Queen Victoria: This Thorny Crown 0198753551, 9780198753551

Table of contents :
Cover
Queen Victoria: This Thorny Crown
Copyright
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations
Introduction: ‘Someone Tremendous’
1: A New Reign
The ‘Tribute of Natural Tears’: Monarchy and Religious Emotion
‘The Principles of our Holy Religion’: Victoria’s Preparation for the Throne
‘No Idle Pageant’: Victoria and Sacred Monarchy
Notes
2: Meine zweite Heimat
‘A Second Homeland’: Coburg
Shield of Faith: Victoria and the Hohenzollerns
‘Germans and English belong to each other’: Alice in Hesse-Darmstadt
‘A Terrible and Worldwide Catastrophe’: The Death of Friedrich III
Notes
3: Religion in Common Life
Bringing the Church Home: Victoria and Domestic Religion
The ‘Silver Links of Earthly Love’: Marriage and the Family
‘Remember the Sabbath’: Victoria and Sabbatarianism
‘Darwin’s Pigeons’: Victoria and Natural Laws
Notes
4: A Darkened Earth
‘Desolation’: Grief and Christianity
‘Earthly Treasure’: Materiality and Mourning
‘A Great Communion’: Widowhood and Emotional Community
A ‘National Sacred Work’: Remembering Albert
Notes
5: The Supreme Head
‘The State Religion’: Victoria and the Church
‘Very Violent People’: The Oxford Movement and the Papal Aggression
The ‘Bug Bear of Broad Church’: Victoria and Liberal Protestantism
‘Protestant to the Heart’s Core’: Victoria and Ritualism
‘Earnest Views’: Defending the Establishment
Notes
6: Disunited Kingdom
‘The Real and True Stronghold of Protestantism’: Victoria and the Church of Scotland
‘Erin’s Honour and Erin’s Pride’: Victoria and Irish Roman Catholicism
Notes
7: The Crown of Sacrifice
‘Backward Glances into Forward Visions’: Mourning Leopold
‘Out of that Tomb, there is Yet More to Spring’: The Duke of Clarence
‘The Crown of Sacrifice’: Henry of Battenberg and Christian Victor
Notes
8: Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals
‘Vehicle for a Great Show’: Liturgy and Jubilee
‘England’s Opportunity and England’s Responsibility’: Victoria’s Christian Empire
‘The Whole World Kin’: Jews and the Jubilees
‘The Lord of the Soil’: Victoria, the Jubilees, and Religion in Asia
Notes
9: A Completed Life
‘Literally Orphaned’: Burying Victoria
The ‘Soul of a Great Empire’: Victoria in Imperial Sermons
‘The Great White Queen’: Victoria and Colonial Subjects
‘A Handful of Dust’: Victoria in Retrospect
Notes
Selected Bibliography
Manuscripts
Primary printed sources
Secondary sources
Index

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

SPIRITUAL LIVES General Editor Timothy Larsen

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

S P I R I T U A L LI V E S General Editor Timothy Larsen The Spiritual Lives series features biographies of prominent men and women whose eminence is not primarily based on a specifically religious contribution. Each volume provides a general account of the figure’s life and thought, while giving special attention to his or her religious contexts, convictions, doubts, objections, ideas, and actions. Many leading politicians, writers, musicians, philosophers, and scientists have engaged deeply with religion in significant and resonant ways that have often been overlooked or underexplored. Some of the volumes will even focus on men and women who were lifelong unbelievers, attending to how they navigated and resisted religious questions, assumptions, and settings. The books in this series will therefore recast important figures in fresh and thought-provoking ways. Titles in the series include: W. T. Stead Nonconformist and Newspaper Prophet Stewart J. Brown Margaret Mead A Twentieth-Century Faith Elesha J. Coffman Theodore Roosevelt Preaching from the Bully Pulpit Benjamin J. Wetzel Arthur Sullivan A Life of Divine Emollient Ian Bradley Benjamin Franklin Cultural Protestant D. G. Hart

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Queen Victoria This Thorny Crown

MICHAEL LEDGER-LOMAS

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Michael Ledger-Lomas 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2021934080 ISBN 978–0–19–875355–1 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A. Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

For Richa and Esther Libby

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Acknowledgements Tim Larsen asked me to write this book and has stuck with me through my slowness in finishing it. His trust and advice have been indispensable to me throughout. Tom Perridge at Oxford University Press was not just similarly patient but was also wonderfully understanding in finding me some extra words at a late stage in the process. It has been a pleasure to work again with the meticulous and efficient Karen Raith on its production. I researched and wrote this book as a Lecturer in the History of Christianity in Britain at the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at King’s College, London where I remain a Visiting Research Fellow. While at King’s I was particularly grateful for the kind support of Paul Joyce and Marat Shterin as my heads of department and for the collegiality of David Crankshaw, my fellow lecturer in the history of Christianity. The grant of two periods of research leave greatly advanced my work on the project, as did the award of research funding. The German Academic Exchange Service DAAD very generously made me a grant to support a research trip to German archives. I would like to thank Her Majesty the Queen for permission to quote from the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle, where I received a good deal of expert assistance. I am greatly indebted also to the staff of the following libraries and archives: the Argyll papers archive at Inveraray Castle; the British Library; the Staatsarchiv Coburg and the Landesbibliothek Coburg; the Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Darmstadt; the Archiv des Hauses Hessen, Schloss Fasanerie, Eichenzell; Lambeth Palace Library; the National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh; and Durham Palace Green Library. The convenors of seminars at the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and the Institute of Historical Research, London invited me to give papers about this project. I am grateful for the feedback I received on those occasions. I have also benefited from the chance to talk about Queen Victoria at conferences and workshops in places as various as Cambridge, Gotha, Haifa, Kensington Palace, Paris, Rome, and Waco, TX.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

viii

Acknowledgements

Jon Parry first introduced me to the Victorians as a third year undergraduate and has been a great support to me in my scholarly career ever since. The manuscript of this book has hugely benefited from his reading of it. I long ago despaired of matching the rigour, concision, and wry elegance with which Jon writes about the nineteenth century, but I hope this book nonetheless embodies some of the many things he has taught me. My thinking about the Victorians further developed as a member of two research groups in Cambridge: the Cambridge Victorian Studies Group and the Bible and Antiquity in Nineteenth-Century Britain project. Simon Goldhill, the animating spirit of both groups, showed typical generosity in reading a first, unwieldy draft of this book and in providing me with acute, challenging thoughts about it. So too did Jos Betts and I have benefited greatly from his typically shrewd analysis. My thinking about nineteenth-century religion in this book also owes much to the conversation and friendship over the years of Gareth Atkins, Chris Clark, Scott Mandelbrote, Brian Murray, and Rob Priest. I have tried to write in what I take to be our shared conviction that the history of religion is too important to be taken too seriously and that the spiritual kinks of nineteenth-century people can be as revealing as they are funny. I am grateful to Philip Williamson for sharing then unpublished research on state prayers with me and to Alex Bremner, Joseph Hardwick, Peter Hession, Meghan Kearney, James Kirby, Kate Nichols, and Simon Skinner for discussions which pointed me towards some sources and ideas. I have learned a lot about the importance of emotion to religious history from discussions with my brilliant PhD student Sam Jeffrey and with his second supervisor, Uta Balbier. During my years of work on this book, I have counted on the friendship of Piers Baker-Bates, Alderik Blom, James Campbell, Rosanna Maria DaCosta, Simon Mills, Richard Payne, Rory Rapple, Jennifer Regan-Lefebvre, Pernille Røge, Katherine Spears, Zoe Strimpel, David Todd, and Nick Walach. Piers deserves special mention for his willingness to chase memories of Queen Victoria with me, from the Shah Jahan Mosque in Woking to the tombs of Napoleon III and the Prince Imperial at St Michael’s Abbey, Farnborough. While working on the book, I began shuttling regularly between London and Vancouver, before moving permanently to British Columbia. That move proved to be an exciting, but often a stressful and disorienting

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Acknowledgements

ix

one, which I could not have pulled off without the love and support of my parents Eileen and Nigel, my brother and sisters Stephen, Jen, and Abby, their spouses Phoebe, Ben, and Simon, and my nieces India and Matilda. For welcoming me over the years to Vancouver, I owe everything to my parents-in-law Gila Golub and Mark Dwor, my brother-in-law Yonah Dwor, as well as to Ania Korkh and Rachel Laniado. Gila knows more than I ever will about the history of the British monarchy but I hope that this book will nonetheless contain some surprises for her. For making sure I could stay in Vancouver, I am indebted to my immigration lawyer Sam Hyman. This would be a very different book and I would be a very different person had I not met Richa Dwor in the middle of writing it. Although she is herself an eminent Victorianist, Richa has undoubtedly had to live too long with Queen Victoria. Nonetheless, her love and encouragement, which never failed as we moved from Queen’s Road Peckham to just off Victoria Park in East Vancouver, supplied me with the impetus to finish this book. Just days after I completed the first draft, we were joined by our dearest daughter Esther Libby, who has spent her first months presiding quizzically over its final revisions. It is to Richa and Esther that I dedicate this book. Vancouver, British Columbia August 2020

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Table of Contents List of Abbreviations

xiii

Introduction: ‘Someone Tremendous’ 1. A New Reign 2. Meine zweite Heimat 3. Religion in Common Life 4. A Darkened Earth 5. The Supreme Head 6. Disunited Kingdom 7. The Crown of Sacrifice 8. Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals 9. A Completed Life

1 17 42 78 108 139 169 205 231 265

Selected Bibliography Index

293 337

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

List of Abbreviations AP BL CSA DPGL HHA HSA LPL NLS QVJ RA RCIN WAM

Argyll Papers, Inveraray Castle, Argyll British Library Coburg Staatsarchiv Durham Palace Green Library House of Hesse Archive, Schloss Fasanerie, Eichenzell, Fulda Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Darmstadt Lambeth Palace Library National Library of Scotland Queen Victoria’s Journals http://qvj.chadwyck.com/home.do Royal Archives Royal Collections Inventory Number Westminster Abbey Muniments Room

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Introduction ‘Someone Tremendous’

Public life in Victoria, British Columbia, revolved around its namesake when the painter Emily Carr grew up there in the 1880s. The Queen’s birthday in May was the most impressive of civic events and images of her were everywhere. When Carr first encountered pictures of Victoria’s children she was puzzled, because she had known her as someone tremendous, though to me she had been vague and far off like Job or St Paul. I had never known she was real and had a family, only that she owned Victoria, Canada, and the twenty-fourth of May, the Church of England and all the soldiers and sailors in the world. Now suddenly she became real – a woman like Mother with a large family.1

If Victoria was as much part of the young Carr’s settler cosmology as ‘Job or St Paul’, then she was also a fragile person whose reported joys and sorrows had tested her spiritual mettle. Victoria induced in the citizens of Victoria the magical thought that glimpses into the life of an incredibly remote old lady could help them situate themselves in relation to the Empire and the world. ‘With almost none of us in this Province has she ever come into contact’, mused Victoria’s Daily Colonist newspaper on the eve of her Diamond Jubilee. ‘Yet all of us feel the better and are the better for her strong and noble conduct . . . [her] sense of responsibility under God.’2 The integrative role of Victoria’s spiritual life in Victoria, British Columbia mattered because religious fractures ran as deep at the margins of her Empire as in its metropole. While Carr recognized Victoria as the governor of the Church, her parents did not. On Sunday mornings, she and her father worshipped with Presbyterians, while in the evening she went with her mother to hear Edward Cridge—an anti-popish renegade who had become bishop of the Pacific Coast in the Reformed Episcopal Church of America.3 The

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

2

Queen Victoria

seat of Cridge’s diocese, a Carpenter’s Gothic church, was just one of the town’s many non-Anglican places of worship. Dissenting chapels proliferated, while the Roman Catholic St Andrew’s Cathedral was consecrated in 1892. The city’s oldest religious building was not Christian at all, but the Temple Emanu-El synagogue, whose congregation said Kaddish for Victoria on the day of her funeral in February 1901.4 Colonials accorded First Nations a subordinate place in this royal cosmos. After visiting Victoria in 1876, the Governor General Lord Dufferin had sailed to Metlakatla, a mission village on the coast ruled with despotic benevolence by William Duncan, who, like Cridge, was a rogue evangelical who had rebelled against the Church. Dufferin inspected Metlakatla’s wooden church and blithely assured its Tsimshian residents that their ‘white mother’ would protect them ‘in the exercise of your religion, and . . . extend to you the benefit of those laws which know no difference of race or colour’.5 Victoria was then a symbol for people divided on ultimate questions. Cridge had stormed out of the Church of England, but he still gave an address at the pan-Protestant festival of thanks giving at Victoria’s Beacon Hill Park on her Diamond Jubilee and pronounced the benediction at the city’s open-air memorial service for her on 2 February 1901. On that occasion, crowds had sung ‘Rock of Ages’, ‘Nearer my God to Thee’, and ‘Abide with Me’ in front of the black-clad Parliament buildings and under an azure sky—a ‘spontaneous scene of love and loyalty to the deceased and devotion and reverence to the Almighty Father which could scarcely be equalled anywhere on earth’.6 This spiritual life of Queen Victoria proceeds from the expectation shared by her divided subjects across the Empire: that it belonged to them. As the Bishop of London reminded Victoria at her coronation, ‘of no other individual members of the whole family of mankind can it be said, with equal truth, that they live not for themselves alone, but for the weal, or woe, of others’ than of monarchs. God might have distinguished her, but expected much from her in return, because her slightest failing could shake the ‘entire frame of society’.7 The desire to find lessons in her life was the spring for the stream of contemporary biographies which has since matured into an ever-widening flood. The Canadian John W. Kirton’s True Royalty; or, the Noble Example of an Illustrious Life as Seen in the Lofty Purpose and Generous Deeds of Victoria as Maiden, Mother, and Monarch (1887) thus aimed to be no ‘mere

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Introduction

3

biography’, but rather a ‘“guide, philosopher, and friend,” to those who desire to make the most of their talents, opportunities, and powers’.8 These lives often bent Victoria’s piety to their sectarian commitments. The fanatically anti-Catholic Walter Walsh laboured Victoria’s Protestantism in his Religious Life and Influence of Queen Victoria (1902), lamenting or dismissing instances in which she had been soft on Rome.9 Modern scholarly biographies may have left the piety and sectarianism of the hagiographers behind them, but have often lost their awareness that religion pervaded Victoria’s life and that it was the medium through which her subjects thought about it. While there are scholarly monographs aplenty which contain excellent evocations of religion’s role in aspects of Victoria’s life, the discussion of Victoria’s religion in even the most capacious recent biographies tends to be spotty and lacking in contextualization.10 If existing biographies often skimp in their treatment of Victoria’s religious life, then the bigger problem is that in their concentration on her individual will and interests they are remote from the most incisive recent studies of Victorian monarchy, which eschew a narrowly biographical approach. Building on Lytton Strachey’s claim that Victoria was for Victorians ‘an indissoluble part of their whole scheme of things’, historians rightly argue that ‘what happened around the monarchy was more important than what the monarch herself did’ and that biographies alone cannot explain Victoria’s centrality to Victorian culture.11 Recent studies of her role in political life, her media image, her relationship with India and the peoples of her Empire and her place in the imagination of suffragist campaigners have refined and strengthened our sense of Victoria’s agency precisely because they emphasize the structural supports and constraints on it.12 A religious biography of Victoria needs to place her within these frameworks, which were not just British but European. The European nineteenth century was an age not just of modernization but of monarchy: its sovereigns were not just resilient in holding onto power, but enterprising in finding new ways to express and legitimize it.13 Like her crowned contemporaries, Victoria and her advisers assiduously communicated perceptions of her life and character to her subjects, which were powerful although and because they were often inaccurate. Even though historians often present royal ‘soft power’ as a secular category, one tied up with the expansion of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

4

Queen Victoria

mass media and the cult of celebrity, religion remained central to it.14 In telling the story of Victoria’s religion, this book shows that, like her life as a whole, it was idiosyncratic but never private.15 What Victoria believed and how she worshipped reflected her ardent, partisan absorption in debates about church–state relations in the United Kingdom and the British Empire. At the same time, Victorians demonstrated enormous confidence in discussing the innermost secrets of her spirituality and appealing to them to vindicate their own religious traditions and feelings. Approaching Victoria then as both an individual and as a sovereign, the book presents her first of all as a churchwoman. On her accession, she became supreme governor of the United Church of England, Wales, and Ireland and was pledged by her coronation oath to maintain the Church of Scotland. Like many of her predecessors on the throne, she not only governed the Church but had learned her personal piety from it and remained committed to it as an indispensable guarantor of social and political stability. Though she became and remained an icon of British exceptionalism, Victoria was no different to other European rulers in assuming that her authority was tied up with the vitality of state religion. ‘Believe me, where there is no respect for God—no belief in futurity—there can be no respect or loyalty to the highest in the land’, she wrote to her daughter Victoria in 1878 after an embittered socialist shot at Kaiser Wilhelm I as he rode along Unter den Linden in Berlin.16 This book presents Victoria as an important actor in controversies over church and state, a ruler deeply concerned throughout her reign about how not only to defend established churches but to remake them into more Protestant and representative institutions. The portrait of Victoria’s piety therefore has as its background a detailed discussion of policy, embedding her in the clerical and governmental networks which variously supplied, encouraged, frustrated, and criticized her attempts to reform national religion in a multi-national United Kingdom. Established churches were central to Victoria’s religious life not just because she cared about them, but also because they cared about her. In his seminal, sardonic account of popular royalism in The English Constitution (1867), Walter Bagehot suggested that a royal family made government not only ‘intelligible’ to the common people, but almost holy. Impressed among other things by popular fervour for the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Introduction

5

marriage of Victoria’s son the Prince of Wales, Bagehot argued that monarchy ‘strengthens our government with the strength of religion’, ‘enlisting on its behalf the credulous obedience of enormous masses’. Though confessing that ‘it is not easy to say why it should be so’, Bagehot advanced a functionalist explanation: adulation for the monarchy worked like a religion among an ‘uneducated’ people which ‘wants every now and then to see something higher than itself ’.17 Bagehot, a disenchanted Unitarian, overlooked the role of the churches in his discussion of religion. Yet, as Philip Williamson and others have recently demonstrated, they were if anything more active in the sacralization of the monarchy in the nineteenth than in previous centuries.18 The Church of England organized national thanksgivings for the health and longevity of Victoria and her family, with which Protestant Dissenters and even Roman Catholics associated themselves both in Britain and throughout the world.19 Victoria thus relied as much as any Habsburg or Romanov on her church to stage ‘scenarios of power’. Only a year after Victoria processed through London to give thanks for her Diamond Jubilee on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral for example, the Habsburg Emperor Franz Josef walked through Vienna in the Corpus Christi procession that marked his golden jubilee.20 Although the book emphasizes Victoria’s ecclesiastical commitments, it also suggests that her relationship with religious Victorians became just as affective as it was institutional. The crusading Dissenting journalist W. T. Stead argued at the time of the Diamond Jubilee that she had become the head, not merely of the ‘narrow sect of Anglican ecclesiasticism’, but of ‘the Civic Church—the Union of all who love in the service of all who Suffer’ and the ‘head and Ideal Exemplar’ of the ‘Family’, which was ‘the broadest and most catholic Church of all’.21 Investigations into nineteenth-century ‘lived religion’ often discover that lay people engaged in practices or professed beliefs not accounted for by clerical norms.22 Victoria’s life was of this kind. Histories of Victorian religion often concentrate on the rise and fall of church parties, the competition between orthodoxies or their erosion through secularization. It is hard to fit Victoria’s life into such models: she understood religion not as the performance of rites or as adherence to doctrines about the supernatural, but rather as an immanent faith that found its highest expression in romantic and domestic

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

6

Queen Victoria

emotions. The death of her husband Prince Albert on 14 December 1861, which biographers have always recognized as a decisive turning point in her life, only deepened the emotional thrust of her religiosity and its accessibility for her subjects. Victoria’s performance of grief and resignation turned the spiritual and emotional burdens of the sovereign into the justification of her rule: a potent source of soft power and a powerful answer to the nagging question of what a constitutional monarch, and a female one at that, did all day.23 It allowed her hagiographers to represent her to congregations and readers who might not belong to her church as their ‘Queen-mother and friend’ and to cast republicanism as the failing of ‘callous’ people who could not feel for this ‘large heart so full of compassion for others’.24 In studying Victoria’s religious feelings, this book suggests that they aligned the monarchy with the increasing tendency of believers to regard feelings rather than true doctrines as the essence of piety, and shared emotions as the bond of religious and national communities.25 This book also argues that the expansion and ideological consolidation of Victoria’s Empire made her religiosity not just nationally, but globally significant. As settler colonies won greater political autonomy from Westminster but continued to feel part of Greater Britain, they found in Victoria a fitting exemplification of the virtues which they felt had contributed to its expansion.26 This cult, which reached its apogee in her two Jubilees of 1887 and 1897 and her funeral in 1901, was not just a kind of civic religion but a manifestation of imperial Christianity. The Church of England’s increasingly elaborate colonial churches and cathedrals were natural venues for royal rites of thanksgiving and sorrow throughout the Empire.27 Presbyterians, Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics generally proved to be no less avid in their royalism, which allowed them to assert their prominence in colonial societies and their global solidarity alike with other Britons and with their diasporic churches. We will see that colonized peoples, both Christian and non-Christian, also accepted that it was possible to enter into emotional community with Queen Victoria. Settlers and their clergy loved to talk of the love of native peoples for their ‘Great White Mother’, which handily obscured the realities of white colonial violence and domination. Yet even if historians rightly suggest that imperial rule rested squarely on the exercise of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Introduction

7

terror, this book will show that it often suited colonized peoples, both Christian and non-Christian, to use the religious rhetoric of love, not least because it allowed them to demand action against the evils inflicted on them by imperialism.28 In weaving together Victoria’s religious life with the development of popular ideas about it, this book draws upon many sources. It rests above all on a systematic reading of Victoria’s now digitized journal, which she began in July 1832 and kept up daily until shortly before her death in January 1901. Its limitations as a source are obvious. Most of it exists only in her daughter Beatrice’s transcriptions, which doubtless deleted some sensitive passages, while its shallowness can be even more frustrating than its omissions. While Victoria was often stirred to write voluminously about Highlands scenery, foreign travel, or theatrical and musical productions, she was often reticent about her encounters with the texts and ideas that excite religious historians. To take just one example, she recorded on 8 August 1852 that ‘Albert told me much about an interesting book he is reading, the “Life of Jesus” by Strauss.—Dinner as yesterday.’ Yet if the diary’s coverage of Victoria’s religious interests is not deep, then it is unusually extensive, especially when read in full. If she seldom commented much on the books she read, or which were read to her, she was assiduous in noting their titles.29 She habitually recorded the names of those who preached to her every Sunday and summaries of their sermons. This makes it possible to reconstruct the clerical networks and texts which mediated Victoria’s knowledge of the churches and national religion and shaped her feelings about them. The book draws upon Victoria’s published and unpublished correspondence with the churchmen who inspired her and with her prime ministers and other statesmen to flesh out its account of these networks. While Victoria could be arbitrary, even cantankerous, in expressing her will in religious matters, these sources show that she depended closely on advice from those she trusted, from household clergy such as the Deans of Windsor Gerald Wellesley and Randall Davidson to such stalwart servants as her private secretary Charles Grey and the men of letters Arthur Helps and Theodore Martin. The book draws on their writings and unpublished papers and correspondence to evoke their resolute liberal Protestantism, which mingled with and often strengthened Victoria’s own.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

8

Queen Victoria

The book’s systematic reading of Victoria’s diary also generates an inductive picture of what religion meant for her. Its entries show that Victoria resembled many of her subjects in giving more importance to spaces and things—from photographs and statues to tombs and personal relics—than to textual beliefs in the definition and expression of religious feeling, especially when it came to mourning the dead.30 As Lytton Strachey saw, Victoria was a woman of ‘innumerable possessions’; a hoarder ‘not merely of things and of thoughts, but of states of mind and ways of living as well’.31 The book therefore continually attends to the religious spaces and objects that Victoria used, built, or collected, from private chapels and mausoleums to portraits and prayer books, evoking the associative sensibility that informed her piety. Victoria’s correspondence also generates a wider vision of what she defined as religious life. If this book has employed the thick binders of letters at the Royal Archives labelled ‘Church’ and which are primarily devoted to the conduct of ecclesiastical business, then it also draws on her lifelong exchanges with female correspondents: her daughters Victoria and Alice, her German sister-in-law Alexandrine, her aunt Louise, the Queen of the Belgians, and many friends and courtiers. The gentlemen editors of Victoria’s selected published correspondence did not include many ‘Letters from Ladies’, as the Royal Archives labelled much of this material, preferring to represent her as an honorary statesman who was mainly intent on public business.32 Yet although largely private and sentimental, rather than political or ostensibly theological in scope, this correspondence is a valuable source for Victoria’s religion. It shows how she and her friends and relatives formed an emotional community whose spiritual language of resignation before the trials of life often crossed national and confessional boundaries.33 The book mobilizes different kinds of sources to show how Victoria featured in the religious imagination of Victorians. Literary, cultural, and gender historians have already demonstrated that the material for such an investigation is huge, given the volume of writing about Victoria, the quantity of engraved and then photographic images of her and of commodities produced to mark her Jubilees and death.34 This book explores the religious meaning and use of such sources, but also concentrates on another textual source: the Victorian sermon. Every major event in Victoria’s life occasioned a salmon run of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Introduction

9

printed sermons and tracts, patterning her experiences on Scripture, the master narrative for Christian lives.35 Because even ‘boilerplate’ language reveals the clusters of concepts and feelings that societies and their leaders value, these productions are a vital source for this book, even, and perhaps particularly when, they are repetitive and banal.36 Preachers saw themselves as charged with ensuring that the intense emotions aroused by crises in Victoria’s life strengthened the hold of their congregations on religious truth. This book asks not whether the words of sympathy and veneration showered on Victoria were sincere, but rather what preachers hoped to accomplish in uttering and then publishing them. Although Anglican preachers asserted a proprietorial relationship with the monarchy, Dissenting, Roman Catholic, and Jewish preaching could be equally and just as revealingly royalist. Beneath the consensus that Victoria incarnated virtue and religion—a consensus that was remarkable in itself—sharp differences emerged in what religious communities felt her rule meant for them. Although the most confident speakers of royalist language were white Protestant Christians, the book explores what other religions said about her too, suggesting that their words of fealty were no mere acts of imitation but attempts to advance their position within the Empire. This book tells the story of Victoria’s religious life through a series of interlinked essays, which are arranged in loosely but not strictly chronological form, because while it is important to convey how time and the accidents of life changed Victoria’s religion, many of her preoccupations must be traced across decades. The first chapter of this book (‘A New Reign’) sets out the religious expectations on Victoria at her accession in 1837. If she inherited her dynasty’s commitments to the maintenance of Protestantism and the established church, then she was also subject to the new emotional intensity with which religious people regarded their monarchs. This had been evident in the public reaction to the successive deaths which cleared her way to the throne. Reactions to Victoria’s coronation and to assassination attempts against her early in her reign show that, as the last Hanoverian, she too was a sacral, providential figure, although she quickly distanced herself from the political Protestantism of her predecessors. The next chapters trace the development of Victoria’s personal religion and its divergence from the Hanoverian template. The second (‘Meine zweite Heimat’) argues that Victoria’s marriage

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

10

Queen Victoria

to Albert instilled in her a Protestant identification with German Lutherans. Dynastic ties not only opened Victoria to German influences, but became the medium through which she and Albert sought to build religious and political affinities between Britain and Germany. Having outlined the transnational parameters of Victoria’s Protestantism, the third chapter (‘Religion in Common Life’) sketches the development of her liberal Protestant commitment to lived lay religion, which overlooked conventional distinctions between the sacred and the secular. Victoria and Albert regarded family and home, rather than the church, as the locus of religious faith and practice, and sought to advance the identification of God with the laws of his creation. The fourth chapter (‘A Darkened Earth’) shows how the destruction of Victoria’s household through death tested her faith, prompting an anguished search for spiritual and material sources of consolation, which alarmed her friends and advisers but also created a new template for popular attitudes to the throne. Victoria’s insistence that she had a religious obligation to pile up ever more baroque monuments to her husband’s virtues eventually generated resistance and scepticism, although, as later chapters will show, her widowhood became an enduring symbol of her soft power, which allowed preachers to wax eloquent on her lonely suffering. Domestic representations of Victoria as wife, mother and widow became so important in the religious imagination that they can obscure the degree to which she remained a fiercely engaged ecclesiastical politician. Historians increasingly return to Frank Hardie’s seminal insight that Victoria not only reigned over Victorian Britain, but remained determined to rule it, particularly where her patronage powers were still more substantial than conventional emphases on the development of a ‘democratic’ constitutional monarchy allow.37 The fifth chapter (‘The Supreme Head’) discusses Victoria’s deep, fractious relationship with the Church of England and Wales. She came to the throne determined not just to maintain, but also to reform the Church by promoting the liberal clergy who could make it a more charitable and representative institution. Resistance to the royal promotion of liberalism by Tractarians and Ritualists who loathed Protestantism and Erastianism—state meddling in spiritual matters—made her increasingly aggressive in her determination to broaden the Church, as she pressed for legislation to stamp out liturgical experiments which

