Читать книгу Queen Victoria: A Personal History - Christopher Hibbert - Страница 14

‘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