Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Different Matter

At 21:29 20/01/2004, you wrote:
> I think both she and Albert were very conscious of their duty to
> raise their heir to be the Perfect Monarch, and of course it was an
> impossible challenge -- How do you educate a child to do nothing much
> during your lifetime and then hope he will be an outstanding king when
> the time comes? I have read a biography of Bertie which suggests he
> showed dyslexic symptoms or possibly suffered from attention deficit
> disorder, which would have compounded the problems.


Poor Bertie also suffered from the fact that his eldest sibling was Vicky
who, despite being merely A Girl, was brilliant academically. Ironically
enough, Bertie seems to have inherited his mother's traits of appealing to
people while Vicky had her father's intellectualism but stand-offishness.
Victoria, despite the fact that she herself doesn't seem to have been
academically inclined, resented that Bertie wasn't - both parents insisted
on treating him as some sort of super-being rather than merely human,
Victoria in particular forgetting how much she resented her own upbringing
as Heir after Charlotte's death.

And then when Albert died, Bertie suffered under the double opprobium of
being a) the perceived cause of Albert's death (since he contracted typhoid
shortly after some officers at the Curragh introduced Bertie to an actress
who probably relieved him of his virginity; and b) being the heir to a
woman who had grown up with a threat (whether perceived or real) that her
heir was actively interested in becoming the monarch and thus was unwilling
to teach the heir *anything*.

Definitely resemblances to Cecily's sons - Edward was always aware of
Clarence's ambitions, but Richard was loyal (and sufficiently young not to
count). While Edward wasn't seeking to supplant Victoria, he was intensely
frustrated by the limitations of his role as Prince of Wales (possibly a
similar limitation we see today in Charles) since Victoria refused to allow
him any knowledge of government business. In return, she vehemently
objected to both his social life (on the whole a slight touch hypocritical
excluding the sexual aspects, considering her lifestyle when Albert was
alive) any attempt to give him some authority in the monarchy, lest people
turn to him instead of her.

Jenny

At 01:29 PM 1/20/04 -0800, Sharp, Ann wrote:
>> Victoria and Albert are a different matter.

> I think both she and Albert were very conscious of their duty to raise their
>heir to be the Perfect Monarch, and of course it was an impossible
challenge --
>How do you educate a child to do nothing much during your lifetime and
then hope
>he will be an outstanding king when the time comes?

Nicely put. Considering his relatively short reign and total lack of
preparation for the job, Edward VII did fairly well,

>I have read a biography of Bertie which suggests he showed dyslexic
symptoms or
>possibly suffered from attention deficit disorder, which would have
compounded
>the problems.

Some of the information I've read about Bertie's oldest son seems to
indicate Eddy suffered from ADD.

> It would be interesting to know her real thoughts about the ultimate
>succession of the Duke of Clarence and Avondale, a young man who seems to
have
>been able to sustain interest in nothing except sex ....

That's a bit unfair. I understand he also liked polo. ^_^

>
> > It would be interesting to know her real thoughts about the
ultimate
> >succession of the Duke of Clarence and Avondale, a young man who
seems to
> have
> >been able to sustain interest in nothing except sex ....
>
> That's a bit unfair. I understand he also liked polo. ^_^

And hockey!

Ann

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> At 21:29 20/01/2004, you wrote:
> > I think both she and Albert were very conscious of their
duty to
> > raise their heir to be the Perfect Monarch, and of course it was
an
> > impossible challenge -- How do you educate a child to do nothing
much
> > during your lifetime and then hope he will be an outstanding king
when
> > the time comes? I have read a biography of Bertie which suggests
he
> > showed dyslexic symptoms or possibly suffered from attention
deficit
> > disorder, which would have compounded the problems.
>
>
> Poor Bertie also suffered from the fact that his eldest sibling was
Vicky
> who, despite being merely A Girl, was brilliant academically.
Ironically
> enough, Bertie seems to have inherited his mother's traits of
appealing to
> people while Vicky had her father's intellectualism but stand-
offishness.
> Victoria, despite the fact that she herself doesn't seem to have
been
> academically inclined, resented that Bertie wasn't - both parents
insisted
> on treating him as some sort of super-being rather than merely
human,
> Victoria in particular forgetting how much she resented her own
upbringing
> as Heir after Charlotte's death.
>
> And then when Albert died, Bertie suffered under the double
opprobium of
> being a) the perceived cause of Albert's death (since he contracted
typhoid
> shortly after some officers at the Curragh introduced Bertie to an
actress
> who probably relieved him of his virginity; and b) being the heir
to a
> woman who had grown up with a threat (whether perceived or real)
that her
> heir was actively interested in becoming the monarch and thus was
unwilling
> to teach the heir *anything*.
>
> Definitely resemblances to Cecily's sons - Edward was always aware
of
> Clarence's ambitions, but Richard was loyal (and sufficiently young
not to
> count). While Edward wasn't seeking to supplant Victoria, he was
intensely
> frustrated by the limitations of his role as Prince of Wales
(possibly a
> similar limitation we see today in Charles) since Victoria refused
to allow
> him any knowledge of government business. In return, she vehemently
> objected to both his social life (on the whole a slight touch
hypocritical
> excluding the sexual aspects, considering her lifestyle when Albert
was
> alive) any attempt to give him some authority in the monarchy, lest
people
> turn to him instead of her.
>

All this makes sense. We also have to bear in mind that in the Middle
Ages it was relatively uncommon for monarchs to have adult heirs. No
opportunity at present to compile a list, but the majority of
medieval kings succeeded when in their 20s at most (at 35 Edward I
was unusually mature, and his father was very fortunate that they
were on good terms). Part of the problem with the Hanoverians was
that the heirs had many years of adult life with little do do (apart
from George III who succeeded his grandfather)). Clarence was a young
adult by 1469; he had been just that bit too young to be involved in
the exciting events of 1460-63, and, further, his position as heir
would last only until Edward had sons. I'm not inclined to think that
Elizabeth of York was seen as a potential heir before Edward V's
birth in November 1470, but if it was argued in some quarters that
she could succeed, it would only make Clarence's position still more
uncertain. If he wanted to be king, he had to do something about it
fast, and the traditional view of a discontented and resentful
Clarence plotting with a Warwick who was not prepared to relinquish
the role of power behind the throne makes sense.

Ann