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Introduction

11

hinted at a hankering after Rome. Victoria’s feeling that she could defend the Church by making it more representative of the Protestant nation not only set her against high church people, but blinded her to the principled objections many Protestant Dissenters nursed to its establishment. Her alarmed response to their talk of disestablishment further narrowed Victoria’s understanding of liberalism. The sixth chapter (‘Disunited Kingdom’) turns from Victoria’s efforts to enforce Protestant consensus in England and Wales to her record in coping with the religious diversity of the United Kingdom. Even if Victoria’s vision of the Church of Scotland was as parochial as her vision of Scotland itself, both being centred on the Highlands parish of Crathie, it benefited her and the Union. Although her friendships with Kirk ministers made her a biased participant in disputes over its established status, impressions of Victoria’s sympathy with Scottish religion sank deep in Scotland and around the Empire. Victoria had hoped she might commend herself to the Irish as she did to the Scots, by paying respect to their different national religion, but the chapter shows that her estrangement from Irish Roman Catholics mounted with her reluctance to cross the Irish Sea. Though appreciative of Roman Catholicism as a lived religion and friendly towards popes, not least because she hoped they might bring the Irish Catholic hierarchy to heel, Victoria could not translate these personal affinities into a constructive political relationship with Catholic Ireland. Lytton Strachey once wrote that Victoria’s biographer must agree with her in seeing her long widowhood as ‘an epilogue to a drama that was done’, shrouded in ‘darkness’ and deserving only a ‘brief and summary relation’.38 Biographies have often tacitly endorsed that judgement, seeing the forty years that followed 1861 as a time of waning ambitions and vitality. By contrast, the last chapters of this book present them as a period of religious innovation. The seventh chapter (‘The Crown of Sacrifice’) suggests that while a crescendo of bereavements made Victoria a gloomy and retrospective person and sovereign, they bolstered her spiritual credentials. The lavish way in which she buried and commemorated her male relatives made her the Empire’s mourner in chief, aligning a feminine monarchy with the increasingly militaristic and imperial character of elite culture as well as with the softening of Christian eschatology. The eighth chapter

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

12

Queen Victoria

(‘Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals’) pursues this inquiry by presenting her Jubilees as occasions that strengthened articulations of imperial ideology, while allowing those outside the metropole, established churches, or even Christianity to voice their hopes of the Queen. If Victoria is present but not active in this chapter—except as an uncooperative participant in rituals that sacralized her rule—then her sole contribution to chapter nine (‘A Completed Life’) is to die. It examines the global topography of emotion created by her death and funeral, one thickly studded with church spires. Christian clergy were impresarios of the emotions unleashed on Victoria’s death, much as they had been during her Jubilees. But if they confidently used Victoria’s death to celebrate national and imperial solidarities, then voices for the faiths which were coming to be classed as world religions also voiced reverence for her as a way of establishing their claims to consideration in her Christian but also cosmopolitan Empire.39 You understand & feel how very mingled my feelings must be on such a day—Thankfulness for God’s help & protection through the many years that I have worn this thorny crown, & carried a heavy cross & thankfulness to my people & friends for their devotion & unexampled loyalty . . . But also much sadness at missing Him to whom I & the Country owe so much . . . and missing too dear children.40

Victoria’s reflections on her accession day in June 1886 supply this book with its title. In a letter to her courtier Lady Waterpark, who, like her, had long been a pious widow, Victoria inverted conventional understandings of power. She was not strong but weak, broken by the death of her husband and several of her children and reliant on God’s assistance and the sympathy of her people to keep going. Her vocation was not to exercise her will, but to bear her ‘heavy cross’. It was an odd confession from a woman whose Golden Jubilee a year later celebrated her longevity and Britain’s global sway. Victoria had not always regarded her reign as a mere via dolorosa; until the end of her life, she was intent on bringing about change in Britain, Europe, and the world. Yet these words do capture this book’s central contention: because Victoria instinctively looked to God for support throughout her life, a religious life of Victoria boosts our understanding of her reign. A fitting metaphor for her private passion, the ‘thorny crown’ was also a powerful emblem of her spiritual sovereignty.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Introduction

13

Notes 1. Emily Carr, The Book of Small (1943; Toronto and Vancouver: Clark, Irwin and Co., 1966), pp. 135–6. 2. Daily Colonist, 20 June 1897, p. 4. 3. Carr, Small, pp. 26–7. 4. ‘Memorial Services’, Daily Colonist, 3 February 1901, p. 5; Cyril Edel Leonoff, Pioneers, Pedlars, and Prayer Shawls: The Jewish Communities in British Columbia and the Yukon (Victoria, BC: Sono Nis Press, 1978), pp. 19–21. 5. Molyneux St John, The Sea of Mountains: An Account of Lord Dufferin’s Tour Through British Columbia in 1876 (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1876), pp. 319–21. For Duncan see Peter Murray, The Devil and Mr Duncan (Victoria, BC: Sono Nis Press, 1985) and Peggy Brock, The Many Voyages of Arthur Wellington Clah: A Tsimshian Man on the Pacific (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2011). 6. ‘Memorial Services’, Daily Colonist, 3 February 1901, pp. 5–6. 7. Charles Blomfield, Sermon Preached at the Coronation of Her most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria in the Abbey Church of Westminster, June 28 1838 (London: B. Fellowes, 1838), p. 12. 8. John W. Kirton, True Royalty; Or, the Noble Example of an Illustrious Life as Seen in the Lofty Purpose and Generous Deeds of Victoria as Maiden, Mother, and Monarch (London: Ward, Lock and Co., 1887), p. v. 9. Walter Walsh, The Religious Life and Influence of Queen Victoria (London: Swan and Sonnenschein, 1902), p. 209. 10. For monographs, see e.g. Lynne Vallone, Becoming Victoria (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003) on her education and Miles Taylor, Empress: Queen Victoria and India (New Haven: Yale UP, 2018) on India; for biographies see A. N. Wilson, Victoria: A Life (London: Atlantic Books, 2014). Walter Arnstein, ‘Queen Victoria and Religion’, in Gail Malmgreen, ed., Religion in the Lives of English Women (London, 1986), pp. 88–128; Walter L. Arnstein, ‘Queen Victoria and the Challenge of Roman Catholicism’, The Historian, 58 (1996), pp. 295–314; and Walter L. Arnstein, Queen Victoria (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2003) remain seminal discussions of Victoria’s religion. 11. Richard Williams, The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the Monarchy in the Age of Queen Victoria (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), p. 265; Miles Taylor, ‘The Bicentenary of Queen Victoria’, Journal of British Studies, 59 (2020), pp. 121–35. 12. See Williams, Contentious Crown; Antony Taylor, ‘Down with the Crown’: British Anti-Monarchism and Debates about Royalty Since 1790 (London:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

14

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Queen Victoria Reaktion Books, 1997); David Craig, ‘The Crowned Republic? Monarchy and Anti-Monarchy in Britain, 1760–1901’, Historical Journal, 46 (2003), pp. 167–85; Andrzej Olechnowicz, ed., The Monarchy and the British Nation, 1780 to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007); Jörg Neuheiser, Krone, Kirche und Verfassung: Konservatismus in den englischen Unterschichten 1815–1867 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010); John Plunkett, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003); Sarah Carter and Maria Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything: Queen Victoria in Indigenous Worlds (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016); Taylor, Empress; Arianne Chernock, The Right to Rule and the Rights of Women: Queen Victoria and the Women’s Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2019). Dieter Langewiesche, Die Monarchie im Jahrhundert Europas: Selbstbehauptung Durch Wandel Im 19. Jahrhundert (Heidelberg: Universitātsverlag Winter, 2013), p. 5; Frank Lorenz Müller and Heidi Mehrkens, eds, Royal Heirs and the Uses of Soft Power in Nineteenth-Century Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). For Germany see for instance Hubertus Beuschel, Untertanenliebe: Der Kult um deutsche Monarchen 1770–1830 (Goettingen: Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, 2006); Eva Giloi, ‘ “So Writes the Hand that Swings the Sword”: Autograph Hunting and Royal Charisma in the German Empire, 1861–1888’, in Edward Berenson and Eva Giloi, eds, Constructing Charisma: Celebrity, Fame, and Power in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Oxford: Berghahn, 2010), pp. 41–51 and Eva Giloi, Monarchy, Myth, and Material Culture in Germany 1750–1950 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011). Adrienne Munich, Queen Victoria’s Secrets (New York: Columbia UP, 1996); Margaret Homans and Adrienne Munich, eds, Remaking Queen Victoria (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997). Roger Fulford, ed., Darling Child: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1871–1878 (London: Evans Bros, 1976), p. 292. Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1867) and ‘The Thanksgiving’ (1872?), in The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, ed. Norman St John-Stevas (15 vols, London: The Economist, 1965–86), v: pp. 230, 232, 233, 440. J. C. D. Clark, ‘The Re-Enchantment of the World? Religion and Monarchy in Eighteenth-Century Europe’, in Michael Schaich, ed., Monarchy and Religion: The Transformation of Royal Culture in EighteenthCentury Europe (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007), p. 43.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Introduction

15

19. See Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 2, General Fasts, Thanksgivings and Special Prayers in the British Isles 1689–1870 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017) and National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 3: Worship for National and Royal Occasions in the United Kingdom, 1871–2016 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2020). 20. Richard S. Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in the Russian Monarchy from Peter the Great to the Abdication of Nicholas II (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2006); James Shedel, ‘Emperor, Church, and People: Religion and Dynastic Loyalty during the Golden Jubilee of Franz Josef ’, Catholic Historical Review, 76 (1990), pp. 71–92. 21. W. T. Stead, Her Majesty the Queen: Studies of the Sovereign and the Reign, etc. (London: Review of Reviews Office, 1897), p. 92. 22. See e.g. David Hall, ed., Lived Religion in America: Toward a History of Practice (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1997). 23. Frank Lorenz Müller, ‘ “Winning their Trust and Affection”: Royal Heirs and the Uses of Soft Power in Nineteenth-Century Europe’, in Müller and Mehrkens, eds, Royal Heirs, pp. 1–19; Margaret Homans, Royal Representations: Queen Victoria and British Culture, 1837–76 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. xix; Chernock, Right to Rule, ch. 4. 24. William Tulloch, The Story of the Life of Queen Victoria (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1897), pp. 207, 241–2, 288. 25. From a growing literature see e.g. John Corrigan, Business of the Heart: Religion and Emotion in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley, CA and London: University of California Press, 2002) and John Corrigan, Emptiness: Feeling Christian in America (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2015) ; John Coffey, ed., Heart Religion: Evangelical Piety in England & Ireland, 1690–1850 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2016); Monique Scheer, ‘Feeling Faith: The Cultural Practice of Religious Emotions in Nineteenth-Century German Methodism’, in Monique Scheer et al., eds, Out of the Tower: Essays on Culture and Everyday Life (Tübingen: TVV, 2013), pp. 217–47; Linda Woodhead and Ole Riis, A Sociology of Religious Emotion (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010). 26. Duncan Bell, ‘The Idea of a Patriot Queen? The Monarchy, the Constitution, and the Iconographic Order of Greater Britain, 1860–1900’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 34 (2006), pp. 3–22. 27. G. Alex Bremner, Imperial Gothic: Religious Architecture and High Anglican Culture in the British Empire, 1840–1870 (New Haven and London: Yale

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

16

28.

29.

30.

31. 32.

33.

34. 35. 36. 37.

38. 39. 40.

Queen Victoria UP, 2013); Philip Williamson and Joseph Hardwick, ‘Special Worship in the British Empire: From the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Centuries’, Studies in Church History: The Church and the Empire, 54 (2018), pp. 260–80. See Kim Wagner, ‘ “Calculated to Strike Terror”: The Amritsar Massacre and the Spectacle of Colonial Violence’, Past and Present, 233 (2016), pp. 185–225 for Empire and terror. See Michael Ledger-Lomas, ‘Rereading Queen Victoria’s Religion’, in Josh King and Winter Jade Werner, eds, Constructing Nineteenth-Century Religion: Literary, Historical, and Religious Studies in Dialogue (Ohio: Ohio State UP, 2019), pp. 139–54. William Whyte, Unlocking the Church: The Lost Secrets of Victorian Sacred Space (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2017), ‘Introduction’; Deborah Lutz, Relics of Death in Victorian Literature and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015), ‘Introduction’. Lytton Strachey, Queen Victoria (1921; London: Chatto and Windus, 1924), pp. 253, 256. See Yvonne Ward, Censoring Queen Victoria: How Two Gentlemen Edited a Queen and Created an Icon (London: Oneworld, 2014) and William Kuhn, Democratic Royalism: The Transformation of the British Monarchy, 1861–1914 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 79–80. See Barbara Rosenwein, Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages (New York: Cornell, 2006) and Barbara Rosenwein, Generations of Feeling: A History of Emotions, 600–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015) for ‘emotional communities’. See Chernock, Right to Rule for one recent example of this approach. See Keith A. Francis and William Gibson, eds, The Oxford Handbook of the British Sermon 1689–1901 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012). Rosenwein, Generations, pp. 9–10. Frank Hardie, The Political Influence of Queen Victoria, 1861–1901 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1935). See Michael Bentley, ‘Power and Authority in the Late-Victorian and Edwardian Court’, in Olechnowicz, ed., Monarchy, pp. 163–87 and Taylor, Empress for the army and India. Strachey, Victoria, p. 190. See Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2005). Diary of the Life at Court of Eliza Jane Lady Waterpark between 1864 and 1893, BL Add MS MSS 60750, f. 148.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

1 A New Reign

Shortly before Queen Victoria’s coronation on 28 June 1838, Canon Sydney Smith preached on ‘The New Reign’ from the pulpit of St Paul’s Cathedral. His preface to his published sermon coolly advised Victoria that ‘if you follow the plain and honest advice it contains, it will go some way to make you a happy woman, and a great Queen’. The witty Smith was uncharacteristically solemn because, as an old man, he counted on not seeing another coronation, even closing his sermon with the Nunc Dimittis: ‘Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation’. He asked Victoria to reflect that ‘No vice, and no virtue are indifferent in a monarch; human beings are very imitative; there is a fashion in the higher qualities of our minds, as there is in the lesser considerations of life.’ He directed her to emulate her predecessor William IV’s feeling regime, one in which his ‘heart throbbed and beat for the land which his ancestors had rescued from slavery, and governed with justice’. But he also asked Victoria to embrace new responsibilities: to champion a national education system and to ‘worship God, by loving peace’. Smith congratulated Victoria on inheriting a Church of England which, as a result of recent Whig reforms, was once more a ‘rational object of love and admiration’. Yet preserving that love meant reaching out further still to Dissenters and Roman Catholics. Not only must their rights be respected, but there must be no ‘contemptuous disrespect of their feelings’. The Queen must steer clear of evangelical churchmen, for if their ‘violent abuse’ of Roman Catholics prevailed, then ‘he who is furthest removed from reason, will make the nearest approach to distinction’. The carnival of bigotry would generate a ‘weariness and disgust at religion itself ’ and lead to ‘an age of impiety, and infidelity’.1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

18

Queen Victoria

Smith’s sermon shows us that the religious expectations on this ‘patriot Queen’ were a volatile blend of new and old. Victoria’s contemporaries often pretended that she had begun not just a new reign, but a new dynasty. ‘We might almost say that the house of Hanover came to a conclusion in the family of George III’, wrote Margaret Oliphant in her Personal Sketch (1900) of Victoria. ‘The Hanover cortege swept away into the darkness, completing a record not beautiful nor noble, though perhaps necessary. And the Maid of England stepped forth.’2 Victoria herself cast her reign as a blessed change. Although dutiful in her displays of family piety, hanging the state dining room and grand staircase of Buckingham Palace for instance with Hanoverian portraits, she looked back with distaste on her immediate predecessors.3 She lent an ear to Sir Robert Peel’s complaints that George IV had been ‘very false’ and William ‘weak, & not clever, but honourable’.4 She felt ‘horror’ at George’s heavy feeding and his brother the Duke of York’s boozing, and watched her eldest son’s morals out of dread that he might revert to the Hanoverian form of his ‘Wicked Uncles’.5 She completed William’s eradication of George IV’s buildings in Windsor Great Park and sold off the contents of the Brighton Pavilion. Her identification with the monarchy’s history skipped over the Hanoverians—and before them William and Mary—to fix on the Stuarts. Victoria had ‘relics’ of Charles I returned to his vault at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, visited the grave of his daughter at Newport Church on the Isle of Wight, and had a monument erected to her at Carisbrooke Castle.6 She even took pride in the Jacobite traditions of the region around her residence at Balmoral, creating a tartan waiting room decorated with Jacobite portraits.7 The notion that Victoria’s reign marked a clean break in the religious character of the monarch may have become important to her self-fashioning but it is misleading. As the cynosure of religious eyes, Victoria was in many ways the last Hanoverian sovereign.8 The accession of the Lutheran George I under the Act of Succession had forged a connection between Protestantism and the Hanoverian monarchy, which his son George II strengthened.9 His grandson George III initiated a narrower identity for his dynasty as protectors of the Church of England against free thought and Dissent, although the complexities of the United Kingdom and the British Empire,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

19

especially the autonomous establishment of the Church of Scotland, meant that he remained as much a Protestant as an Anglican monarch. The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 had triggered George’s apotheosis as a defender of not just Protestantism but national religion.10 Despite conceding Catholic Emancipation in 1829, his son George IV remained a strong supporter of the Church, as did his brother and successor William.11 Yet although Victoria inherited an expectation that she would uphold Protestantism and the Church—overlapping, but hardly synonymous demands—ideas about how a monarch should be religious were also changing markedly as she grew up and prepared to take the throne. Monarchs across Europe faced expectations which were not merely confessional, but affective. Without exactly becoming bourgeois, they reaped political rewards from demonstrating the Christian virtues and feelings dear to bourgeois publics.12 In Britain as elsewhere, the mourning of the royal dead became a particularly important way for dynasties to express these virtues, and an occasion for religious communities to affirm a relationship with the monarchy.13 As tears both real and rhetorical fell for Victoria’s predecessors, Christian ministers articulated contrasting expectations of how monarchs should be personally representative of national religiosity. Having explored how Victoria prepared to meet these expectations, the final section of this chapter argues that her subjects greeted her as no less a sacral monarch than her predecessors, although alongside the veneration came a strong expectation that she would act in the interests of differing and often opposed religious constituencies. The ‘Tribute of Natural Tears’: Monarchy and Religious Emotion One Sunday in August 1836, a 17-year-old Princess Victoria went to St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle for evening service and saw Matthew Wyatt’s ‘monument of poor Princess Charlotte, which I cannot say I like. The Cathedral [sic] made me rather sad. The thought and knowledge that beneath the very stones we were walking on, lay so many near to me, in eternal sleep, including my poor dear Father . . . must make one pensive and serious and melancholy.’14 Thirty years later, she had another encounter with Charlotte, the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

20

Queen Victoria

cousin she had never known, but whose memory had been kept before her by her widower, Victoria’s uncle Leopold. Suffering from ‘tremendous heat’ at Windsor as she awaited her daughter Helena’s marriage, she took charge of a ‘most precious relic: the hair of poor dear Pss Charlotte, cut off after her death, such fine thick long hair, “Cela m’a donné l’émotion” in looking at it, fresh as yesterday, after 49 years!’15 Victoria owed her birth and reign to Charlotte, who had died in the early hours of 6 November 1817, just hours after she had delivered a stillborn son. As she was the Prince Regent’s only child, her death aroused anxieties over the Protestant succession and had provoked his brothers, including Victoria’s father the Duke of Kent, to marry and produce legitimate issue. It also catalysed an intensification in the popular emotional identification with royal persons. Charlotte’s death had triggered unprecedented public mourning.16 A mutinous crowd at St Paul’s Cathedral waited for hours for a memorial service despite the Lord Mayor’s pleas to disperse.17 Where churches were closed, congregations migrated to Dissenting chapels. Ministers in Scotland bowed to ‘the irregular impulse of popular feeling’ and held public funeral services despite Presbyterianism’s ban on this practice.18 The numerous published sermons first delivered at these services capture ministers struggling ‘to guide the confused emotions of a sorrowful and swollen heart into the channels of piety’, distinguishing mere sentiment from the ‘permanent and holy’ feelings ‘which the afflicting visitations of Providence are designed to call forth’.19 With Britain experiencing post-war demobilization, deflation, and demands for political reform, preachers such as the Baptist Robert Hall hoped that Christian sorrow for the dead might be a ‘plastic power’ to mould people into ‘a cheerful acquiescence in the allotments of Providence’.20 Although freethinking critics condemned this mourning as servile sentimentalism, these ministers insisted that this ‘tribute of natural tears’ was a ‘rational homage of respect and loyalty’.21 Dissenters were among Charlotte’s most eloquent eulogists, because they understood her to be one of themselves, whose corpse was, as the Baptist William Newman mused, no different to the ‘body of the poorest young woman in this congregation’.22 Though it was impossible for them to know whether she had embraced the ‘inward religion’ prized by evangelical Protestants, she and her husband had lived the domestic

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign 23

21

life dear to Dissenters. Underlying evocations of their marriage as a ‘model for all ranks’ was a theatrical vision of monarchy, in which subjects were ‘children of imitation’ who aped what they saw on stage.24 Memorial sermons not only praised Charlotte’s life but brooded on the ‘afflictive dispensation’ of her death. William Bengo’ Collyer, an Independent minister who had welcomed princes to his aptly named Hanover Chapel in Peckham, South London, hoped that the ‘warning voice, heard so often in vain in the temple of religion, shall be effectual from the mausoleum of royalty’.25 The many reflections on the national sins for which her death was a punishment or a warning reveal that this was still a culture of judicial providentialism, braced for God’s lightning bolts.26 If evangelical Dissenters were prone to reflect on God’s wrath, then Church people and rational Dissenters shared their foreboding.27 The moralizing appropriation of Charlotte was streaked with politics. Dissenters remembered that she had entertained them at Claremont House, and felt sure that she would have carried on her dynasty’s defence of Protestant freedom against priestcraft and Roman Catholicism.28 With Victoria still a twinkle in the Duke of Kent’s eye, there was considerable anxiety that the Protestant succession might die out, leaving Dissenters to be sacrificed by a Roman Catholic monarch ‘upon the altar of intolerance’ to ‘the bloody Moloch of Popery’.29 Jews too fretted over the future of the royal house, which they claimed as their protector.30 The sudden death of Victoria’s father the Duke of Kent on 23 January 1820 further exemplified the identification of religious minorities with the Hanoverians. A middle-aged military martinet, Kent was hardly a romantic figure, yet Dissenting preachers were maudlin in dwelling on his fate and that of his young daughter.31 Collyer read his sermon from a script, because ‘I dare not trust myself to speak’, so bitter were his feelings at the end of an ‘intimate, confiding, unbroken friendship of twelve years’. He would not, though, shrink from the ‘uncontrollable and heart-rending emotions’, which expressed his appreciation of Kent’s ‘reverence for religion’.32 Both he and other Dissenters warmly recalled Kent’s support for tract writers and philanthropists.33 This understanding of the royal house as a ‘city set on a hill’ which served as a model for the moral energies of the people proved to be as durable as it was vulnerable to scepticism and profane mockery.34

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

22

Queen Victoria

When George III died just a week after his son the Duke of Kent, preachers were once more on hand to extort and explain the people’s tears. The Church of Ireland clergyman Thomas Gilbart counselled his parishioners to react neither with ‘stoical apathy’ nor ‘turbulent sensibility’. ‘While we weep’, he counselled, ‘let us do so in the spirit of our text’ (Psalm 51.1), requesting mercy for their sins.35 Anglican clergy grieved a paladin of national religion, a humble Christian who had doffed his crown before taking communion at his coronation and staged a national thanksgiving after his recovery from mental illness in 1789.36 They identified George with his coronation oath, arguing that he understood that God’s favour on his dynasty depended on the defence of the Protestant constitution against Roman Catholic claims and the ‘fiend irreligion’.37 Even though George had not been compos mentis for many years before his death, evangelical preachers claimed him as a converted man, or even a ‘Calvinist’.38 Yet although some Dissenters praised his tolerance of religious difference and his moral seriousness, they struggled to justify his war against the American colonists.39 The Unitarian Thomas Madge argued that George’s death was different to Charlotte’s, when there had been ‘no affected sorrows’, and claimed a duty to speak out about the missteps of his reign, arguing that a ‘loyalty which regards the will of one man as every thing, and the welfare of millions as nothing’ should be as repugnant as it was alien to ‘the Christian’s Statute-book, the New Testament’.40 George’s Queen Charlotte had faced similar criticism—or as pious Tories had it, ‘slander’—after her death two years before his.41 The muted public reaction to the deaths of George’s sons and successors George (1830) and William (1837) suggested that they had frittered away his spiritual and emotional capital. George IV was a sincere Anglican who could count on the prayers of the Church when ill or menaced with assassination.42 Yet public disapproval of his attempts to divorce his wife Caroline meant that his sumptuous coronation in Westminster Abbey, which reflected the growing interest of antiquarians in the history of this ‘most holy and awful’ rite, aroused popular ridicule.43 The author of one squib, The One-Eyed Coronation, imagined a chancer presenting oil made from Russian bears for George’s anointing, which ‘their lordships, apostolic, / By prayers devout could make angelic, / In following the papist fashion,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

23

/ Of defunct transubstantiation; / And, by the same religious means, / Absolve a man from all his sins, / And make all vices, dark as hell, / Pleasant and comfortable.’44 Fiery Dissenters likened him to the cruel King Rehoboam (1 Kings 12) and hinted at resisting tyranny.45 Caroline’s death shortly thereafter, which George hailed as a ‘blessing’ from the ‘protecting hand of God’, occasioned popular demonstrations in which mourning rituals articulated opposition to the King. At Moorgate’s Albion Chapel, Alexander Fletcher pointedly promoted ‘the sacred endearments of domestic relations, by exposing the miseries which follow from a contempt of the most sacred engagements’, before improbably representing the Hogarthian Caroline as one who had looked to Christ ‘as the only Saviour of a lost world’.46 Despite these wobbles, George enjoyed support till the end from Church people for whom his moral foibles mattered less than the energy he had shown in squelching Napoleon and his firmess in resisting Catholic Emancipation.47 When the King’s anti-Catholic brother the Duke of York died in January 1827, Tory preachers had praised his grasp of the dynasty’s anti-Popish credentials and worried over the Protestant succession.48 When George himself ailed just three years later, the Privy Council ordered special prayers to be said in parish churches ‘to strengthen his soul by the consolations of Thy Grace’. Yet news of his death in May 1830 aroused little emotion. ‘Nobody affected to be sorry’ and even his household treated his night-time funeral at St George’s, Windsor as ‘a mere pageant’.49 William’s accession revived a contractual understanding in which the monarch represented his people to God. Preaching the sermon at his cut-price coronation, the Bishop of London reminded him that ‘the sovereignty of Jehovah’ was the only foundation ‘for the duties of public society’. His people must make ‘earnest intercession’ that ‘he may have grace to remember and abide by the solemn compact which he this day makes with God, and with his people’.50 Despite having supported the passage of Catholic Emancipation, William now aligned himself with the Church’s remaining privileges on both sides of the Irish Sea. As his eulogists later recalled, one of his first acts had been to take the sacrament in the Chapel Royal and to make ‘a strong declaration of his attachment to the Established Church’.51 William’s marriage to Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen boosted his claims to good churchmanship. Although she earned much unpopularity by

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

24

Queen Victoria

opposing the Reform Act, her defenders noted that she was a virtuous architect of welfare monarchy. Despite being a Lutheran, she got William to spend handsomely on Anglican church building.52 Anglican preachers would therefore remember William as a defender of the Church and praised his firmness over Catholic claims.53 At the same time, their association with the abolition of colonial slavery and the reduction of Anglican social monopolies made the couple popular among Dissenters both at home and in the colonies.54 William’s brother the Duke of Sussex—a backer of Queen Caroline, a leading Freemason, a supporter of non-denominational education, a patron of natural theology and biblical criticism—would keep up the reputation of the Hanoverians as genial friends of Dissenters into the early years of Victoria’s reign.55 Reactions to William’s end showed that heightened religious expectations could still be as much a liability as an asset for the Hanoverians. William’s last moments had been an impeccable rehearsal of loyalty to the Church, with Adelaide’s chaplain describing in a widely read account how he had taken communion on his deathbed at Bushy House and made a plaintive claim to be ‘a religious man’.56 When the Archbishop of Canterbury arrived at Kensington Palace in the early hours of 20 June 1837 with the news of William’s death, he had been able to inform Victoria that ‘he had directed his mind to religion & had died in a perfectly happy, quiet state of mind’.57 Yet his last rites were muted. When the Privy Council met to agree prayers for the ailing King, ‘there was no display of feeling’ and their action came too late for copies of the prayers to reach most parishes in time. His nocturnal funeral at St George’s Chapel, Windsor did not occasion a ‘tear in any eye’.58 Anglican sermons on his death politely passed over his foibles, such as his fathering of illegitimate children with the actress Mrs Jordan, but Dissenting ones imagined the severe judgement awaiting him in the ‘kingdom of the worm’.59 ‘The Principles of our Holy Religion’: Victoria’s Preparation for the Throne The Bishop of London and his clergy presented their new Queen with an address, in which they took ‘consolation and encouragement from

