Prince Albert deliberately kept mother-of-nine Queen Victoria pregnant so he could be 'king in all but name'

Well she showed him by outliving his ass.

Yet another hit piece on men.

But history kind of glosses over what a horndog Toria was.

Her big mistake was more dick, no tongue.

She should have kept Albert munching the royal carpet.

She had no sayso in the matter? She was the fucking queen for god's sake! He was just her prince consort.

We are not amused.

Vickie appears a bit special in all her portraits.

[quote]By child seven, Victoria realised that was enough.

What took so long?

R2 Pretty much

Lucy Worsley is a lisping cunt who has been trying to extend her 5 minutes of fame by a bit too much.

No talent whatsoever.

This cunt doesnt know what she is talking about. Every royal couple back then was having tons of children.

I absolutely hate this woman. I tried watching a documentary series that she was hosting but her affect was so annoying I gave up. What r8 said.

Well, it kept her out of the kitchen.

[quote] Lucy Worsley is a lisping cunt who has been trying to extend her 5 minutes of fame by a bit too much. No talent whatsoever.

But she is cute in a twee sort of way.

I don't believe for a second that three separate people on DL know who this Lucy lady is, let alone all share the exact same opinion of her.

Maybe instead of crying about this "hit piece on men" you could be focusing on the real issue here: that the queen was obviously dickmatized.

So Albert kept Vicki "barefoot and pregnant."

That woman sure loved the cock. She fucked Mr Brown in her dotage too! Let’s discuss her obsession with sex instead of her husband doing a good job supporting her (and impregnating her)

[quote] I don't believe for a second that three separate people on DL know who this Lucy lady is, let alone all share the exact same opinion of her.

She does a lot of historical shows in the UK and some appear in the US on PBS. She had a cutesy persona and take that’s supposed to make history “fun”. I find her a bit grating but do like her shows.

Oh fuck off R8 & R10 - who gives a rat’s arse what you think?

I love her documentaries and think she’s a great combo of academic cred and populist appeal. She’s got her own style too - smart and funny - and not one of those vacuous American bimbo types that seem to be on everything Stateside.

Clearly I’m not the only person who finds her appealing. More power to Lucy!

You'd only need three British people to know who Lucy Worsley is, the BBC loves her and she's in danger of becoming over exposed.

She is one of those presenters where 'less is more'.

To hate on Lucy Worsley is unacceptable DL behavior.

She is our cute coat wearing, lisping, wryly arch goddess of history and royal palaces.

A pox on anyone vile enough to not adore her divinity.

Empress Maria Theresa of Austria had sixteen children and she was a Badass ruler.

[quote]To hate on Lucy Worsley is unacceptable DL behavior. She is our cute coat wearing, lisping, wryly arch goddess of history and royal palaces.

I prefer Ruth and miss her.

Her three-part documentary on the Regency Era is worth watching.

To think, if she'd had stopped at say 3 kids we might have been able to avoid WWI and WWII. She had one of the most dangerous snatches in history. At the very least, the Tsar's children might have been saved if they had a smarter mother.

Queen Victoria was a hypersexed nympho in an age with no contraception, that's why she had so many children. Her appetite for sex is well recorded. She used to wear Albert out and he used to hide from her when she was on heat. Bigger families were also common back then, especially amongst those who could afford it. I'd like to see proof of Lucy's misandrist accusations.

Queen Victoria got the hots for Prince Albert at his second visit to court, and that never ended. HM loved having sex, it was the outcome (pregnancy and childbirth) she found distasteful.

After a few births Victoria inquired of her personal physicians if there was a way to divorce the two (to wit birth control). Mindful of fact their patient was not only their sovereign but C of E as well, only response they could (would) give was basically abstinence. To which Victoria replied "oh doctor, am I do have no more fun in bed?".

Rhythm method isn't 100%, but QV did have options if she didn't want to produce more than a heir and first few spares. HM and Prince Albert (like most other royal, noble and well off couples) had separate bedroom suites. So it wasn't as if PA was reaching over at night with a shove asking "are you awake?"....

In any event it was going to be either Prince Albert or Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, Duchess of Kent and Strathearn (QV's mother) who exercised some control over Victoria in her young days as queen. Albert was the better choice as he was able to rein in Victoria who had the tendency to behave like a spoilt child.

Albert was fugly, I don't know why she settled on that basic bastard.

