Albert, Prince Consort (1819-1861)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
The Louise one and her baby is based on some facts. Please refer to her biography unconventional daughter which goes into it far more deeply. The fact is that her and others who were close to her more importantly the family who adopted her son are in fact closed however some diaries and letters are in exisitant that's support that she had a child.

I was asking a hypothetical question based on that fact to what would've Prince Albert made of an illegitimate grandchild
 
I am sure Albert woudl have been absolutely horrified, but I dont know of any rael evidence that Louise had a child.... can you quote?
 
Princesss did though... Princess Alexandra own sister slept with a soldier and gave the baby up. And Louise had more freedom than usual to move about thanks to her art classes. So I can see it happening.
 
The Spectator reviewer of that book in the above link points out that author Lucinda Hawksley presents no hard evidence at all for birth of any child. It's all speculation. Another reviewer I read and posted a link to here said the same.

Queen Victoria noticed everything and everybody and I don't think a daughter coming up to her eighth/ninth month would have escaped her notice! Princess Thyra, Alexandra's sister, did have a baby (the young father concerned shot himself after an interview with the King.) However, she was sent away in the latter months of pregnancy on 'a visit to her brother', the Greek King.)

Louise was at court the entire time she was supposedly pregnant. Victoria had had nine children, many of her her ladies in waiting had also produced large families. What are the odds of a very slender young girl getting away with a pregnancy under their eyes?

I read in a biography years ago too, that just before Louise's marriage Victoria wrote to the Duke of Argyll, Lorne's father, warning him that Louise was most unlikely to have children, was in fact barren. Whether this was the result of sparse periods or something else isn't known, but the Royal doctors seem to have been consulted about it and must have given a negative verdict about Louise's fertility.

I'm reading a biography of Prince Leopold at the moment by Charlotte Zeepvat. In it she describes Queen Victoria's reluctance to employ Stirling in the first place. He was a young army officer, not medically trained, (the start of his service coincided with the beginning of Leopold's epileptic fits which he suffered for the rest of his life.) Victoria didn't like smart young army officers who were used to London Society, but allowed herself to be persuaded into giving him a chance.

Leopold liked him, but Stirling soon blotted his copy book with Victoria by being fierce to one of her Highland servants. The man, called Robinson, acted as valet to Stirling but proved incompetent and was told off by his master. That was a sin of the deepest dye as far as Victoria was concerned. No-one spoke in a rude way to her Highlander servants, not even her family, and that, mixed with renewed worries about Leopold's health, (how would Stirling have managed an epileptic fit or fainting spell) meant he had to go.

Nothing to do with impregnating her daughter! Incidentally, during Stirling's brief term of service, Leopold, Arthur and Louise all came down with whooping cough. Very romantic!
 
Last edited:
Im sure she didn't have a baby. I think that if she had become pregnant queen Vic would have coped but there woud be something that survived In the historical record such as her going away somewhere or being ill... and there isn't.
 
What really killed Prince Albert? TV drama Victoria prompts fresh debate over his mysterious death aged 42


  • The official cause on his death certificate is 'typhoid fever: duration 21 days'
  • Yet a stunned public were sceptical over diagnosis as his illness was kept quiet
  • There were no reported cases anywhere Albert visited 3 weeks before death
  • University lecturer Dr Derek Gatherer considers the diagnosis and alternatives
  • Experts have proposed he actually succumbed to a more modern affliction
ITV's Victoria prompts debate over Prince Albert's death | Daily Mail Online
 
Why would the public at the time have been sceptical? Loads of people in mid Victorian England (and all over the world) succumbed to disease and infection after very short illnesses at younger ages than Albert. The whole of the symptoms wouldn't have been published by the Royal doctors anyway. And nothing that I have read, and I've read lots on the Victorian period as I studied it at Uni and have for decades afterwards, suggests that people at the time were sceptical about typhoid as a cause of death for the Prince Consort.

It's only been in more recent times that the typhoid diagnosis has been challenged. The doctors in the Royal Household weren't exactly cutting edge, and for at least fifteen years I've read various modern medical authorities who are convinced that they got it wrong and Albert may have passed because of Krohn's decease or cancer of the stomach or several other ailments of the intestines like that. Albert did not have a strong constitution and for several months had had pain after meals and been chewing on the 19th century equivalent of antacid tablets. He'd also come home shortly before his last illness with a chill after going to Cambridge to tell the young Prince of Wales off about an affair with an actress.