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

25

reflecting, that William had been succeeded by a Princess, trained up under the watchful care of her Royal Mother in the principles of our Holy Religion, and accustomed to the observance of its duties’. They relied on her to ‘protect the Church of this nation, as the appointed instrument of diffusing, amongst all classes of your Majesty’s subjects, a knowledge of those truths and precepts, which are the only sure basis of individual happiness, and of national prosperity’.60 Victoria’s pious girlhood would generate endless ‘fables’ of her immaculate goodness, which her librarian Richard Holmes tersely dismissed when he came to write her Diamond Jubilee biography.61 Victoria’s son-in-law the Marquis of Lorne was more for giving in his history of her reign, arguing that such tales were not ‘nursery tittle-tattle’ but ‘legitimate domestic details’ of interest to ‘the Teutonic peoples’, disclosing ‘the germs of that excellence which became afterwards apparent to all the world’.62 But beyond the romance was a representative example of female elite education, with her mother the Duchess of Kent adding the distinctive concern to prepare Victoria for her future role as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England which the London clergy hailed in their loyal address.63 Victoria’s youthful religion was as Anglican as that of her uncles. Every Sunday, she heard sermons, most frequently from her tutor George Davys, the Dean of Chester, which extolled the ardent pursuit of a Pauline faith in imitation of Christ. For a young Whig, she heard many Toryish priests, such as William Langley Pope, an enemy of working-class social organization who later opposed Jewish emancipation.64 Alongside sermons, she applied herself to reading theological treatises. A diary entry from 12 August 1835 captures how such reading went: ‘I read in Smith’s Theology when I came home and also sang. At ½ past 11 came the Dean till 1. I read first in the New Testament with him, then in Russell, and finished with Evans on the Sects.’ These books were cumbrous defences of the Church’s authority. The Reverend John Bainbridge Smith’s A Manual of the Rudiments of Theology (1830) was for instance dedicated for ‘persons preparing for holy orders’; it offered them copious extracts from old divines and claimed that the Church’s articles were the best exposition of the truth of Scripture. Victoria soon gave up on what was ‘more a book to refer to, than to read all through’, but it was striking that she should have tried it at all.65

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

26

Queen Victoria

Victoria naturally identified religion with the Prayer Book, a richly bound copy of which she received from her mother in October 1836.66 She experienced confirmation as ‘one of the most solemn and important events and acts in my life . . . I felt deeply repentant for all that I had done which was wrong and trusted in God Almighty to strengthen my heart and mind; and to forsake all that is bad and follow all that is virtuous and right.’ On that morning, the Duchess had given her John Kaye’s ‘An Address after Confirmation, Delivered at Eton College’ (1830) to read, a pragmatic essay in Christian manliness, which exhorted Etonians to go assiduously to Holy Communion even if they could not quite say how the sacrament worked.67 Determined to be a ‘true Christian’, Victoria took communion for the first time in ‘a very solemn and impressive ceremony’ on 2 August 1835. ‘When we recollect and think we take it in remembrance of the death of our beloved Saviour, one ought, nay must feel deeply impressive with holy and pious feelings!’68 Once again Victoria had prepared herself by reading primers such as Mary Cornwallis’s Preparation for the Lord’s Supper, her seriousness typical of how elite Anglicans approached the sacrament.69 Her cousin George, having marvelled at the ‘awful thoughts’ with which Victoria must have approached the ‘Altar of her God’, faced the same trial a week later. After a two and a half hour examination from Queen Adelaide and her chaplain before approaching the ‘Altar of my Maker’ for the first time, he treasured this ‘most Comfortable Sacrament’ for the rest of his life.70 Victoria’s religion was not just sacramental, but prized moral conduct. She admired earnest evangelicals such as William Wilberforce, whose biography she read, and the New Testament commentaries of John Bird Sumner, a rising bishop whose ‘plain and comprehensible’ writings established Jesus as a paragon of unremitting effort.71 She learned to regard philanthropy as the manifestation of such seriousness. Her mother had kept up the Duke of Kent’s Whiggish and charitable associations, patronizing about fifty charities, and his former clerical associates expected Victoria to follow suit.72 From the mid-1830s, the Duchess took Victoria to towns and institutions around the country. In August 1836, she went to Chiswick to visit the Victoria Asylum or Children’s Friend Society, meeting reformed girls like the black-eyed Ellen Ford, fresh from Newgate Prison, who had ‘no idea whatever of a God’ and could steal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

27

anything. The spirit of benevolence also caused Victoria to flinch from the spiky Orangism of some of her uncles. Listening to the vicar of Ramsgate in October 1835, she judged his tirade against Roman Catholicism to be ‘a most impious, unchristian-like, and shocking affair’.74 Victoria therefore took the throne with the reflection that ‘since it has pleased Providence to place me in this station, I shall do my utmost to fulfil my duty towards my country’.75 Nothing delighted the public more than the story that she had asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to pray for her when he brought news of William’s death to Kensington Palace, an incident which caused popular biographers to claim that she had inaugurated her reign ‘like the young king of Israel in the olden time’.76 The first meeting of her Privy Council in the Red Saloon at Kensington Palace on 20 June 1837 was equally crucial in her legend. David Wilkie’s painting of the event grouped the Privy Councillors around Victoria in poses that recall the doctors listening to Christ in the Temple. To Victoria’s mortification, he portrayed her in virginal white rather than the mourning black she had actually worn for William.77 While early biographers treasured Victoria’s apocryphal remark at the Council that ‘I resolve to be good’, the proclamation she issued there defined her religious duties in much more concrete terms. She declared that it would be her ‘unceasing study to maintain the Reformed religion as by law established, securing at the same time to all the full enjoyment of religious liberty’ and signed the oath to maintain the Church of Scotland.78 If Victoria’s aura of youth and purity better suited her to an age of emotional monarchism than her raddled uncles, she still inherited their overlapping commitments to Protestantism and to establishment. 73

‘No Idle Pageant’: Victoria and Sacred Monarchy Many of the attendees at Victoria’s coronation on 28 June 1838 were blasé about it. Earl Fitzwilliam had bluntly informed Victoria that a coronation in the nineteenth century was ‘quite useless’—even though his daughters were keen to be train bearers—while the Privy Councillor and diarist John Cam Hobhouse found its longeurs tiresome.79 From the perspective of the early twentieth century, its ‘confusion’ seemed lamentable: the Archbishop jammed the ring onto the wrong

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

28

Queen Victoria

finger, Victoria inadvertently left her throne before he had dismissed the congregation, and there was a picnic behind the altar for the participants.80 Yet its precariously managed details were symbolic enough to such observers as the evangelical Lord Shaftesbury, who wrote that it had been no idle pageant . . . As idle as the coronation of King Solomon, or the dedication of his temple. The service itself refutes the notion; so solemn, so deeply religious, so humbling, and yet so sublime! Every word of it invaluable; throughout the Church is everything, secular greatness nothing.81

The most celebrated visual record of the coronation labours its sacral character. In Charles Leslie’s painting Queen Victoria Receiving the Sacrament at Her Coronation, 28 June 1838, Victoria bows her white neck and folds her hands upon her breast. A golden beam of sunlight penetrates the Abbey and falls upon her golden robe, transmuting earthly power into treasures in heaven. Leslie aptly rendered the emotion with which contemporary witnesses remembered the ‘most touching part’ of the ceremony. ‘Involuntarily my heart was raised to Heaven in supplication to the giver of all good’, wrote one American observer in the Abbey, ‘that, the little head which then bowed down in such seeming humility before the footstool of His mercy, might at last receive a Crown such as no mortal hands could bestow upon her’.82 Having closely followed Leslie’s work on the painting, Victoria quickly purchased it.83 The considerable fervour with which the coronation was celebrated throughout the country could not efface intense political and religious divisions. Many newspapers were sceptical about cathedral services and municipal celebrations on coronation day. The Birmingham Journal shrugged that the world was ‘resolved on going mad’ but would not condemn a ‘farce of state’ that gave joy to so many.84 Sectarian disputes over the control of local government, much inflamed by the Municipal Corporations Act (1835) passed by William’s Whig government, worked against consensual celebrations. Journalists condemned the ‘soi-disant loyal Tories’ in Leeds, Bristol, and Portsmouth who avoided or sought to block celebrations organized by their Whiggish, Dissenting opponents, while the relief in places as various as Cambridge and Liverpool that ‘contending politicians’ had

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

29 85

suspended hostilities for the day was telling. If factions within the political nation represented in Parliament squabbled over the coronation, then the Chartist democrats shut out from local and national government made their disbelief in its symbolism patent. In Newcastle, the town corporation processed to St Nicholas’s Church for a service and a sermon on Proverbs 24:21 (‘My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change’), but a crowd of 5,000 people gathered on the Town Moor to hear a discourse from the Irish suffragist Feargus O’Connor, refusing to be put off by the dragoons provocatively drilling nearby.86 For Tory preachers, the anointing of Victoria was the high point of the coronation. It reminded citizens that their superiors enjoyed ‘natural authority’ over them in a fallen world, which was a ‘place of discipline’.87 Evangelical Protestants, especially Dissenters, concentrated by contrast on Victoria’s coronation oath on the Bible, which in their eyes contracted her to work against the ‘seven headed monster Popery’.88 Reminding Victoria that her oaths to maintain the Kirk and to defend the ‘protestant church of Britain’ were ‘registered in heaven’, the Church of Scotland minister John Cumming hoped she would advertise puritan mores, making ‘the voice of psalms, as widely revered as the strains of a foreign cantatrice’.89 The emotional loyalism of Dissenters, whose political leaders were becoming strident in opposition to religious establishments, was nourished by an understanding that Victoria would fall in with their crusade against ‘ancient monopolies’.90 A libertarian, Protestant contractualism was similarly evident in public celebrations. Diners at the Turk’s Head in Newcastle listened to James Montgomery’s coronation verses, which proclaimed that ‘Not by the tyrant’s right—law of might, / But by the Grace of God, we own / And by thy People’s Voice, thy right / To sit upon thy Father’s throne’. Victoria was to be a missionary Queen, so that one day ‘none shall name a God but thine’, and a ‘Queen of Peace’: ‘Rule, Victoria, rule the Free, / And the Almighty rule o’er Thee’. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of Gateshead similarly referred to the ‘compact to be this day concluded between your Majesty and your Subjects’ and asked the ‘Almighty Ruler of the Universe’ to preserve her as the ‘protectress of the free’.91 If Victoria came to the throne as a sacral monarch, then her aura was refracted through disagreements about which religious interests

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

30

Queen Victoria

she ought to serve. This became clear on the occasions early in her reign when her life was threatened. On 10 June 1840, Edward Oxford stepped out from behind a tree in Green Park and fired at Victoria’s carriage. John Francis, John William Bean, and William Hamilton made further attempts on Victoria’s life in that decade, a flurry of violence that culminated in the former army officer Robert Pate striking her on the head with a cane in June 1850.92 For midnineteenth-century sovereigns, assassination attempts were tests of divine and popular favour. ‘I do not know what is more striking, the perseverance of crime, or that of God’s protection’, wrote her aunt Louise to Victoria of an attempt on the life of her father Louis Philippe, King of France.93 They were not just frightening but depressing. As Louise’s husband Leopold brooded after Oxford’s attempt, it was understandable that George IV had been a target for violence, but a ‘very melancholy thing’ that the ‘extremely liberal’ Victoria should be too.94 With Victoria quick to thank ‘Almighty Providence’ for the failure of Oxford’s attempt, the Privy Council ordered thanks giving prayers for the safety of ‘Her sacred person’.95 Parliament again ordered special prayers to be said in the Church of England for ‘the merciful interdisposition of providence’ which baffled Francis in 1842. The Council would also order effusive prayers which echoed Victoria’s private gratitude to ‘Almighty Providence’ for ‘supporting her under the pains, and delivering her from the perils of child birth’—as dangerous then as any assassin’s bullet.96 These orders not only illustrated Victoria’s sacral status, but also the ways in which political conflict could curb articulations of it. The Council had not dared to order more disruptive days of thanksgiving, given the Archbishop of Canterbury’s fear that ‘Radicals’ might preach ‘violent sermons’ against them, while the Church of Scotland, whose evangelical wing fiercely disputed the idea that it should take spiritual dictation from the state, merely suggested prayers to its members, without describing them as orders.97 Anglican sermons after these assassination attempts laboured the sovereignty of Providence.98 Preaching in St James’s Church, Islington, William Bell Mackenzie presented Oxford’s deflected aim as the latest intervention of a Protestant God in British history, beginning with the creation of ‘British and Saxon Churches, long before the Romish missionaries came to corrupt the faith’. He warned that this

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

31

favour was at risk unless Britons rallied around their ‘venerated Church’, which had helped to put down ‘Chartism delighting in blood’—a loaded description for this democratic agitation.99 Nonevangelicals were more cautious about invoking Providence in this way. James Collett Ebden, a clerical champion of natural philosophy, demurred from asserting that God had intervened to foil Oxford. Yet he still interpreted the act as a manifestation of an ‘unwholesome’ tendency to ‘despise authorities’.100 While these were hierarchical, authoritarian perspectives, the celebration of Victoria’s deliverance crossed confessions and religions, with minorities expressing gratitude for the deliverance of their libertarian Queen. Preaching at Bevis Marks synagogue in the City of London, Dr J. L. Bibas argued that Jews were the ‘party most interested in the preservation of the life of her Majesty’ given that they were a small and vulnerable grouping. In reality, although Victoria had indicated a certain friendliness to Jews by knighting Moses Montefiore among the other sheriffs of the City of London after her accession, her attitude to their faith was tepid and her knowledge of it sketchy.101 Roman Catholics too exhaled deeply at news of Victoria’s escape from Oxford. Thomas Griffiths, the vicar apostolic for the London district, was ahead of the Privy Council in appointing Te Deums and prayers for Victoria’s deliverance.102 Although her accession declaration against the Mass had struck Catholics as ‘cruel and indecorous’, their participation in the coronation had been fervent enough.103 There were prayers too for Victoria’s deliverance in Ireland, where her accession had likewise boosted Roman Catholic loyalism—blend of gratitude for emancipation and a pragmatic quest for further concessions.104 Preaching at a solemn Mass and Te Deum at Dublin’s metropolitan church, John Miley said that Oxford had nearly robbed them of their ‘guardian angel’, venturing that only since the ‘virgin brow’ of Victoria wore the ‘diadem of empire’ had Ireland felt ‘a smile of pity beam upon her from the tenant of the throne’. Miley thrust the responsibility for Oxford’s rage onto millenarian evangelical Protestants, who had gone ‘through Great Britain, in the garments of the apostleship, crying out “What peace as long as lives that woman Jezebel?”’ In calling upon Catholics to add their Ave Marias to the words of the Mass, Miley made their ‘household worship’ the true foundation of the monarch’s security.105

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

32

Queen Victoria

Miley’s allegation that Protestants had aimed Oxford’s gun alluded to a still smouldering controversy over the relationship between loyalty and Christian confession. Under interrogation, Oxford had named Victoria’s uncle the Duke of Cumberland as the head of a ‘secret society’ plotting against her.106 In 1834, radical and Irish MPs had staged a Parliamentary inquiry into Irish Orange Lodges after they had sided with William IV against making political concessions to Irish Catholicism.107 The inquiry heard that Cumberland, the Imperial Grand Master of the Irish Orange Lodges, had menaced Victoria’s accession to the throne by encouraging the armed forces to pledge loyalty to himself. Seconding a motion to suppress the Lodges, William Molesworth even urged the Duke’s transportation to Australia for seeking to create an ‘imperium in imperio’. Although one MP protested the Orangemen’s loyalty to Victoria, ‘on whom the hopes and affections of the people are fixed’, the episode, which ended in the dissolution of the Irish Lodges, exposed the dangers posed by religious passions and the prospect that Protestantism might trump hereditary succession.108 To Victoria, the ‘bitter’ Cumberland was forever identified with ‘long-forgotten, unpleasant recollections’ of the ‘poor late King’s time’.109 She had taken the throne as a sacral monarch but also one that Protestants, Catholics, and Jews variously expected would uphold their liberties. She inherited the fervent idealism with which religious people had come to regard young female royals and the goodwill accrued by William IV. If Victoria was in these ways thoroughly and predictably Hanoverian, she nonetheless began her reign with a determination to avoid the slipshod morals and the overly narrow Anglicanism of her family, neither of which seemed right for her complex kingdom. Notes 1. Sydney Smith, The New Reign: The Duties of Queen Victoria: A Sermon Preached at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul’s (London: Longmans, 1837), pp. 56, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18–20, 22, 24. 2. Margaret Oliphant, Queen Victoria: A Personal Sketch (London: Cassell and Co., 1900), pp. 1–2. 3. John Martin Robinson, Buckingham Palace: The Official Illustrated History (London: Royal Collection, 2000), pp. 101, 112.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

33

4. QVJ, 25 October 1842, p. 175. 5. QVJ, 14 December 1839, pp. 199–200; Marie Louise, My Memories of Six Reigns (London: Evans Brothers, 1956), p. 143. 6. QVJ, 27 July 1854, p. 42; correspondence with Randall Davidson, LPL, Davidson 19, ff. 103–12; Erskine Steuart, ed., Twenty Years at Court: From the Correspondence of the Hon. Eleanor Stanley, Maid of Honour to Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria, 1842–1862 (London: Nisbet, 1916), p. 373. 7. Innes Adair, Balmoral: The Hall of Memories (Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable, 1901), p. 13. 8. David Cannadine, ‘The last Hanoverian Sovereign?: The Victorian Monarchy in Historical Perspective, 1688–1988’, in A. L. Beier, David Cannadine, and James M. Rosenheim, eds, The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989), pp. 127–66. 9. Hannah Smith, Georgian Monarchy: Politics and Culture, 1714–1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006). 10. Linda Colley, ‘The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty, and the British Nation, 1760–1820’, Past and Present, 102 (1984), pp. 94–129; Marilyn Morris, George III and the French Revolution (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1998), chs 5, 7, 8; G. M. Ditchfield, George III: An Essay in Monarchy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002); Katherine Carté, ‘Royal Religion: King George III and the American Revolution’, Sons of the American Revolution Georgian Papers Project Lecture, King’s College London, 21 March 2019. 11. Dixon, ‘George IV and William IV in their Relations with the Church of England’, English Historical Review, 134 (2019), pp. 1440–70. 12. See Monika Weinfort, Monarchie in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft: Deutschland und England von 1640 bis 1848 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). 13. For Prussia, see Philipp Demandt, Luisenkult: Die Unsterblichkeit der Königin von Preußen (Cologne: Böhlau, 2003); for Britain, see John Wolffe, Great Deaths: Grieving, Religion, and Nationhood in Victorian and Edwardian Britain (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000). 14. QVJ, 21 August 1836, pp. 328–9. 15. QVJ, 28 June 1866, p. 170. 16. See Stephen Behrendt, Royal Mourning and Regency Culture: Elegies and Memorials of Princess Charlotte (London: Macmillan Press, 1997) and Esther Schor, Bearing the Dead: The British Culture of Mourning from the Enlightenment to Victoria (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994), ch. 6 for studies.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

34

Queen Victoria

17. The Cypress Wreath: a Collection of All the Most Beautiful Fugitive Flowers of Poesy, Strewn by the Hand of Genius and Affection Oe’r the Corse of the Lamented Princess Charlotte (London: G. Smeaton, 1817), p. 69. 18. Scoto-Britannus [Thomas McCrie], Free Thoughts on the Late Religious Celebration of the Funeral of the Princess Charlotte of Wales (Edinburgh: Macredie and Co., 1817), pp. 6–7, 58. 19. Robert Hall, ‘Funeral Sermon for the Princess of Wales’, in Olinthus Gregory, ed., Works of the Rev. Robert Hall (3 vols, London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), 1: p. 320; John Kaye, A Sermon Preached before the University of Cambridge . . . Second edition (Cambridge: Deighton and Sons, 1817), p. 19. 20. Hall, ‘Funeral Sermon’, p. 331. 21. Hermit of Marlow [Percy Bysshe Shelley], ‘We Pity the Plumage but Forget the Dying Bird’: An Address to the People on the Death of the Princess Charlotte (1817; Edinburgh, 1883); Robert Aspland, A Funeral Sermon Preached November 19, 1817, the Day of the Interment of . . . the Princess Charlotte of Wales (London: R. Hunter & D. Eaton, 1817), p. 18; John Pye Smith, The Sorrows of Britain, Her Sad Forebodings, and Her Only Refuge: A Sermon on Occasion of the Great National Calamity of the Death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta (London: Josiah Conder, 1817), p. 8. 22. William Newman, The British Empire in Mourning! A Funeral Sermon Occasioned by the Death of H.R.H. the Princess Charlotte Augusta (London: Button, 1817), p. 20. 23. William Stones, The National Loss Deplored: A Sermon Preached November 19, 1817, on Occasion of the Death of Princess Charlotte of Wales (Whitby, 1818), pp. 14–15. 24. Howell W. Powell, A Sermon Preached on November 23, 1817, the Sunday after the Interment of the . . . Princess Charlotte of Wales (York, 1817), p. 16; Robert Bree, The Character of a Virtuous Princess: A Sermon on the Death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte of Wales (London: J. Mawman, 1817), p. 17. 25. William Bengo’ Collyer, Joy Turned into Mourning: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta (4th edition, London: Black and Co., 1817), p. 17. 26. See e.g. John Jamieson, The Hopes of an Empire Reversed; or, the Night of Pleasure Turned into Fear (Edinburgh: A. Jameson, 1817), pp. 15, 26. For judicial providentialism, see John Coffey, ‘ “Tremble, Britannia!”: Fear, Providence and the Abolition of the Slave Trade, 1756–1807’, English Historical Review, 127 (2012), pp. 844–81. 27. Kaye, Sermon, p. 8; Aspland, Sermon, pp. 19–22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

35

28. See e.g. Thomas Lewis, ‘Appendix: Brief Notices of Her Late Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Augusta’, in Murmurs Silenced: Or the Righteousness of the Divine Judgments Vindicated: A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta (London, 1817), p. 38; Newman, British Empire, p. 11; Henry Lacey, A Sermon, Occasioned by the Lamented Death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta, of Wales, and of Saxe Cobourg Saalfeld: Delivered at Salters’ Hall, London (London: Henry Teape, 1817), p. 16. 29. Joseph Ivimey, Reasons Why the Protestant Dissenters Lament the Death of the Princess Charlotte Augusta: A Sermon, Second Edition (London, 1817), p. 25. 30. Rafael Meldola, Funeral Sermon, Delivered at the Spanish and Portuguese Ancient and Chief Synagogue in England, on the Day of Burial of Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Augusta (London, 1817), p. 4. 31. Richard Newman, Two Sermons Occasioned by the Death of the Duke of Kent and of George the Third, Delivered on the 6th and 16th of Feb. 1820 (Faversham, 1820), p. 22. 32. William Bengo’ Collyer, The Double Bereavement: Two Sermons Occasioned by the Death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, and of His Late Majesty George the Third (London: Black, Kingsbury and Co., 1820), pp. 1–2, 23, 13, 28. 33. George Atkinson, The Lamentation of David over Saul and Jonathan: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Much Lamented Death of His Late Majesty George the III and of His Late Royal Highness, Edward, Duke of Kent (London: Westley, 1820), pp. 9, 13–14, 22–5. See Frank Prochaska, Royal Bounty: The Making of a Welfare Monarchy (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1995), pp. 29–34 for Kent’s philanthropy. 34. William Taylor, A Sermon Delivered in St Enoch’s Church, Glasgow on the Death of Her Late Majesty, Queen Charlotte (Glasgow: John Smith, 1818), p. 19. 35. Thomas Gilbart, Britain’s Song: A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of King George the Third; and of the Duke of Kent (Dublin: M. Keene, 1820), pp. 33–4. 36. See e.g. Martin Whish, A Sermon, Preached on the Occasion of the Death of King George III (Bristol: T. Lane, 1820), p. 13; Nicholas Bull, A Sermon, on the Death of Our Late Revered and Beloved King George the Third, Preached on the Day of His Interment, February 16, 1820 (Saffron Walden: George Youngman, 1820), p. 6. 37. See e.g. Henry John Knapp, A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St Andrew Undershaft, London on the Day of the Funeral of His Late Gracious Majesty George the Third (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, 1820), p. 22; John Hodgson, A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

36

38.

39.

40. 41. 42.

43.

44. 45. 46.

47.

Queen Victoria Sittingbourne on the Day Appointed for the Funeral of King George the Third (London, 1820), p. 15. Whish, Sermon, p. 14; James Churchill, A Voice from Royal Sepulchres: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Death of His Late Majesty George III, King of Great Britain (London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1820), p. 17. Thomas Lewis, A Tribute of Respect and Affection to the Memory of his Late Most Gracious Majesty George the Third (London, 1820), p. 20; John Reynolds, Death Invading the Palace: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Death of King George III (Romsey: W. W. Sharp, 1820), pp. 15–17; Churchill, Royal Sepulchres, p. 18; Robert Winter, The Retrospect: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Lamented Decease of His Most Gracious Majesty George the Third, and Preached on the Day of His Interment (London: James Black, 1820), p. 11. For Dissenting dissatisfaction with George’s record see e.g. Jeremy Gregory, ‘The Hanoverians and the Colonial Churches’, in Andreas Gestrich and Michael Schaich, eds, The Hanoverian Succession: Dynastic Politics and Monarchical Culture (London: Routledge, 2016), pp. 107–28. Thomas Madge, The Character of George III, and the Character of His Reign, Considered Separately (Norwich: John Stacy, 1820), pp. 4, 9–10, 16, 19. Charles Henry Tufnell, A Sermon on the Death of Her Late Majesty, the Lamented Queen Charlotte (Northampton: T. E. Dicey and R. Smithson, 1818), p. 9. Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 2, General Fasts, Thanksgivings and Special Prayers in the British Isles 1689–1870 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017), pp. 775–6; Dixon, ‘George IV’. Steve Parissien, George IV: The Grand Entertainment (London: John Murray, 2001), pp. 303–9; Arthur Taylor, The Glory of Regality: An Historical Treatise of the Anointing and Crowning of the Kings and Queens of England (London: Messrs Payne and Foss, 1820), p. ix. ‘Snap Dragon’, The One-eyed Coronation; Or, A Peep into Westminster Abbey: A Satirical Poem (London: J. Johnston, 1821), p. 25. G. M. Ditchfield, ‘Visions of Kingship in Britain under George III and George IV’, in Gestrich and Schaich, eds, Hanoverian Succession, p. 203. Alexander Fletcher, A Sermon on the Death of Her Late Majesty Queen Caroline, Consort of George the Fourth: Delivered in Albion Chapel, Moorgate (London: W. Tew, 1821), dedication, p. 21. See e.g. George Croly, The Life and Times of George IV (London: James Duncan, 1830), p. 499; William Browne James, National Blessings a Ground for National Gratitude and Obedience: A Sermon Preached on Occasion of the Death of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

37

George IV (London, 1830), pp. 18–19; Jacqueline Hill, ‘Loyalty and the Monarchy in Ireland, c.1660–1840’, in Allan Blackstock and Frank O’Gorman, eds, Loyalism and the Formation of the British World (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014), p. 99; E. A. Smith, George IV (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1999), pp. 121, 193. See e.g. William Stone, A Funeral Oration: Occasioned by the Demise of the Most Illustrious Duke of York (London: C. and J. Rivington, 1827), pp. 17–18; Daniel Wilson, Death the Last Enemy of Man: A Sermon Preached at the Church of St Mary, Islington, January 20th, 1827, on the Occasion of the Lamented Death of His Royal Highness the Duke of York and Albany (London: George Wilson, 1827), pp. 7–8. Williamson et al., General Fasts, p. 778; Lord Broughton, Recollections of a Long Life. By Lord Broughton, with Additional Extracts from His Private Diaries (6 vols, London: John Murray, 1909–11), 5: p. 73; Dorothea Knighton, ed., Memoirs of Sir William Knighton (2 vols, London, 1838), 2: pp. 141–3; M. C. Power, ed., Selections from the Letters of Caroline Frances Cornwallis (London: Trübner, 1864), p. 132; Edward Law, Lord Ellenborough, A Political Diary, 1828–1830 (2 vols, London: Bentley and Sons, 1881), 2: p. 312. Charles James Blomfield, A Sermon Preached at the Coronation of Their Most Excellent Majesties King William IV and Queen Adelaide (London: B. Fellowes, 1831), pp. 9, 12–14. Robert Crawford Dillon, A Sermon Preached on Saturday, July 8th, 1837 being the Day of the Funeral of His Late Majesty William the Fourth (London: John Cochran, 1837), p. 5. An Appeal to the Honest Feelings of Englishmen on Behalf of the Queen of England (London, 1832), pp. 4–5. See Dixon, ‘George IV’, pp. 1448–51, 1466; Prochaska, Royal Bounty, pp. 59–60. See e.g. John Graham, A Sermon Preached before the University of Cambridge in Great St Mary’s on Saturday, July 8, 1837 (Cambridge: John W. Parker, 1838), p. 12; Temple Chevallier, The Expectations and the Duties of a Christian Nation, on the Death of King William IV and the Accession of our Gracious Sovereign, Queen Victoria: A Sermon (London: J. G. and F. Rivington, 1837). John Mockett Cramp, A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of His Late Majesty, William the Fourth Preached at the Baptist Chapel, St. Peter’s, Thanet, on July 9th, 1837 (Ramsgate: Burdett and Hunt, 1837), pp. 11, 17–19; Benjamin Mardon, The Evanescence of Human Glory: The Permanence of the Word of God. A Discourse Delivered on Occasion of the Death of William the Fourth, and the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

38

55. 56. 57. 58.