I swear Lucy Worsely is Bubble from Absolutely Fabulous. That's all I can think of when I see her.

Vicky's back-up crew.

r26 Sweetie, you've no idea. Royals didn't marry for looks then. They married other royals for lineage and pedigree, money, titles etc. More or less arranged marriages resulting in subsequent inbreeding

I like Fiona Bruce

Luschy and I have the schame favourite limerick: sshe shells shea sshells at the shea sshore

Albert! We demand to be fucked!

r29 but what could an insignificant prince like Albert offer the British. Victoria was already Queen and had more control over her coochie than most woman in that era, similar to Elizabeth I. She had her vast pick of men, but went with that little imp Albert. I don't see the attraction.

Is it true Prince Albert designed the Prince Albert because his dick was so big that it was unsightly in the tight trousers of the day? Apparently he had a ring put in his dick with a chain attached so he could tuck it between his legs like a drag queen and hide it?

We designed the Prince Albert because his cock belonged to We. We led him round Osborne on a chain like the little bitch consort fancy man he was. Albert, cock, now!

Wow, I had no idea that Queen Vicky was such a cock-loving whore.

Victoria was a fat fug troll who knew she was lucky to get handsome hot Albert to fuck her regularly. For that she gladly gave up the crown for awhile.

As with all other royal or noble families princess Victoria's marriage was arranged. Maybe not like Lady Jane Grey, but never the less there were plots, schemes and stratagems a foot.

When Prince Albert first went to England with his brother and met Princess Victoria she wasn't impressed. When Albert returned home it was clear to himself, his father, Prince Leopold and others that the young prince had to pull his socks up.

Only other serious contender (least far as Victoria was concerned) was Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaevich, who visited London in 1839. You can read about this in link below, but upshot was it just never going to happen. The grand duke was heir to Russian throne, and Victoria wasn't going to be "allowed" to move to Russia, nor would the future czar be moving to UK.

"In reality, right from the day of Victoria’s birth on 24 May 1819, her mother and her uncle Prince Leopold had mapped her future life out for her. From the outset they set their hearts on a German prince for Victoria – and more particularly a Saxe-Coburg. The ideal candidate as far as they were concerned was Victoria’s cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg, who had been born only three months after Victoria in August 1819."

"As Victoria entered her teens, there were of course many other possible candidates in Europe for the hand of this, the most eligible royal bride. Between the ages of 13 and 18 the young princess had several possible suitors paraded for her approval by rival camps within the royal family. It was first suggested that she should marry an English prince, such as Prince George, son of her uncle the Duke of Cumberland, but Victoria never warmed to him, nor he to her. In 1828 the Duke of Orleans was suggested, but he was a Catholic; in 1829, one of the princes of Orange. A serious onslaught of matchmaking came in 1836 when Victoria’s two Coburg cousins, Albert and his brother Ernest, as well as both princes of Orange, were all invited to England to be vetted. The latter were William IV’s favourites but Victoria didn’t fancy them, finding them too plain and too ‘Dutch’ looking. As for her Coburg cousins: on this first visit Victoria had been unimpressed by the pudgy and diffident Albert and had found his brother Ernest much more attractive."

Sexual promiscuity seems to be hereditary in that family: Victoria, Edward VII (Parisian sex chair) Prince Albert Victor (brothels, syphilis, Cleveland Street Scandal) George, Duke of Kent (notorious bisexuality may have led to his death) Princess Margaret (Mustique Whore) Prince Andrew (enough said)

Oh we know Lucy Worsley and agree she is a poor documentary host.

Lucy Worsley is senior curator at the Royal Palaces, a distinguished academic position. Her programmes have covered a wide range of subjects in a mostly light hearted manner to make the historical debate accessible. OK, she can be a bit whimsical, but you always learn something.

It is well known that Victoria had quite the sexual appetite.

I love Lucy Worsley. Not since Fiona Bruce has anyone entered a room and looked at the ceilings with such a knowing gaze.

Lucy has a PhD. I believe that Fiona has great legs.

Social Darwinism.

Victoria was certainly no great beauty.

Victoria was certainly no great beauty.

Not effective as birth control device. Who knew?

curator at the Royal Palaces, a distinguished academic position.

Distinguished! Looking after my old shit!

Didn't Albert bring the Christmas tree from Germany to Britain and subsequently to the Canada, US, Australia, etc.?

