r/MonarchyHistory

Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland (1837 - 1901): The Mistress of Europe (Part 2)

Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland (1837 - 1901): The Mistress of Europe (Part 2)

This is part 2 of my story about Queen Victoria of the UK. Enjoy.

Last we left off, she became Queen of the United Kingdom in 1837. This came qfter the death of William IV, her endearing uncle.

But because the new sovereign was 18, she had no experience with rulling a nation, let alone a colonial empire. It wasn't helped by the fact that her mother and assistant, Conroy, had kept her out of public view for much of her formative years.

So for the firet years of her years, she was dependent of the advice for the then-rulling Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne. He had led the government for much of William's reign was was the leader of the Liberal Whig Party.

It was said that Melbourne had a close bond with the young queen, treating her as a daughter more than a monarch.

Victoria's cotonation, took place on the 28th of June 1838 at Westminster Abbey, where every english and brittish monarch was crowned before her. Her coronation was the first to have a public procession, with 400.000 people witnessing the event, much to the opposition of the conservative Tories.

However, the event had some awkward moments, such as the Archbishop of Canteburry putting the corornation ring in the wrong, causing pain to Victoria; as well as the MP Lord Rolle falling (or should I say rolling) down the stairs while trying to pay respects to the new monarch.

However, Victoria, despite not being prepared for this important event, maintained her composure and managed to help Rolle to get up. In her diary she called the coronation as the "Proudest moment of my life" and was touched by the cheering of the crowd. A lot of english had high hopes for the queen, with many seeing her as the new Queen Elizabeth Tudor.

But the coronation had to end abruptly as a confused bishop told the monarch that it was over, leaving her seat in the process. And at the end, the Lord Treasurer threw silver coronation medals in to the crowd, as was customary, and caused a massive scuffle. How entertaining.

But while Victoria enjoyed initial popularity, her first years as queen were marked by scandals and intrigue. The first happened in 1839, when one of her mother's ladies-in-waiting named Flora Hastings, showed what appeared initially as pregnancy.

Rumours circulated that she had a fling with Conroy, the comptroller of the Royal Household. Victoria, who never liked Conroy, believed the rumours fully and was thinking of getting rid of him once and for all. Hastings, however, accused of the queen's asociates, like her former governess, Baroness Lezhen, of fabricating rumours to purge the household of enemies.

Eventually, in May, Hastings took a physical examination. It was revealed that the abdominal growth was not a result of a pregnancy, but from a liver tumour. It was now clear the maid had little time left to live. Before she died on the 5th of July, Hastings was visited by the Queen, symbolically admiting her mistake.

Conroy tried to use the new discovery to remove Lezhen from court but he had no chances to regain favour. He was advised by the Duke of Wellington to flee to Europe for the time being. He did just that, effectively exiling himself and resigned from the household.

While the Queen was able to finally rid herself of her childhood opressor, the scandal damaged her popularity for a while.

But a bigger crisis was yet to come.

For now though, Victoria had to focus on another important thing: marriage. Even in her first year as queen, there were some potential suitors for the young royal. One of them, Prince Alexander of Orange, was suggested by her uncle. Yet because of disagreements between her relatives, Victoria remained unmaried in her first years as sovereign.

But there was one man who remained in her mind: her cousin Prince Albrecht of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He was actually proposed as a match by the Queen's uncle, King Leopold I of Belgium, a person she trusted his advice fully. In 1839, during his second trip to England, she became fully set on marrying him as she became infatuated with him. And fortunately for her, Albrecht felt the same.

So on the 10th of February 1840, Queen Victoria married Prince Albrecht at St. James's Palace in London. There are some things to note about her wedding. First, it remains the most recent wedding of a reigning monarch in Brittish History.

Second, the wedding dress Victoria wore was made up of white satin. It has been said that Victoria's choice for dress popularised the white dress for brides. But there are actually instances of women even from royal family to wear white during their weddings, such as Mary Queen of Scots. However, Victoria did have an impact on kickstarting the standardisation of white as the only colour for wedding gowns.

And finally, Albrecht (whom I'm going to refer to as Albert from now on) was not made King Consort. This was because under Brittish Law, a Queen Regnant was to be the ultimate sovereign of the UK. Instead Albert was refered to as Prince Consort since 1857, the first to ever hold this title. It was a stark contrast to his cousin, who after marrying Maria II of Portugal he became King Fernando II. But who cares, a consort is still a consort after all.

From the moment she became a wife, Victoria's personal life revolved almost entirely around her passionate relationship with Albert. During their wedding night, she wrote the following in her diary:

«"I NEVER, NEVER spent such an evening!!! MY DEAREST DEAREST DEAR Albert [...] his excessive love & affection gave me feelings of heavenly love & happiness I never could have hoped to have felt before! He clasped me in his arms, & we kissed each other again & again! His beauty, his sweetness & gentleness—really how can I ever be thankful enough to have such a Husband! [...] to be called by names of tenderness, I have never yet heard used to me before—was bliss beyond belief! Oh! This was the happiest day of my life!"»

Before long, Albert became Victoria's most trusted adviser, gradually replacing Lord Melbourne as her closest political ally. In truth, however, Melbourne's influence over the young monarch had already begun to decline following the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839. The dispute erupted after Victoria refused Conservative leader Sir Robert Peel's request to replace several of her ladies-in-waiting with women sympathetic to his party. The disagreement prevented Peel from forming a government, forcing Melbourne to remain in office. However, after the general election of 1841, Melbourne was defeated and resigned, allowing Peel to become Prime Minister.