59.

60. 61. 62. 63.

64. 65. 66. 67.

68. 69.

Queen Victoria Accession of Victoria (London: Smallfield, 1837), p. 17; William Harvard, The Substance of a Funeral Sermon Delivered in the Wesleyan Chapel, St. James Street, Montreal, on Sunday, August 13, 1837: On Occasion of the Lamented Demise of His Most Gracious Majesty, William the Fourth (Montreal: Campbell and Beckett, 1837), pp. 11, 25. See Alexander Fletcher, The Funeral Sermon of Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (London: G. Virtue, 1843). John Ryle Wood, Some Recollections of the Last Days of His Late Majesty King William the Fourth (London: J. Hatchard and Son, 1837), p. 34. QVJ, 20 June 1837, p. 151. Broughton, Recollections, 5: pp. 75, 84; Abraham Hayward, ed., Diaries of a Lady of Quality, From 1797 to 1844 (London: Longmans, 1864), p. 280; Philip Ziegler, King William IV (London: Collins, 1971), p. 291. Hugh Hutton, Reflections on the Death of King William the Fourth: A Sermon Delivered before a Congregation of Protestant Dissenters (London: Smallfield, 1837), p. 4; Edward Steane, The Eternal King: A Sermon on the Death of King William the Fourth (London: Thomas Ward and Co., 1837), p. 4. LPL, Fulham Papers, Blomfield 67/8. Richard R. Holmes, Queen Victoria (London: Boussod, Valadon, 1897), pp. i, 27. Marquis of Lorne, V.R.I.: Her Life and Empire by the Marquis of Lorne, K.T., Now His Grace the Duke of Argyll (London: Harmsworth, 1901), p. 55. See Lynne Vallone, Becoming Victoria (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2001) and now Deirdre Murphy, The Young Victoria (London: Yale UP, 2019). See e.g. QVJ, 17 August 1834, p. 205; 12 October 1834, p. 306. QVJ, 12 August 1835, p. 226; 28 August 1835, p. 279. QVJ, 23 October 1836, p. 156. Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, ed., The Girlhood of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Diaries between the Years 1832 and 1840 (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1912), 1: p. 125; John Kaye, ‘An Address after Confirmation, Delivered at Eton College on June 18, 1830’, in William Kaye, ed., Sermons and Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions by John Kaye, Late Bishop of Lincoln (London: Rivingtons, 1856), pp. 668–80. QVJ, 2 August 1835, p. 11. Mary Cornwallis, A Preparation for the Lord’s Supper, with a Companion to the Altar, Intended for the Use of Ladies (London: Baldwin, Cradock & Joy, 1826),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

70.

71. 72.

73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

78. 79. 80.

81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

86.

39

pp. iv–v, 31–2 and passim. See Vallone, Young Victoria, p. 149 on elite sacramentalism. James Edgar Sheppard, ed., George, Duke of Cambridge: A Memoir of His Private Life, Based on the Journals and Correspondence of His Royal Highness (2 vols, London: Longman and Co., 1906), 1: pp. 22–3, 25–6. Letters of Feodora, Princess of Hohenlohe-Langenburg from 1828 to 1872 (London: Spottiswoode, 1874), pp. 88, 92; QVJ, 28 August 1835, p. 278. Prochaska, Royal Bounty, pp. 61–2; Tryphena Thistlethwayte, ed., Memoirs and Correspondence of Dr. H. Bathurst, Bishop of Norwich (London: Richard Bentley, 1853), p. 366. QVJ, 2/3 August 1836, pp. 267–8. QVJ, 4 October 1835, pp. 140–1. QVJ, 20 June 1837, p. 152. Charles Bullock, The Queen’s Resolve: ‘I Will be Good’: With Royal Anecdotes and Incidents (London: Home Words Office, 1887), p. 44. David Wilkie, The First Council of Queen Victoria (1838), RCIN 404710. Though Victoria bought this painting, she declared it ‘one of the worst pictures I have ever seen’. QVJ, 12 November 1847, p. 142. Broughton, Recollections, 5: pp. 77–9. QVJ, 9 May 1838, p. 71; Broughton, Recollections, 5: p. 145. Douglas Macleane, The Great Solemnity of the Coronation of the King and Queen of England According to the Use of the Church of Westminster: With Liturgical, Ceremonial, and Historical Notes (London: F. E. Robinson and Co, 1902), p. 130. See Elizabeth Longford, Victoria, R.I. (1964; London: Pan, 1996), pp. 81–3 for a vivid narrative. Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, K. G. (2 vols, London: Cassell, 1886), p. 289. Sarah Coles Stevenson, Victoria, Albert and Mrs Stevenson (London: Frederick Müller, 1958), p. 149. QVJ, 27 November 1838, p. 160; 6 December 1838, p. 187; 13 December 1838, p. 209. Birmingham Journal, 30 June 1838, p. 5. Leeds Mercury, 30 June 1838, p. 5; Bristol Mercury, 30 June 1838, p. 3; Hampshire Advertiser, 30 June 1838, p. 3; Huntingdon, Bedford, and Peterborough Gazette and Cambridge Independent Press, 30 June 1838, p. 2; Liverpool Mercury, 29 June 1838, p. 208. Newcastle Journal, 30 June 1838, p. 3; The Northern Star, 30 June 1838, p. 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

40

Queen Victoria

87. Ellis Bowden Were, A Sermon, Preached in the Parish Church of Chipping Norton (Oxford, 1838), p. 10; William Downes Willis, God the Supreme Disposer of Kingdoms: A Sermon, Preached on June 28th, Being the Day of the Coronation of Queen Victoria (London, 1838), p. 10. 88. Thomas Hartwell Horne, The Sovereign’s Prayer and the People’s Duty (London: T. Cadell, 1838), p. 13; William Robert Fremantle, God Save the Queen: A Sermon Preached in Godalming Church, on Occasion of the Coronation of Our Most Gracious Queen Victoria the 1st (Godalming: J. Nisbet & Co., 1838), pp. 5–8, 14. 89. John Cumming, Our Queen’s Responsibilities and Reward: A Sermon to Her Majesty, on Her Coronation (London: Francis Baisler, 1838), pp. 9–11. 90. John Alexander, The Baptism of the Prince: A Sermon (Norwich: Josiah Fletcher, 1842), p. 24; see Timothy Larsen, Friends of Equality: Nonconformist Politics in Mid-Victorian Britain (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1999) for this shift. 91. Newcastle Journal, 30 June 1838, p. 3. 92. See Paul Thomas Murphy, Shooting Victoria: Madness, Mayhem, and the Rebirth of the British Monarchy (London: Head of Zeus, 2012). 93. Louise to Victoria, 30 December 1836, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/3/83. 94. Leopold to Victoria, 13 June 1840, in A. C. Benson and Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, eds, The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1907), 1: p. 285. 95. QVJ, 10 June 1840, p. 277; Williamson et al., General Fasts, p. 814. For ‘Almighty Providence’ in 1842, see QVJ, 30 May 1842, p. 207. 96. QVJ, 13 December 1840, pp. 249–50; Williamson et al., General Fasts, p. 818. 97. Williamson et al., General Fasts, pp. 815, 829; QVJ, 13 June 1840, p. 283. 98. See e.g. George Wellford, National Prayers Conservative of National Welfare: A Sermon Occasioned by the Form of Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for His Preservation of the Queen from a Traiterous Attempt on Her Life (London, 1842). 99. William Bell Mackenzie, Jehovah, the Shield of Britain: A Sermon, on the Late Merciful Preservation of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria (London: Seeley, 1840), pp. 17, 27. 100. J. C. Ebden, A Sermon on the Preservation of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, from the Late Atrocious Attempt (Ipswich: F. Pawsey, 1840), p. 20. 101. J. L. Bibas, A Sermon delivered at the Spanish & Portuguese Jews’ Synagogue, Bevis Marks. On Sunday 21st June 5600, being the Day Appointed for a General

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A New Reign

102. 103. 104.

105.

106. 107.

108.

109.

41

Thanksgiving for the Merciful Preservation of Her Most Gracious Majesty and Her Illustrious Consort (London, 5600 [1840]), p. 12; QVJ, 9 November 1837, p. 9; 25 March 1838, p. 144. Williamson et al, General Fasts, p. 813. John Lingard, ‘Letter to the Lord Chancellor, on the “Declaration” Made and Subscribed by Her Majesty’, Dublin Review, 4 (1838), p. 265. Richard Keogh, ‘ “From Education, From Duty, and from Principle”: Irish Catholic Loyalty in Context, 1829–1874’, British Catholic History, 33 (2017), pp. 421–50. John Miley, Sermon Preached at the Metropolitan Church on Sunday June 28th, 1840 on Occasion of the Solemn High Mass and Te Deum Ordered by His Grace the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin (Dublin: Richard Coyne, 1840), pp. 4–7, 12, 27. QVJ, 15 June 1840, p. 286. ‘Copies of Addresses to the King from Orange Lodges in Ireland; with the Answers Returned Thereto’, House of Commons Papers, 45 (1835), XLV.449–54. Hansard, Third Series, 31 (1836), cc. 818, 818, 840; Hill, ‘Loyalty and the Monarchy’, pp. 99–101; Allan Blackstock, ‘The Trajectories of Loyalty and Loyalism in Ireland, 1793–1849’, in Blackstock and O’Gorman, eds, Loyalism, p. 116. QVJ, 3 June 1843, p. 184.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

2 Meine zweite Heimat

The road to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha had not been much travelled when the Irish writer John Frederick Stanford published his Rambles and Researches in Thuringian Saxony (1842) to capitalize on Victoria’s marriage to Prince Albert, the younger son of its reigning duke. Stanford’s book laboured the Duchy’s historic Protestantism, correcting ‘absurd paragraphs’ in English newspapers that Albert’s family were penurious Roman Catholics, describing instead his descent from Ernst the Pious, who had turned Gotha’s Schloss Friedenstein into a stronghold of Reformation. He also had much to relate about Gotha’s present-day Lutherans. In a Sunday beer garden free from ‘the lugubrious garb, which, like the fog, envelops the day’ in England, he found the Generalsuperintendent or ‘bishop’ of Gotha’s Lutheran church, Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider, smoking his cigar and drinking beer. ‘Fancy the Bishop of London whiffing a cigar over a pot of stout in a tea-garden near London!’ Bretschneider, a friend of the ducal family who had deeply influenced the young Albert, would be already familiar to some British readers from his role in a religious controversy a decade or so earlier. After the high churchman Hugh James Rose alleged that German Protestantism had been hollowed out by state interference and academic speculation, he and Bretschneider had traded angry pamphlets. Bretschneider alleged that Rose was ignorant and parochial; Rose that Bretschneider was a useful idiot for corrosive religious scepticism. Rose’s insults rankled so much with Bretschneider that he sent his new friend Stanford two accounts in Latin of his creed, which Stanford printed, while distancing himself from their ‘bold’ speculations.1 Stanford’s memories of Albert’s Gotha capture the ambiguity with which the British regarded German Protestantism throughout

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

43

Victoria’s reign. They were predisposed to respect Germany as a cradle of the Reformation, which they felt had either originated or revived their own national faith. British visitors to Germany—a dribble in Stanford’s day, which became a stream over the course of Victoria’s reign—often went to study at its universities and were impressed by their rational and systematic approach to theology, biblical criticism, and other such disciplines. Yet Germany could equally be synonymous with an eclipse of faith. Rose was a godfather of the Tractarian movement, which sought to quarantine the apostolic Church of England from the hollow state churches and sceptical universities of German lands and perhaps even from Protestantism itself. Even more sympathetic commentators worried about the intellectual excesses of ‘Germanism’. Queen Victoria’s Presbyterian chaplain John Tulloch, who knew German universities well, once dismissed Bretschneider’s thinking as the ‘rankest development’ of ‘rationalism’, which he defined as a ‘vicious’ movement that ‘eliminated Christianity’.2 Although British social and religious reformers frequently pointed to the superior morals and taste of ordinary Germans and urged the imitation of the institutions which had supposedly instilled them, from compulsory primary schools to munificent art galleries, even admirers of German societies often itched to change them. They felt that the division of Germany into petty states such as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha held back Germans from enjoying the dynamic civil society and the social and economic freedoms which were Britain’s strength. They hoped to encourage the powers who promised to bring about the liberalization and unification of Germany, a process which might also ensure that thwarted political energies were not poured into religious speculation. This chapter argues that marriage to Albert changed Victoria’s Protestantism, making her conscious of a wider Protestant world beyond Britain’s shores, which in turn she aspired to change. It is easy to overlook Victoria’s place in Anglo-German religious exchange because scholars have presented it as an intellectual phenomenon, sustained by travel but primarily involving theological ideas, scholarly methods, and sacred texts. Victoria did not belong to this priesthood of letters, though many of the English and Scottish clergy she patronized certainly did.3 Her interest in German Protestantism was dynastic rather than academic. With Albert, she belonged to a ‘monarchical

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

44

Queen Victoria

international’, a network of crowned heads anxious about the survival of religion and hierarchy, for whom marriage ties were not just power plays, but vectors of confessional solidarity.4 Victoria had followed Hanoverian form in marrying a German princeling. Her mother Marie Louise Victoire was the widow of the Prince of Leiningen and the daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Saalfeld, and had initially married the Duke of Kent in a Lutheran service. Albert’s German secretary later judged her ‘wholly and purely German . . . preferring to speak German than English and protecting the interests of Germans’.5 Victoria would always be close to Charles (1804–56) and especially to Feodore (1807–72), the offspring of the Duchess’s first marriage. Moreover, dynastic ties had long supplied an institutional infrastructure for intellectual and religious exchange. The German consorts of Victoria’s predecessors had patronized German theologians, while as electors of Hanover, English kings established and patronized the University of Göttingen, which soon became a magnet for British students of theology and philology.6 Although public interest in the Hanoverian connection was dwindling by the time the centenary of the Personal Union was modestly celebrated in 1814, these connections persisted into Victoria’s reign.7 The Treasury funded a German Chapel in St James, while Victoria’s dresser Frieda Arnold walked from Buckingham Palace to worship in another chapel hosted in the Savoy on the Strand.8 When the Treasury decided to stop payments to the German Chapel, the Bishop of London judged it a ‘great evil’ to sweep away ‘one of the last remnants of that ancient connexion from the Church of England to the Protestants of the Continent’ and assumed that Victoria would pay for a new incumbent. Dr Walbaum, the winning candidate, a Hanoverian functionary to the Duchess of Kent, became a fixture in court events, baptizing Victoria’s granddaughter Victoria of Hesse in 1863 and holding a memorial service for her son-in-law Kaiser Friedrich III for London’s German community.9 By the time that Victoria married, her constitutional and personal separation from Hanover was nonetheless underway. The Salic Law made her hated Uncle Ernst, Duke of Cumberland, Elector of Hanover in her place, leading the Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston to rejoice that the ‘Hanoverian dynasty, and the German [political] prejudices which belonged to it, and which for a century have

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

45

embarrassed & impeded our march both at home & abroad will cease.’10 Ernst’s displays of contempt for Albert as merely the ‘younger brother of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg’ and his insistence on reclaiming some Hanoverian jewellery from Victoria deepened her estrangement from him and Hanover.11 Victoria admittedly had a good relationship with her uncle Adolphus, viceroy of Hanover until 1837, and his children George and Mary.12 Although disapproving of George’s knotty sex life—he married an actress he met on the night of her coronation, was suspected of an affair with Lady Augusta Somerset, and maintained a lifelong relationship with another woman— Victoria professed ‘Geschwisterliche Gefühle’ for him, regarding him as a conduit of information about Germany. Yet George was himself a stolid Anglican who had settled in England and drifted from ‘the Hanoverians’, later turning down a chance to act as Regent of Hanover in 1849.13 Because Victoria judged the worth of religious systems by the people who espoused them, the contacts and relationships she formed in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha domesticated German Protestantism for her, as a vibrant form of piety which resembled her own. Moreover, her husband and his brother Ernst were lifelong believers in German unification, even if their thinking as to what constitutional form it should take constantly shifted. Victoria shared in these aspirations and after Albert’s death regarded them as the ‘sacred task’ bequeathed to her by her ‘Guardian angel’.14 Britain’s diplomatic elite also hoped that it might be possible to plot the political and economic liberalization of Germany, but what distinguished Victoria and Albert’s perspective from theirs, and aligned them with clerical and scholarly Germanophiles, was the hope that a better political architecture for Germany would not only stabilize Europe, but defend and improve Germany’s spiritual culture.15 As these hopes emerged most clearly in Victoria’s relationship with the Hohenzollerns of Prussia, the chapter explores Victoria and Albert’s spiritual friendship with Friedrich Wilhelm IV, whose piety was as Anglophile as his politics were volatile, and then, after he disappointed them, their overtures to other members of the Hohenzollern family. The marriage of their daughter Victoria to the Crown Prince Friedrich created an enduring hope for the future, which was finally dashed when he died of throat cancer in 1888, shortly after succeeding to the imperial throne.16 The

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

46

Queen Victoria

experiment of sending Victoria’s daughter Alice to the Grand Duchy of Hesse and by Rhine (or Hesse-Darmstadt) as the bride of its Crown Prince was no more successful an attempt to export English values to a German Protestant land. Alice died young, but not before her faith had wobbled, confirming Victoria’s growing concerns about the state of popular Christianity in Germany. Victoria’s lifelong concern for German Protestantism sustained her own Protestant identity and was a drag against the development of an Anglo-German antagonism that few accepted as inevitable in her lifetime.17 Yet it also showed that even an engaged sovereign could not overcome the political differences that disrupted transnational religious solidarities. ‘A Second Homeland’: Coburg Victoria’s engagement to Albert provoked a scramble among painters to portray the ‘most interesting gentleman in Her Majesty’s dominions’. In George Patten’s popular portrait, he stands in Coburg beside Schloss Ehrenburg with the Veste, the craggy fortress that had sheltered Martin Luther, behind him. This was shorthand for his Protestantism, which had been questioned in the press and Parliament.18 Victoria found rumours that Albert might be a Roman Catholic ‘too absurd’, given that he ‘happened to be very strongly the other way’, but they proved hard to squelch. Melbourne was reluctant to lard the Parliamentary declaration of her marriage with Protestant declarations offensive to his Irish Catholic supporters.19 Although Melbourne had cited in debate a screed from Albert detailing the support his ancestors had given Luther, the Tories infuriated Victoria by insisting on a declaration of Albert’s faith.20 The controversy filtered into popular squibs. ‘How many doubts and fears we’ve heard expressed / About the faith this German has professed’, mused one rhymster. ‘Is he a Protestant in word and deed? / A true believer in old Luther’s creed?’ Penurious Germans would say anything for money.21 Shortly after her marriage, one MP presented Victoria with an address from conservative electors, congratulating her for marrying a ‘Protestant prince’: an ‘insolent hint’, which she received ‘with a good-humoured smile’.22 Luther or no, the Coburg family had put dynastic interests above confessional loyalty when it suited them. The marriage of Albert’s

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

47

uncle Ferdinand to Antoinette Koháry had entangled them with Catholic dynasties after the couple’s children married members of France and Portugal’s ruling families, the Orléans and Braganza.23 Victoria was close to Louis Philippe’s son the Duc de Nemours, who married Ferdinand and Antoinette’s daughter Victoire. She also befriended Louis Philippe’s daughter Louise, who had married her uncle Leopold, becoming Queen of Belgium. After Leopold brokered a marriage between Louis Philippe’s daughter Clémentine and Ferdinand’s son August, she too became a lifelong friend, who ‘likes Germany, & our dear little Coburg so much’.24 Victoria participated in her French family’s rites of passage, particularly when, after the 1848 Revolutions, the Orléans set up home in exile at Claremont House and Marble House, Twickenham. Death brought her closer still. The death of her and their ‘ange tutélaire’ Louise in 1850 shook her deeply, while in November 1857 she came to Claremont to see the body of her beloved Victoire, ‘lovely in death, as she was in life’, watched over by candles and a crucifix.25 She was often at St Carlo Borromeo in Weybridge, a Roman Catholic chapel adopted by the Orléans and remodelled to their specifications, in the vault of which Louis Philippe and his Queen Marie Amélie, Victoire, and others rested for decades before their repatriation to the family mausoleum at Dreux in France. The rule of Louise’s widower Leopold in Belgium was a reminder of Coburger ease with confessional complexities. Though supportive of Belgian Catholicism, he never reneged on his Lutheranism and after his death in 1863 had a Protestant funeral in a temporary building outside the cathedral of Laeken before re-joining Louise inside—a ‘really dreadful’ compromise for which Victoria blamed the ‘atrocious Catholic clergy’.26 Despite these aberrations, Albert’s immediate family had done much to represent Coburg, the capital of a new state, as a stronghold of Protestantism. Albert’s father Ernst, who began the restoration of the Veste, had become Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha only after Friedrich IV, the last ruler of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg and embarrassingly enough a Catholic convert, died childless in 1826.27 Ernst’s clergy had stressed his Protestant credentials during the 1817 anniversary of the Reformation and then, after the union of the two lands, at the 1830 commemoration of the Augsburg Confession. Their festal sermons on these occasions celebrated Luther as a pioneer of freedom

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

48

Queen Victoria

in the manner then fashionable in Germany.28 Having toasted the participation of Ernst the ‘Landesvater’ in the 1830 commemoration at Coburg, his court preacher Wilhelm August Genssler prepared his sons Ernst and Albert for their confirmations, drilling into them pride in their family’s Reformation heritage.29 On Victoria’s first visit to the Duchy in 1845, Genssler met her at the door of his Moritz Kirche and spoke of his ‘great joy at receiving the great Christian Queen, descended from the Saxon Dukes, who were the 1st Reformers, & at receiving me at the door of the very Church where the Reformation was 1st preached’.30 At Gotha, in ‘broiling heat’, Victoria drove to the Augustinerkirche, where the old Superintendent, Bretschneider received us with the rest of the Clergy & he very prettily said: ‘God bless the entry of Yr Majesty into this holy place’. We sat in a pew somewhat like at Coburg, facing the altar, on which stood a Crucifix, as in all Lutheran Churches, & which I think right . . . The sermon preached by Prest Bretschneider was very long & I found it difficult to understand him. On leaving he again addressed me saying: ‘God bless Yr Majesty’s departure & may He further bless you on all your ways.’Queen Victoria

After leaving Gotha, she stopped in Eisenach to visit Luther’s room in the Wartburg, ‘in which is still to be seen, the mark made on the wall, when he threw the inkstand at the Devil’.31 If Victoria was pioneering Reformation tourism of a kind that became popular in her reign, her entourage was less impressed with Lutheranism. Her high church lady in waiting Mary Bulteel dismissed Coburg services as ‘like the Scotch’: ‘dreary to me from being I think so undevotional’.32 Both Victoria and Albert believed that to value the Reformation was to dread priestcraft wherever it was found. Even before visiting Coburg, Victoria had read Bretschneider’s ‘beautiful’ novel Heinrich und Antonio (1826), which dramatized his obsessive distrust of the Jesuits.33 Yet Bretschneider’s aversion to priestcraft was directed not just towards Rome, but also the Lutheran conservatives in Germany whose attacks on higher biblical criticism had been picked up by Hugh James Rose in his examination of The State of the Protestant Religion in Germany (1825).34 Bretschneider’s patriotic faith in free inquiry deeply marked Albert, his brother recalling that he was much more rationalist than the English realized.35 The catalogue of Albert’s private

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

49

library (1860) reveals his interest in Reformation history and in the higher criticism which both fascinated and appalled British Protestants, notably David Friedrich Strauss’s Das Leben Jesu and the critiques of it, which he discussed with Victoria.36 He used a translation of Bretschneider’s rationalist catechism, A Manual of Religion and of the History of the Christian Church, to prepare their daughter Alice for her confirmation.37 When Albert told the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 1851 that ‘internal dissensions and attacks from without’ ought not to distract them from a focus on ‘the Gospel and the unfettered right of its use’, he showed these German biases, congratulating them for holding the ‘two antagonistic principles . . . of individual liberty and of allegiance and submission to the will of the community’.38 In the last year of his life, Albert admired a manifesto by Bretschneider’s successor at Gotha against backsliding in Protestant free inquiry.39 While Albert thought like a Coburger, Victoria enjoyed feeling like one, especially in a lifelong correspondence with her sister-in-law Alexandrine. A morbid pietist from Baden, Alexandrine had been an unlikely match for Ernst, a Casanova rather than a Luther, whose sexual misadventures had made him the talk of Coburg. Alexandrine had been Albert’s candidate, as he feared that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic matches proposed for Ernst by their father could have damaged his own Protestant standing in England. Once Ernst had followed Albert’s advice, keeping Alexandrine away from his girlfriends and setting up a home at Schloss Callenberg near Coburg, they luxuriated in a shared romanticism.40 Alexandrine recorded their happiness in the Hauschronik, a Biedermeier book of annals she commissioned as a silver wedding anniversary gift for Ernst and in whose medievalizing illustrations Victoria features prominently.41 Victoria and Alexandrine shared a firm Protestantism: they lamented mixed marriages in their family circle, with Victoria reminding Alexandrine on one such occasion of Albert’s conviction that the ‘Catholic Religion was such a dirty one’.42 Their common piety, which they expressed through the exchange of crucifixes, Bibles, and devotional books, was intensified by grief.43 After Albert and Ernst’s father died, Victoria became Alexandrine’s most beloved heart sister [geliebteste Herzensschwester], with their intimacy deepened by the death of Alexandrine’s only daughter (1851) and Victoria’s mother.44 Albert’s death sealed Victoria’s vision of Coburg as Elysium. In her first letter to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

50

Queen Victoria

Alexandrine as a widow, she asked her to tell the people of Coburg and Gotha that ‘my second homeland [meine zweite Heimat]’ was dearer to her than ever.45 The next autumn, Victoria found consolation in returning to Schloss Rosenau, where ‘everything seems to breath & speak of my beloved one, in this his own old home’.46 Alexandrine strengthened her addiction to Coburger Gemüthlichkeit by setting her up with sympathetic preachers.47 Services in villages near Schloss Callenberg were just as Victoria liked them in Scotland—‘a village congregation’ with ‘hearty & devotional’ singing.48 Victoria and Alexandrine’s bond was anchored not just in a place but in an art form: music. Their husbands were keen composers on religious themes, and the couples shared a reverence for Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy and an interest in the Passions of Bach.49 After Mendelssohn’s death in 1847, his bust stood in the Grand Corridor at Windsor, while Victoria and Albert remained loyal to his works, especially his oratorios.50 Here they led fashion, as performances of German oratorios became important to civic culture and Protestant Dissenters developed a taste for chorales.51 German sacred music consoled Victoria in her losses. After her mother’s death she inscribed Es ist Vollbracht, a phrase from a German chorale written by Genssler, on her sarcophagus and published translations from a hymnal which Ernst had sent her and which had been found by her bed, sending a copy to Alexandrine ‘from her tenderly loving sister, Victoria’.52 Albert’s memory lived on in music he had written and loved. On 23 April 1862, Alice played his favourite hymns on the harmonium, ‘including the splendid Chorale “Eine feste Burg”. — “Nun danket alle Gott” & “Wachet auf”. It made my tears flow.’53 When Mendelssohn’s favourite soprano Jenny Lind sang a chorale by Albert at Albert Edward’s wedding in 1863, observers saw Victoria lift her eyes to heaven. Over a decade later, the same music accompanied the unveiling of his statue at Edinburgh, ‘with words, like a national anthem, specially written for it’.54 Yet if Victoria identified German Protestantism at Coburg with consolation and uplift rather than speculation, her interest in it had a public as well as a private component: a hope that Germany could develop a stable political architecture for its culture and religiosity. As Albert and Ernst spent decades batting around schemes for German unification, it became increasingly clear to them that Prussian leadership would be needed to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