Apparently the Queen Mother found a marriage certificate for Queen Victoria and John Brown in the royal archives, and destroyed it.

I knew Prince Albert. I slept with Prince Albert. Prince Albert was a friend of mine. John Brown was no Prince Albert.

Such drama r48, it's history nothing that could harm the royal family so there was no reason to destroy such a document. Not like anyone would suspect that the Queen's children weren't Alberts. The Queen Mother had to much time on her uneducated hands.

The Queen Mother had to much time on her uneducated hands.

oh, the irony.

R48

If you believe that then am selling a few bridges that can let you have for a very good price.

Like all royal ladies QV rarely was alone from time she rose in morning until retired in evening. That HM could have sneaked off and married some random Scottish commoner, *and* it wasn't discovered much later by Queen Mary is laughable.

Even as a young princess Victoria was spoilt, stubborn and "stuck up" . Even from her nursery days princess Victoria (thanks to her mother and those surrounding her) was quite conscious of who she was, and this included her rank.

Later in life a women whose parents worked in the duchess of Kent's household recalled as a child she was summoned to play with young princess Victoria. Out of the box Victoria proclaimed "I will play with these toys, and you shall play with those". She then further informed her young playmate " I will call you "Mary" (or whatever the child's name was), but you must not call me Victoria". Does this sound like the sort of person who would grow up to marry a commoner?

If there was any dirt among her papers QV's daughters saw to it the thing went right into the fire. More to the point if such a document (marriage license between QV and John Brown) did exist Queen Mary would have no right in destroying anything of her own will. She was only a queen consort with no legal authority to destroy official documents.

Victoria and other royals of that time had so many children because with all the inbreeding, they needed to try to have at least one normal one in the lot.

She should have taken it up the arse.

Academics need to keep writing for status or whatever so they come up with ever more outlandish theories to get published and get attention. Sort of like academic clickbait. It's a tiresome and corrupt business that's likely to be culled in the next ten years.

R52

Poster here; meant "Queen Elizabeth", the Queen Mother who found and destroyed said wedding license or whatever, not Queen Mary.

Carry on...

If anything, Victoria pestered Albert for sex. Supposedly he would sometimes kick himself in his room and she'd pound on the door!

No doubt she hated giving birth, and was an indifferent mother. She had so many kids because she loved sex and there were no foolproof birth control methods back then, not because she loved children. But to hint that Albert was somehow forcing himself on her is ridiculous.

Albert married her because she would be queen and enjoyed his status, no question. And she was intensely in love with him while he seemed to only tolerate her. Once he died, she spent her remaining years - around 40! - in deep mourning for him.

An astonishing article, published this month in The Oldie magazine, seeks to explode this greatest of all royal myths. It claims that after the untimely death of her husband, Albert, the Prince Consort, Victoria sought sexual solace with her uncouth, arrogant and heavy-drinking Highland ghillie, John Brown. It further alleges that the Queen secretly married Brown in a clandestine ceremony.

The 82-year-old historian, John Julius (2nd Viscount) Norwich, son of the legendary society beauty Lady Diana Cooper, is cited as a source for this story. Lord Norwich, it appears, remembers his friend, the late historian Sir Steven Runciman, telling him that while he was researching in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle, he chanced upon the marriage certificate of Queen Victoria and John Brown.

Runciman was a pre-eminent expert on the Crusades and the Byzantine Empire. According to this very tall tale, he showed the certificate to the late Queen Mother.Without a word, she was said to have taken the document and burned it — so that it could never cause any damage to the image of the Royal Family.

The story of the Queen’s alleged marriage also surfaced in the late 19th-century diaries of the Liberal politician Lewis Harcourt, which claimed that one of the Queen’s chaplains, the Reverend Norman Macleod, had made a deathbed confession, repenting his action in presiding over Victoria’s marriage to Brown

On Victoria’s death in 1901, at the age of 81, she was buried with Prince Albert’s dressing-gown and a plaster-cast of his hand, a lock of John Brown’s hair, a photograph of Brown clasped in her hand, several of his letters and a ring belonging to his mother.

She was only a queen consort with no legal authority to destroy official documents.

You think people always play by the rules? What a naïve world you must live in. Hardly one to talk about selling bridges.

r52 was there, of course

R58

That bit of tittle-tattle has been debated and largely judged just that; gossip.