As Prince Consort, Albert also sought to repair the strained relationships within the royal family. In particular, he played a crucial role in reconciling Victoria with her mother, the Duchess of Kent. Since becoming queen and sending Conroy into exile, Victoria had largely excluded her mother from court and royal events out of lingering resentment.

Much of that resentment had been encouraged by her former governess, Baroness Lehzen, who remained one of the most influential members of the royal household. Albert, however, believed Lehzen's influence over the queen had become unhealthy. He eventually persuaded Victoria to dismiss her from court, after which the Duchess of Kent was gradually welcomed back into royal life. Now free from Conroy's manipulation, the Duchess's relationship with her daughter steadily improved. Over time, she came to be viewed less as a willing participant in the Kensington System and more as another victim of Conroy's schemes.

Meanwhile, another joyful milestone arrived in November 1840, when Queen Victoria gave birth to her first child. The baby, a daughter, was named Victoria after her mother, though I will refer to her as Vicky to avoid confusion. As the eldest daughter of the sovereign, she became Princess Royal. Vicky remained heir presumptive until the birth of her younger brother, Albert Edward, in November 1841. Upon his birth, he automatically became Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales, becoming the first person to hold that title in more than twenty years.

Yet this period was not entirely peaceful. In June 1840, a young man named Edward Oxford attempted to assassinate the queen while she was travelling to visit her mother. He fired two shots but missed both times and was immediately arrested. Declared mentally unfit, Oxford was eventually transported to Australia, which at the time served as a destination for many British convicts.

The government's handling of the would-be assassin briefly hurt Victoria's popularity. Then, in 1842, another assassination attempt took place. This time, the culprit was John Francis. He failed in his first attempt, and when he tried again the following day, he was arrested and later transported overseas. Several more assassination attempts would occur over the next few years, but Victoria escaped unharmed each time. Although these incidents did not seriously threaten her life, they revealed that the queen was not universally admired, particularly among parts of the working class.

An even greater blow to Victoria's reputation came from Ireland.

Although Ireland had been under English rule for centuries, it was only in the early nineteenth century that it became formally incorporated into the United Kingdom. Relations between the Irish and the British government had long been strained, largely because the overwhelmingly Catholic Irish population had endured centuries of discrimination under Protestant rule.

The situation deteriorated dramatically in 1845, when a devastating potato blight destroyed much of Ireland's staple crop. Over the next seven years, around one million people died from starvation or famine-related diseases. The tragedy, remembered as the Great Irish Famine, was made even worse by the inadequate response of the British government.

Initially, Sir Robert Peel's Conservative government introduced several relief measures to ease the suffering. However, after Peel's fall, the succeeding Whig administration under Lord John Russell proved far less effective. Guided by a strong belief in laissez-faire economics, the government was reluctant to intervene extensively in the food market, a policy that has remained deeply controversial ever since.

Some government officials even regarded the famine as divine punishment for what they believed to be the moral failings of the Irish people. Unsurprisingly, this attitude intensified Irish resentment towards British rule and strengthened the growing movement for Irish self-government and, eventually, independence.

To her credit, Queen Victoria personally donated £2,000 to famine relief, making her one of the largest individual contributors. However, because the donation was made quietly and without public fanfare, many Irish people remained unaware of her generosity. Instead, she gained the reputation of being indifferent to their suffering—a perception that fueled growing hostility towards both the monarchy and British rule for generations to come.

During these difficult years, Victoria also expanded her family. She gave birth to Princess Alice in April 1843, Prince Alfred in August 1844, and Princess Helena in May 1846.

Although motherhood was considered one of her principal duties as queen, Victoria found pregnancy physically exhausting and deeply unpleasant, believing it distracted her from governing. She also regarded breastfeeding as unsuitable for women of her social standing, relying instead on wet nurses and governesses to care for her children.

Ironically, despite her lifelong resentment of the restrictive Kensington System under which she herself had been raised, Victoria imposed a similarly strict upbringing on her own children. Throughout her life, she closely monitored not only her sons and daughters but eventually her grandchildren as well, expecting her wishes to be treated as absolute law within the family.

The year 1848 proved especially eventful. In March, Victoria welcomed another daughter, Princess Louise. Only weeks later, Europe erupted in the wave of revolutions known as the Springtime of Nations.

Driven by members of the liberal middle class, the emerging bourgeoisie, students, and sections of the minor nobility, the revolutions sought constitutional government, expanded political representation, civil liberties, and the abolition of aristocratic privilege. Revolutionary fervour spread from the streets of Paris to the kingdoms of Italy and even reached the Romanian Principalities. Britain, too, experienced its own share of unrest.

In Ireland, nationalist activists launched the Young Ireland Rebellion. The uprising, however, lasted little more than a day before being crushed by the Royal Irish Constabulary, with many participants arrested or transported.

Meanwhile, in Great Britain, the Chartist movement organized a massive petition demanding expanded voting rights and improved working conditions for the working class. The movement reached its peak with the great rally at Kennington Common on 10 April 1848. Despite its impressive turnout, the government remained unmoved, arrested several Chartist leaders, and the movement gradually lost momentum.

In foreign affairs, Victoria sought to improve Anglo-French relations. She developed a cordial friendship with King Louis-Philippe of France and became particularly fond of his daughter, Princess Clémentine, who was close to her own age.

In 1843, Victoria and Albert visited Normandy at Louis-Philippe's invitation, making Victoria the first reigning British monarch to set foot on French soil since Henry VIII met Francis I at the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520. Louis-Philippe returned the gesture by visiting Britain the following year, and after his overthrow during the Revolutions of 1848, he sought refuge in London.