51

realize them. That made Victoria and Albert’s efforts to forge dynastic and spiritual bonds to Prussia’s Hohenzollern dynasty ever more important. Shield of Faith: Victoria and the Hohenzollerns In April 1847, Christian Carl Josias Bunsen, the Prussian ambassador to the Court of St James, presented Victoria with a ‘very fine & admirably executed’ gift: an enormous silver ‘Shield of Faith’ (Glaubensschild).55 Designed by Friedrich August Stüler and Peter Cornelius, it was a belated Christening gift from King Friedrich Wilhelm IV to his godson Albert Edward. Its boss was a portrait of Christ in gold, which formed the centre of a golden cross, each arm ending with the portrait of an evangelist. Reliefs of the sacraments of baptism and communion and their Old Testament prototypes crowded between the arms of the cross and were surrounded by a blue circular band set with cameos of the twelve apostles. Beyond this, a band of reliefs narrated Christ’s Passion, Resurrection, and the foundation of His church, ending with Albert Edward’s birth and the King’s arrival in England for his christening. Though inspired by John Flaxman’s neoclassical Shield of Achilles, the Glaubensschild conjoins chivalric monarchy and Christianity.56 In handing it over to Albert Edward’s parents, the King hoped it would remind him always that, as a future Defender of the Faith, his virtues ‘must spring from the centre and rest upon the Cross’, words Victoria felt would be ‘the little knight’s precious dowry for his whole life’.57 Albert’s decision to invite Friedrich Wilhelm instead of the Roman Catholic King of Saxony to be his son’s godfather was an expression of confessional solidarity, which he accepted as ‘a faithful ally of old England [and] a good Protestant’. As he had warned Victoria, his person was not as romantic as his rhetoric—on arrival in England, he turned out to be ‘rather fat, with an excellent countenance, and a paucity of hair’—and his stagey piety amused courtiers.58 If British admirers of Prussia felt that the trip proclaimed ‘the intimate relations existing between the two great Protestant countries of Europe’, then for Friedrich it was part of an ecclesiastical fantasy.59 As a young romantic, he had dreamed of bringing Prussia’s bureaucratic church, which his father Friedrich Wilhelm III had constructed by forcing

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

52

Queen Victoria

together Prussia’s Calvinist and Lutheran confessions into one body, closer to the simplicity of Christian antiquity. This dream found expression architecturally in Potsdam’s Friedenskirche, a recreation of an early Christian basilica, but also in plans to introduce elements from the supposedly apostolic liturgy and episcopal government of the Church of England into it.60 Friedrich Wilhelm also wished to learn from English Protestant philanthropy. Elizabeth Fry came to Berlin to lecture him and he would return the favour in London, sitting in Newgate Prison with prisoners while Fry knelt in prayer, wishing that Prussia ‘might be more and more as the city set on the hill that could not be hid, that true religion in its purity, simplicity, and power, might more and more break forth, and that every cloud that obscured it might be removed’.61 He was also deeply interested in Anglican church extension, sending aides to find prototypes for Berlin’s new churches in East London.62 Bunsen not only encouraged the King’s ecclesiastical Anglophilia, but had a religious agenda of his own. He arrived in London having lost a post in Rome for quarrelling with the papal curia over Prussia’s regulation of confessionally mixed marriages. Bunsen accordingly wished to build alliances against the papacy’s meddling in the affairs of modern states, and did so by partnering with Tory friends of his Welsh evangelical wife to denounce Melbourne’s government in print as soft on Roman Catholicism. Melbourne felt that he was ‘setting up the country against us’ and encouraging the young to go ‘mad’ about ‘religion’. Victoria though knew of him as ‘a great protégé of the King of Prussia &, — very religious, & much liked by all the religious people here’ and he became a familiar figure to the royal family, chatting with them in German and bringing them books from home.63 The Eastern Crisis, in which Europe’s powers fell out over the future of Syria and Palestine as the Ottoman Empire decayed, united these apostolic and Protestant enthusiasms with missionary interests. Friedrich Wilhelm proposed to capitalize on it by creating a foothold for Protestantism in Palestine, endowing an Anglican church which was then under construction for a missionary society to the Jews as the seat of a bishopric. He had initially sent Bunsen to London to investigate how far the ‘English National Church . . . would be inclined to accord to the Evangelical Protestant Church of Prussia a sisterly position in the Holy Land’.64 Although the bishopric would be

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

53

Anglican, he insisted it should incorporate distinct German congregations, creating the ‘spectacle’ of an Anglo-German church, which would ally with the eastern churches against Rome and have a special mission to converted Jews.65 Victoria’s approval of the scheme reflected the enthusiasm that both it and the ‘strong Protestant feelings’ of the King aroused from what Melbourne termed the ‘religious part of the community’.66 On Friedrich Wilhelm’s arrival, Bunsen’s friend Archdeacon Julius Charles Hare, the most vocal spokesman of those who urged Anglicans to Protestant borrowings from German philosophy and philology, presented him with an address, rejoicing that ‘God should so move the hearts of Sovereigns to seek to be united to each other by these ties of Christian brotherhood’, styling the bishopric a ‘pledge’ for the unification of northern Christendom.67 The Archbishop of Canterbury and other high churchmen such as Victoria’s favourite Samuel Wilberforce believed that ‘on a back current, Episcopacy will flow into Prussia’.68 Preaching before Victoria and the King at St Paul’s, the Bishop of London purred that the ‘heart of a mighty sovereign, bound to her only by the benefits of Christian love’ had chosen to patronize their church.69 Evangelical students of prophecy believed that the bishopric would advance the restoration of converted Jews to Palestine, not least because the first bishop was a converted Prussian Jew.70 Yet once Bunsen had mollified German opinion by clarifying that the scheme did not subordinate Lutheranism to Anglicanism, this consensus unravelled. The Tractarian churchmen who followed Rose in suspecting Bunsen and other Germans of scepticism objected that the Royal Supremacy had yoked them to the ‘Evangelical or Lutherano-Calvinistic State Establishment of Protestantism in Prussia’.71 They tried to protest publicly that the King had no right, as a non-Anglican, to be Albert Edward’s godfather.72 The bishopric therefore sharpened divisions between those who welcomed Protestant alliances for the Church of England and a vociferous minority who resented the monarchy for meddling with its apostolic purity. Bunsen’s high church friends now bridled at his ‘Germanism’, with William Ewart Gladstone engaging in a published controversy with him whose abstruse convolutions amused Albert and Sir Robert Peel but further angered Tractarians.73 The whole episode provoked questions about the King’s wisdom. When in the mid-1840s the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

54

Queen Victoria

radical Lichtfreunde movement demanded democratic concessions in the Prussian church, Albert told Lord Aberdeen that the King’s daydreams had provoked it.74 His ecclesiastical noodling was ultimately less important than the efforts that he and the equally ambitious—albeit Roman Catholic—Wittelsbachs of Bavaria made to encourage painters, musicians, and sculptors whose works united Christian piety and classical learning, many of whom Victoria and Albert also patronized or collected.75 The court both shared and led the admiration then widespread among British opinion formers for the cultural and spiritual activism of German monarchies, regarding Prussia as a schoolmaster state whose universal system of compulsory primary education had moralized its population—even if Melbourne airily assured Victoria that ‘the English would not submit to that thraldom’.76 The 1848 Revolutions cast doubt on these successes. As revolution broke out in Paris, Friedrich Wilhelm sent a manic letter to Victoria, proposing to band together as monarchs ‘by the Grace of God’ to contain its spread. She politely replied that ‘like you, honoured Brother, I build my refuge in God, in whom we find, as Luther found, “ein feste Burg”. May He be with you . . . and with your whole kingdom, beloved Germany, with which I am so closely allied in blood, kinship and sentiment!’77 When the disturbances spread to Prussia, she sided with the ‘poor King’ against the insurgents—who had, among other ‘horrid’ acts, forced him to view the ‘ghastly’ bodies of demonstrators shot dead in Berlin—and joined her diplomats in welcoming his attempts to suppress revolution, first in Prussia and then throughout Germany.78 Yet she refused to join his monarchical band and held him partly responsible for the unrest, harkening to her uncle and husband’s adviser Baron Stockmar’s argument that the withholding of freedoms had been ‘very galling to a noble, enlightened & brave people like the Germans’.79 Victoria feared that after the resulting explosion, ‘none of the smaller sovereignties can exist (were this to happen to Coburg & Gotha, it would break my heart) & that they might even become a Republic’.80 George of Cambridge returned from Germany reporting that the people ‘were not to be recognised . . . all wear beards & very strange pointed hats . . . the most horrid looking people imaginable’.81 Friedrich Wilhelm soon recovered his authority, in collaboration with new advisers who

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

55 82

promulgated a constitution and modernized his state. Yet although Victoria cheered on ‘Protestant, Constitutional Prussia’ as it put down revolution, Bunsen warned her that Friedrich Wilhelm had succumbed to his ‘reactionary surroundings’, Albert dutifully collecting his published attacks on this newly repressive ‘Christian state’.83 The most galling symptom of this eclipse was—as Victoria sharply informed Friedrich Wilhelm—his vacillation during the confrontations which in 1854 led Britain into war against Russia in the Crimea.84 Feeling that ‘the Almighty’ backed Britain’s defence of ‘international law’ against a power that had oppressed ‘millions of souls’, Victoria refused to accept the Christian rationale of his neutrality, and she lambasted him for forcing the hawkish Bunsen to give up his London posting ‘with tears in his eyes’.85 Victoria and Albert’s hopes drifted to the King’s brother, the Crown Prince Wilhelm. Though a counter-revolutionary in 1848, he had come to sympathize with liberalism during a brief exile in Britain and was soon briefing them on his brother’s failings. His wife Augusta, known to Victoria’s children as ‘Aunt Prussia’, was deeply Anglophile, never happier than when watching cricket at Eton or attending the British ambassador’s English church at Baden.86 Introduced by Bunsen, Victoria admired her good sense on ‘religious subjects’ and developed a warm epistolary friendship with her, which, as with Alexandrine, gained depth after Albert’s death. Augusta too was a cultivated voice against Lutheran reaction.87 Victoria, who had daydreamed about marrying Albert Edward to a Prussian princess, was delighted when the betrothal of Augusta’s son Friedrich to her daughter Victoria sealed their alliance.88 With memories of Prussia’s conduct in the Crimea strong, the match had a mixed reception, The Times mortifying Victoria when it expressed dismay at surrendering a ‘daughter of England’ to the ‘satraps of Russia’.89 The journalist W. T. Stead remembered that his father, a Dissenting minister who dreaded German religious scepticism, ‘shook his head over the marriage’.90 Victoria believed though that her daughter’s presence in Berlin could sideline the ‘Russian party’ and took confidence from the King’s enthusiasm.91 The British envoy in Berlin felt that the match linked ‘the two great Protestant Powers of Europe’ and the marriage terms suggested that their religion was close enough to be convertible.92 The Prussian authorities not only

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

56

Queen Victoria

conceded that the wedding could take place in England, but accepted that only one, Anglican service was necessary because the differences between their churches were minor and not doctrinal.93 Yet Victoria had over-estimated the political influence of Friedrich’s parents and their receptivity to Albert’s prosy nostrums.94 After her daughter left for ‘the enemy’s den’, the initial signs were therefore discouraging.95 Her husband vanished into the Prussian military complex, leaving her at four in the morning to ‘visit outposts’.96 When Victoria visited in August 1858, she found the Berlin Schloss and its ‘peculiar’ Chapel forbidding and was relieved that her daughter, who needed ‘light, warmth, and plenty of hot water’, was going to leave its medieval conditions for a new home in the Neues Palais at Potsdam.97 Brooding over the court was the bibulous Friedrich Wilhelm, who Albert judged ‘the ruin of a once important person’.98 When the Prince of Prussia replaced his brother as Regent in 1858 and dismissed his advisers, it seemed to mark the beginning of a ‘New Era’.99 When Friedrich Wilhelm died and Wilhelm became king in 1861, Victoria wrote to him that ‘their religion’ and thus their ‘interests’ were the same, while the press praised Prussia as Britain’s Protestant, liberal ally.100 To the end of his life, Albert remained optimistic that Prussia could still lead a liberal unification of Germany, a view espoused still more vigorously by Ernst, who to Victoria’s relief had scraped through 1848 by aligning himself with nationalist opinion and now urged Prussia to establish a German federal state that would exclude Austria.101 He associated with pamphleteers who urged that England and Germany were natural allies against France and Russia.102 The unusually intellectual diplomat Robert Morier formed part of this circle. Morier’s journalism claimed that ‘indelibly engraved upon the substratum of Prussian history’ were ‘principles of religious and political liberty’ which were re-emerging as Wilhelm escaped his brother’s captivity to Russia and to the ‘High Church Lutheran School’. It posited a shared racial origin for the English and the Germans, peoples for whom freedom and community were synonymous, and urged support for a federated German state. He pressed these views on Victoria during her 1860 trip to Coburg.103 Teutomania, which persisted in British religious and scholarly circles for decades, came unstuck at the diplomatic level, not least because Wilhelm’s minister Bismarck turned against Morier,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

57 104

resenting his influence on the Crown Prince Friedrich. The arbitrary arrest of a Captain Macdonald after an altercation on a Prussian train in September 1860 reminded British liberals that Prussia was a police state, while their outrage about it annoyed the Prussians.105 After Wilhelm’s accession to the throne, he turned out to be as disappointing as his brother. Morier regretted that he had succumbed to the ‘strange hallucination’ that he was ‘God’s vice-regent’, a belief hardened by an assassination attempt against him.106 The King’s insistence on crowning himself in a traditional ceremony—which Victoria followed through her daughter’s reports and a painting made for her on the spot—was another sign of his drift to the divine right.107 Bismarck made her daughter ‘sad and wretched’ as he worked to stifle the Anglo-Coburg connection. When Victoria came to Coburg in 1863 to lay flowers on Stockmar’s grave and to chat with the visiting King of Prussia, Morier briefed her on the ‘hopelessness’ of German politics so long as Bismarck retained his ascendancy over him.108 Victoria, for whom liberal unification was the ‘sacred task’ bequeathed by her ‘Guardian angel’ and that other ‘beautiful soul’, Stockmar, was deeply pained.109 A few years later, Morier was drummed out of Berlin, musing that Albert’s wish to make his daughter a ‘connecting link’ between Prussia and England was dead.110 Liberal diplomats still nursed faith in Prussia as the ‘great Protestant Power of Europe’, not least because Napoleonic France often looked like a more proximate threat to Britain. Yet Prussia’s wars against Denmark (1864) and Austria (1866) confirmed it as a troublemaker.111 Egged on by Morier, Albert’s former secretary Charles Grey, and Ernst, Victoria’s sympathies were ‘naturally with the Germans’ in the Schleswig-Holstein conflict, although public feeling enforced Britain’s neutrality.112 Political diarists noticed the ‘irritation’ at Victoria’s apparently pro-German correspondence with Wilhelm over the war, and Lord John Russell sent her a ‘cold, hard letter’ counselling against further interference.113 Yet although Victoria told Augusta that she was set against a ‘sordid anti-German party intrigue’, she now regarded Prussians as ‘odious’. Her personal ‘Verhältnis’ with the Hohenzollerns remained but was no longer politically useful, not least because the marriage of Albert Edward to Alexandra, a Danish Lutheran, had turned the Dano-German dispute over Schleswig-Holstein into a family feud.114 Clarendon bluntly told

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

58

Queen Victoria

her that the King was a ‘fool’ on the way to being a ‘great criminal’; in Berlin, her daughter voiced her ‘dread’ that the bonds between their Protestant nations were unravelling.115 The outbreak of the Austro-Prussian War deepened Victoria and her daughter’s gloom. Victoria drafted—and carefully translated into German—an appeal to Wilhelm’s ‘Christian humanity’ to block ‘so fearful a wrong . . . the responsibility of which will rest on you alone’, but was disappointed to receive a ‘most deluded answer’ and frostily suggested to Augusta that it would be unwise for her to visit England.116 Victoria felt that Prussia’s ambition corrupted others, not least Ernst, who had shored up Coburg’s position by joining in against the Austrians.117 Cousin George told her that the war had knocked ‘all our German associations . . . on the head’, not least because Prussia had gobbled up Hanover.118 Morier gamely urged that ‘consolidation’ under a Protestant power like Prussia was a good outcome for Germany, but Victoria and her daughter in Berlin differed in ‘wanting, & hoping for a united Germany but not for a Prussianising of Germany, or for it to be swallowed up by Prussia’.119 She reminded Augusta of Albert’s wish that ‘“May Prussia become merged in Germany, not Germany in Prussia!” Now is the moment once more to create a great, united Germany with Prussia at her head!’120 The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War proved that what one former Foreign Secretary styled a merely ‘theological friendship’ was no longer a restraint on Prussian power play.121 Victoria sent a telegram to Wilhelm, imploring him to moderate his demands on France ‘in the interests of suffering humanity’. It did no good, her Foreign Secretary Granville concluding that it was impossible to dent the ‘strong prejudices’ of the King.122 With the war underway, Victoria followed Morier and Odo Russell, soon to be ambassador in Berlin, in welcoming the ‘instructive’ destruction of Bonapartist France, with her son Leopold hoping ‘that the French may be thoroughly beaten and punished for their eternal ambition’.123 The eruption of civil war between the republic and the atheistical ‘reds’ of the ‘dreadful Commune’ confirmed Victoria’s judgement.124 German atrocities against the French left her unmoved as she hearkened to her daughter’s command not to be ‘separated from your own people’.125 Yet both feared the war would empower the ‘bad, unprincipled & all powerful’ Bismarck.126 His subsequent Kulturkampf against the Vatican

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

59

accentuated Victoria and her daughter’s sense that the Prussians cheapened liberty in their commendable zeal against Roman Catholicism.127 In February 1874, Victoria wrote as the sovereign of an ‘essentially Protestant’ and Germanophile nation to seek assurances from Wilhelm that his measures would not trigger renewed war with France.128 When the ‘terrible’ Bismarck stirred up another war scare in 1875, even Morier, who had defended the Kulturkampf, lamented that Germany had learned from France a ‘besetting vice’: ‘Chauvinism’.129 Victoria and Friedrich’s personal sorrows deepened Victoria’s chagrin at their political eclipse. The death in 1866 of their son Sigismund had pushed them into an obsessive pattern of mourning which paralleled Victoria’s grief at Albert’s passing five years earlier.130 Ten years later, the death of their son Waldemar triggered a further round of memorialization.131 Making the ‘sad gift’ of lamps and candlesticks for Sigismund’s tomb in the Potsdam Friedenskirche, Victoria could not resist urging that her daughter was better off than she was, as her ‘completely shattered life’ limped on only thanks to ‘God’s mercy’.132 For the rest of Victoria’s life, the ‘dear mausoleum’ became what the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore was to her mother, a holy site and a monument to shattered hopes. When their eldest son Wilhelm was confirmed at the Friedenskirche in 1874, the pall that had once covered Sigismund’s coffin now did duty as the communion table cloth.133 ‘Germans and English belong to each other’: Alice in Hesse-Darmstadt Princess Alice’s marriage to Ludwig, the heir to the Grand Duchy of Hesse and by Rhine, in July 1862 opened another channel for the political and religious Anglicization of Germany.134 Admittedly, the ‘petit galopin of Hesse’ came from the second drawer of candidates for Alice’s hand. Courtiers sneered that he looked like one of the German street musicians currently infesting London and discouraged Victoria’s efforts to get him a royal title.135 Their disdain reflected the fact that Hesse-Darmstadt had only been a Grand Duchy since 1806: despite expanding during and after the Napoleonic Wars, its court remained cash-strapped.136 This though gave Victoria’s cash

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

60

Queen Victoria

gifts to Alice an outsize influence on its court. Her daughter had prepared well for Lutheran exile, being confirmed ‘according to the Coburg ritual’ in 1859. A year later, Alice returned from her first visit to Coburg with a preference for the ‘German service’ over the English, not least because the singing was better.137 Alice took with her Albert’s protégé Becker to Darmstadt as her secretary, while Victoria took a shine to Darmstadt’s court chaplains, notably Ferdinand Bender. When he travelled to England to baptize Alice’s first child, Victoria was indignant that the Church of England would not let foreign clergy like him perform rites in their consecrated spaces.138 She renewed these religious contacts in March 1880, when she took Lutheran communion at the ‘solemn & impressive’ confirmation of Alice’s eldest daughter Victoria in Darmstadt. She soon returned for Victoria’s marriage to Louis of Battenberg in a hybrid GermanEnglish service, and a year after that for her brother Emil’s confirmation.139 Her contacts with the ‘kind old Hofprediger’ Bender and other clergy lasted beyond Alice and Ludwig’s lives, being renewed on her visits to Darmstadt in 1892 and 1895.140 If Hesse-Darmstadt’s religion was comfortable, its politics were hopeful: it acquired a new liberal ministry in 1871, its progressive turn strengthened after Ludwig succeeded as Grand Duke in 1877.141 Yet Alice’s wilfulness made Hesse-Darmstadt a source of vexation. In 1865, a ‘little rix’ kept Alice away when Victoria passed through Darmstadt to unveil Albert’s statue at Coburg.142 A year later, Alice’s opposition to her sister Helena’s marriage to a Dane led Victoria to regard her as a threat to ‘Peace and harmony in the Family and in the House’. By 1872, she was warning Alexandrine against Alice’s ‘stories’, condemning her for setting her son Alfred, who had been designated as Ernst’s heir to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha duchy, against his siblings. Her prolific childbearing was another source of tension, Victoria grumbling that she was like a rabbit—always nursing.143 Alice’s friendship with David Friedrich Strauss, the once notorious author of Das Leben Jesu, who was then living at Darmstadt, completed Victoria’s unease. Strauss thought that reading Bretschneider had disposed Alice to his views and she undoubtedly had rationalist interests: one visitor to Darmstadt in the mid-1870s was surprised that conversation turned to Arthur Stanley, Benjamin Jowett, and Strauss.144 Alice compiled extracts from his writings and even

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

61

interceded in his spat with the French scholar Ernest Renan over the Franco-Prussian War.145 Although Strauss was a Prussophile and a monarchist as well as a friend of Morier and Crown Princess Victoria, he was also increasingly outspoken in his published attacks on Christianity. Pious observers such as the Princess of Wales, a devout Danish Lutheran, lamented that Alice accepted the dedication of his published lectures on Voltaire.146 These anxieties fuelled Victoria’s sense that alienation from Christianity in Germany was spreading at both elite and popular levels, an analysis many British Protestants shared. In June 1878, the attempted assassination of the Kaiser confirmed what Victoria had recently heard in Coburg about the ‘unbelief prevalent in Germany’, which compared unfavourably to England.147 Alice’s life in Darmstadt ended with hammer blows which had apparently shocked her out of German scepticism. On 29 May 1873, a telegram from Darmstadt informed Victoria that Alice’s haemophiliac son Frittie had bled to death after falling from his mother’s bedroom window.148 Alice’s instinctive recourse to the consolations of religion was an ‘unspeakable blessing’ for her mother.149 Victoria doted on her daughter’s mourning, sending her a copy of the poetry album she had compiled on Albert’s death and coming to Darmstadt to inspect the ‘terrible window’, which Alice had filled with stained glass bearing the legends ‘Not Lost, but gone before’ and ‘Of such are the Kingdom of Heaven’.150 The riotously sentimental monument Victoria commissioned from Jules Dalou for her chapel at Windsor, in which Frittie and Victoria’s son Sigismund cling to an angel, who holds three other prematurely deceased grandchildren, shows how deeply such losses affected her.151 Alice’s death in 1878 immediately after losing her daughter May to diphtheria occasioned official claims that she had completed her return from ‘theoretical doubts’ to die a ‘devout Christian’. That autumn, Alice had summoned Victoria’s chaplain Thomas Teignmouth Shore to Darmstadt to discuss the efficacy of personal prayer, an experience he wrote up for Victoria and which was published in an official memoir of her.152 She had certainly greeted May’s death with a superhuman acceptance of God’s will, which had delighted her mother.153 When Alice went on to die on the anniversary of her father’s death—an ‘almost incredible, & most mysterious’ coincidence—Victoria forgot her antagonism to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

62

Queen Victoria

hail her as a ‘Saint’, whose name would become as ‘holy’ as Albert’s in England and Germany.154 Boehm’s statue of a sleeping Alice clutching a beatific May for the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore came with an inscription recalling how she ‘had watched “not counting her life dear to herself”’, associating her with Saint Paul’s self-sacrificial faith (Acts 20:22).155 Darmstadt now joined Coburg as a place of sacred recollection. The installation by Alice’s siblings of a copy of Boehm’s statue in the Rosenhöhe mausoleum conjoined it with England.156 When Victoria next visited Darmstadt, she made a pilgrimage to it, commissioning a firescreen with an image of it as a kitsch souvenir of her trip.157 One of Alice’s last acts had been to promise a hundred pounds for the English chaplaincy at Darmstadt, an act consonant with her memoir’s claims that, despite her admiration for German Lutheranism, she nursed a loyalty to the English liturgy.158 Both she and her sister Victoria were interested in such monuments to Anglo-German religious exchange. Both women collaborated with W. H. Lyttelton, the son of one of Victoria’s ladies in waiting, on an ultimately nebulous Anglo-German Association, which was designed to multiply friendships between the two nations because ‘Germans and English belong to each other’ and ‘have one great work to do in the world’: to promote work and lawful freedom.159 Plans to create an English chapel in Darmstadt as a memorial to her spiritual values gave way to a fittingly practical memorial hospital and nursing school, which Victoria was pleased to find quite ‘English’.160 After chequered attempts at creating an embassy chaplaincy in Berlin, the Crown Princess Victoria had championed the creation of St George’s in Monbijou Park to symbolize her love of ‘our Prayer Book and our services’.161 German and English committees raised funds for it as a silver wedding present, with Augusta chipping in 200 marks.162 Unfortunately it became fodder for Bismarck’s allegations that she inclined unpatriotically to English religious and political views.163 ‘A Terrible and Worldwide Catastrophe’: The Death of Friedrich III There was now ‘little political importance’ in ‘great alliances’, Victoria asserted of her son Arthur’s marriage in 1879 to a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

63

Hohenzollern princess, because ‘they can no longer affect the actions of governments’. A decade earlier, she had turned down a Prussian match for her daughter Louise, observing that things had changed now that Prussia had ‘swallowed everything up’.164 Victoria had ceased looking to marriages as levers of political or religious change in Germany. Her aversion to Roman Catholic alliances certainly continued, with the court’s anxiety about an ‘anti-popery cry’ causing Albert Edward’s son to abandon plans to marry the daughter of the Comte de Paris.165 Yet the marriage in 1874 of her son Alfred to Tsar Alexander II’s daughter Marie in the winter cathedral of St Petersburg indicated that her narrowly Protestant hang-ups were on the wane. Victoria had felt ‘painfully’ the ‘first departure since 200 years nearly from the practice of our family since the Revolution of ’88! We must be very firm—or else we may pack up—and call back the descendants of the Stuarts.’ Yet the reassurances of her advisers and her fondness for Marie prevailed. The court opened to Orthodox influences, with Russian anthems entering its services and Victoria’s children attending the Russian embassy chapel to mark moments in the life of the Romanovs.166 The marriage of Princess Alice’s daughter Alix to the Cesarevitch Nicholas and her conversion to the Orthodox faith multiplied these exchanges. The willingness of Nicholas to attend services at the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore and Presbyterian worship at Balmoral endeared him to her, as did his gift of a ‘beautiful’ icon for her private chapel.167 Two years earlier, Victoria had even acquiesced, albeit glumly, in Alfred’s daughter Marie converting to Roman Catholicism to marry the Crown Prince of Romania.168 This relaxation about confessional ties was in sharp contrast with Kaiser Wilhelm II’s tantrums when his sister Sophie converted to Orthodoxy to marry into the Greek royal family.169 Wilhelm II’s accession to the imperial throne in 1888 had completed Victoria’s political and religious estrangement from Prussia. The deaths of his father, Victoria’s son-in-law Friedrich III, mere months into his long awaited reign had been a ‘terrible & worldwide catastrophe’ for her, second only to Albert’s death but ‘in some way worse’, because he had been the last hope for the liberalization of Imperial Germany.170 For Victoria, as for German bourgeois liberals, memorializing ‘Fritz’ was a way of mourning a lost future. At the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

64

Queen Victoria

unveiling of Joseph Edgar Boehm’s statue of Friedrich in the Garde du Corps uniform at St George’s Chapel in December 1890, tears started in Victoria’s eyes as the choir sang Gounod.171 Though Victoria had prayed to God to assist his successor, her grandson Wilhelm, his graceless treatment of his mother compounded her distress.172 When her daughter arrived at Windsor in the winter of her bereavement, Victoria confided to Alexandrine her relief at her escape from ‘hatred—lack of love—lack of feeling’. The ‘German homeland’ and people were as dear to her as ever, which made the sniping from ‘certain groups in Berlin’ all the harder to bear.173 British opinion on the whole remained confident that the ‘spiritual and intellectual affinities between Britain and North Germany’ could outweigh the vagaries of the new Kaiser, who was, at least by education and instincts, a liberal Protestant.174 His popular visit to Britain in 1899 repaired the breach opened with Victoria and public opinion by his criticism of British policy in South Africa: the court drafted leading clergy to preach to him on the spiritual friendship of nations and the ‘fundamental ideas’ bonding all Teutons.175 Although Wilhelm’s militaristic contempt for ‘dogmatic trash’ discombobulated some of them, he became penfriends with William Boyd Carpenter, the Bishop of Ripon and Victoria’s spiritual counsellor, and Alice’s adviser Teignmouth Shore.176 For Victoria, though, it was not the capricious Wilhelm, who ‘seemed to think himself in some supernatural position’, or his imperial state that represented Germany for her, but Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, of which her son Alfred had become ruler after Ernst’s death in 1893.177 Victoria’s last visit to Coburg and its ‘dear old Festung’ in 1893 illustrates how religious, dynastic, and national interests still interlocked for her there: it was to attend the wedding of Alice’s son to Alfred’s daughter, an ill-starred match made at her own urging. Alfred’s son predeceased him and then in August 1900 news came of his own death. While Victoria mourned at Osborne, his funeral took place at the Moritzkirche, where Genssler had preached on her first visit to Coburg.178 Her involvement with German Protestantism, as personally gripping and enduring as it was politically fruitless, had come full circle.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