Sir Steven Runciman was a gay man with many accomplishments, but he also loved gossip. It is worth noting outside of source you mentioned nothing else picks up on this earth shattering discovery. It isn't even mentioned on the man's Wikipedia entry nor his many obituaries (NYT, The Times, etc.....

What it all comes down to is a group of people saying they were told something and or saw a document that no one else can or has laid hands upon.

[quote] Once he died, she spent her remaining years - around 40! - in deep mourning for him.

And her craving for dick stopped right then and there?

There may not have been a marriage but there was more to the 'friendship' than just that, friendship. Would be interesting to know what was in the diaries and correspondence her children had destroyed. We'll never know, but there must have been something juicy to go to such great lengths to destroy all mention of Brown in her diaries. Interesting nonetheless.

I wonder did Victoria suffer from some kind of mood disorder. Severe depressions, hypersexuality?

That’s bullshit. Pregnant women are perfectly capable of working - and she wasn’t toiling in the fields at any rate. After birth, there would be wet nurses and nannies to care for the infants. It’s not as if the Queen of England was kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen against her will.

Maybe she just liked to fuck.

So many of you know so many intimate details about the life of Victoria that far surpasses that on biographical record that you must have been there, which must make you really fuckin old!

There's a line in film "Mrs. Brown" where John Brown's younger brother talking about Queen Victoria says "there are things you do because there isn't anyone to tell you not to....". He was referring to Victoria's deep mourning and so forth that made pretty much her court and perhaps government prisoners of HM's Grief.

John Brown was one of if not only person who didn't give an eff and spoke to Victoria plainly without often much deference. In short he took her in hand same way Prince Albert had done to cope with a wife that could and often behave like a spoiled child because she was used to people kissing her behind.

IMHO Victoria truly loved Prince Albert; and thus had or would have had issues (like many widows) reconciling those feelings with being in love or even with another man.

While forty is young to us today, in Victoria's time it was practically old. She wasn't a young widow left without money or whatever thus needing to marry again. So what other reason would there be? Sex? Well matrons of Victoria's period weren't supposed to be interested in that side of life, and her remarrying might have signaled and started tongues wagging that HM's blood was hot.

QV had done her duty by the nation and her husband; producing nine children; the succession was more than assured so there wasn't any reason (in many other minds) for HM to marry again. Like other older widows HM was supposed to be contented with seeing to her children, grand children, etc....

Plenty of noble or common older widows remarried, and yes many didn't have to because they were otherwise well provided for; but Victoria was a monarch and head of C of E, so there was a different standard.

Vicky loved the cut cock.

Someone post her new show Tudor Christmas or a torrent. I've been searching.

R52 haha

Why would Victoria have told a child not to call her Victoria when her name was Alexandrina? She was never called Victoria until she acceded the throne, you fucking idiot.

Wait, is there some evidence that she preferred Alexandrina over Victoria as a child? You sound rather presumptuous yourself, R70

R60

They have these things called books; you ought to try reading one sometime. Things have moved on since your "Dick and Jane" primer at school.

Information in post came from Victoria the Queen : An Intimate Biography of the Woman Who Ruled an Empire by Julia Baird.

Aside from Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria is perhaps one of the most exhaustively studied, discussed, written about female monarch in British history. Fair enough there aren't that many of them, but never the less.

R70

*sigh*

"He totally forbade the use of the names Charlotte, Elizabeth, Georgina or Augusta, which the baby's parents had chosen. It was clear that the Regent would not allow the child to be given any of the names which were then used in the royal family. When the Archbishop enquired what name he should therefore give the child, the Regent abruptly snapped "Alexandrina", which was after the Russian Emperor, who stood as godfather by proxy. The child was christened Alexandrina Victoria. During her first years, the Princess was often called Drina but Victoria was the name she herself preferred."

Anytime you're ready you just come on back.

r73 Hun, you take the DataLounge waaaay too seriously. Put your feet up, take a load off, it's ok.

r73 One self- important old queen thinks she's the expert on a REAL important old queen.

'only a queen consort'

Yeah, only a queen consort. Only the wife and daughter-in-law of a king, mother of two kings, and grandmother to a queen.

“Now listen, you, if you don’t fuck my tits off RIGHT NOW, you’ll be swinging by your dick ring from the little hand of Big Ben.”

