effect was a mere accessory.’

  The published letters, however, should not be seen simply as ‘primary sources’. The personality and outlook of each editor; the need to observe royal protocols and avoid offending living relatives; a desire to avoid controversy and yet to sell books – all of these factors helped to shape the published image of Victoria. As Edwardian gentlemen, the editors approached everything they read through a very particular perspective. This is most evident in the priority they gave to the voices of men. Benson and Esher could ‘hear’ her male correspondents’ voices more clearly and appreciate their importance more readily; Queen Victoria’s own words comprise just forty per cent of the published letters, and her many female correspondents appear barely at all. This is not to deny the importance of the men who wrote to Victoria; in omitting her huge correspondence with other women, however, the editors excluded a large part of Victoria’s experience.

  The image that made most sense to Benson and Esher was that of the elderly teaching the young. They wanted to spin the romantic story of Lord Melbourne and the girl Queen, which, of course, they could readily understand: the senior statesmen, experienced in the world, guiding the youthful Queen with love and wisdom – any flirtatiousness on her part merely confirmed Lord Melbourne’s endearing charm upon her. Although the gender is different, it follows that classical Greek model of pedagogy of which they were both enthusiasts.

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  The completion of this book is the result of assistance and support from all of the people who helped with my PhD, the staff at Black Inc., especially Chris Feik and my very perceptive editor, Denise O’Dea, and John Hirst. Not only was he persistent in convincing me that the thesis should be published but he did the initial abridgement to persuade Chris Feik as well. Without his efforts the book would have remained in the thesis.

  I am very grateful to friends for their help, their friendship, hospitality and sustenance, and for sharing the joys of the research: Walter and Charlotte Arnstein, Ingrid Barker, Lady de Bellaigue, Janet Butler, Liz and Richard Coyle, Liz Dimock, Graham Fairhurst, Carole Hamilton-Barwick, Tim Healey, Dr Gustaaf Janssens, Sue Knowles, Robert Lacey, Margaret Lee, Evelyn Maynard, Lee-Ann Monk, John and Virginia Murray, Keith and Joyce Pescod, Ann and Mike Reece, Sue and Bob Sutton, and Monika Wingrove.

  To my first teachers: Mum and Dad, Leah and John Ward; and my brothers and sisters, Graeme, Leah, Ian, Rhonda and Steven, their partners and children.

  To our two little grandsons, Mason and Hayden, my new teachers.

  To my husband, Roy, and our children, Roy, Leah, Phillip and Allison, who all suffered various degrees of deprivation during my PhD. I hope you will all share in the satisfaction of seeing the book published.

  REFERENCES

  This book is drawn directly from my PhD dissertation, Editing Queen Victoria: How Men of Letters Constructed the Young Queen. The thesis is held by the Borchardt Library at La Trobe University in Bundoora, Australia, and is accessible electronically.

  The research drew upon material from many libraries and archives:

  Aberdeen Papers, British Library Manuscripts Collection, St Pancras, London, England.

  Alexandrine, Duchess of Saxe-Coburg, Letters and Papers, Staatsarchiv Coburg, Germany.

  Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Letters, Hessische Staatsarchiv Darmstadt, Germany.

  Bedford and Tavistock Family Papers, Woburn Abbey, Bedfordshire, England.

  Benson Collection, University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver, Canada.

  Benson Correspondence and Papers, Department of Manuscripts and University Archives, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England.

  Benson Correspondence and Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

  Benson Deposit, Department of Western Manuscripts, Bodleian Library, Oxford, England.

  Benson Diary, Old Library, Magdalene College, Cambridge, England.

  Benson MSS, Special Collection, Charles E. Young Research Library, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

  Borchardt Library, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.

  Brett Family Autograph Collection, Sydney Jones Library Special Collection, University of Liverpool, England.

  British Library Newspaper Collections, Colindale Avenue, London, England.

  Buccleuch, Duchess of, Papers and Letters, National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England

  College of Arms, London, England.

  Davidson Papers, Lambeth Palace Library, Lambeth Palace, London, England.

  Dona Maria II, Queen of Portugal, Biblioteca Nacional Ministera da Cultura, Campo Grande, Lisbon, Portugal.

  Edinburgh Public Library, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  Edward VII Coronation Records, Westminster Abbey Muniments Room, London, England.

  Elgar Papers, Elgar Birthplace Museum, Lower Broadheath, Worcestershire, England.

  Empress Frederick Letters, Kurhessische Haisstiftung, Schloss Fasanerie, Eichenzell, Germany.

  Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg, Staatsarchiv Coburg, Germany.

  Esher Papers, Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge, England.

  Eton College Archives, Eton, Berkshire, England.

  Feodore, Princess Ernest of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Letters Hohenlohe-Zentralarchiv, Neuenstein, Germany.

  Fulford Papers, privately held by Lord Shuttleworth, Leck Hall, Lancashire, England.

  Gladstone, Catherine, Diary and Letters, Flintshire Record Office, Hawarden, Wales.

  Gosse Papers, Brotherham Library, Leeds University, Leeds, England.

  Gulbenkian Foundation Library, Lisbon, Portugal.

  Lee Papers, English Miscellaneous Collection, Department of Western Manuscripts, Bodleian Library, Oxford, England.

  Lees-Milne Papers, Beinecke Rare Books and Manuscripts Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

  Leopold I, King of the Belgians, and Queen Louise of the Belgians, Archives o
f the Royal Palace, Brussels, Belgium.

  Liverpool Papers, (including letters of Catherine Vernon Harcourt), British Library Manuscripts Collection, St Pancras, London, England.

  Lyttelton, Lady Sarah, Papers and Letters, privately held by Lord Cobham, Hagley Hall, Worcestershire, England.

  Murray Papers, Letters of Charles Fairfax Murray, John Rylands Library, Manchester University, Manchester, England.

  Murray Papers and Letters, John Murray Archive, now at the National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  Nemours, Duchess of, Letters, Archives Générale du Royaume, Brussels, Belgium.

  Northumberland, Duchess of, Letters and Papers, Bryn-Y-Pys Collection, Flintshire Record Office, Hawarden, Wales.

  Palmerston Papers, Hartley Library Archives and Manuscripts, Southampton University, Southampton, England.