65

Notes 1. John Frederick Stanford, Rambles and Researches in Thuringian Saxony (London: John W. Parker, 1842), pp. 6–7, 16, 28–40. 2. John Tulloch, ‘German Protestantism’, British Quarterly Review, 26 (1851), pp. 433, 447, 449–52, 457. 3. Joshua Bennett, ‘August Neander and the Religion of History in the Nineteenth-Century “Priesthood of Letters” ’, Historical Journal, 63 (2020), pp. 633–59. 4. Johannes Paulmann, ‘Searching for a “Royal International”: The Mechanics of Monarchical Relations in Nineteenth-Century Europe’, in Martin H. Geyer and Johannes Paulmann, eds, The Mechanics of Internationalism: Culture, Society, and Politics from the 1840s to the First World War (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001), pp. 145–76; Daniel Schönpflug, Die Heiraten der Hohenzollern: Verwandtschaft, Politik und Ritual in Europa 1640–1918 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013); Karina Urbach, Queen Victoria: Eine Biographie (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2011), p. 77. 5. Lotte Hoffmann-Kuhnt, ed., Dr Ernst Becker: Briefe aus einem Leben im Dienste von Queen Victoria und ihrer Familie (Plaidt: Cardamina Verlag, 2014), p. 104. 6. Thomas Biskup, ‘The University of Göttingen and the Personal Union, 1737–1837’, in Brendan Simms and Torsten Riotte, eds, The Hanoverian Dimension in British History, 1714–1837 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007), pp. 128–60; Joanna Marschner, David Bindman and Lisa L. Ford, eds, Enlightened Princesses: Caroline, Augusta, Charlotte, and the Shaping of the Modern World (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2017). 7. G. M. Ditchfield, ‘Visions of Kingship in Britain under George III and George IV’ and Christopher D. Thompson, ‘The Hanoverian Dimension in Early Nineteenth-Century British Politics’, in Simms and Riotte, eds, Hanoverian Dimension, pp. 191–3; 87–9, 92. 8. Benita Stoney and Heinrich C. Weltzien, eds, My Mistress the Queen: The Letters of Frieda Arnold, Dresser to Queen Victoria, 1854–9, trans. Sheila de Bellaigue (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1994), p. 168. 9. See correspondence in LPL, Tait Papers 431, ff. 155–177; QVJ, 27 April 1863, p. 161; James Edgar Sheppard, George, Duke of Cambridge: A Memoir of his Private Life, based on the Journals and Correspondence of His Royal Highness (2 vols, London: Longman and Co., 1906), 2: p. 190.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

66

Queen Victoria

10. Quoted in David Brown, Palmerston: A Biography (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2010), p. 197. 11. Hector Bolitho, ed., The Prince Consort and his Brother: Two Hundred New Letters (London: Cobden-Sanderson, 1933), p. 60; Queen Victoria, Memorandum to Lord Aberdeen, May 1856, BL Add MS 43050, f. 186; Charlotte Gere, Jewellery in the Age of Victoria: A Mirror to the World (London: British Museum, 2010), p. 52. 12. See Torsten Riotte, ‘The House of Hanover: Queen Victoria and the Guelph Dynasty’, in Karina Urbach, ed., Royal Kinship: Anglo-German Family Networks, 1815–1918 (Munich: Saur, 2008), pp. 75–96. 13. Giles St Aubyn, The Royal George, 1819–1904: The Life of H.R.H. Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (London: Constable, 1963), pp. 40–2, 45; Sheppard, Cambridge, 1: p. 104, 2: pp. 38, 56; Peel correspondence with Albert, BL Add MS 40 435, ff. 134–48. 14. Victoria to Alice, 1 July 1863, HSA, D24, f. 227. 15. Paul Kennedy, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1980); Frank Lorenz Müller, Britain and the German Question: Perceptions of Nationalism and Political Reform (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 205–8; Scott Murray, Liberal Diplomacy and German Unification: The Early Career of Robert Morier (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000), ch. 4. 16. Kennedy, Rise, pp. 15–23. 17. Jan Rüger, ‘Revisiting the Anglo-German Antagonism’, Journal of Modern History, 83 (2011), 579–617. 18. Peter Funnell, ‘The Iconography of Prince Albert’, in Franz Bosbach et al., eds, Künstlerische Beziehungen zwischen England und Deutschland in der viktorianischen Epoche (Munich: K. G. Saur, 2011), pp. 109–10. 19. QVJ, 22 November 1839, p. 137. 20. QVJ, 21 December 1839, p. 213; 16 January 1840, p. 35; Hansard, 3rd series, 51 (1840), cc. 11–17; Kurt Jagow, ed., Letters of the Prince Consort 1831–1861 (London: John Murray, 1938), pp. 34–40. 21. The German Bridegroom: A Satire (London, 1840) , p. 10. 22. Lord Broughton, Recollections of a Long Life. By Lord Broughton, With Additional Extracts from his Private Diaries (6 vols, London: John Murray, 1909–11), 5: p. 250. 23. John Davis, ‘The Coburg Connection: Dynastic Relations and the House of Coburg in Britain’, in Urbach, ed., Royal Kinship, pp. 99, 102. 24. QVJ, 10 November 1845, p. 209.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

67

25. QVJ, 13 October 1850, pp. 135–6; 17 October 1850, p. 144; 13 August 1852, p. 21; 10 November 1857, p. 92; Victoria to Alexandrine, 19 October 1850, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, f. 371; Bolitho, Prince Consort, p. 178. 26. Sheppard, Cambridge, 1: p. 254; QVJ, 21 December 1865, p. 353; Roger Fulford, ed., Dearest Mama: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1861–1864 (London: Evans Bros, 1977), p. 51. 27. Klaus Weschenfelder, ‘Repräsentation und Wissenschaft. Die Coburger Sammlungen und ihre Entwicklung unter dem Einfluss von Ernst und Albert’, in Franz R. Bosbach and John Davis, eds, Windsor-Coburg Geteilter Nachlass-Gemeinsames Erbe (Munich: DeGruyter Saur, 2007), pp. 36–7. 28. Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider, Zwei Predigten am ersten und dritten Tage des Reformations-Jubelfestes den 31 Oct. und 2. Nov. 1817 in der Augustinerkirche zu Gotha, gehalten (Gotha: Renherschen Buchdruckerei, 1817); Dorothea Wendebourg, So viele Luthers: die Reformationsjubiläen des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017), pp. 19–20, 40–1. 29. Wilhelm August Gottfried Genssler, Die Saecularfeier der Augsburgischen Confession in der herzogl. S. Residenzstadt Coburg Festschreibung (Coburg: F. D. Mensel und Sohn, 1830), pp. xvii, 39–41; Genssler, Die Herzogliche Hofkirche zur Ehrenburg in Coburg, seit dem Zeitalter der Reformation: Nachrichten von den Schicksalen dieser Kirche und von dem Leben sämmtliche Hofgeistlichen (Coburg: F. D. Mensel und Sohn, 1838), p. 8. 30. QVJ, 24 August 1845, p. 111. 31. QVJ, 31 August 1845, p. 20; 3 September 1845, p. 146. 32. Magdalen Ponsonby, ed., Mary Ponsonby: A Memoir, Some Letters and a Journal (London: John Murray, 1927), pp. 42–3. 33. Victoria to Alexandrine, 6 March 1844, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, f. 46. 34. See Michael Ledger-Lomas, ‘ “Die Vereinbarkeit von Vernunft und Glauben”: Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider and the Victorian Monarchy’, in Friedegund Freitag, ed., Dynastie-Wissenschaft-Kunst: Die Verbindungen der Dynastien Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg und Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha zum Britischen Empire (Gotha: Stiftung Schloss Friedenstein, forthcoming). 35. Ernst II, Aus Meinem Leben und aus Meiner Zeit (3 vols, Berlin: Wilhelm Herz, 1887–90), 1: pp. 2–22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

68

Queen Victoria

36. John Davis et al., eds, Common Heritage: Documents and Sources Relating to German–British Relations in the Archives and Collections of Windsor and Coburg, Volume 2: The Photograph Collections and Private Libraries (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2018), pp. 533–40; QVJ, 8 August 1852, p. 10. 37. See Ledger-Lomas, ‘Bretschneider’. 38. Arthur Helps, ed., The Principal Speeches and Addresses of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (London: John Murray, 1862), pp. 134–5. 39. Theodore Martin, The Life of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (5 vols, London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1875–80), 4: p. 297. 40. Gertraude Bachmann, ‘Aus dem Leben Herzogin Alexandrine von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, geborene Prinzessin von Baden (1820–1904)’, Jahrbuch der Coburger Landesstiftung, 39 (1994), pp. 1, 6; Bolitho, Prince Consort, pp. 30, 52. 41. Die Hauschronik der Herzogin Alexandrine als nobles Geschenk an dem Herzog Ernst II enlässlich der silbernen Hochzeit (1867), Coburg Landesbibliothek, HP-F 61.136. 42. Victoria to Alexandrine, 28 May 1864, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, f. 970. 43. Victoria to Alexandrine, 2 January 1864, 28 February 1865, 2 December 1876, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, ff. 962, 984, 1196. Alexandrine to Victoria, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/31/55; Alexandrine to Victoria, 12 August 1881, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/58/164. For Victoria’s gifts of books to Alexandrine see Franz Bosbach, John R. Davis, and Karina Urbach, eds, Common Heritage: Documents and Sources relating to German-British Relations in the Archives and Collections of Windsor and Coburg: Vol. 2: The Photograph Collections and Private Libraries (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2015) , G: The Private Library of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in 1901. 44. Victoria to Alexandrine, 8 February 1844, 2 March 1844, 9 August 1845, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, ff. 40, 44, 107; QVJ, 8 March 1851, p. 154; Alexandrine to Victoria, July 1845, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/ 24/6. 45. Victoria to Alexandrine, 21 December 1861, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, f. 916. 46. QVJ, 4 October 1862, p. 249; Victoria to Alice, 19 October 1862, HSA, D24. 47. Victoria to Alexandrine, 7 August 1862, 28 October 1862, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, ff. 927, 931; Alexandrine to Victoria, 15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

48. 49.

50.

51.

52.

53. 54.

55. 56. 57. 58.

59. 60.

69

August 1862, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/29/52; QVJ, 5 October 1862, p. 251; 23 August 1863, p. 292. QVJ, 6 September 1863, p. 312; 20 August 1865, p. 233. See e.g. QVJ, 16 June 1842, p. 233; 28 June 1844, p. 248; 2 June 1845, p. 213; 13 March 1846, p. 100; 10 November 1847, p. 139; 13 November 1847, p. 143; 8 December 1847, p. 172; 24 May 1853, p. 141; 20 March 1855, p. 133; 23 April 1859, p. 111. See also Victoria to Alexandrine, 13 November 1847, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, f. 220. See e.g. QVJ, 22 June 1849, p. 227; 10 February 1852, p. 69; 10 February 1857, pp. 47–8; Ernst Rietschel, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (1849), RCIN 69006; Jonathan Marsden, ed., Victoria and Albert: Art & Love (London: Royal Collection, 2000), p. 223. Michael Ledger-Lomas, ‘Lyra Germanica: Sacred Music in Mid-Victorian England’, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, London Bulletin, 29 (2007), 8–42. Victoria to Alexandrine, 20 April 1861 and 5 August 1861, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, ff. 889, 902; Alexandrine to Victoria, 17 May 1861 and 5 July 1861, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/29/22, 29; Coburg Landesbibliothek HP 57, 1785 (38). QVJ, 23 April 1862, p. 99. A. L. Kennedy, ed., ‘My Dear Duchess’: Social and Political Letters to the Duchess of Manchester, 1858–1869 (London: John Murray, 1956), p. 210; Helen Rappaport, Magnificent Obsession: Victoria, Albert and the Death that Changed the Monarchy (London: Hutchinson, 2012), p. 165; QVJ, 17 August 1876, p. 202. QVJ, 27 April 1847, p. 131. Peter von Cornelius et al., Glaubensschild (1842–7), RCIN 31605; Marsden, Art and Love, p. 272. Hector Bolitho, ed., Further Letters of Queen Victoria from the Archives of House Brandenburg-Prussia (1936; London: Thornton Butterworth, 1976), p. 9. Bolitho, Prince Consort, p. 47; King of Prussia to Albert [translation], 1 December 1841 and 27 December 1841, BL Add MS 40 433, ff. 70, 149; Georgiana Bloomfield, Reminiscences of Court and Diplomatic Life (2 vols, London: Kegan Paul, 1883), 1: pp. 18, 21, 24. Augustus Loftus, The Diplomatic Reminiscences of Lord Augustus Loftus, 1837–1862 (2 vols, London: Cassell and Co., 1892), 1: p. 77. David Barclay, ‘Das “monarchische Projekt” Friedrich Wilhelms IV von Preussen’, in Frank-Lothar Kroll and Dieter Weiss, eds, Inszenierung oder

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

70

61.

62. 63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

Queen Victoria Legitimation? Die Monarchie in Europa im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: ein deutschenglischer Vergleich (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2015), pp. 36–7, 41–2; John Edward Toews, Becoming Historical: Cultural Reformation and Public Memory in Early Nineteenth-Century Berlin (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004), ch. 2. Katherine Fry and Rachel Cresswell, Memoirs of the Life of Elizabeth Fry: With Extracts from her Journal and Letters (2 vols, London: Gilpin, 1847), 2: pp. 352–5, 436. Lord Hardwicke reminisced about this odd encounter a decade later ‘and made us laugh much’: QVJ, 20 July 1852, p. 327. Kathleen Curran, The Romanesque Revival: Religion, Politics, and Transnational Exchange (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 2003), pp. 144–56. Frances Bunsen, Memoirs of Baron Bunsen, Drawn Chiefly from Family Papers (2 vols, London: Longman, Green and Co., 1868), 1: p. 499, 2: p. 121; QVJ, 27 December 1841, p. 253. William Henry Hechler, ed., The Jerusalem Bishopric: Documents with Translations Chiefly Derived from ‘Das Evangelische Bisthum in Jerusalem’: Geschichtliche Darstellung mit Urkunden (London: Trübner & Co., 1883), p. 28. Henry Smith, ed., The Protestant Bishopric in Jerusalem, its Origin and Progress: From the Official Documents Published by Command of the King of Prussia (London: B. Wertheim, 1847), pp. 106, 112. See generally R. W. Greaves, ‘The Jerusalem Bishopric, 1841’, English Historical Review, 64 (1949), 328–52; P. J. Welch, ‘Anglican Churchmen and the Establishment of the Jerusalem Bishopric’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 8 (1957), 193–204; Martin Lückhoff, Anglikaner und Protestanten im Heiligen Land: Das gemeinsame Bistum Jerusalem (1841–1886) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1998). QVJ, 22–3 June 1841, pp. 38–9; Melbourne to Victoria, 1 December 1841, in A. C. Benson and Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, eds, The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1907), 1: p. 458. Julius Charles Hare, ‘Note H’, in Hare, Charges to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Lewes with Notes on the Principal Events Affecting the Church During that Period (3 vols, London: Macmillan and Co., 1856), 1: pp. 122–4. Arthur Rawson, Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D. (3 vols, London, 1880–2), 1: p. 198; Robert Ornsby, Memoirs of James Robert HopeScott of Abbotsford (2 vols, London, 1884), 1: p. 286; Rowan Strong, ‘The Oxford Movement and the British Empire: Newman, Manning and the 1841 Jerusalem Bishopric’, in Rowan Strong and Peter Nockles, eds, The

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

69. 70. 71.

72.

73.

74. 75. 76.

77.

78. 79. 80. 81. 82.

71

Oxford Movement: Europe and the Wider World, 1830–1930 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012), pp. 81–4. Charles James Blomfield, The Light of the World: A Sermon Preached on Sunday, January 30, 1842 (London: B. Fellowes, 1842), p. 23. ‘Correspondence—Cyrus and the King of Prussia’, British Magazine, 22 (1842), 398–9. William Palmer [of Magdalen], Aids to Reflection on the Seemingly Double Character of the Established Church, with Reference to the Foundation of a ‘Protestant Bishopric’ at Jerusalem, Recently Announced in the Prussian State Gazette (London, 1842), p. 55. Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church (2 vols, London: A. and C. Black, 1966–70), 1: p. 193; Gerald Tracey, ed., The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. Vol. 8, Tract 90 and the Jerusalem Bishopric, January 1841–April 1842 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), p. 443n. Christian Carl Josias Bunsen, The Constitution of the Church of the Future: A Practical Explanation of the Correspondence with the Right Honourable William Gladstone on the German Church, Episcopacy and Jerusalem (London: Longman, 1847), pp. xli–xlvii; Bunsen, Bunsen, 2: p. 118; Albert to Peel, BL Add MS 40439, f. 278. Albert to Aberdeen, 8 October 1845, BL Add MS 43,045, f. 209. QVJ, 2 February 1847, p. 49; 3 August 1850, p. 5. For such works see Marsden, Art and Love, pp. 70, 112, 146–8, 154, 164. QVJ, 10 February 1839, p. 106. See Emma Winter, ‘German Fresco Painting and the New Houses of Parliament at Westminster, 1834–51’, Historical Journal, 47 (2004), 291–329 and Michael Ledger-Lomas, ‘The Idea of Germany in Religious, Educational and Cultural Thought in England, c.1830–1865’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2005 for British admiration. Friedrich Wilhelm IV to Victoria (translation), 27 February 1848, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 2: p. 177; Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 13. On this correspondence see Paulmann, ‘Searching’, pp. 163–4. Victoria to Alexandrine, 1 July 1848, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, f. 249; QVJ, 2 April 1848, p. 119; 6 April 1848, p. 136. QVJ, 21 April 1848, p. 156. QVJ, 13 April 1848, p. 145. QVJ, 5 July 1849, p. 242. See Anna Ross, Beyond the Barricades: Government and State-Building in PostRevolutionary Prussia, 1848–58 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2019).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

72

Queen Victoria

83. QVJ, 27 November 1850, p. 184; 25 July 1849, p. 264; 30 December 1850, p. 233; Davis et al., Common Heritage, p. 362. 84. Victoria to Aberdeen, 13 March 1854, BL ADD MS 43,047, f. 306; Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 44. 85. Friedrich Wilhelm IV to Victoria, 24 May 1854 and Victoria to Friedrich Wilhelm IV, June 1854, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: pp. 36–9; Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 54. See Ross, Barricades, pp. 202–3 for the King’s thinking. 86. Frederick Ponsonby, The Empress Frederick: A Memoir (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1918), p. 17; F. Max Müller, ‘Royalties [II]’, Cosmopolis, 7 (1897), p. 624; Loftus, Diplomatic Reminiscences, 2: pp. 192–4; Madeline Bluecher to A. C. Tait, LPL, Tait Papers 409, f. 79. 87. QVJ, 23 September 1846, p. 140. Lady Bloomfield to Victoria, 24 May 1855 and 16 February 1856, RA VIC/MAIN/S/8/13, 19; Bolitho, Further Letters, pp. 127–30. 88. Frederick Ponsonby, ed., Letters of the Empress Frederick (London: Macmillan and Co., 1928), p. 40; Hannah Pakula, An Uncommon Woman: Empress Frederick, Daughter of Queen Victoria, Wife of the Crown Prince of Prussia, Mother of Kaiser Wilhelm (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1995), pp. 48–9. 89. Loftus, Diplomatic Reminiscences, 1: p. 266; The Times, 3 October 1855, p. 6; Herbert Maxwell, ed., The Life and Letters of George William Frederick, Fourth Earl of Clarendon (2 vols, London: Edward Arnold, 1913), 2: p. 101; Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 58. 90. W. T. Stead, Her Majesty the Queen: Studies of the Sovereign and the Reign, etc. (London: Review of Reviews Office, 1897), p. 13. 91. QVJ, 20 September 1855, pp. 217–18; Sheppard, Cambridge, 1: p. 197. 92. Loftus, Diplomatic Reminiscences, 1: p. 297. 93. Schönpflug, Heiraten, p. 147. These concessions worked both ways. The Prince of Wales later took the sacrament at the confirmation of Victoria and Friedrich’s son Wilhelm on the grounds that ‘the service is almost the same as ours’. Ponsonby, Letters, p. 134. 94. Ponsonby, Empress Frederick, pp. 39–40. 95. QVJ, 7 November 1855, p. 16. 96. Kennedy, ‘My Dear Duchess’, p. 27. 97. QVJ, 15 August 1858, pp. 47–8; 16 August 1858, p. 53; Ponsonby, Empress Frederick, pp. 84, 100, 110–11. 98. Bolitho, Prince Consort, p. 186. 99. Ross, Barricades, p. 194.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

73

100. Müller, German Question, pp. 163, 168–71; Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 115. 101. QVJ, 16 November 1850, p. 174; Klaus Freiherr von AndrianWerburg, ‘Hof und Hofgesellschaft in Coburg im 19 Jahrhundert’, in Karl Möckl, ed., Hof und Hofgesellschaft in den deutschen Staaten im 19. und beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert (De Gruyter, 1990), p. 225; Elisabeth Scheeben, Ernst II, Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha: Studien zu Biographie und Weltbild eines liberalen deutschen Bundesfürsten in der Reichsgründungszeit (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987), pp. 93–100; Kennedy, ‘My Dear Duchess’, p. 168. 102. [Edouard Fischel], The Duke of Coburg’s Pamphlet on Russia (London: R. Hardwicke, 1859). 103. Victoria Wemyss, ed., Memoirs and Letters of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Morier, G.C.B., from 1826 to 1876 (2 vols, London: Edward Arnold, 1911), 1: pp. 179, 206, 241, 303–5; Murray, Liberal Diplomacy, ch. 4. 104. Wemyss, Morier, 1: pp. 166, 343; Murray, Liberal Diplomacy, pp. 61–3. 105. QVJ, 7 May 1861, p. 120; Martin, Prince Consort, 5: pp. 349–50; Wemyss, Morier, 1: pp. 294–5; Pakula, Uncommon Woman, p. 139. 106. Wemyss, Morier, 1: pp. 313, 361; Maxwell, Clarendon, 2: p. 160. 107. George Housman Thomas, Coronation of the King of Prussia, 18 October 1861 (1863), RCIN 404057; Loftus, Diplomatic Reminiscences, 2: p. 196; Wemyss, Morier, 1: pp. 313–14; Müller, Britain, pp. 188–90. 108. QVJ, 24 August 1863, p. 294; 28 August 18.3, f. 299. 109. Alice to Victoria, 1 July 1863, HSA, Letters from Mama D24; Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 140. 110. Wemyss, Morier, 2: p. 11. 111. Augustus Loftus, The Diplomatic Reminiscences of Lord Augustus Loftus, 1862–1879: Second Series (2 vols, London: Cassell, 1894), 1: p. 45. 112. Victoria to Alice, 3 February 1864, HAS, Letters from Mama 1863–4, D24, f. 68; Angus Hawkins and John Powell, eds, The Journal of John Wodehouse First Earl of Kimberley, for 1862–1902 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997), pp. 115–16, 126, 131; F. A. Wellesley, ed., The Paris Embassy during the Second Empire: Selections from the Papers of Henry Richard Charles Wellesley, 1st Earl Cowley, Ambassador at Paris, 1852–1867 (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1928), p. 255. 113. Hawkins and Powell, Kimberley, p. 136; John Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby and the Conservative Party: Journals and Memoirs of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849–1869 (Hassocks: Harvester Press, 1978), p. 214; General Grey to Charles Phipps, 2 June 1864, DPGL, GRE/D/XI/3/32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

74

Queen Victoria

114. Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 150; Victoria to King of Belgians, 3 August 1865 and Countess Bluecher to Victoria, 27 August 1865, in George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Second Series. A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1862 and 1878 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1926–8), 1: pp. 271, 273. 115. Clarendon to Cowley, 20 June 1864 in Wellesley, Cowley, p. 269; Ponsonby, Letters, p. 54. 116. QVJ, 9 April 1866, p. 92; 10 April 1966, p. 94; 23 April 1866, p. 104; Victoria to Augusta, 28 March 1866, in Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 159; Countess Bluecher to Victoria, 31 March 1866, RA VIC/MAIN/S/ 59/20. 117. Victoria to Alexandrine, 27 May 1866, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29; Scheeben, Ernst, p. 142. 118. Duke of Cambridge to Victoria, 7 July 1866, in Buckle, Letters, 1: pp. 356–7. 119. QVJ, 27 April 1869, p. 109; Ponsonby, Letters, p. 67; Loftus, Second Series, 2: p. 142; Wemyss, Morier, 2: pp. 69–70, 109–10. 120. Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 162. 121. Wellesley, Cowley, p. 314. 122. Victoria to King of Prussia and Granville to Victoria, 14 November 1870, in Buckle, Letters, 2: pp. 71, 85. 123. Victoria to Alexandrine, 12 September 1870, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, f. 1089; Wemyss, Morier, 2: p. 215; Karina Urbach, Bismarck’s Favourite Englishman: Lord Odo Russell’s Mission to Berlin (London: I. B. Tauris, 1999), pp. 47, 74–5; Leopold to Alice, 3 August 1870, HSA D24 Letters from Leopold. 124. QVJ, 3 April 1871, p. 86; 8 April 1871, p. 92; 16 April 1871, p. 98; 27 May 1871, p. 136; 31 May 1871, p. 140. 125. Ponsonby, Letters, p. 125; QVJ, 28 June 1871, pp. 162–6. See Wemyss, Morier, 2: p. 246 for his similar impassivity. 126. QVJ, 31 July 1871, p. 203. 127. Victoria to Victoria, 3 March 1875 and 16 April 1875 in Roger Fulford, ed., Darling Child: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1871–1878 (London: Evans Bros, 1976), pp. 173, 178; Victoria to Augusta, 20 November 1873 in Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 200. See generally Kennedy, Rise, pp. 106–9; Urbach, Russell, pp. 159–60, 169. 128. Buckle, Letters, 2: pp. 313–14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

75

129. Ponsonby, Letters, p. 140; Wemyss, Morier, 2: p. 346. 130. Ponsonby, Empress Frederick, pp. 218–19. 131. Arthur Gould Lee, ed., The Empress Frederick Writes to Sophie, Her Daughter, Princess and Later Queen of the Hellenes: Letters, 1889-1901 (London: Faber and Faber, 1955), p. 83; Frank Lorenz Müller, Our Fritz: Emperor Frederick III and the Political Culture of Imperial Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011), p. 38. 132. Victoria to Crown Princess Victoria, 4 October 1866, HHA. 133. Lee, Empress Frederick, p. 183; Ponsonby, Letters, p. 136. 134. Jonathan Petropoulos, ‘The Hessians and the British Royals’, in Urbach, ed., Royal Kinship, pp. 153–9. 135. Kennedy, ‘My Dear Duchess’, pp. 96, 144; Maxwell, Clarendon, 2: p. 232. 136. Eckhart C. Franz, ‘Hof und Hofgesellschaft in Grossherzogtum Hessen’, in Möckl, ed., Hof, pp. 159–64. 137. Alice to Alexandrine, 21 October 1860, CSA, LA A 8709/2, f. 48. 138. Fulford, Dearest Mama, p. 202. 139. Gerard Noel, Princess Alice: Queen Victoria’s Forgotten Daughter (London: Constable, 1974), p. 116; QVJ, 27 April 1863, p. 161; ‘Bender, Ferdinand’, https://www.darmstadt-stadtlexikon.de/b/bender-ferdinand. html; QVJ, 31 March 1880, pp. 97–9; 30 April 1884, p. 150; 25–26 April 1885, pp. 153–7; Thomas Teignmouth Shore, Some Recollections (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1911), p. 104. 140. QVJ, 1 May 1892, p. 154; 28 April 1895, p. 120. 141. Eckhart C. Franz, ‘Victorias Schwester in Darmstadt: Grossherzogin Alice von Hesse und bei Rhein’, in Rainer von Hessen, ed., Victoria Kaiserin Friedrich: Mission und Schicksal einer englischen Prinzessin in Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2002), p. 87. 142. Wellesley, Cowley, p. 285. 143. Victoria to Alexandrine, 1 August 1872 and 24 November 1873, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, ff. 1122, 1138. 144. Noel, Alice, p. 181; Rowland Prothero, Whippingham to Westminster: The Reminiscences of Lord Ernle (London: John Murray, 1938), pp. 61–2. 145. Noel, Alice, pp. 186–7; letters from Strauss and Ernest Renan to Alice, 11 March 1870, HSA, D24 1814, ff. 108–18 and 119. 146. Dean of Windsor and Hector Bolitho, eds, Later Letters of Lady Augusta Stanley, 1864–1876: Including many Unpublished Letters to and from Queen Victoria and Correspondence with Dean Stanley, her Sister, Lady Frances Baillie, and Others (London: Jonathan Cape, 1929), p. 166.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

76 147. 148. 149. 150.