At first, Victoria distrusted Louis-Philippe's successor, Prince Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte. As the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, he seemed to embody the revolutionary ideals that Britain had spent decades fighting against. However, her opinion of him would gradually soften in the years to come.

Meanwhile, Victoria continued to grow her family. She gave birth to Prince Arthur in 1850 and Prince Leopold in 1853. During Leopold's birth, she became one of the first royal women to use chloroform as an anaesthetic during childbirth. The experience proved so successful that she requested it again in April 1857, when she gave birth to her ninth and final child, Princess Beatrice.

One of the defining achievements of this period came in 1851 with the Great Exhibition, held inside the magnificent Crystal Palace in Hyde Park. Celebrating industrial progress, scientific innovation, technological achievement, and international cooperation, the exhibition became one of the greatest events of the Victorian age.

Victoria enthusiastically supported the project from the very beginning. The exhibition attracted millions of visitors from across the world and became a powerful symbol of Britain's industrial and economic supremacy. It also greatly enhanced Prince Albert's reputation, showcasing not only his remarkable organizational abilities but also his progressive vision for science, education, and international cooperation—values that he would later pass on to many of his children.

Politics during the 1850s were dominated by the Crimean War. What began as a dispute between France and Russia over influence within the Ottoman Empire soon escalated into the largest military conflict Europe had witnessed since the Napoleonic Wars.

Over the course of the war, relations between London and Paris improved dramatically. The French emperor, Napoleon III, visited the British royal family and Prime Minister Viscount Palmerston in April 1855. In August of that same year, Victoria and Albert returned the gesture by travelling to Paris, where they were greeted with enthusiastic acclaim by the French public.

It marked the first visit by a reigning British monarch to Paris in more than four centuries. During their stay, they attended a lavish banquet at the Palace of Versailles alongside Napoleon III and his wife, Empress Eugénie de Montijo.

These royal visits brought Britain and France closer than they had been for centuries, marking a major turning point in a relationship that had long been defined by rivalry and warfare.

Another significant event came in 1858, when Victoria's eldest daughter, Vicky, married Prince Frederick of Prussia, who was second in line to the Prussian throne. The marriage had been planned for nearly four years. Albert hoped that Vicky's liberal upbringing would influence both her husband and the Prussian court, helping transform Prussia into a constitutional and liberal state that could lead the unification of Germany.

History, however, had other plans.

Still, Albert and Victoria had every reason to celebrate the following year, when Vicky gave birth to her first child, the future Emperor Wilhelm II, making the royal couple grandparents for the first time.

Then came the year 1861—a year that brought two devastating personal tragedies.

On 16 March, Victoria's mother, Victoire, Duchess of Kent, died at the age of seventy-four. Victoria remained at her bedside during her final moments. After her mother's death, the queen read many of her private letters and came to realize that, despite all the hardships and mistakes of her childhood, the Duchess had genuinely loved her daughter. It was a painful revelation, and Victoria was overcome with guilt for the resentment she had harboured for so many years.

Yet an even greater tragedy was still to come.

On 14 December 1861, Prince Albert died at Windsor Castle at the age of just forty-two. At the time, doctors believed he had succumbed to typhoid fever. Modern historians, however, have suggested that he may instead have suffered from a chronic abdominal illness, such as Crohn's disease, or perhaps even stomach cancer.

Victoria's grief was immeasurable.

She had loved Albert more deeply than anyone else in the world, and now she suddenly found herself without the man who had been her husband, closest friend, and most trusted adviser for more than twenty years. She never truly recovered from his death. For the remaining forty years of her life, she dressed almost exclusively in black and lived as a widow in perpetual mourning.

Her relationship with her eldest son, Albert Edward—better known within the family as Bertie—also deteriorated sharply. Victoria blamed him, at least in part, for Albert's death. She believed that the prince's final illness had been brought on after he travelled through the winter cold to Cambridge in order to confront Bertie over an alleged affair. Whether or not this was true, Victoria never fully forgave her son, and their relationship remained strained for decades.

But how would Victoria cope with the immense burden of ruling an empire while carrying such profound personal grief? And what challenges still awaited the aging queen?

That is a story for Part 3.

u/Adept-One-4632 — 2 days ago
▲ 32 r/MonarchyHistory+1 crossposts

Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland (1837 - 1901): The Mistress of Europe (Part 1)

For anyone with an interest in history, myself included, there is little doubt that they have heard of the "Great Man Theory." As its name suggests, it is an approach to history that focuses on the achievements and legacies of extraordinary individuals who shaped the course of the world—whether they were conquerors, inventors, reformers, or spiritual leaders.

Although this theory is far from the only way of interpreting history and has attracted considerable criticism, it is easy to understand why many find it convincing. Throughout the centuries, remarkable individuals have transformed the world in ways few could have imagined. Figures such as Augustus and Napoleon permanently altered the course of history through their leadership and ambition.

Yet there is one individual who belongs comfortably among them.

Like Augustus, she ruled over a vast empire stretching across the globe. Like Napoleon, she gave her name to an entire era, one defined by its own politics, culture, architecture, and even fashion. But unlike either of them, she was a woman—arguably the most powerful and influential woman ever to walk the Earth.

Allow me to introduce Alexandrina Victoria of Hanover, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, ruler of an empire upon which the sun famously never set, and later Empress of India.

This is the first part of her fascinating—yet often deeply complicated—life story, one that would leave a profound mark on the lives of millions.

