Censoring Queen Victoria (18 page)

But Benson had no further recourse and the sentence was omitted. In making this change, Esher probably had in mind the King's recent visit to Austria, his ongoing friendship with the Austrian royal family and his desire to maintain political peace
in Europe. Esher could have simply justified the deletion to Benson on the grounds of European diplomacy, but he chose instead to flaunt his ‘superior knowledge' – which in this instance was incorrect.

The excisions ordered from Volume II fall into several categories: those based on political considerations, especially as they might have affected Edward's relationship with his ministers or his European connections; those which showed Victoria to have been excessively assertive, unfeminine or insulting; and those which showed political bias. There was some overlap between these categories; for example, one of the ordered excisions was from Victoria's description of the Irish people during her visit to Dublin in 1849. She described her reception by the Irish crowds to Leopold:

The most perfect order was maintained in spite of the immense mass of people assembled and a more good-humoured crowd I never saw, but noisy and excitable beyond belief, talking, jumping and shrieking instead of cheering … you see dirtier, more ragged & wretched people here than I ever saw anywhere else.

The King (or rather, Esher) ordered that the word ‘dirtier' be excised, while ‘ragged' and ‘wretched' were allowed to stay. Benson contested it: ‘Why erase?' Later, Victoria also described the Irishwomen as ‘handsome', with their ‘beautiful black eyes and hair' and ‘fine … teeth'. She was sympathetic to their situation and – in the desperate circumstances of post-famine Ireland – ‘dirty' was probably accurate, although perhaps too blunt for the political climate of 1906. Whether the censors excised it because it was offensive to the Irish people or too unfeminine for a Queen is impossible to say.

Benson and Esher had already omitted some of Victoria and Albert's views on Ireland, conscious that it was a sensitive topic. King Edward and Queen Alexandra had made two visits to Ireland as sovereigns, in 1903 and 1904, and the King visited alone in 1907. The great enthusiasm with which they were received raised temporary hopes that, even in an era of ardent Irish nationalism, the monarchy might continue to bind the United Kingdom together. In this climate, some of Victoria's opinions were deemed unpublishable.

In 1848, Victoria had written to Leopold about the Young Irelander movement and their failed uprising that July:

There are ample means of crushing the rebellion in Ireland, I think it is now very likely to go off without any contest
which people (and I think with right) rather regret. The Irish should receive a good lesson or they will begin again
.

The words in italics were initially included, but were deleted as another of the ‘King's excisions'. It seems Esher and Knollys felt that Victoria's call for the Irish to be taught a ‘good lesson' was too brutal for public consumption, although, curiously, her opinion that she had ‘ample means of crushing the rebellion' was not.

Victoria's views about the French were also softened, probably to avoid offending the King. In 1848, when the French King was forced to abdicate, the royal family – the Orleans – sought refuge in England and were given the use of the Surrey home of their son-in-law, King Leopold. Benson and Esher included some letters from early in 1848, in which Victoria expressed concern for their wellbeing. Elsewhere, however, the Queen was venomously critical of French politics, both monarchical and republican. Edward VII,
in contrast, was known to be very fond of French people and institutions, as was Esher. Several excisions were ordered from Volume II to avoid giving offence. In 1846, contrary to a pledge he had given to Victoria, the French King had pursued what he saw as a diplomatic
coup
involving the marriage of his son to the younger sister of the Queen of Spain. Victoria referred to this ‘faithless conduct of the French' in a letter to Leopold, a phrase which was ordered to be excised. Benson argued that stronger language was used in subsequent letters (Victoria went on to rage against the King's ‘infamous' and ‘very dishonest' behaviour) and that this material was not controversial. The ‘Queen's inclination had long been known – the gap will be more suggestive than the excised term,' he pleaded. Nevertheless, it was removed.

In 1848, Louis Philippe was forced to abdicate
and escaped, in disguise, to England. Although she did not approve of his decision to flee,
Victori
a understood it: ‘Still the recollection of Louis XVI
and the wickedness and savageness of the French mob is enough to justify all and everybody will admit that
.' The words in italics were deleted, although Benson again protested: ‘No cause for excision.' As the political temperature rose, Victoria continued to discuss the situation with Leopold; again, Esher ordered that her harsh criticism of the French people be removed: ‘In France, things go on
dreadfully
& for the sake of morality there ought to be some great catastrophe at Paris for that is the hothouse of Iniquity from wherein all the mischief comes
.'

Later, upon hearing of the
coup d'état
by Louis Napoleon, Victoria wrote ironically to Leopold: ‘I must write a line to ask what you say to the
wonderful
proceedings at Paris, which is really like a
story
in a book or a play! What is to be the result of it all?' Victoria's
scorn for the 1848 revolutionaries would have been provocative and even dangerous in an era of bloc alliances; Britain had only recently entered the
Entente cordiale
with France, and was hopeful of securing a Triple Entente including Russia (this was eventually achieved in 1907). Although Victoria's remarks referred to earlier French regimes, they might still have been regarded as offensive to the French people, and to her Francophile son.

By 1852, Louis Napoleon had declared himself Emperor for life as Napoleon III. Unmarried, he hoped to find a bride who would secure a useful alliance. One candidate was Princess Adelaide, the sixteen-year-old daughter of Queen Victoria's half-sister, Feodore. Both Feodore and Victoria opposed the marriage, for several reasons. Politically, Victoria, Albert and the government were reluctant to recognise the Second Republic and Napoleon III. Ada would have had to convert to Catholicism. And the Emperor, at forty-four, had already acquired a reputation as a womaniser, which the sisters found distasteful in a prospective husband. Adelaide was in England under Victoria's care at the time. Feodore wrote to Victoria to discuss how to repel the approach by Napoleon III's agent. A month later, Napoleon married Countess Eugenie. Late in the editing process, Benson suggested that these particulars be omitted because of the hurt they might cause Napoleon III's widow, Empress Eugenie, who was still alive and had lived in England. Esher greatly admired Eugenie, and had already approved the letter several times. It remained in the published volume, but with one set of ellipses following Feo's cry: ‘If we could just say, “No!” at once! …' The excision probably included a personal assessment of the Emperor that justified her opinion of his unsuitability.

Victoria's views on Russia were also deemed unfit for publication. King Leopold bore an ongoing distrust of the Emperor of Russia, Nicholas I, which had its origins in the negotiations at the time of the establishment of the constitution for an independent Belgian state. In 1844, the Tsar had just undertaken a very successful visit to Victoria and Albert at Windsor. Benson and Esher included some delightful letters from Victoria, revealing her anxiety about the visit and her subsequent triumph at its success. In early May 1844, she confided in her journal: ‘We are still threatened with a visit from the Emperor of Russia which alarms me somewhat …' On 30 May she continued:

[Foreign Secretary] Lord Aberdeen came immediately after luncheon and told Albert that
after all
the Emperor of Russia is coming and may be here on the 3
^rd
! This rather upset me for I so dread the fatigue & hate appearing in my present condition. But it cannot be helped, disagreeable as it is. He will only remain a week.

At the time Victoria was heavily pregnant with her fourth child; despite their usual coyness about such matters, Benson and Esher allowed this veiled reference to pregnancy to remain in the published text.

The Tsar arrived in Windsor at the same time as another distinguished visitor, the elderly King of Saxony. Writing to Leopold, Victoria described the Tsar as a ‘striking man' of large physique, with a ‘quite fearful' expression ‘unlike anything I ever saw before'. He seldom smiled, she said, and when he did ‘his expression was
not
a happy one'. Yet, she continued excitedly:

The children are much admired by the
Sovereigns
– (how
grand
this sounds!) – and Alice allowed the Emperor to take her in his arms, and kissed him
de son propre accord
. We are always so thankful that they are
not shy
.

On a political level, she wrote:

If the French are angry at this visit, let their dear King and Princes come; they will be sure of a truly affectionate reception on our part. The one which Emperor Nicholas has received is cordial and civil, mais ne vient pas du coeur [but it doesn't come from the heart].

At the conclusion of the visit, Leopold wrote to Victoria with a warning: ‘Concerning great Nick, I must express myself with great care, as I can see that my opinion may be judged as the result of some pique.' He proceeded into a diatribe, accusing the Tsar of not fulfilling his promises and

of displaying great inconsistency in his conduct towards us, for so powerful a Prince … having consented to the arrangement [of Belgian sovereignty by] four ratifications in his own handwriting, the hostility with which we have been treated is not to be explained.

Secondary states may be forced to swallow unpleasant things from weakness; Constitutional Sovereigns of great countries may be forced by their Parliaments and may make a personal distinction and say officially I must deal with these people, but personally, I will avoid it as much as possible … But the most powerful Autocrat must either
frankly refuse at first
, or having consented to the arrangements, must keep up decent form … The Emperor has
refused
all
and
every
acknowledgment of political existence to me and this country. The Polish affair is of so trifling a nature that it excuses nothing.

Without France going with England, Austria cannot move. But enough of politics. I should not have mentioned them but I think it wise to be on the most friendly terms with Russia, without losing sight of what is going on in the immense sphere of action where the Russians already move as Masters. If Maria Theresa had been told that Moldavia Walackia and Servia [sic] would be governed by the Russians, who at the same time would have nearly the whole of Poland, she would have been astonished in good earnest [with good reason].

Benson and Esher omitted nearly all of this letter, but provided only one set of ellipses (after ‘Concerning great Nick …'), giving the reader no sense of how much had been left out. It is a moot question whether, given the political climates of 1844 and 1906, the omissions were for economy of space or in deference to the King's dictum, delivered by Esher, that the editors were ‘to avoid giving pain to living servants or friends of the King, or umbrage to foreign states'.

Leopold was always keen to educate Victoria in history and royal precedent. The editors included several letters reflecting this. He was also fond of referring to his first wife, Charlotte, Princess of Wales, with whom he had lived in England until her death in childbirth in 1817. In a letter written to accompany a portrait of Charlotte he was giving to Victoria, he described Charlotte's life and personality in detail. Three sentences were ordered for excision; they were critical not just of Charlotte's father, King George IV, but also of her
grandmother and namesake, Queen Charlotte (the wife of George III), and of the royal family as a whole:

The power my wishes and arguments had on her [Princess Charlotte] was remarkable; the greatest sacrifice on her part was to be civil to the old Queen and to her father. She knew him but too well; he was very jealous of her, and she feared him without feeling any esteem for him. What you have seen of the remnant of the Royal family may give you a clue of what it was when they were all alive, and still in vigorous dispositions for every descriptions of mischief.

Leopold had never been welcomed into Charlotte's family, so this criticism was not surprising. In another letter – which was published without excisions – he recalled events following the death of Victoria's father and in particular the reprehensible behaviour of George IV (given here with the editors' ellipses and italics):

[Your Father's] affairs were so deranged that your Mother would have had no means even of leaving Sidmouth if I had not taken all this under my care and management. That dreary journey, undertaken, I think on the 26th January, in bitter cold and damp weather, I shall not easily forget. I looked very sharp after the poor little baby [Victoria], then about eight months old. Arrived in London we were very unkindly treated by George IV,
whose great wish was to get you and your Mamma out of the country
and I must say without
my
assistance you could not have remained … I state these facts because it is useful to remember through what
difficulties
and
hardships
one had to struggle.

Victoria's own criticism of her family was also toned down. One passage ordered for excision concerned her half-brother, Charles, who had been appointed Foreign Affairs Secretary in the new federation of German states. Victoria wrote to Leopold:

I do not think the fate of the Minor Princes of Germany is so completely decided as Charles, (whose conduct rather reminds me of Egalité in the old French Revolution) is so anxious to make one believe.