151. 152.

153. 154.

155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166.

Queen Victoria QVJ, 2 June 1878, p. 273; 17 July 1878, p. 30. QVJ, 29 May 1873, p. 162. QVJ, 5 June 1873, p. 169. Noel, Alice, p. 242; Theodore Martin, Queen Victoria as I Knew Her (London: William Blackwood, 1901), pp. 115–16; Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland: Biographical Sketch and Letters (London: John Murray, 1884), pp. 295–6, 326. Aimé-Jules Dalou, Angel and Children (1878), RCIN 64069; QVJ, 29 May 1876, p. 130; 29 June 1877, p. 180; 28 June 1878, p. 5. Alice, Grand Duchess, pp. 384–6; Shore, Recollections, pp. 57–8, 65. See Charles Bullock, England’s Royal Home, the Home Life of the Prince Consort, Memorials of the Princess Alice (London, 1879), p. 133; John Thomas Jeffcock, A Middle Class and Other Sermons (London: Bemrose and Sons, 1881), p. 80 for popular reception of these claims. Alice, Grand Duchess, 2: pp. 370–4; QVJ, 18 November 1878, p. 155; 27 November 1878, p. 167. QVJ, 14 December 1878, pp. 194–8; Richard Hough, ed., Advice to a Grand-Daughter: Letters from Queen Victoria to Princess Victoria of Hesse (London: Heinemann, 1975), p. 9; Victoria to Alexandrine, 26 December 1878, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, f. 1218. QVJ, 14 December 1878, p. 198; 17 December 1878, p. 206. QVJ, 24 November 1880, p. 91; 21 April 1884, p. 133. Hough, Advice, p. 21; QVJ, 17 April 1884, p. 125; 25 April 1884, p. 137; 27 April 1885, p. 140; firescreen (1884), RCIN 34002. Alice, Grand Duchess, p. 386. W. H. Lyttelton to Alice, HSA, D24 1814. Bullock, Royal Home, p. 134; Shore, Recollections, pp. 67, 72, 80; QVJ, 1 May 1884, p. 153. See correspondence in LPL, Tait Papers 409, ff. 161, 165–70, 178, 216; Lee, Empress Frederick, p. 83. Shore, Recollections, pp. 148, 151. Ponsonby, Empress Frederick, p. 287. Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 177; Schönpflug, Heiraten, p. 241; Urbach, Victoria, p. 103; Buckle, Letters, 1: pp. 632–3. Dudley Bahlman, ed., The Diary of Sir Edward Walter Hamilton, 1880–1885 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 133. Fulford, Darling Child, pp. 103–4; Bolitho, Later Letters, p. 178.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Meine zweite Heimat

77

167. QVJ, 8 July 1894, p. 9; 2 November 1894, p. 115; 24 December 1897, p. 169; Mary Lutyens, ed., Lady Lytton’s Court Diary: 1895–1899 (London: R. Hart-Davis, 1961), p. 79. 168. Davidson’s Journal, 11 December 1892, LPL, Davidson Papers 578, f. 34. 169. Victor Mallet, ed., Life with Queen Victoria: Marie Mallet’s Letters from Court, 1887–1901 (London: John Murray, 1968), p. 52; Lee, Empress Frederick, p. 73. 170. Victoria to Boyd Carpenter, 22 June 1888, BL Add MS 46 719 (III), f. 56; A. C. Benson, Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1901), 2: p. 211. 171. Müller, Our Fritz; QVJ, 18 December 1890, p. 188. 172. Bolitho, Further Letters, p. 270; QVJ, 31 December 1888, p. 170; John Röhl, ‘Die Kaiserwitwe als Kritikerin der persönlichen Monarchie Wilhelms I’, in von Hessen, Victoria, pp. 208–24. 173. Victoria to Alexandrine, 3 December and 29 December 1888, CSA, Nachlass Louise Segschneider 29, ff. 1309–10. 174. See Stefan Samerski, ed., Wilhelm II und die Religion: Facetten einer Persönlichkeit und ihres Umfelds (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2001) on his religion; Lothar Reinermann, Der Kaiser in England: Wilhelm II in sein Bild in der britischen Offentlichkeit (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 2001), pp. 41–56, 97. 175. David Cannadine, ‘Kaiser Wilhelm II and the British Monarchy’, in Tim Blanning and David Cannadine, eds, History and Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996), p. 193; Louise Creighton, The Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton (2 vols, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1904), 2: pp. 404–5; LPL, Lang Papers 223, f. 70–1. 176. Randall Davidson, Private Journal, LPL, Davidson Papers 578, ff. 87–8; H. D. A. Major, The Life and Letters of William Boyd Carpenter (London: John Murray, 1925), pp. 239–45, 250; Shore, Recollections, p. 290. 177. Nancy Johnson, ed., The Diary of Gathorne Hardy, Later Lord Cranbrook, 1866–1892: Political Selections (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 725. 178. QVJ, 17 April 1893, p. 118; 4 August 1900, p. 283.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

3 Religion in Common Life

‘It is comparatively easy to be religious in the church—to collect our thoughts and compose our feelings, and enter, with an appearance of propriety and decorum, into the offices of religious worship, amidst the quietude of the Sabbath, and within the still and sacred precincts of the house of prayer.’ Yet ‘to be religious in the world’—in the ‘countingroom, the manufactory, the market-place, the field, the farm’—this was the ‘great difficulty of the Christian calling’. John Caird’s sermon on ‘Religion in Common Life’, which became a celebrated text after he preached it before Victoria and Albert one Balmoral Sunday in 1855, going into many editions and a German translation with a preface by Christian Bunsen, suggested that a failure to define religiosity prevented his society from being truly religious. His proposed definition emphasized not doctrine but commitment: the ‘art of being, and of doing, good’, not in ‘the closet, but the world’. Such a religion broke down the distinction between sacred and secular; religion was not ‘doing spiritual or sacred acts’, but ‘doing secular acts from a sacred or spiritual motive’.1 Piety was ‘not for Sundays only, but for all days’: rejecting the terms ‘profane’ and ‘unclean’, Caird argued that ‘a Christ-like spirit will Christianise everything it touches’ and ‘transmute’ worldly things, ‘like coarse fuel at the touch of a fire, into a pure and holy flame’. Caird’s synthesis of opposites reflected his idealist rejection of unsustainable antitheses for fluid continuities: his hearers should follow St Paul in making religion as natural as ‘breathing’. Although he strongly gendered his call to ‘constant, unobtrusive earnestness, amidst the commonplace work of the world’, even warning against ‘effeminate piety’, Victoria recorded that his words ‘electrified’ her.2 Victoria aligned herself with powerful currents in Victorian religion by obeying Caird’s call to ‘Christianise what is secular’ and find

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

79

religion in common life. It is a truism that perceptions of what she called ‘our happy domestic home’ fuelled her growing popularity.3 Albert’s German secretary Ernst Becker noticed that the first thing greeting visitors to the Balmoral estate was a sign marked ‘Private’. It showed him that while the Queen was ‘merely the highest private individual she has in consequence in the hearts of each of her subjects a realm that no one can disturb’.4 The extensive mediatization of images of Victoria’s domesticity in paintings, photographs, and print made it public property—a spectacle of intimacy.5 Yet if her family values appealed to an evangelically tinged public opinion, which regarded domestic virtue as essential to the performance of public duties, they also advanced the argument of Caird and other liberal Protestants about what religion was. The royal family was a holy family. The idealization by the Tractarians of the celibate religious life had provoked liberal Protestants to reject a two-track religiosity of sacred and profane, and to argue that marriage and the home were the highest expressions of religious piety. Although Victoria’s family religion was founded on the church’s liturgy and sacraments, she followed this alternative grounding of the sacred. Although her piety had liberal Protestant wellsprings, different religious constituencies could read their own meanings into the weddings and christenings and—as later chapters illustrate—funerals celebrated by her family. The religion of common life operated not just in the home, but in the world. Mindful of Caird’s injunction that religion was not just a Sunday thing, Victoria was an obdurate opponent of Sabbatarianism—the belief that the Christian Sunday was the Jewish Sabbath and thus uniquely holy. Under Albert’s influence, she wanted to advance enlightenment about the natural world too. That meant withdrawing cooperation from calling state fast days, which sought to persuade God to intervene against pestilence and famine. In her aversion to bracketing God off from His world, Victoria set herself against what evangelicals wanted from a sovereign. And so here too her personal piety was not just a flat mirror of Victorian religion, but represented a liberal Protestant view of how it should be defined. Bringing the Church Home: Victoria and Domestic Religion Victoria and Albert’s preference for worshipping in private was an early indication of their determination to incorporate the church into

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

80

Queen Victoria

the home. Although the Chapel Royal had been remodelled for their wedding, Victoria found it ‘ugly’ and seldom went there, and she resented the public’s weakness for ogling her at her devotions.6 In September 1844, ‘a fashionable and gay assemblage’ rammed the Highlands parish Kirk of Blair Athole and stood as Victoria entered, a ‘piece of indecorum which was rebuked by the hushing of the better disposed part of the congregation’.7 In later decades, tourists with opera glasses wrecked services at Crathie Kirk near Balmoral Castle, one Englishwoman even curtsying to her as she rose from the communion table. She moved prayers inside the castle, kitting out a ‘service room’ with Raphael engravings and an American organ on which her daughter Beatrice played hymns.8 The privatization of her worship happened earliest in England, with prayers taking place in the dining room and music room at Windsor Castle before the construction of private chapels there and at Buckingham Palace under Albert’s careful direction.9 Osborne House’s seclusion on the Isle of Wight made a private chapel less pressing there and so they adopted the diminutive parish church of St Mildred’s, Whippingham. Victoria was devoted both to St Mildred’s and its long-serving vicar, the liberalminded George Prothero.10 Although Albert redesigned its chancel and added a royal pew, it struck visitors as humble enough.11 After attending Alfred’s memorial service there in 1900, Victoria’s lady in waiting Marie Mallet mused that ‘only the booming of the Minute guns from the Australia in the Bay . . . distinguish[ed] it from a similar service for the lowliest of her subjects. I suppose our Court is the simplest in Europe, but its very simplicity is dignified and touching.’12 A chapel was finally opened for worship on Christmas Day 1883, Victoria kitting it out with expensive ecclesiastical furniture.13 The private chapels, especially at Windsor, where visiting preachers went eyeball to eyeball with Victoria in her elevated box seat, were a shop window for clerical talent.14 They also established the household as a religious unit. Days at Windsor began with the household rattling through Morning Prayer. Albert’s secretary Ernst Becker found it as cacophonous as a yeshiva (Judenschule) and Lucy Lyttelton sniffed that there was ‘no chanting, except in very bad style to the responses to the Commandments, disagreeable tunes to inferior hymns, sung in a drawl, and the Morning Service divided in two’.15 The Bishop of London, though, told Victoria he was ‘so pleased’ that ‘the Royal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life 16

81

servants had a place of worship to go to’. Though private, friends and courtiers used the chapels for rites of passage, while images of them circulated widely in the press and in guides to her life and reign.17 A sobersides like Lord Shaftesbury had turned down Sir Robert Peel’s offer of a place in the household because he dreaded a ‘Court life’. Yet Victoria and Albert established the court as a constellation of godly homes.18 Their preference for houses built to their own requirements was one indication of that. Victoria got the keys to Osborne House on the Isle of Wight in September 1846, requesting ‘god’s blessing on our new home, & all its inmates & may He allow as to enjoy it in peace & comfort for many many years to come!’ It soon became a ‘little paradise’.19 The obsessive documentation of Osborne House and other homes in watercolours, then photographs was an indication of their status as microcosms of their virtuous kingdom. When Victoria’s daughter Alice moved to Darmstadt after her marriage, she took with her a photograph album that thickly documented her English homes and embarked, with her mother’s financial support, on the construction of her Neues Palais, whose layout privileged comfort and seclusion.20 Victoria’s Anglican clergy worried that religion was diminished by its retreat into the palace. When Archibald Campbell Tait visited the Buckingham Palace chapel for the christening of Albert Edward’s son, he sniffed that ‘it has now become something of a hybrid between a Conservatory and a drawing Room. However for a bright ceremonial such as one of this day it looked well.’21 It had never quite outgrown its origins as George IV’s glasshouse, tricked out with columns from his demolished Carlton House.22 Marie Mallet, who attended the amateurishly performed wedding of Albert Edward’s daughter Louise to the Earl of Fife there in 1889, remarked acidly that the alabaster pulpit functioned as a ‘gigantic “cache pot” ’ to the palms placed around it.23 This ecclesiastical dilettantism was an ironic echo of George IV, who had carved private chapels out of a Brighton Pavilion ballroom and a porters’ lodge in Windsor Great Park.24 Before the christening of the Prince of Wales, Charles Blomfield the Bishop of London had put his foot down, advising Sir Robert Peel that it must take place in public, which was actually a departure from royal practice. Eventually Peel inserted a statement in The Times that the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

82

Queen Victoria

‘personal act’ of the Queen had selected St George’s Chapel, Windsor, so aroused did public feeling seem to be.25 This privatization of religion fostered Victoria’s domestication of the sacraments. The young Queen did remain devoted to prayer book religion, as a sumptuously gilded Book of Common Prayer commissioned for the Windsor private chapel illustrates.26 Although this was a Whig and German court, some of Victoria’s first ladies in waiting, notably Mary Bulteel and Charlotte Canning, were high church and she shared their attachment to the sacraments.27 The Eucharist was inseparable from her married happiness. She had found it ‘fine & solemn’ to take it in the Chapel Royal while awaiting Albert’s arrival in England, and later felt ‘all that this blessed service means’ after taking it with him as her husband.28 In January 1841, and now with a baby daughter, Victoria and Albert both ‘felt the great solemnity of the service, & how near it brings us to our Blessed Saviour, who died for us’.29 This devotion continued unabated for years. After fleeing from the Chartists to the Isle of Wight, Victoria took Easter communion in 1848 at Whippingham Church, praying for ‘the maintenance of quiet in this country’ and for ‘our own great domestic happiness, which is the bright spot’. She took communion again on the last day of that ‘most eventful & melancholy year’.30 For decades, communion sealed the family’s unity and preserved it from danger. In January 1875, she was almost overwhelmed as her haemophiliac son Leopold took communion on his sick bed, ‘lying there, almost like death, holding his small [prayer] book, with his poor wasted hands’.31 Victoria’s sacramentalism as a young married woman reflected the influence of Albert’s high church chaplain Samuel Wilberforce, who remained a favourite of theirs until the late 1840s, when his prevarication in ecclesiastical controversy caused them to see him as a fellow traveller with the Tractarians. She was not alone in her fascination with Wilberforce, whose mourning for his recently deceased wife lent him a holy aura and the sincerity Victoria demanded in preachers. Lady Lyttelton confessed that ‘if such a Hindoo were to be found, I think he would go far to convert me and lead me to Juggernaut’.32 In December 1841, Victoria read his Eucharistica, an anthology of Caroline divines, whose suggestion that the ‘inner life of piety’ could not flourish without sacramental ‘means of grace’ led her to other ‘old books (200 years old)’ of Anglican devotionalism.33 Victoria’s

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

83

summaries of Wilberforce’s Eucharistic sermons reveal the impact of his vision of the sacrament as a sanctification of togetherness: Christ could sympathise with us, as He had so greatly suffered Himself; & having loved & lived in His Family, it was right for us to do the same . . . by Christ’s coming down to save us, & our firm belief in Him, our life was one of the utmost importance, all, leading to an end; that love towards one another was inculcated by Him.

Only occasionally did Wilberforce come across as ‘too dogmatic’.34 Again and again, his skill in couching doctrine in experiential terms aroused Victoria. Feeling ‘limp & depressed’ in May 1843, she perked up when he expatiated ‘beautifully on Christ being ever near us’.35 In April 1844, he rocked her with a sermon on the ‘Passion of our Blessed Saviour, showing with what patience & endurance He went through all these horrible sufferings, all, for our sakes!’36 Though Wilberforce poured scorn on ‘worldly people’, his soteriology was rooted in this world, emphasizing the ‘opportunities of resisting temptations, evil thoughts, hasty words, &c—by doing His will & performing our duty in the smallest spheres & degrees’. As he urged in one of his ‘finest sermons’, the way to ‘gain salvation, was little by little’.37 The confirmation of Victoria’s children and their first acts of communion were consequently solemn occasions. She subjected her children to searching examinations before the Archbishop of Canterbury, ordering the confirmation charges to be printed and sent to absent relatives.38 Photographs by William Bambridge, a trusted court photographer, fixed the solemnity of these occasions: the candidate for confirmation stands alone with a prayer book or Bible, then kneels, head bowed, at an altar rail improvised in the studio. The girls are resplendent in the white dresses of purity.39 These photographs realized the interiority that the evangelical Archbishop Sumner demanded of the royal children in one of his charges, in which the ‘outward means’ of the communion rite symbolized without superseding ‘private intercourse between the soul and its Heavenly Lord’. Victoria distributed them to friends and family while also commissioning paintings, which represent the rite as occurring in the heart of the worshipping family and household.40 The role of the Eucharist was never stronger than after Albert’s death. Victoria was not alone in feeling that the sacrament was not just a horizontal bond between

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

84

Queen Victoria

living worshippers but a vertical tie to the beloved dead.41 Her cousin George, Duke of Cambridge thanked God ‘for His great mercy’ in allowing him to take communion with his wife Louisa just before her death in January 1889. Too sad to celebrate Christmas that December, he took the sacrament in memory of this act of ‘great comfort and consolation’, just as he had some years earlier after the death of his mistress Louisa Beauclerk.42 The confirmations and first communions of Albert’s younger children in his absence likewise deeply moved Victoria.43 At Leopold’s, in 1869, Victoria was convinced that Albert ‘surely has watched over & blessed his boy on these 2 solemn days’.44 She felt Beatrice’s confirmation, the last to take place, the most deeply, revelling at seeing her stand in her white silk dress before the altar of Whippingham Church in devotional attitudes later recreated for a photographer.45 Victoria was ‘nearly upset’ as the congregation sang ‘Lord shall Thy servant come to Thee?’46 No less solemn a sacrament, baptism was even more a family affair. Victoria and Albert continued royal custom in performing christenings in private domestic settings. In Charles Leslie’s painting of Vicky’s baptism, the gilt and crimson of the Buckingham Palace throne room, ‘handsomely fitted up as a Chapel’, dominate the image.47 The only ecclesiastical marker is the newly purchased Lily Font, whose putti and lilies were decidedly secular emblems of purity, and which was used in all future royal baptisms.48 Albert Edward’s christening in St George’s, Windsor was admittedly a markedly ecclesiastical and public event which was commemorated in a grand canvas by George Hayter.49 Alice’s, though, in the private chapel at Buckingham Palace reverted to amateurish domesticity. Archbishop Howley forgot to ask the child’s baptismal names and the service was delayed when pages of the prayer book got stuck together.50 If some paintings of later christenings represent them as ecclesiastical occasions, taking place before the Buckingham Palace chapel altar, others return to domestic visions of the sacrament. In George Housman Thomas’s painting of the Lutheran christening of Alice’s daughter Victoria, Ferdinand Bender of Darmstadt, Walbaum of the German Chapel, and the Lily Font are the only ecclesiastical referents, but the light which suffuses the drawing room suggests a pervasive spirituality.51 Baptism added ‘interesting’ foreign protégés to Victoria’s Christian family.52 In 1852, Victoria and her children assembled for the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

85

christening of Shazader Gouramma, the ‘dear, pretty girl of eleven’ who had accompanied her father, the deposed Maharaja of Coorg, to court.53 Victoria’s christening presents to her of a Bible and a bracelet both feature in the portrait of her that year by Franz Xaver Winterhalter (more commonly employed as a chronicler of Victoria’s biological family), counteracting the exoticism of her native dress. The simple wooden cross hanging around Gouramma’s neck in Baron Marochetti’s colourized marble bust of her, which Victoria presented to Albert as a Christmas gift three years later, likewise marks her incorporation at once into the family and to Christianity.54 Princess Gouramma, who took the baptismal name Victoria, now belonged to her godmother, who soon intervened to prevent her father removing her from her governess.55 The christening of Duleep Singh’s son as Victor Albert in March 1867 likewise confirmed the domestication of this Sikh ruler, who had been deposed as a child before converting to Christianity and being sent to Victoria’s court. It had been ‘like a dream’, Victoria wrote in January 1855, to find him in their pew at the chapel in Windsor, listening attentively to Arthur Penrhyn Stanley preach.56 Having married a missionary’s adopted daughter, Singh associated his royal sponsors with missionary projects. He brought Albert to Limehouse to lay the foundation stone of a missionary institution, the Asiatic Strangers House, with Gouramma present to hand him the trowel.57 Even after his father’s eventual flight from Britain and rejection of Christianity in 1886, Victor Albert Singh remained close enough to his godmother to request financial backing for his marriage to a peer’s daughter.58 Victoria also stood as godmother to the son of one of the Māori who visited her in 1863. Photographic cartes de visite of Hariata Pomare for distribution back in New Zealand modelled her, her husband, and son Albert Victor on Victoria and Albert. After Victoria’s protégée Sarah Bonetta Forbes, a Christian convert and former slave from Dahomey, married a black businessman and moved to Sierra Leone, Victoria became godmother to her first daughter Victoria, while Princess Beatrice later did the same for her daughter Beatrice.59 Baptism did not though merely consecrate the asymmetries of empire. Kamehameha IV, the pious King of the Sandwich Islands, a man so keen to introduce Anglicanism to his kingdom that he spent years translating the Book of Common Prayer into Hawaiian, prevailed on Victoria to act as godmother

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

86

Queen Victoria

to his short-lived son Albert Edward. His widow Emma later became a correspondent and guest of her fellow widow Victoria.60 The ‘Silver Links of Earthly Love’: Marriage and the Family Marriage may not have been an Anglican sacrament, but marriages were fraught with religious significance for Victoria. Her nuptial spirituality made Albert a gift from, even a viceroy for God. ‘No wife ever loved & worshipped her husband as I do! May God bless & ever protect him & may we long be spared to one another!’ she exclaimed on one wedding anniversary. Appropriately enough, her band celebrated the day with Albert’s hymn and melodies from Meyerbeer’s Prophète and Mendelssohn’s Paul.61 She religiously celebrated her wedding day after his death, receiving on her golden wedding anniversary a prayer book from Beatrice with lines written by Tennyson for the occasion: ‘Remembering Him who waits thee far away / And with thee, Mother, taught us first to pray, / Accept on this your golden bridal-day / The Book of Prayer’.62 Broad churchmen like Tennyson shared with Victoria a kind of ‘Christian nuptialism’, in which the ties of earthly love were analogous to the direct bond between God and believer and excluded the need for the kind of priestly mediation upon which Tractarians and Roman Catholics insisted. Charles Kingsley’s The Saint’s Tragedy, which tells of Elizabeth of Hungary’s downfall at the hands of her celibate confessor, struck Victoria and Albert as a piquant expression of these convictions.63 Its ‘inner spirit’, wrote Albert, was the claim that ‘the substitution of doctrines made by stupid men for laws of God-made nature is the core of Catholicism’.64 Victoria and Albert’s private bliss was public property. Shaftesbury noted that while Victoria’s coronation had been an affair of ‘splendour and numbers’, marriage was ‘domestic’ and engaging for all.65 Preachers of all doctrinal persuasions reminded their congregations that a Protestant God blessed families.66 This sanctification of marriage was a staple of later royal weddings, their ceremonial patterned on Victoria’s, with the brides wearing myrtle and orange blossom plucked from the balmy terraces of Osborne House.67 When the Crown Princess Victoria married in February 1858, Shaftesbury told her mother that ‘all classes’ were united in feeling ‘as if it had been one of their own daughters being married’.68 Thomas Ball

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

87

reminded the congregation of St Andrew’s, Holborn that the ‘Home of virtuous love’ was an ‘oasis . . . the green spot, in the desert’ and urged that their ‘laudable interest’ in the marriage should strengthen the harmony of husbands and wives and lead them to union with ‘your dearly beloved Saviour’.69 Albert Edward’s wedding in 1863 occasioned still greater enthusiasm. Vast crowds greeted his Danish bride Alexandra on her arrival in England, while the wedding gifts drew thousands when displayed at the Kensington Museum.70 Interrupting Victoria’s widowed seclusion, the wedding in St George’s Chapel, Windsor was subdued, but inspired hopes that it might lead ‘the man in the omnibus’ to renewed enthusiasm for monarchy.71 For Victoria’s lady in waiting Lucy Lyttelton, the wedding was a princely edition of a universal ritual, with ‘solemn words, which bless quiet marriages in little country churches, spoken here in the face of all the splendour and pomp of England’. Samuel Wilberforce’s sermon, published after being preached in Victoria’s private chapel, urged that ‘the Word of God calls us to rejoice with them that rejoice’, overcoming the ‘selfishness’ of ‘our natural hearts’. Christ had set the example: as ‘perfect Man’, he had ‘within Himself the inexhaustible resources of an allsufficing sympathy’. The ‘silver links of earthly love’ thus became a tribute to Christ’s power.72 Though some churchmen were unhappy at wedding junketings during Lent, they vied with each other to read spiritual meanings into them.73 Evangelical preachers used the Book of Revelation to present the marriage as a typological analogy of God’s bond with the nation, ‘the centre of Protestant Christianity— the radiating point of all missionary enterprise’ and were comforted that the wedding crowds had proclaimed their faith in ‘pure domestic bliss’.74 High churchmen pointed to the Incarnation, which was for Christopher Wordsworth ‘the holiest of all marriages: He had come forth as a Bridegroom of his chamber to join our human Nature in a mystical union to the Nature of God’. Taking place as Americans massacred one another in civil war, the wedding reminded him that the ‘Royal Throne of England possesses the noblest throne—a Throne in the Nation’s heart’.75 Later royal weddings did not match Albert Edward’s in their impact, but still served as patterns of Christian morals. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley’s sermon on Prince Alfred’s 1874 wedding in St Petersburg to the Tsar’s daughter took the Marriage at Cana as its text. Jesus

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

88

Queen Victoria

‘had not, could not have, a Home of his own’, but he surrounded himself with married men and blessed children, giving marriages ‘a new sanction and a new position in the history of mankind’ as ‘bulwarks of nations and churches’ or even as the ‘best likeness of Heaven’.76 Humbler writers vulgarized these ornate conceits, which appealed at a moment when the institution of marriage appeared to be wobbling in British society.77 The Rev. Charles Bullock marked the marriage of Victoria’s grandson the Duke of York with a pamphlet that celebrated royal weddings, impressing on his readers that ‘the Christian Home, whether for Prince or Peasant, is the most sacred spot on earth’.78 Opponents of monarchy were proof against this mystique, but their grumblings about alliances with the ‘princely sweepings of German workhouses’ were lost in the voluminous reporting on the ceremonial of these occasions.79 Victoria’s home, then, was meant to be a religious exemplar. In 1863, the Rev. Henry Villiers wrote to the mother of his recently deceased wife that as Victoria’s goddaughter she had resembled her, ‘for if there be one thing more than another which has made the Queen to be loved and respected throughout England as no Queen has ever been before it is the belief that all England has in the purity & holiness of her own home life’.80 As the son-in-law of the Prime Minister Lord John Russell, Villiers knew the court up close, but religious writers who lacked such access nonetheless decoded the built rhetoric of ‘royal homes’ for the general public.81 Victoria and Albert were keen that the labouring poor could emulate their devotion to the Christian home, with Albert encouraging efforts to improve workers’ housing.82 In 1851, he funded model cottages in Hyde Park as a template for philanthropists, with separate bedrooms for parents and children to safeguard the latter’s innocence.83 A quarter of a million people visited them. They were later repurposed as lodges in Kennington New Park, but the inscription over their doorway still proclaims them to be ‘Model Houses for Families Erected by H.R.H. Prince Albert’. Although Albert Edward was no one’s idea of a paterfamilias, he too became a homemaker, serving on the 1884 Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor and building model cottages at Sandringham.84 On occasions, Victoria tried to take concrete action to legislate against threats to the Christian family, lobbying the Archbishop of Canterbury to prevent the ‘horrible’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