On the other hand, the drains around Windsor were notorious and there had been cases of typhoid in the town around the time of Albert's death. I believe he may well have had symptoms of typhoid (and 19th century doctors, even stupid ones, were more likely to recognise the symptoms of typhoid than doctors nowadays) as well as something like Krohn's (which was untreatable in those days) and so that's what carried him off at 42.
 
Last edited:
Yes while his death at 42may seem shocking to us, at the time it wasn't unusual even in the upper classes who had relatively good health care(the poor had none) and enough money to eat well and be comfortable.
People died a lot younger and diseases which are now treatable were often fatal.
 
Did Prince Albert, The Prince Consort have anything to do with the selection of Princess Alexandra of Denmark as a wife for his son, Prince Albert Edward?

It was informative to learn that Prince Albert did have a selection in his son's future spouse. It was unfortunate the Prince Consort did not live to see Albert Edward marry Alexandra.

How much did Queen Victoria speak to Princess Alexandra about Albert, Prince Consort?

Prince Albert wrote to his brother, Ernest of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, on the birth of his daughter, Princess Victoria, in 1841, 'Albert, father of a daughter, you will laugh at me.'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. He and Victoria went through photographs of eligible princesses and reports of the front runners sent by Vicky from Berlin.

In spite of possible political complications (the BRF was pro-Prussian and the fact that Alexandra was Danish not German was generally deplored) Albert thought Alexandra was lovely, and in fact he stated that if he were single he would marry her himself. Victoria, who, like her husband, admired beauty in both men and women, wrote that in her diary.

Both parents were astounded that the young POW didn't appear to be keen to be married off and they worried because the Tsar seemed to be looking in Alexandra's direction for the Tsarevitch Nicholas (who died young, while engaged to Alexandra's sister Dagmar.)
 
Last edited:
I think they foolishly thought that any wife Bertie had, HAD to be pretty to dissuade him from fooling around. Didn't work.....
and Alix's being Danish did lead to some tension within the family, but I think that the fact that she was young malleable and a beauty, pushed Victoria to think that Aliix was the ideal wife...
 
How old was Edward when he got married - 19, 20? A boy, in nowaday´s standards. How can one really think if a young man at that age seeing a photograph of any pretty girl was not thinking he would be falling in love?! But of course this has nothing to do with love. Certainly you cannot compare 19th century standards with our lives today - and the view of society towards marriage and men and women in general is galaxies away from how we live today!
Alix and Bertie met, because it was expected of them, found each other luckily attractive, did their duty in the 1st few years (produced heirs) and that was that....
Actually a very sad story...!
 
wartenberg7 said:
How old was Edward when he got married - 19, 20? A boy, in nowaday´s standards. How can one really think if a young man at that age seeing a photograph of any pretty girl was not thinking he would be falling in love?! But of course this has nothing to do with love. Certainly you cannot compare 19th century standards with our lives today - and the view of society towards marriage and men and women in general is galaxies away from how we live today!
Alix and Bertie met, because it was expected of them, found each other luckily attractive, did their duty in the 1st few years (produced heirs) and that was that....
Actually a very sad story...!
Click to expand...

I don't quite see whtat is sad about it. tThey didn't have a wildly happy marriage but they did their best and supported each other, for nearly 50 years. they were not going to have a free choice of partners, but they weren't compelled inot the marriage and they did start out with some attraction and fondness. It was sad that Alix went deaf, which didn't help her with maintaining the sort of social life that was expected of royals an upper class people at the time.. It also alienated her a bit from Bertie.. and she was rater jealous of some of his mistresses. However, she had her platonic admirer, her children and a comfortable life. She visited Denmark when she had times she was fed up wth her husband...
 
Denville said:
I don't quite see whtat is sad about it. tThey didn't have a wildly happy marriage but they did their best and supported each other, for nearly 50 years. they were not going to have a free choice of partners, but they weren't compelled inot the marriage and they did start out with some attraction and fondness. It was sad that Alix went deaf, which didn't help her with maintaining the sort of social life that was expected of royals an upper class people at the time.. It also alienated her a bit from Bertie.. and she was rater jealous of some of his mistresses. However, she had her platonic admirer, her children and a comfortable life. She visited Denmark when she had times she was fed up wth her husband...
Click to expand...

I think Alexandra did her best but I wouldn't say that about Edward. After all, she couldn't control her deafness but Edward could have kept his pants on if he'd chosen to. His failure to do so contributed far more to their alienation than her deafness.
 
I think that Queen Alexandra was treated very badly and I don't believe that we have been told the whole story. She seems to have been chosen because of her looks (just like Empress Elisabeth in Vienna) and she probably had no say in whom she would marry. In fact, it was not until the 1880s that the princesses were allowed to choose whom they would marry!
 