Before we can understand Victoria herself, however, we must first examine the fragile state of the British royal family at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

At the time, the United Kingdom had been ruled for nearly sixty years by King George III. He is perhaps best remembered as the monarch who lost Britain's American colonies and, later in life, tragically lost his own mind.

George III and Queen Charlotte had a remarkably large family, producing numerous sons. Yet for most of their lives, only their eldest son had managed to produce a legitimate grandchild: Princess Charlotte of Wales.

Charlotte's tragic life deserves a story of its own. For now, however, all that matters is that in 1817 she died during childbirth.

Her death plunged Britain into a succession crisis.

Suddenly, George III's remaining unmarried sons found themselves under immense pressure to abandon their bachelor lifestyles, end their relationships with long-time mistresses, and marry suitable royal brides in the hope of producing heirs to secure the future of the British monarchy.

One of these princes was Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, the king's fourth son. In 1818 he married the widowed Princess Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and from this rather hurried union, Princess Alexandrina Victoria was born at Kensington Palace on 24 May 1819.

At birth, Victoria stood fifth in the line of succession, behind her father and three uncles. Yet fate intervened with astonishing speed.

In January 1820, when Victoria was only eight months old, her father died of pneumonia. Just six days later, her grandfather, George III, also passed away at the age of eighty-one. The Crown therefore passed to Victoria's uncle, who became King George IV, although he had effectively ruled Britain as Prince Regent for many years.

As the years passed, Victoria's chances of one day becoming queen steadily increased. Following the death of her uncle, Prince Frederick, Duke of York, in 1827, she became second in line to the throne. Naturally, her upbringing suddenly became a matter of national importance.

As one might expect, responsibility for the young princess's education fell largely to her widowed mother, the Duchess of Kent.

Before long, however, the Duchess formed a close partnership with Sir John Conroy, an ambitious British officer of Irish origin who had previously served as comptroller to Victoria's late father. A comptroller, in simple terms, was an official responsible for managing finances and household accounts.

Thanks largely to his close relationship with the Duchess, Conroy remained a permanent fixture within the Kent household. Their intimacy became the subject of widespread gossip, with many believing they had become lovers. Even the Duke of Wellington reportedly accepted the rumour as fact. Some went even further, claiming that Conroy was Victoria's biological father.

Victoria herself always rejected these allegations, and modern historians overwhelmingly dismiss them as little more than malicious court gossip. Nevertheless, according to Wellington—who later served as Prime Minister—the young princess had once surprised her mother and Conroy engaged in what he delicately described as "some familiarities." He is thought to have learned this through one of Victoria's relatives. Meanwhile, Victoria's governess, Baroness Lehzen, allegedly repeated similar rumours to one of the Duchess's ladies-in-waiting, who was eventually dismissed after confronting her mistress.

Whether an affair truly existed remains impossible to prove.

What is certain, however, is that Conroy and the Duchess sought to exercise complete control over the young princess.

Together they devised what later became known as the Kensington System, an extraordinarily restrictive method of raising the future queen. Every aspect of Victoria's daily life was carefully controlled. She was discouraged from forming friendships, constantly supervised, and rarely allowed even a moment of privacy.

According to contemporary accounts, Victoria "was not allowed to be alone, to walk downstairs without holding the hand of an adult, or to play with other children without a guardian." She was even required to share a bedroom with her mother until she reached adulthood.

Among the few companions she was allowed to see regularly was Conroy's daughter, Victoire, whom Victoria suspected acted as her father's eyes and ears. Another was the previously mentioned Baroness Lehzen.

Lehzen soon became the single most important figure in Victoria's childhood, earning the princess's complete trust and affection. Victoria later wrote that the Baroness was "most unceasing & indefatigable in her great care of me." Unsurprisingly, this close bond deeply frustrated both the Duchess and Conroy, who repeatedly attempted to remove Lehzen from the household—without success.

Yet the people Victoria loved most during these lonely years were her half-siblings, Karl and Feodora von Leiningen. They were the Duchess's children from her previous marriage and had moved to London alongside their mother before Victoria's birth. Like Victoria, they experienced the suffocating restrictions of the Kensington System and came to resent it. Fortunately for them, being considerably older, they were able to escape its control much sooner.

The political situation changed once again in 1830.

King George IV died and was succeeded by his younger brother, the Duke of Clarence, who ascended the throne as King William IV. Because William had no legitimate surviving children, and another of his brothers had already died, Victoria became heir presumptive to the British throne.

For the Duchess of Kent and John Conroy, this only strengthened their determination to maintain control over the future queen.

Their hopes rested upon the Regency Act of 1830, which stipulated that should Victoria inherit the throne before reaching adulthood, her mother would serve as regent. All they needed was for King William IV to die before his niece turned eighteen.

Fortunately for Victoria, fate had other plans.

William IV and his wife, Queen Adelaide, developed a genuine affection for their niece, treating her almost as the daughter they never had. They almost certainly would have spent much more time with her had the Duchess not done everything possible to prevent it.

Deeply mistrusted by much of the royal family, the Duchess became increasingly fearful of losing her influence. She therefore continued isolating Victoria from her relatives while discouraging any meaningful relationship with the King and Queen.

By now, however, Victoria was approaching adulthood—and she had grown to despise the suffocating system under which she had been raised.

Although William himself had accepted the possibility of a regency, he famously declared during a banquet in 1836:

«"My life may be spared for nine months longer... I should then have the satisfaction of leaving the exercise of the Royal authority to the personal authority of that young lady, heiress presumptive to the Crown, and not in the hands of a person now near me, who is surrounded by evil advisers and is herself incompetent to act with propriety in the situation in which she would be placed."»