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

This thread kind of paints the picture of Queen Victoria as a desperate bitch in heat, which is quite contrary to her image. Oh, to be a fly on those walls.

Fiona Bruce is elegant, beautiful, smart, and she can talk properly

[quote]This thread kind of paints the picture of Queen Victoria as a desperate bitch in heat, which is quite contrary to her image. Oh, to be a fly on those walls.

Oh, there were flies, alright.

Does Lucy have autism? She gets really, really excitable when she's talking about her favourite historical subjects, almost to point of orgasm, like an aspie explaining his Star Wars figurines.

I would not have minded keeping this Prince Albert cumming.

Nah. That actor's eyes are waaaay too far apart.

He should get that fixed.

r84 Why?

Lord, spare me from any more "his eyes are too far apart" queens. Their lungs are defective and they don't deserve to take their next breath.

R23

[quote]To think, if she'd had stopped at say 3 kids we might have been able to avoid WWI and WWII. She had one of the most dangerous snatches in history. At the very least, the Tsar's children might have been saved if they had a smarter mother.

Explain, for the history deficient.

WWI was basically a family quarrel among her spawn and WWII was a response to the outcome of WWI. not sure about the bolsheviks and japan

She was the Princess Alexandrina. She chose Victoria as her regal name. She was never known as Victoria as a child. Just accept your stupid story is made up.

Vat is dis, mein Drina?

Victoria and Albert's marriage wasnt arranged, it was just highly encouraged. But Vic married him of her own free will, she didnt get on with her mother and woukdnt have put up with an arranged marriage, any more than she'd put up with a regency.

Albert was very attractive when he was young and had hair. Just like our William.

R58 - The Oldie is a great British magazine!

I love how threads about the history of royalty always turn into pissing contests on DL.

r65 tell that to Kate Middleton. Every time she gets pregnant she uses that time to get out of all sorts of engagements. She just smiles and waives, doesn't actually rule a reign over an empire, but even her limited responsibilities are too much for her royal body. Queen Victoria is a known drama queen so I'm sure she really put on the who is me routine during every pregnancy.

r79 if you were you might die from the smell. I can't imagine having sex with any woman from the Victorian age, especially once summer rolls around. Victoria wore that hot hoop skirts and rarely bathed, but today's standards, so her snatch probably smelled like old fix. Albert's stink sleeve probably wasn't much better. I would want nothing to do with those two when they go at it. Probably smelled like ass, sweat, fish, and grease.

Victoria wasn't attracted to pudgy, dour Albert the first time she met him. She also didn't like it that he couldn't dance. He went home, got in shape, learned to dance, and swept her off her feet the next time they met. As soon as the ring was on his finger, he reverted to his dour German self: hated dancing, hated promiscuity and other common aristocratic vices, liked to be in bed by 9 PM, only ate bland food out of both choice and necessity (he hated spice and had a dodgy stomach). Victoria loved fucking him, while by all accounts Albert was contemptuous of all other women and only civil and attentive to his wife, though she did drive him crazy with her incessant demands.

Some scholars have speculated that Albert was either asexual or gay, as his only close attachments in life were to other men. What is almost certain is that he was a virgin when he married: His family kept him out of the brothels for fear he'd gain a bad reputation and a venereal disease that could affect his health and fertility, which would sink his chances with Victoria (who wanted a husband as pure as herself--this is one reason she rejected Albert's promiscuous brother). Whatever the truth of his sexuality, Albert did his duty by his wife and then some, and their mutual purity meant that they gave birth to a gaggle of healthy children.

In the 19th Century, it was unheard of even for Royals to birth AND raise to adulthood 9 offspring, especially when 1 had a mortal disease like hemophilia. This 100% survival rate was in large part due to Albert, who besides making sure his children weren't born with congenital syphilis, also supervised their food, caretakers, and living environment with obsessive Teutonic attention. He was an excellent manager in many other areas of life, and he had much concern for the poor. Yes, he was misogynistic and in love with his own sense of power and status, but he was an effective co-ruler with Victoria, who trusted his advice implicitly and DID let him do a fair amount of decision-making.

But if Victoria had had access to birth control, she would have used it after her third or fourth child was born. She HATED being pregnant. Unfortunately, the sexually straitlaced court she and her husband created, where all of the randy Georgian favorites were now distinctly OUT of favor, meant that she and Albert never learned about some of the other, non-procreative ways you can have fun in bed.