Susan D said:
I think that Queen Alexandra was treated very badly and I don't believe that we have been told the whole story. She seems to have been chosen because of her looks (just like Empress Elisabeth in Vienna) and she probably had no say in whom she would marry. In fact, it was not until the 1880s that the princesses were allowed to choose whom they would marry!
Click to expand...

She did have a say. She could have said no, and Im sure she would never have considered it. She said she loved Bertie, and she grew to love England and was happy and popular in her adopted home. And it wasn't likely, Ini a royal marriage that the husband would remain faithtful. I think that after having 6 children in a few years Alix was glad to give up her sex life..
I doubt if she would have been happy as a spinster daughter....
 
Gawin said:
I think Alexandra did her best but I wouldn't say that about Edward. After all, she couldn't control her deafness but Edward could have kept his pants on if he'd chosen to. His failure to do so contributed far more to their alienation than her deafness.
Click to expand...

They grew apart, but retained a basic fondness and relationship. Alix enjoyed social life as a young bride and they had that in common, but her deafness did make her more inclined to stay home and be with her children and her familiar friends. She wasn't very clever and while Bertie was no giant intellect, he did have more interests which Alix didn't really share...so it was pretty much on hte cards that they would grow apart...
And while she had enjoyed society fora few years, I think that even without the deafness, she would have probably become more of a homebody, and had less to share with her husband.
She was possessive of the children, and didn't treat her daughters, esp Victoria very well...
 
Denville said:
She did have a say. She could have said no, and Im sure she would never have considered it. She said she loved Bertie, and she grew to love England and was happy and popular in her adopted home. And it wasn't likely, Ini a royal marriage that the husband would remain faithtful. I think that after having 6 children in a few years Alix was glad to give up her sex life..
I doubt if she would have been happy as a spinster daughter....
Click to expand...


I don´t think when a teenage girl says she loves a guy, perhaps in 98,5 % cases, it cannot possibly be enough for a longlasting marriage. Who knows at that age, no matter 19th century or nowadays, what love is and means!? This week I love boy x, next week it´ s y....
I guess she said so because she wanted to be a good, obedient little daughter... And I do not believe a second that future royal spouses got married, thinking "Oh, I´ ll be betrayed one day anyway..."
And please, NOBODY is glad to give up ones sex life in normal, healthy circumstances:whistling::ermm:!


I do have some sympathy for Bertie and his antics, too, as they surely are the result of Victoria´s and Albert´s much too much high aspirations in every regard towards this rather mediocre boy. But thinking how much she must have suffered while he was all over the place having mistresses in all over europe, having orgies, having sex with 2 or 3 women at the same time (hope she didn´t know about that, poor soul...) makes me feel terribly sorry for that lady.
And the Prince of Wales later kept her systematically away, perhaps because he feared he couldn´ t do what he wanted to when Alix accompanied him. Once she begged to join him on a trip to India but was categorically refused to do so. She must have lead a pretty lonely life, and the deafness did her bit. That´s why she clung so much to especially Eddy and Georgie.
 
I think you are seeing Alix as a 20th or 21st C girl. She wasn't. She was a 19th Century princess... with very differnet experiences and outlook
 
wartenberg7 said:
I don´t think when a teenage girl says she loves a guy, perhaps in 98,5 % cases, it cannot possibly be enough for a longlasting marriage. Who knows at that age, no matter 19th century or nowadays, what love is and means!? This week I love boy x, next week it´ s y....
I guess she said so because she wanted to be a good, obedient little daughter... And I do not believe a second that future royal spouses got married, thinking "Oh, I´ ll be betrayed one day anyway..."
And please, NOBODY is glad to give up ones sex life in normal, healthy circumstances:whistling::ermm:!
Click to expand...

But after the sixth child died she was told not to have sex anymore so she wasn't in a normal healthy situation anyway. Had she had another pregnancy there was a good chance she would have died and so aged in her mid-20s she had to give up sex leaving her husband with the same choice - no sex or have mistresses.
 
I've never heard this, but when her health was not that good (attack of rheumatic fever during pregnancy), her deafness etc.. I think that 6 children in about 7 years ddi exhaust her and she was glad to stop having babies...
I don't think that sex was high on herlist of priorities, it wasn't, for many women at the time, when there was no effective contraception.. THey didn't see it as a fun activity.. it was soemthign that led to painful pregnancy and labour, and risking your life...
 