According to those present, Victoria was moved to tears upon hearing her uncle's heartfelt words. Moments such as these ensured that she remembered William IV with genuine affection throughout her life.

Fortunately for the King, he lived just long enough to see his niece celebrate her eighteenth birthday. With Victoria now legally an adult, the need for a regency disappeared altogether.

Having secured the succession, William IV died at Windsor Castle on 20 June 1837.

At just eighteen years of age, Victoria ascended the throne with the royal style:

«"By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith."»

Yet the young queen now faced responsibilities unlike anything she had ever known.

How would her reign unfold? What political storms awaited her? And how would a young woman, raised under one of the most restrictive childhoods imaginable, come to rule the largest empire on Earth?

Those questions will be answered in Part Two.

u/Adept-One-4632 — 3 days ago
▲ 32 r/MonarchyHistory+3 crossposts

Day One: Ranking Frankish/French Monarchs. Comment who should be removed first

Been interested in doing a ranking series for a while like many other subs did, so thought we could try to rank Frankish/French monarchs from worst to best daily. Comment which monarchs should be disqualified from this ranking due to lack of information, lacking any time to make significant decisions, etc.

Rules:

  1. Comment the monarch that you want to see removed, preferably with some justification for your choice (convinces more people to support your nomination)
  2. If someone else has already commented the monarch you want, upvote, downvote and reply accordingly, you can also write a comment explaining why someone should stay longer
  3. The most upvoted monarch by this time tomorrow will be removed based on highest voted comment
  4. Try to avoid spreading complete misinformation or changing nominations after your comment has gotten traction

For the sake of simplicity and the general lack of resources, only Merovingians who ruled as the sole King of the Franks will be included. Middle and East Carolingian rulers that did not rule West Francia are not included. Only monarchs with a clear, undisputed claim and rule are included.

 

u/PhilipVItheFortunate — 4 days ago
▲ 35 r/MonarchyHistory+4 crossposts

The True Essence of Traditional Kingship: Deep Dive with Charles Coulombe

A while back I had a fascinating conversation with historian Charles Coulombe in which he analyzes the 5 core points of Christian monarchy, its biblical foundations, and the historical reality of Christendom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCnJf_v82ak

u/Ill-Advisor802 — 6 days ago
▲ 48 r/MonarchyHistory+2 crossposts

King James VI and I genetic heritage

This is King James VI and I’s genetic heritage. I’ve managed to calculate his genetic heritage. It is not 100% accurate but I managed to fully calculate it. I had to use geni.com more than Wikipedia to find more of his ancestors, whether from the English side or the Scottish side. The English nobility are mostly Norman French with some English, while the Scottish nobility are mostly Scottish with some Norman French. A lot of the percentages of French, English and Scottish are approximate percentages at most, but for a lot of it I managed to find lots of specific ancestors up to the 7th to 8th centuries for this. King James is very British genetically as he had nearly 40% British from his father’s side of the family.

u/imperialstreak2151 — 7 days ago
▲ 123 r/MonarchyHistory+3 crossposts

Edward II and Isabella of France's epic breakup and his downfall totally ruined their daughters' lives. Eleanor of Woodstock and Joan of the Tower both had unhappy arranged marriages that were far less prestigious than the ones their father had planned for them.

Even the chroniclers and historians who despise Edward II admit that he loved his children and wanted the best for them. This included his young daughters, Eleanor and Joan, whom he planned to make Spanish queens.

Edward was so often caught up in the morass that was Scotland and France, it's easy to forget that he was half-Spanish through his mother - the only other half Spanish English monarch other than Mary I.

Anyway, the best way a Medieval monarch could provide for his daughter was to make her a queen. However, when Edward fell, his little daughters went from being the daughters of a king to the sisters of a king and the daughters of a disgraced former king. While still royal, their status had changed in a world where status meant everything.

Edward betrothed Eleanor to Alfonso XI of Castile, but after his downfall, she was married off at fourteen to Count Reinald II of Gelderland. They had two sons, though it wasn't a particularly happy marriage and legends swirl of marital conflict. Also, the two sons engaged in a bitter feud/civil war and neither produced a son, so the kingdom eventually went to a different relative. After she was widowed, Eleanor apparently lived in poverty and was too proud to ask her brother, Edward III, for help. She predeceased her mother Isabella, dying at 36.

And to be completely fair, Alfonso of XI was a crap husband to his eventual wife, Maria, and that couple produced a son known as Pedro the Cruel. So Eleanor may not have been better much off, but there was still more wealth and prestige there than in Gelderland.

Edward II planned to marry his little daughter Joan of the Tower to Pedro of Aragon, who was not a crap husband and ruled over a splendid kingdom. Instead, Joan married David of Scotland, son of her father's enemy Robert the Bruce. The pair were married as children, but as they grew up, they developed an aversion to one another. He had a mistress that he flaunted, and she clearly preferred being in England to Scotland. Worse, his reign was such a spectacular failure that he makes her father look like a political and military genius.

They spent some time exiled with her French relatives, before her brother captured him and clapped him in the Tower. She eventually went to live with her mother, with whom she was very close. She never had any children with David and died shortly after her mother.

Isabella of France could not have wanted this for her daughters, and one wonders if she ever felt any guilt as she watched both their lives implode. It speaks to the theory that she never wanted to depose her husband but things just got out of hand, because she knew how things worked and what their father's deposition would mean for her girls.

Sources:

Kathryn Warner's blog.

Phillips, J. R. S. Edward II. Yale University Press, 2011. 

Image: Joan and David go to France, from Froissart.

u/HoneybeeXYZ — 9 days ago
▲ 33 r/MonarchyHistory+1 crossposts

Finally Realized I Forgot One Head of a Royal Family Descended from Queen Victoria

No idea how I forgot this but better late than never.

u/meeralakshmi — 13 days ago

Essay about the restoration of the Portuguese monarchy

One year ago i wrote an essay about the pros and cons of restoring the monarchy in Portugal, my home country, as the final project for my english class. Today i found it while is was cleaning some files and i tought that it wouldn’t hurt to share, since only I and my english teacher have read it. If you manage to read until the end pls leave a comment with your opinion, good or bad or even if you don’t agree with me i would like to have some criticism. Thank you
.
.
.
Should the restoration of the Portuguese monarchy be put into consideration?

Republics are playgrounds of chaos, where power shifts with the whims of the masses, eroding the very essence of a nation. Only a monarchy, with its unwavering authority, can protect a country from the self-destructive madness of democratic mobs. In this essay, we shall explore whether this statement holds true, but, as we all know, not all countries are equal; for example, someone from Venice might favour republicanism, as it was the most successful system employed in that region, being deemed an example that all the republics should follow. Thus, this essay does not approach this issue from an international perspective but rather from a Portuguese viewpoint. This essay will seek to answer major questions, such as: which system is more democratic? Which is more stable? Which contributes more to the development of the nation? It will also be discussed the general history of both systems in Portugal. This essay will not go over every single event in the history of both regimes with a lot of detail, one will rather compare them in the most just way possible, comparing the governments with their international counterparts and between themselves. The objective of this essay is not to change anyone’s opinion but to develop an opinion that is factually based because it is common knowledge that “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” (George Santayana, 1905).

Firstly, we must differentiate between the types of monarchies and republics. Contrary to popular belief, there are many types of republics, not all of which are democratic. We can categorise republics into three broad categories: parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential. The first is characterised as the most democratic, where the public enjoys greater representation than in any other form of republic previously mentioned. In this form, the role of the president is largely ceremonial; the prime minister, along with parliament, runs the country. Examples of this system include Germany and India. Next, we have the presidential republic, where the president serves as both head of state and head of government. This grants the president significant power and responsibility in running the nation, unlike in parliamentary systems. Examples of countries with this type of system include Brazil and the USA. Lastly, we have the semi-presidential republic, where executive power is shared between a president and a prime minister, each with distinct responsibilities. The president is typically elected by the population and holds a strong role in foreign policy and national defence. The prime minister is usually appointed by the president but must have parliamentary support. The prime minister generally manages the country’s day-to-day operations, including the administration of laws and policies. Countries such as Portugal and France exemplify this system. Now that we have explained the different types of republics, we shall turn to the types of monarchy. Similar to republics, monarchies can also be divided into three categories: absolutist, traditional, and constitutional. An absolutist monarchy is what most people envision when they think of a monarchy—a country governed solely by the will of the king, who wields unlimited power and authority over the state and its people. Many absolutist rulers believed in the "divine right of kings," claiming their authority came directly from God. Portugal was governed by an absolutist monarchy from 1698, with D. Pedro II as king, until 1820, upon the promulgation of the Constitution of 1820 by D. João VI. The longest-standing monarchy is the traditional monarchy, or “real monarchy,” which lasted from 1143 to 1698, again from 1777 to 1820, and finally from 1828 to 1834. In this type of monarchy, the king held as much power as in an absolutist regime, with the exception that there were “Cortes,” allowing representatives from the three social branches of each municipality to have a say in how the king governed the country. Lastly, we have the constitutional monarchy, deemed “a republic with a king” (B. Amarelo, 2024). In this form, unlike the aforementioned types, the king does not possess sufficient power to govern alone; his authority is limited by a constitution. The prime minister serves as head of government, while the king’s powers include: dissolving parliament, electing the prime minister according to parliamentary guidelines, representing Portugal internationally, and moderating political affairs both domestically and abroad. With an understanding of the various types of monarchies and republics, one can now begin to provide answers to the questions posed at the start. One might consider it an unnecessary debate; however, as will be outlined in this document, this is a significant issue that can impact a country positively or negatively.
Before beginning to present any argument, it is imperative that one takes into account that the stability of a country may vary depending on various factors aside from the governmental system in place. To maintain intellectual honesty, Portugal shall be used as an example. At the time of writing this essay, the duration of the republican regime is nearly the same as that of the constitutional monarchy when it fell. In other words, it is justified to compare both, as Portugal has been a republic for 125 years and the Constitutional Monarchy reached the ripe old age of 90 years. Justified this comparison, I will start my argumentation.

The Portuguese republic was the only choice to save Portugal from the incapacity of the Monarchy. Knowing the minimum of Portuguese history, one would be able to tell that the instauration of the first republic happened on the fifth of October of 1910, but why is that? What was the need? These questions have a straightforward answer: incapacity. The Portuguese Monarchy, since 1820, was so incompetent that it not only lost Brazil in 1822, but was also unable to secure the interests of the Portuguese in the division of Africa, and, in 1890, after the British ultimatum, it failed to secure the Pink Map, this coupled with the fast-growing crisis in the world ended in a big social, political and economical crisis on all of the empire, even though in a deep crisis the lavish lifestyle of the royal family did not end, so the people had to take matters into their hands. When Portugal adopted the constitutional monarchy, it shifted from being a global power to a much weaker nation over 90 years. The republicans aimed to address this decline, believing the monarchy’s inefficiency stemmed from the hereditary nature of power. They argued that a government led by the people, for the people, would be more effective and just, as it would no longer be based on birthright. This change led to the end of the aristocratic system, transforming the lord’s chamber into the Senate in the First and Second Republics, which eventually disappeared in the Third Republic. The republic brought significant social reforms inspired by the French Revolution, introducing progressive and secular policies. These reforms included new laws on work, family, education, and religion, all very criticised, especially the last one, which caused strong opposition in the Catholic-majority country. The republicans believed that, despite being a liberal monarchy, the Portuguese monarchy failed to fully uphold the principles that defined liberalism, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity. They argued that only a republican government could protect these values. According to U.S. News and World Report, the two most politically stable countries today are republics. Present-day Portugal has become a more progressive and open nation, largely due to its republican system and efforts to regain its former strength. Although the republican system has its flaws, it should be considered a more effective model than the monarchy it replaced.

The republic promised to maintain stability and focus on the people's interests, vowing to protect the Portuguese. However, in reality, the situation was quite different. After six years, twelve governments, and a lot of pressure from the British, Portugal ceased control over German vessels anchored in the Tagus waters, marking the entrance of Portugal in the war that would later be known as the First World War and on the ninth of March, 1916, the republic would commit the very same mistake that they crucified the king for, just 26 years prior. They would act as a vassal state of the British and joined the war on the pretext that it would bring unity to the country, but most importantly to the republican party. It is worth noting that the first republic was so unstable that in 26 years there were 45 governments. Fortunately, in 1926, there was finally stability for the first time in a hundred years. Following a coup d'état by the army, a national dictatorship was established, and in 1932, after nationwide elections, a man from the interior of Portugal, who was the Minister of Finance at the time, emerged victorious. A year later, the constitution of 1933 was drafted, and thus António de Oliveira Salazar initiated what we now refer to as “Estado Novo”, which would only conclude on the twenty-fifth of April 1974. During this time, Portugal achieved the pinnacle of political stability within the republic. However, what is ironic is that in 125 years of a republican regime, 48 of those years were spent under an authoritarian dictatorship. Despite being labelled as a secure and stable regime, or, as Antero de Quental wrote in his newspaper A República, “creative activity wants security and stability, and only the Republic [...] is stable and secure”. In reality, it was a failed regime that used the political and economic crisis in Portugal to bring power to a specific party, making the people, their supposed allies, a mere instrument for their greed for power. A common argument used to defend the republican system is that, according to the U.S. News and World Report, the two most politically stable countries in the world are republics. However, what they fail to consider is that in the same report, there are 11 monarchies in the top 15. Thus, while republics may be the regime of choice for the top two, they are, in fact, a minority in a list predominantly filled with monarchies. This can be explained by the simple fact that, unlike a president, a king is apolitical; in other words, his political allegiance is to the country’s well-being. Although in a constitutional monarchy, a king’s powers are not as extensive as in a traditional or absolutist monarchy, he still possesses certain powers, such as the authority to dissolve Parliament or act as a moderator, which establishes the king as a central figure in maintaining parliamentary stability. This, along with a lifelong commitment to the nation and extensive preparation for this role, would ensure greater stability compared to having elections every four years to determine leadership. With this central authority, the Parliament, despite undergoing ideological shifts with each election, would focus solely on the nation’s state rather than on party interests.

After the French Revolution in 1789, democracy became increasingly more respected and implemented in more and more countries. In simple terms, democracy is when the people of a country vote on how they shall be governed, creating a government from the people for the people. This being said, which type of government is more democratic, a constitutional monarchy or a semi-presidential republic?
In 1910, when the republic was instaured, one, if not the main reason for discontent from the republican party was that the country’s leader was not elected democratically. In a semi-presidential monarchy such as Portugal, both the president and prime minister are representative of the people’s interests, although, with its flaws, a republic is deemed much more democratic. On one hand, in a republic, a man or woman, from even the lower economic classes, can reach the highest power of the republic; on the other, a monarchy alienates the people from the monarchs, thus not representing the country, culture, and its people.

The idea of a republic is directly associated with democracy. We can see this to this day, if you go onto the street and ask anyone, they will say the same. So we should assume that the most democratic countries are republics, such as the U.S.A. or France. However, in reality, we face the opposite: the countries that are considered more democratic are monarchies, such as Norway, New Zealand and Sweden, according to the democracy index in 2024. Here in Portugal, for example, since 1820, when Portugal became a constitutional monarchy, people could vote on who shall represent them in the parliament, in the constitutional charter of 1826, the longest in use, is written that there is a separation of powers and the chamber of deputies, the parliament, would be elected for the people by the people. While still a monarchy, the king or queen served as a symbolic, non-political figure, but, although symbolic, they still retained some power, especially to try and contribute to the country’s stability. In reality, the decisions are made by the parliament, chosen by the people, not the king.

As previously discussed in this essay, the British Ultimatum of 1890 constituted a moment of utmost humiliation for Portugal, enormously damaging national honor and exposing the perceived weaknesses of the monarchy. Following this crisis, the republican alternative began to make its serious breakthrough, as numerous critics attributed the defeat of the Pink Map to the failure of the monarchy to secure Portugal's international interests. Republican party leaders, on the contrary, were defenders of national sovereignty and asserted that having a republic would prevent Portugal from ever again falling into such humiliating situations. Rebelling against this new trend, republicans built a full-scale plan for military and political reform, upon which they promised to act the moment the monarchy collapsed. But the political and economic instability that plagued the early years of the First Republic prevented many of these desires from being fully met. It was not until 1933, with the creation of the Estado Novo under António de Oliveira Salazar, that many of these military ambitions finally started to take form. Salazar, much influenced by the republican response to the British Ultimatum, initiated extensive military reform to strengthen Portugal's military and gain greater control over its empire. Among his greatest contributions was the formation of the Portuguese Air Force, which in 1952 became an independent force of the armed forces. Salazar significantly increased the defence budget, bolstering the military power of Portugal and rendering the nation better able to protect its own interests. As a part of force modernisation and enhancing cooperation, he established the Estado-Maior das Forças Armadas (EMFA), encouraging an increased working partnership among the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Most especially, perhaps, he also pursued a strict policy of neutrality in foreign affairs, in which, while the army was reorganized and brought up to date, it was effectively left untested until 1961. It was then that the Colonial War of Africa began, for Portugal needed to maintain its colonies against rebellion by those within Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau. It was in this war that Salazar's newly armed army was finally tested. Following the Carnation Revolution in 1974, Portugal went through a profound economic and political reorientation from an authoritarian to a democratic republican state. The result of which saw the country join the European Economic Community (EEC), currently the European Union (EU), in 1986. By joining the world's biggest economic and political bloc, Portugal became part of a wider system of cooperation with a greater voice in the world. EU membership provided huge financial assistance, fueling economic modernisation, development of infrastructure, and increased standards of living. In addition, it enabled Portugal to be actively engaged in European policy-making, raising its stature in the European political and economic scene.
Throughout its history, the Portuguese constitutional monarchy exerted tremendous influence within Europe and across the wider world. Despite diplomatic setbacks, such as humiliation at the hands of the British during the Scramble for Africa, Portugal was successful in establishing a vast chunk of colonial territories. These massive overseas possessions, combined with Portugal's historic maritime supremacy, further established it as a major trading power. The strategic ability of the monarch to preserve alliances made Portugal a major player in global affairs. The royal house developed good diplomatic relations with other European monarchs, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany, and had classic relations with Brazil in South America and strained relations with France. France strengthened diplomatic and cultural ties with Portugal, while the rest of the ties were undermined in 1910 when republicanism grew stronger. Political stability through a hereditary king who has to reign for life created a stark contrast to the frequently shifting leadership of a republic, where elected leaders kept changing every couple of years. This leadership continuity allowed monarchs to establish long-term diplomatic relationships, generating a heightened degree of international respect and authority for Portugal. When the status of Portugal in the world under the constitutional monarchy is contrasted with that of the following republic, even though it ruled over the same territories, it is clear that the monarchy had more diplomatic and international influence. Only António de Oliveira Salazar, through his authoritarian rule under the Estado Novo, could be considered to have approached a similar degree of influence. However, even his regime, despite its longevity and control, ultimately lacked the same degree of historical prestige, legitimacy, and diplomatic reach that the monarchy had once possessed.

After an examination of the Portuguese republic and monarchy through measures of democracy, stability, and international influence, a question must be asked: Should there be a recurring idea in Portugal's future to restore the monarchy? In the realm of democracy, although republics are usually the epitome of popular sovereignty, historical evidence suggests that the constitutional monarchy in Portugal was not at all nondemocratic. Since 1820, the people elected representatives to parliament, gaining a government which was their own will. The king was a moderating influence, not an autocrat, but a stabilizing force. Even today, some of the most democratic nations on earth are constitutional monarchies, refuting the argument that monarchy and democracy cannot coexist. In stability terms, the republic was meant to bring efficiency and order, but the early years of the First Republic were not stable. With 45 governments in 26 years, and then a dictatorship, the hope of a stable and functioning democracy was not achieved. Compared to the monarchy, however imperfect it was, ensured continuity. A king, unlike a president, is not bound by party politics or the electoral cycle. His lifetime tenure brings an aura of continuity and long-term thinking that elected representatives find hard to sustain. Overseas, Portugal's monarchy positioned the country as a respected diplomatic force, with close relationships to other great European powers and Brazil. The republic, particularly in its early years, saw Portugal's foreign influence decline. It was not until the authoritarian Estado Novo of Salazar that Portugal returned to prominence on the world scene at the cost of democracy. Should Portugal therefore restore its monarchy? If one's goal is greater stability, stronger democratic guarantees, and greater international standing, then a constitutional monarchy could be a feasible option to seek out. Even though Portugal's republic has been effective, it also has faced some serious problems, and other European nations have proved that monarchies can thrive in modern democratic nations. Of course, whether or not such a change is achievable ultimately depends upon the people. In the end, Portugal's monarchy wasn't just a relic of the past—it was an institution that, in many respects, provided stability and prestige. Restoring it would be no small task, but dismissing the idea entirely would mean ignoring the strengths it once brought. Perhaps, instead of seeing monarchy as a thing of the past, it’s time to start a conversation about what it could offer for the future.

Bibliography 
Antero de Quental, 1870, A  Républica

D.Pedro IV, 1826, Carta constitucional, (https://purl.pt/1358/5/sc-14597-p_PDF/sc-14597-p_PDF_24-C-R0150/sc-14597-p_0000_rosto-64_t24-C-R0150.pdf)

Fernado Rosas, 2021, História da Primeira Républica

George Santayana, 1905, The Life of Reason

M. Antonia Vasconcelos and others, 1999, A Monarquia Portuguesa

M. de Fatima Bonifácio, 2002, A Monarquia Constitucional 1807-1910

Our world in data, Democracy Index 2024, (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu?country=~PRT)

U.S. News & World Report Rankings, These are the most politically stable countries, (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/politically-stable)

reddit.com
u/NOOBERSON1234 — 12 days ago