Just think: WWI could have been prevented by a blowjob!

R95 Albert was circumcised.

He bought the German royal custom to the British royal family. The German royal family started the trend centuries before in an attempt to prevent syphilis issues down the track for the royal sons - suggested by a Jewish doctor to the court.

Evidently, Lewis Carroll based the character of the Queen of Hearts on Victoria. Apparently, she was like that - short-tempered, full of rage, imperious. The only person who she'd listen to and who could calm her was Albert.

R96

Both Prince Albert's father ( Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg Gotha) and elder brother (Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg Gotha) were promiscuous in the extreme. Indeed Ernest I's court was known as one of most louche in Europe with both the duke and his consort having extra-marital affairs.

Ernest I took both his sons to Paris and Berlin for "sampling" the joys of those cities. While Prince Ernest was thrilled and gladly joined in fun; Prince Albert was shocked and quite frankly disgusted.

Thus if Prince Albert wanted to know about "other" ways of sex or whatever, he could have easily spoken with his father (whilst still alive) or asked his brother.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

"While Victoria had not known she was in line for the throne until she was eleven, she had always known that she was special. It has been reported that even as a small child she knew she held a position of importance due to the gifts presented to her, the way people doted on her, and 10 how they would bow and curtsey before her.16 She is reported to have told a childhood acquaintance that “I may call you Jane, but you must not call me Victoria.” 17 S"

See pages 15-16 (10 & 11 of actual publication)

I'm seriously thinking Victoria may have had Bipolar II; short-tempered, full of rage, severe depressions, hypersexuality. It would make sense. Hypersexuality, especially in women, is rare and coupled with the famous royal short temper, her rages and depressions, it sounds like a mood disorder.

But Victoria didnt have episodes of mania or depression, r102, she was always like that!

No, she was like a modern celebrity whose ego gets out of control, just because they're so overindulged. They get egotistical, demanding, and imperious just because they can,! It's common for people to become assholes, when there's no limits placed on their behavior.

But WOULD he have asked, R99? Though I admit it's possible he'd have heard of oral sex and found the concept disgusting. You could say his disgust for promiscuity killed him: When he heard his eldest son Bertie had taken a mistress, he hauled himself out of a sick bed to go down to Bertie's school and berate him. He probably had either walking pneumonia or typhoid, and his refusal to stay in bed and let himself recover led directly to his early death. If he could have calmed the fuck down about Bertie wetting his dick with an actress (like every other aristocratic adult male of the time EXCEPT Albert), he could have lived longer.

But I would dispute the idea that Ernest I took Albert to the brothels of Paris: The family was counting on the match with Victoria, and any breath that Albert was impure and possibly diseased would have scotched the match. At least according to the couple of biographies I've read. I suppose it's impossible to know for sure, however.

9 children?

Are all those descending child still close to the BRF?

R104

Regardless of what you believe, Ernest I did take his sons to brothels of Berlin and Paris; it was nothing different than many other royal, wealthy or whatever men did for themselves and or sons.

First and foremost young boys/men then as now have "needs"; and since unmarried young girls were strictly off limits just who or where they going to have fun or "learn" about sex? Aside from whores the only other main alternative was an older married/experienced women, usually former or current mistress of a royal or nobleman's father, and or one known as such.

Young Prince Ernest did contract venereal disease, and was visibly suffering when both he and his brother Prince Albert made their second visit to England. One of Queen Victoria's senior ladies remarked in her daiaries how much changed Prince Ernest's appearance was since his prior visit; indeed the entire court spoke of it. Again these are all things easily researched by a simple mouse click.

Scores if not hundreds of high born women (and middle class or below for that matter) were infected with venereal disease on their wedding night. They were supposed to be virgins; not their husbands who often were not. Sadly medical science being what it was then many men who thought they were "cured" of syphilis in fact weren't , thus went on to infect their wives. Keeping with Victoria period, that other famous woman of time Isabella Beeton, was likely infected with syphilis by her husband on their honeymoon. She didn't live long enough for the disease to do her in; but her husband most certainly died from it.

World then was pretty much all lads together; but high born men of all ages couldn't just pull or seduce where they liked. Besides nasty charges of rape there were consequences (illegitimate children). If a whore got pregnant it was an occupational hazard, but if a maid or worse an unmarried lady from a good family there were going to be consequences for young man in question.

What bullshit. It's been well documented that Albert and Victoria had a very healthy sex life; they greatly enjoyed the physical aspect of their relationship. That's why those "babies kept coming." It wasn't some underhanded effort on Albert's part to gain control by keeping Victoria pregnant. What a dumb theory.

R105

Who do you think Elizabeth I and her family are related to? Extend this out to the Kents, Gloucesters, Prince Phillip, Felipe of Spain, Queen of Denmark....

R106, if a young man got a girl from a good family pregnant out of wedlock, he'd face minor consequences such as social disapproval, while she'd be out on the street or sent to live in exile in the hinterlands. If he got a maid pregnant there were zero consequences, other than listening to his mother bitch about having to replace the girl who was now out on the street.

In patriarchal cultures, the woman or bottom gets all or almost all of the punishment for sexual crimes, even rape. And yes, in sexual terms, Victorian Britain was definitely patriarchal, men could do what they liked. All the prudery of the era did to limit their fun, was to keep them from talking about it in polite society.

[R104], I thought it was the knowledge that Bertie (future Prince of Wales, future Edward VII) had visited a brothel that got Albert out of his sick bed to talk to Bertie. It was as though Albert's will to live was taken from him, finding out about his son's visit to a brothel.

Albert died from the crap that was in the drains at Sandringham, but he had a heavy cold when he took that fatal walk with Bertie. I can imagine the guilt heaped on Bertie after his father died did a number on him.

Shit, I take the above post back. I remember it was some actress. But it was pretty typical for a young man of Bertie's age to take a mistress. Better than whoring around.

Curragh Camp in Ireland was where things happened, and actress Nellie Clifden was young woman in question.

Prince Albert Edward (Bertie) had met NC at a London party; she was subsequently brought up to Cambridge to break in the sexually inexperienced prince. Later officers of Grenadier Guards did same; importing NC to Curragh Camp for same purpose. It was that event QV and Prince Albert got wind of and were "not amused" to say least.

Gossip about Bertie and NC was running rampant through gentlemen's clubs and drawing rooms of London; worse foreign newspapers had picked up the story. QV and PA feared scandal, pregnacy and possibly blackmail; both couldn't believe their son had been so foolish and careless.

The rest is as you say; though ill Prince Albert went up to Cambridge to sit his son down; it didn't do a bit of good, but never the less the prince consort died several days later. Yes, QV blamed her husband's death on drama caused by Bertie; at the time HM said she couldn't look upon her eldest son without shuddering.

Though typhoid fever was given as cause of death at that time; modern medicine/historians looking at Prince Albert's medical record (as it was) believe otherwise. Given symptoms present (stomach pains) that were chronic for nearly two years before; it could have been anything from Chron's disease to cancer.

Yes, R106, I understand how things worked back then: I've probably read a lot of the same books you have. My point is that Albert was a special case, as he was courting an unusually powerful young woman who could easily dictate what she did and didn't want in a husband. What she didn't want was a disease-ridden whoremonger. Besides his own personal proclivities, it was in his and everybody else's interests to keep him pure until marriage. To quote page 130 of Gillian Gill's respective dual biography of Albert and Victoria, We Too:

[quote]Traditionally, aristocratic young blades were encouraged to get lots of reproductive practice in before marriage, but here Prince Albert's position was anomalous. From early childhood, his name was linked to his cousin Victoria, and by the time both were young adolescents, their families were dead-set on the marriage. Victoria, as heir presumptive to the throne of England, was uniquely empowered to dictate the terms of her marriage, and her mother, under Conroy's influence, had trained her to prize moral purity. Victoria dreamed of a partner as chaste as herself, a man who had never loved a woman, and who would be hers alone. Given the sexual mores of early 19th Century royalty, finding such a man was about as easy as finding a unicorn. Fortunately, Victoria's Uncle Leopold and Baron Stockmar anticipated her wishes and were busy breeding the mythical creature in their own paddock. Leopold and Stockmar had seen the ravages wrought by venereal disease on the noble houses of Europe. They saw the value of a virgin and therefore untainted prince in the next round of the fabulous dynastic game they had been playing in Europe for decades.