Denville said:
I've never heard this, but when her health was not that good (attack of rheumatic fever during pregnancy), her deafness etc.. I think that 6 children in about 7 years ddi exhaust her and she was glad to stop having babies...
I don't think that sex was high on herlist of priorities, it wasn't, for many women at the time, when there was no effective contraception.. THey didn't see it as a fun activity.. it was soemthign that led to painful pregnancy and labour, and risking your life...
Click to expand...

Her ma-in-law, Victoria, is alleged to have adored 'making them' stage of having babies. She didn't like the bits that followed.
 
Yes Victoria was highly sexed, not all women were. That's why I said "many women". Alexandra was a 19th woman, and she didn't see sex, marriage or fidelity in the same way that a modern woman might ...
 
Denville said:
They grew apart, but retained a basic fondness and relationship. Alix enjoyed social life as a young bride and they had that in common, but her deafness did make her more inclined to stay home and be with her children and her familiar friends. She wasn't very clever and while Bertie was no giant intellect, he did have more interests which Alix didn't really share...so it was pretty much on hte cards that they would grow apart...
And while she had enjoyed society fora few years, I think that even without the deafness, she would have probably become more of a homebody, and had less to share with her husband.
She was possessive of the children, and didn't treat her daughters, esp Victoria very well...
Click to expand...

Good grief! Why does the burden fall on Alexandra? Why point out her flaws but not Edward's?

Yes, Alexandra was a possessive mother who expected Princess Victoria to be on her beck and call. But Edward didn't always treat Alexandra well. Not all royal husbands cheated on their wives, including Alexandra's son, her father, and her brother-in-law Alexander of Russia.The fact that Alexandra actually loved Edward could only have increased her pain and disappointment. Of course she disliked society if it meant facing all the woman her husband had slept with. Edward was very self-indulgent and chose to fritter away his life on parties, mistresses, food, and gambling. His inappropriate associations even led to his being called to testify in court twice. His behavior was hardly befitting the heir to the throne.

Alexandra, on the other hand, always conducted herself with dignity. Give the woman her due. What if Edward had found himself married to someone like Marie of Romania, who took her her own lovers and whose children's paternity has been questioned? Fortunately for Edward, Alexandra chose to keep her mouth shut, look the other way, and take out her unhappiness on their children.
 
Denville said:
Yes Victoria was highly sexed, not all women were. That's why I said "many women". Alexandra was a 19th woman, and she didn't see sex, marriage or fidelity in the same way that a modern woman might ...
Click to expand...


That´s why they went hysteric and fainted all the time (not only because of the tight corsets), because these upper class women tried to surpress their sexuality, as Psychoanalysis found out.
I believe we have nowadays a very limited and strange view upon these past eras. I strongly believe that sexuality was always a very strong and important force in both male or females lives. In some circles women claimed to be "not interested in such activities at all" (which was of course a big fat lie!) because they thought this was the right thing to say for a "decent" woman. All those who admitted it was such great fun had been seen as sluts...


By the way, it wasn´t hard to be "sexed" with a hubby like Albert...:lol:
 
Last edited:
Vicky was born in 1840, but it's true that nobility and Kings placed great emphasis on having sons. Nevertheless, Vicky became Albert's favourite child (he could discuss things with her that he couldn't with his other children.) Ernst, Albert's brother, never had legitimate children of his own as he reputedly suffered from syphilis.
 
Curryong said:
Vicky was born in 1840, but it's true that nobility and Kings placed great emphasis on having sons. Nevertheless, Vicky became Albert's favourite child (he could discuss things with her that he couldn't with his other children.) Ernst, Albert's brother, never had legitimate children of his own as he reputedly suffered from syphilis.
Click to expand...

But he had illegitimate children, did he? Did he not attempt to father children with his wife because of the syphilis?
 
Denville said:
But he had illegitimate children, did he? Did he not attempt to father children with his wife because of the syphilis?
Click to expand...

Did Duke Ernest II of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha have any children at all? I was under the impression he had no illegitimate children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent & Strathearn & Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
Replies
7
Views
1K
Prinsara
Prinsara
C
Line of Succession Between Princess Charlotte and Queen Victoria
Replies
7
Views
3K
Countessmeout
Countessmeout
CyrilVladisla
Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales and Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg - 1816
Replies
9
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
burbankstorylady
List of Other Royal Biography Authors
Replies
1
Views
2K
burbankstorylady
burbankstorylady
B
Memoirs of Prince Andreas of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha
Replies
2
Views
3K
burbankstorylady
burbankstorylady

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom