If it's in the paper, it must be true! A couple of weeks ago, I wasn't sure whether to be amused at such ignorance, or irritated at such blatant disregard for the truth, when I read an article supposedly about Queen Victoria's daughter, Louise, in the Daily Mail (not a paper I choose to read!) in which it was written:
“Victoria made no secret of the fact that she was disappointed in
her children. As babies, they bored and even revolted her; as children, they
were dressed up like dolls to be formally presented to her a few times a
day.”
The Queen was disappointed by her eldest son's behaviour - and she had good reason to be so! The heir to the throne repeatedly involved himself in scandals, and behaved quite abominably to several of his former mistresses - but I am convinced that virtually all the criticism of Queen Victoria's parenting skills comes from her supposed mistreatment of him. Queen Victoria was
proud of her children - her letters and journals bear testament to that fact:
She was brokenhearted at parting from her eldest daughter, Vicky, when she
married and moved to Berlin. Of her second daughter, Alice, she wrote:
“She is a dear amiable
sensible child, - quite grown up; very pretty and with perfect manners in
society, quite ladylike and cercléing extremely well,” and again,
“[She] has a sweet temper and is industrious and conquers
all her difficulties; she is such a good girl and has made such progress
recently.”
Of her son, Arthur, she
wrote: “He is so beloved in the house and by everyone – for he is
so good and unassuming, always cheerful and never makes mischief.”
Her youngest son, Leopold, she wrote: “Is very clever, taking interest in and
understanding everything. He learns, besides French and German, Latin, Greek and
Italian; is very fond of music and drawing, takes much interest in politics – in
short everything.”
These are but a few minor examples of the numerous lines she wrote in
praise of her children and they do not sound to me like someone who was disappointed in her children!
As for dressing them like dolls and having them presented to her a couple of times a day - what utter nonsense!! They were simply dressed in the style of the time! They were often with their parents, who regularly attended their lessons and took time to play with them!
Why do they continue to repeat and print these blatant untruths as though they are facts?? Probably because they are sponsored by publishers wishing to create scandal in order to sell books...
Posts
Since my puppy, Bertie, moved in, I’ve often wondered how the furniture in
the royal palaces remained and remains unchewed when the Queen, like her
great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, is so fond of dogs. When at home, both
Queens are and were rarely seen without their canine companions, some of whom
must have surely been chewers!
Perhaps, for the present Queen, the answer lies with her ‘dog whisperer’
whom, according to the Telegraph, she regularly consults about her
dogs’ behaviour. It seems that the corgis don’t take too kindly to outsiders, so
the Duchess of Cambridge’s dog, Lupo, was, for his own protection, left with
the Middletons this Christmas, rather than joining the family at Sandringham: 
.jpg)