Interestingly, Ernest I thought his eldest son was a better match for Victoria, but the real power players, Leopold and Stockmar, refused to back the match. Part of this was due to the younger Ernest's whoring, partly due to what was apparently fondness for their own pet plan. Even as a college student in Bonn, Albert showed a marked taste for innocent pursuits like swimming, playing with his pet dog, and playing the organ in church rather than the drinking, skirt-chasing ways of most college students of the period So perhaps Ernest did take his younger son to Paris to the brothels, but even if he did, at that point Albert had been too carefully molded by his Uncle Leopold to take part in any shenanigans.

*respected double-biography, We Two, of course!

[quote] if a young man got a girl from a good family pregnant out of wedlock, he'd face minor consequences such as social disapproval,

R109, and the expectation to marry her. If she was roughly his social equal, and he acknowledged (or did not deny) paternity, marriage would be the expected and typical outcome. Why would either family deal with the opprobrium associated with unwed pregnancy and the less - but not trivial - social disapproval of being a cad not to be trusted around one's sister when marriage was possible?

R115

At least one very good reason (back then) was moolah, money, cash.... Marriages well into Edwardian period (really well past WWI if you want to get down to things) was about family avarice and or a man needing money. A girl may have been of his own social class, but if she didn't bring anything with her, nor was expected to in future, man in question could often do better elsewhere. Instead in making an honest woman out of a girl he's gaining two mouths that need feeding on an already tight budget.

Keep in mind if family didn't approve of lady in question (regardless of her condition) they could (and often did) withhold funds. They might however be more generous if the mother to be and or her family agreed to a nice settlement.

Other thing of course were titles and styles. The girl in question may have been all very well for a liaison; but not from a family gentlemen (or his family) considered worthy of forming an alliance.

Lucy Worsley looks like Jane Horrocks as Katy Grin from AbFab.

Whatever her issue was r102 I can say that she was a complete bore.

I wouldn't be surprised if Victoria was bipolar - she certainly showed signs and it's now understood that bipolar can be caused by aged sperm. Her father was 52 when she was born, and it's already widely accepted that her haemophilia was most likely a random mutation, again caused by advanced paternal age, so something else being in the mix isn't that hard to believe

I'm beginning to think that "Victorian prudery" should actually be called "Albertian prudery".

He does sound like the highest level of prude. AND prig.

This is nothing but dead-white-male-bashing from a PC thug.

R120

There's another myth that isn't wholly true.

Not all Victorians were "prudes", in fact far from it; there was tons of porn in forms of books, drawings and the new medium of photography.

Young men (and women) soon learned their father keep "good stuff" at top shelves of bookcases in his study.

Nearly every sort of porn you can find today was available then; gay, straight, lesbian, trans,

Actually had a copy of "The Pearl" in paperback; bought while in college at Barnes and Noble of all places. Several years ago in a burst of cleaning it went in a bin donated to Housing Works with many other books.

And there was so much more....

Yet more:

More here interspersed with modern porn:

On the continent you had work by Martin van Maële (among others).

Mr. van Maële's illustrations in collaboration with notorious English erotica collector and publisher Charles Carrington, got the latter thrown out of France for "consistently publishing and selling literature "of a very obscene and vulgar character".

That Victorian porn is so funny. Those fat whores! And the guys with those big mustaches! They look like characters out of a comedy skit.

r128 Benny Hill meets Charlie Chaplin

Considering the long exposure times for 19th Century cameras, those models must have been miserable trying to hold those odd poses.

R130

Thought same thing, especially one with guy standing on his head or whatever and another giving him a BJ.

By early 1840's exposure times had been brought down to about twenty seconds (down from twenty minutes for early daguerreotype images), but still we're talking about remaining motionless for long periods of time.

[quote] But Prince Albert should have been 'fulfilling the more traditional role' of single-mindedly supporting his spouse which he failed to do, historian Lucy Worsley has claimed.

No real historian pontificates about "should haves." I hate this woman.

[quote] I don't believe for a second that three separate people on DL know who this Lucy lady is,

Because ignorant twats like you always assume the rest of the world is as ignorant as you are, twat.

Her PBS special on the 12 Days of Tudor Christmas was very enjoyable.

Something about a woman in a HUGE cod piece.

Lucy Worsley is delightful...cheeky, yet informative.

And, Fiona Bruce is a dreary and pompous slag.

And, someone asked above where to locate the latest Worsley show, the 12 Days of Xmas, it's on the PBS website...you can watch most of the PBS shows for free a few days/weeks after they originally air but if you wait too long you'll have to pay and get the PBS Passport streaming service.