89

publication of spicy proceedings from the divorce courts on the grounds that they could pervert innocent minds.85 Opponents of the colonial Contagious Diseases Acts, which mandated the regulation of prostitutes, asked rhetorically whether the Queen knew of their immoral operation.86 The crimes of Jack the Ripper aroused similar emotions, with East Enders petitioning their ‘Most Gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria’ to ‘call on your servants in authority and bid them to close bad houses’.87 The very confidence with which the purity crusader W. T. Stead garlanded the elderly Victoria with bizarre honorifics—the ‘incarnate Genius of Womanly Compassion’, a ‘secular Archbishop of all Britain, or even a lay Humanitarian Pontiff of the British Empire’—stored up trouble for her heir apparent.88 Victoria had married off Albert Edward as quickly as possible from fear that the monarchy would ‘soon totter if our sons were to be like the old generation!’89 It proved impossible though to keep him away from ‘horrid people’. His involvement in the Mordaunt divorce trial mortified her, as did his participation in horse racing.90 To the Prince’s frustration, the ‘Low Church, especially the Nonconformists’ harried him for favouring this ‘manly sport’, just as they condemned his gambling.91 One Welsh Calvinist Methodist thundered that ‘when this man shall be the Head of the State Church and Defender of the Faith . . . all the shameful and empty pleasures which have been associated with [him] will have substantial and open encouragement’.92 The republican movement that reached its apogee in the late 1860s and early 1870s turned Victoria’s moral sceptre into a stick with which to beat the Prince. Though the 1872 Thanksgiving for the Prince’s recovery from typhoid fever was widely thought to have dished republicans, many a preacher profited from it to lecture him on his conduct, and Protestant martinets continued to target him thereafter.93 Teetotallers were cross when he visited a retirement home for publicans in Peckham, South London, even though Albert had once been its patron.94 They even sniped at Victoria, one Canadian temperance paper thundering that the heavy consumption of whisky recorded in Victoria’s Scottish journals was ‘far from exemplary’.95 If religious readers were eager consumers of details about Victoria’s family life, their expectation that it be ‘exemplary’ was then a constraint as well as an asset—as Victoria’s discomfort with the Victorian Sunday further illustrates.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

90

Queen Victoria

‘Remember the Sabbath’: Victoria and Sabbatarianism Landing on Guernsey on a Sunday in 1859, Victoria observed a ‘band playing, guns saluting, — people cheering, — certainly not like a “Sabbath”, but very harmless, I am sure’.96 The local cleric William Brock took a diametrically opposed view, accusing her in a pamphlet of having undermined the Sabbath—her landing had actually emptied the island’s main church during morning prayer and masked the sound of its bells with celebratory cannon fire. Brock saw himself as an Elijah, charged with bringing kings to heel. His millenarian interpretation of the New Testament lent force to his reading of the Old: Christ was returning to earth soon and would hold Christians answerable for violations of divine law.97 Brock belonged to a well-drilled evangelical phalanx which sought to pass laws to restrict business and pleasure on Sunday, which they regarded as the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Sabbath.98 Yet Sunday divided Victorians from themselves and each other, for a no less eloquent lobby contended that Christians should encourage the harmless enjoyment of the day. The governor of Guernsey had excoriated Brock for his pamphlet, while in the same year the National Sunday League presented Victoria with a petition, requesting her to countenance opening museums on Sunday afternoons so that fagged workers could turn their thoughts to the ‘beauties of the Universe, and to its Creator’.99 Although Victoria and Albert had initially been cautious to avoid unseemly Sunday amusements, especially on trips to the Continent, she was no Sabbatarian. The ‘most extreme views on the religious observance of “The Day of the Lord” ’ that proliferated in Britain were, she told Augusta of Prussia, ‘views which I never could share’.100 Like Albert, she thought the happy families smoking and chatting in the public gardens of Coburg ‘infinitely preferable to the dull, drunken Sundays in England & Scotland’.101 In June 1850, she shared Lord John Russell’s view that a proposal to ban Sunday postal deliveries was ‘Jewish & not Christian’ and was just as scathing about Lord Robert Grosvenor’s 1855 bill to restrict Sunday trading, commenting that they should ‘leave the poor people alone, who work all the week round & who require innocent recreation on a Sunday! That system of making a fast day of this day in England, has risen to such a pitch, that people will stand it no longer’.102 The riot in Hyde Park that followed

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

91 103

the passage of the bill vindicated her judgement. She similarly urged her Prime Minister to use the ‘Queen’s name’ in withstanding evangelical lobbying against a military band playing on Sundays in Kensington Gardens.104 Reading liberal evangelical critiques of Sabbatarianism by Frederick William Robertson and her Scottish Presbyterian chaplain Norman Macleod strengthened Victoria’s instincts and she was disgusted when another of her chaplains claimed Macleod was under ‘Satan’s inspiration’.105 Awareness of Victoria’s heresies on the Sabbath aroused criticism in Scotland. On the eve of her 1844 visit, the crusading Sabbatarian Sir Andrew Agnew wrote an open letter in which he reminded the Queen that she was heading to a ‘strict Sabbath-observing country’ and should behave accordingly. Agnew’s prayer that God move Victoria to ‘hallow the holy day of the Sabbath’ led newspapers to denounce him as a ‘man of pattern impudence’, but Scottish scrupulosity was abiding.106 In September 1877, John Robertson of Wick wrote to condemn her for profaning the Lord’s Day by sailing on Loch Maree, ‘thus finding your own pleasure in that Holy Day and breaking the Divine command as binding on your Majesty as on any of your subjects’. In words that aroused both amusement and disgust in Victoria’s liberal Presbyterian advisers, he commended her to seek ‘forgiveness through the God of heaven, through the blood of His Lord Jesus Christ’.107 Yet while Victoria did not believe in the inherent sacredness of Sunday, she never questioned its status as a day of rest and worship. Just before the Prince of Wales toured India in 1874, she prodded Archbishop Tait into making sure that he would not take part in junkets on Sundays.108 By the end of her reign, her advisers identified her with the defence of Sunday against commercial pressures.109 In 1898, the Dean of Windsor Randall Davidson enlisted Victoria’s support against plans to publish newspapers seven days a week—a ‘serious inroad on the day of rest’ for the printers.110 Salisbury reminded her that any intervention would be ‘taking sides in a popular dispute’, which set a dwindling ‘rigid party’ against the increasingly unbuttoned upper and lower classes. After he insisted that Victoria keep her distance from the ‘huge fanatical body’ that heated themselves over the Sabbath, she backed down.111 In allowing younger relatives to play tennis at Balmoral on a Sunday, provided they collected the balls themselves, Victoria was concerned to protect

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

92

Queen Victoria

servants without falling into Sabbatarian rigour.112 Sabbatarians eventually claimed Victoria as their own, however, still reproving her ‘laxity’ but balancing their criticism with such improving anecdotes as her refusal to do paperwork on Sundays.113 In 1890, an Ottawa Congregationalist inveighed against holding Sunday hockey matches at the Governor-General’s residence, feeling sure that ‘Her Majesty would not allow such a thing in the grounds of Windsor Castle’.114 The confidence was as striking as it was misplaced. ‘Darwin’s Pigeons’: Victoria and Natural Laws In Edwin Landseer’s painting The Baptismal Font (1872), three doves treat an abandoned font as a holy birdbath, sending up plumes of water, while lambs jostle against its base. Perhaps they are allegories of redeemed Christians and the doves are the Holy Spirit—by planting a font on a green hillside, Landseer prompted viewers to reflect that nature as well as the sacraments are divine.115 Victoria snapped up this masterpiece of ecclesiastical kitsch, which her friend Baroness Burdett-Coutts, the president of the Ladies’ Committee for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, had commissioned. A loyal patron of Landseer, Victoria bought paintings from him that evoked the nobility of animal passions, particularly such images of canine devotion as Victoria, Princess Royal, with Eos, in which Albert’s greyhound watches over the infant princess, hanging it in the nursery at Osborne House.116 The royal couple also bought The Sanctuary, in which a stag of sorrows wades into a loch resplendent with light from the setting sun.117 Victoria’s Landseers evoke a crucial aspect of what it meant to locate religion in common life: a veneration of nature. Victoria had absorbed an interest in the religious value of scientific knowledge from the liberal Whigs to whom she listened as a young woman. The Whiggish Bishop of Norwich Edward Stanley preached to her ‘about God’s being a spirit & about this being present everywhere, which the Bishop observed, only too many forgot; he also said that God could be worshipped everywhere, not only in Church’.118 Gazing at the sea off Osborne on a balmy August night in 1851, Victoria felt that she was looking at the ‘autograph work of God’.119 Few would have disagreed, but Victoria and Albert aligned themselves with the Protestant avant-garde by trusting that God’s natural

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

93

handwriting might be more legible than Scripture. As Albert’s chaplain Henry George Liddell told her in a June 1852 sermon, they should avoid ‘ “splitting straws” as to how our Lord was the Son of God’ and ‘study God in His creation, which for us, His creatures, was the means of knowing & understanding Him best’.120 Albert had arrived in Britain as a disciple of the Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet, who felt that the search for deep regularities in nature was a ‘sacred task’.121 A determination to treat religion and science as convertible emerged in the couple’s approach to the education of their children, which drew on the theories of the Scottish phrenologist George Combe. His secretary Ernst Becker was Combe’s former pupil and could advise on the application of phrenology to the Kopf of the unruly Prince of Wales, while Albert’s library contained Combe’s manifestos on the need for universal, compulsory secular education in natural laws and broadsides against ‘Jewish’ views of God’s government as ‘special and supernatural’.122 He and Becker shared Combe’s conviction that ‘dogmas . . . actually stand in the way and retard the attainment of God’s purpose, to let man grow up in harmony with His will and with Nature’.123 In a keynote speech of 1857, Albert celebrated the power of science to dissolve sectarian antipathies and to develop the ‘self-determination’ of individuals, so that they could enter into ‘entire union with [God] through the mercy of Christ’. Two years later, he assured the delegates of the British Association for the Advancement of Science that they were ‘pious pilgrims to the Holy Land, who toil on in search of the sacred shrine, in search of truth—God’s truth—God’s laws as manifested in His works, in His creation’.124 The Great Exhibition in Hyde Park had been his attempt to build such a shrine. He and Victoria prepared for its opening with a sermon by the Dean of Windsor, which argued that it had realized the spiritual universalism of Acts 17:26 (‘And He both made of one blood all nations of men’). Victoria never forgot this ‘lofty & noble conception’ in her visits to the Exhibition and pondered its scriptural mottos: ‘The Earth is the Lord’s and all that therein is’, ‘The Compass of the World & they that dwell therein’, as well as one of Albert’s own devising: ‘The progress of the human race resulting from the labour of all men ought to be the final object of the exertion of each individual. In promoting this end we are carrying out the will of the Great & Blessed God.’125 The outpouring of evangelical writing

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

94

Queen Victoria

on the Exhibition likewise pondered its mottos, while the reassembly of the buildings as an educational complex at Sydenham became a lasting monument to them.126 If the Crystal Palace was a monument to the monarchy’s reverence for divine laws of nature and commerce, then Victoria’s acceptance that providence followed rules steeled her for conflict with those who expected her to implore God’s mercy during epidemics, famines, and wars by ordering the Church of England to observe national days of fasting and humiliation. To the frustration of evangelicals like Lord Shaftesbury, she did her best to block the calling of fast days for cholera epidemics.127 She was adamant in August 1854 that a cholera epidemic in London did not call for special prayers, which were ‘not a sign of gratitude or confidence in the Almighty’. Cholera had ‘quite decimated Newcastle’ a year earlier but there had been no prayers then—not least, it must be said, because she had resisted them.128 Albert shared these views. He admired Charles Kingsley’s novel Two Years Ago (1857), which suggested that digging drains was a godlier response to epidemics than bouts of prayer.129 When George Prothero of Whippingham urged Victoria to call a fast day to end the 1892 influenza epidemic which had killed her grandchild the Duke of Clarence, he was rebuffed.130 Archbishop Benson fumed that they might as well disestablish the Church if the Crown blocked such an event.131 Generally reluctant to accept that God could alter nature, Victoria was happier to convey thanks for its beneficent regularity, often agreeing to thanksgiving prayers for good harvests.132 What went for disease also went for war, with Victoria finding it ‘repulsive’ to call a day of humiliation in 1854 for the ‘great sinfulness of the nation’ when the British were fighting the ‘selfishness and ambition’ of the Tsar in the Crimea.133 When Aberdeen succumbed to Shaftesbury’s badgering and ordered a fast day, Victoria attempted to avoid the term before grudgingly going to worship in the Abbey.134 Lord Palmerston persuaded Victoria to proclaim a day of humiliation in March 1855, but exposed her to political risk in doing so, for as the leading Independent minister Thomas Binney observed, ‘The Queen, though speaking as a person, acts as an Institution’ and could be criticized accordingly. Binney could not endorse acts of national religion that Dissenters—‘more than half of the population’—could not observe, as they would involve taking dictation from a state

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

95

church. It was anyway mischievous to assume that God intervened in the world ‘by way of direct, judicial infliction’—a sentiment Victoria would have privately endorsed.135 Such criticisms put the squeeze on subsequent days of prayer. Palmerston pushed Victoria into agreeing a thanksgiving for victory in the Crimea on 4 May 1856 and obtained a day of humiliation for the Indian Mutiny a year later, although Victoria commented that she did not think they did much good. Cattle plague renewed collisions between believers in special providences and the Queen, with Archbishop Longley bouncing the government into granting a day of humiliation in March 1866.136 With General Gordon dead at a time of imperial anxiety in 1885, Shaftesbury lobbied Archbishop Benson for a gesture to avert the ‘wrath of God’. Victoria responded to Benson’s murmurs of a popular demand for a day of humiliation with the insistence that special prayers would have to do.137 True piety involved the rational pursuit of health rather than the cheap resort to prayer. In October 1857, she listened approvingly to Robert Lee, a friend of the royal physician Sir James Clark, preach on the ‘importance of taking care of our bodies & of obeying God’s laws, by trying to avert disease, misfortune & suffering, which were not intended by God to affect us,— showing that our souls & bodies were intimately connected’.138 John Tulloch reminded her that ‘the laws of health are invariable’ and that careful regard for them was not ‘Epicureanism’ but obedience to God.139 Victoria tightened the identification of monarchy with hospitals, visiting them even during her closeted widowhood.140 Her visit to Whitechapel to open a wing of the Royal London Hospital in 1876 shows how these occasions blended Christian, civic, and philanthropic motifs. Passing Blackfriars Bridge, she encountered banners whose slogans read, ‘Welcome Victoria, the friend of the afflicted’; ‘I was sick & ye visited me’ (Matthew 25:36); ‘Welcome England’s pride, Queen Victoria’. At Whitechapel, she passed under an arch with ‘Welcome’ on one side and ‘God be with you’ on the other. As Victoria mounted a dais to receive an address, the Bishop of London read a prayer and the Archbishop of Canterbury a benediction, while a choir sang one of Albert’s chorales. Victoria then made a thaumaturgic visit to the children’s ward, stroking the cheeks of burns victims.141 A commitment to funding hospitals and to nursing loomed even larger in the lives of her

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

96

Queen Victoria

daughters, with both Victoria and Alice asking Florence Nightingale to advise them on planning hospitals and nursing institutions in their new German homes.142 Pondering the ‘mystery’ of Albert’s removal with Alice in May 1863, Victoria reflected on the ‘immense good he had done in every way, — science & religion, the former being no longer scanted as heretical, & the latter making real progress’. Yet although her briefings from men of science initially continued after Albert’s death—with Charles Lyell calling on her the next day to discuss his Antiquity of Man—she began to drift away from ‘modern literature’.143 By the end of her reign, the science which was agreeable to her meant conservative defences of scientific theism by her favourites the Duke of Argyll and Arthur Balfour, which she browsed but did not read in depth.144 The disdain of leading men of science for theism alarmed her. In August 1874, she shared her concerns about John Tyndall’s Belfast address, a hymn to nature as a closed, self-organizing system, with his friend and her adviser Arthur Penrhyn Stanley. He assured her that a dollop of teleology could dispel scientific materialism, for the ‘only question of real interest to us is not the Descent of man, but the ascent of man from something much lower than we are now to something much higher’. ‘Darwin’s pigeons’ thus ‘lose their destructive character and remain only questions of curious interest, like other matters of natural history.’145 Victoria was not so confident. She told her granddaughter that ‘there is a spiritual as well as a material World & this former cannot be explained’, and now remembered Albert as an advocate of intellectual humility. ‘Dear Grandpapa used to say: “Die Vernunft geht nur so weit und wo die Vernunft aufhört da muss der Glauben anfangen” [Reason goes only so far, and where reason halts must faith begin].’146 Victoria’s conservative Protestantism looked old-fashioned to her formerly high church lady in waiting Mary Bulteel (now Ponsonby), who now found the ‘complete scepticism’ of Huxley and Tyndall bracing, or even to her daughter Victoria, whose reading of Darwin led her to muse on the origin of the world and the races of man.147 The practice of animal vivisection became for Victoria, as it was for activists such as Frances Power Cobbe, a horrible indication that science had strayed from explaining God’s creation to tampering with it.148 Victoria chewed off Lord Carnarvon’s ear about it when

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

97

she discovered that he was active on the 1875 Parliamentary commission on vivisection; a year later, Gathorne Hardy would not ‘soon forget HM’s letters on vivisection to Cross & Jenner . . . She was in real earnest.’ Although watered down, a bill to restrict vivisection was duly passed, not least thanks to Victoria leaning on Disraeli and his Home Secretary.149 A few years later, Victoria wrote to William Harcourt that she felt ‘most strongly’ on the ‘horrible, brutalizing, unchristian like Vivisection’ of monkeys and dogs, ‘two of the most intelligent among these poor animals who cannot complain’.150 Dogs had long been an obsession for Landseer’s patron. Victoria had bugged her Home Secretaries by demanding an end to muzzling of dogs— without showing much compassion for people who got bitten—and stiffer penalties for their mistreatment. As she told her secretary Henry Ponsonby in 1886, ‘nothing brutalises human beings more than cruelty to poor dumb animals, whose plaintive looks ought to melt the hardest heart’.151 Frances Power Cobbe, the leader of the extraParliamentary movement against vivisectionism, shared Victoria’s concern that ‘devilish cruelties’ were the negation of theism, but posited a distinction between humans as moral subjects and animals as their vulnerable wards.152 Victoria, though, drew no distinction between human and canine ‘loyalty’. Among the monuments to friends and relatives at Balmoral was a life-sized bronze of her sheepdog ‘Noble’ with the inscription ‘Noble by name, by nature noble too, / Faithful companion, sympathetic, true’, while her doctor James Reid recorded her belief that ‘dogs have souls and a future life’.153 Victoria had sought with Albert to frame and advertise a religion of common life. Where the sacred and the secular, the human and the animal, met for her was in the heart. Notes 1. John Caird, Religion in Common Life: A Sermon Preached in Crathie Church, Oct. 14, 1855 before Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Albert (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1855), pp. 1, 12, 15; John Caird, Die Religion im gemeinen Leben: Eine Predigt Mit einem Vorwort von Christian Carl Josias Bunsen (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1857). 2. Caird, Religion, pp. 6, 14, 18, 26. On his idealism see W. J. Mander, ‘John Caird—Theologian and Philosopher’, New Blackfriars, 80 (1999), pp. 104–6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

98

3.

4. 5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Queen Victoria and Joshua Bennett, God and Progress: Religion and History in British Intellectual Culture, 1845–1914 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2019), pp. 33–4, 86–7. Caird, Religion, p. 19; Victoria to Leopold, 29 October 1854, in A. C. Benson and Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, eds, The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1907), 2: p. 32. Lotte Hoffmann-Kuhnt, ed., Dr Ernst Becker: Briefe aus einem Leben im Dienste von Queen Victoria und ihrer Familie (Plaidt: Cardamina Verlag, 2014), p. 83. Karen Chase and Michael Levenson, The Spectacle of Intimacy: A Public Life for the Victorian Family (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2000), ch. 2; Karina Urbach, Queen Victoria: Eine Biographie (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2011), pp. 82–9. QVJ, 29 June 1891, p. 236; David Baldwin, The Chapel Royal Ancient and Modern (London: Duckworth, 1990), p. 395; William Kuhn, Democratic Royalism: The Transformation of the British Monarchy, 1861–1914 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996), pp. 42–3. ‘Her Majesty at Blair Athole’, Caledonian Mercury, 26 September 1844, p. 2. Alfred George Gardiner, The Life of William Harcourt (2 vols, London: Constable, 1923), 1: p. 460; Frank Pope Humphrey [pseud.], The Queen at Balmoral (London: T. F. Unwin, 1893), pp. 31, 34; Innes Adair, Balmoral: The Hall of Memories (Edinburgh: Printed by T. and A. Constable, 1901), pp. 10–13; Mary Lutyens, ed., Lady Lytton’s Court Diary, 1895–1899 (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1961), p. 27. Georgiana Bloomfield, Reminiscences of Court and Diplomatic Life (2 vols, London: K. Paul, Trench, 1883), 1: pp. 38, 60; QVJ, 25 March 1843, p. 119; 26 March 1843, p. 120; 19 December 1843, p. 265. A Luftwaffe bomb destroyed the Buckingham Palace chapel in 1943 and the Windsor chapel disappeared in the fire of 1992. Hoffmann-Kuhnt, Becker, p. 79. See George Prothero, The Armour of Light and Other Sermons Preached Before the Queen (London: Rivingtons, 1888). QVJ, 21 March 1855, p. 172; John Bailey, ed., The Diary of Lady Frederick Cavendish (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1927), 1: p. 197. Victor Mallet, ed., Life with Queen Victoria: Marie Mallet’s Letters from Court, 1887–1901 (London: John Murray, 1968), p. 204. QVJ, 25 December 1883, p. 252. See e.g. Louise Creighton, The Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton (2 vols, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1904), 1: pp. 100–1 for the experience of preachers.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

99

15. Hoffmann-Kuhnt, Becker, p. 46; Bailey, Cavendish, 1: p. 180. 16. QVJ, 28 March 1843, p. 123. 17. See e.g. QVJ, 20 June 1849, p. 222; 3 August 1853, p. 255; 10 September 1865, p. 260; Marquis of Lorne, Victoria RI: Her Life and Empire (London: Harmsworth, 1901), pp. 273, 329. 18. Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G. (2 vols, London: Cassell, 1886), 1: p. 246. See Monika Weinfort, ‘Dynastic Heritage and Bourgeois Morals: Monarchy and Family in the Nineteenth Century’, in Frank Lorenz Müller and Heidi Mehrkens, eds, Royal Heirs and the Uses of Soft Power in Nineteenth-Century Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 170–3. 19. QVJ, 14 September 1846, p. 129; 19 December 1847, p. 182. 20. ‘Views of Rooms, Collected 1864’, HHA D 27 A, 8; Petra Tücks, Das Darmstädter Neue Palais: ein fürstlicher Wohnsitz zwischen Historismus und Jugendstil (Darmstadt: Selbstverlag der Hessischen Historischen Kommission, 2005), p. 43. 21. LPL, Tait Papers 75, ff. 168–9. 22. Jonathan Marsden, ed., Victoria and Albert: Art & Love (London: Royal Collection, 2000), p. 187. 23. Mallet, Mallet, p. 30. 24. Nicholas Dixon, ‘George IV and William IV in their Relations with the Church of England’, English Historical Review, 134 (2019), pp. 1449–50. 25. Peel to Albert, 21 and 29 November 1841, BL Add MS 40 433, ff. 57, 66. 26. The Book of Common Prayer, RCIN 1123511. 27. See also Magdalen Ponsonby, ed., Mary Ponsonby: A Memoir, Some Letters and a Journal (London: John Murray, 1927), pp. 27–32; William Kuhn, Henry and Mary Ponsonby: Life at the Court of Queen Victoria (London: Duckworth, 2002), pp. 64, 69; Kate Hubbard, Serving Victoria: Life in the Royal Household (London: Vintage, 2012), chs 5, 11. 28. QVJ, 25 December 1839, p. 226; 19 April 1840, p. 201. Feeling ‘particularly depressed and religious’ in Coburg, Albert’s thoughts had likewise travelled to Victoria while taking communion. Kurt Jagow, ed., Letters of the Prince Consort 1831–1861 (London: John Murray, 1938), p. 43. 29. QVJ, 17 January 1841, p.19. See similarly QVJ, 11 April 1841, p. 124; 25 March 1842, p. 126; 31 December 1843, p. 282; 21 March 1845, p. 105. 30. QVJ, 21 April 1848, p. 156; 31 December 1848, p. 195.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

100

Queen Victoria

31. QVJ, 26 January 1875, p. 22. 32. Arthur Rawson Ashwell and Reginald Wilberforce, Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Revised with Additions (3 vols, London: Kegan Paul, 1888), 1: pp. 37–9, 47, 56, 61; QVJ, 26 September 1841, p. 172. 33. QVJ, 19 December 1841, p. 243; 24 September 1842, p. 145; Samuel Wilberforce, ed., Eucharistica: Meditations and Prayers on the Most Holy Eucharist: From Old English Divines, etc. (London: James Burns, 1839), p. xi. 34. QVJ, 17 July 1842, p. 25. 35. QVJ, 28 May 1843, p. 169. 36. QVJ, 5 April 1844, p. 107. 37. QVJ, 10 July 1842, p. 14; 20 April 1845, p. 146. 38. Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, ed., The Girlhood of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Diaries Between the Years 1832 and 1840 (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1912), 1: p. 125; QVJ, 20 March 1856, p. 133; 31 March 1858, p. 133; 2 April 1858, p. 137; Victoria to Leopold, 2 April 1858, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: p. 353; Ashwell and Wilberforce, Wilberforce, 1: p. 197; see e.g. Duckworth to Tait, 11 March 1869; 20 March 1869; LPL, Tait Papers 86, ff. 81–82, 90 for repeated requests for copies of a charge. 39. For photographs see e.g. William Bambridge, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales at his Coronation, RCIN 2900128 and RCIN 2900126; Prince Alfred at his Coronation, RCIN 2900275 and RCIN 2900274; Victoria, the Princess Royal, at her Confirmation, RCIN 2900072R and RCIN 2900073. 40. John Bird Sumner, A Charge Delivered at the Confirmation of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, April 1, 1858 (London: C. F. Hodgson, 1858), p. 13; Louis Haghe, Confirmation of the Princess Royal, 20 March 1856 (1856), RCIN 919804; Egron Lundgren, Confirmation of Prince Alfred, 5 April 1860 (1860), RCIN 919801. 41. Patricia Jalland, Death in the Victorian Family (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996), p. 33. 42. James Edgar Sheppard, George, Duke of Cambridge: A Memoir of his Private Life, based on the Journals and Correspondence of His Royal Highness (2 vols, London: Longman and Co., 1906), 2: pp. 207–9, 219; Giles St Aubyn, The Royal George, 1819–1904: The Life of H.R.H. Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (London: Constable, 1963), pp. 245–6. 43. QVJ, 18 April 1862, p. 96; 21 and 22 January 1865, pp. 45–6. 44. QVJ, 30 and 31 January 1869, pp. 25–7. 45. Unknown, Princess Beatrice at her Confirmation, RCIN 2905661.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

101

46. QVJ, 8 January 1874, p. 63. 47. Charles Leslie, The Christening of Victoria, Princess Royal, 10 February 1841 (1841–2), RCIN 404467; QVJ, 10 February 1841, p. 48. 48. Barnard and Co., The Lily Font, RCIN 31741; Marsden, Art & Love, p. 268. 49. QVJ, 24 January 1842, pp. 32–3; George Hayter, The Christening of The Prince of Wales, 25 January 1842 (1842–5), RCIN 403501. 50. QVJ, 2 June 1843, p. 181. 51. George Housman Thomas, The Christening of Princess Victoria of Hesse, at Windsor Castle, 27 April 1863 (1863), RCIN 451866. 52. See Barbara Caine, ‘ “My Vast Empire & all its Many Peoples”: Queen Victoria’s Imperial Family’, in Sarah Carter and Maria Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything: Queen Victoria in Indigenous Worlds (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016), pp. 125–43; Miles Taylor, Empress: Queen Victoria and India (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2018), pp. 58–63. 53. QVJ, 17 May 1852, p. 232; 30 June 1852, pp. 296–7. 54. Franz Xaver Winterhalter, Princess Gouramma (1852), RCIN 403841; Carlo, Baron Marochetti, Princess Gouramma of Coorg (1855), RCIN 41535; Marsden, Art & Love, p. 162. 55. QVJ, 2 July 1852, p. 300; 30 June 1852, pp. 296–7. 56. Victoria to Dalhousie, 2 October 1854, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: p. 61; QVJ, 28 January 1855, p. 40. 57. Joseph Salter, The Asiatic in England: Sketches of 16 Years Work Among Orientals (London: Seeley, Jackson and Halliday, 1873), pp. 10–11, 40. 58. Victor Duleep Singh to Victoria, 2 July 1897, BL MSS Eur E 377/2. 59. Chanel Clarke, ‘Māori Encounters with “Wikitoria” in 1863 and Albert Victor Pomare, her Māori Godchild’, in Carter and Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything, pp. 157–60; William Bambridge, Sally Bonetta Forbes (1856), RCIN 2906613; A. Debenham, Victoria Davies (1870), RCIN 2907192; Killick and Abbott, Mrs Victoria Randle with her Two Children (1901), RCIN 2915313. 60. Alfons L. Korn, The Victorian Visitors: An Account of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1861–1866 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1958), pp. 31, 84–5, 155; Rhoda Hackler, ‘ “My Dear Friend”: Letters of Queen Victoria and Queen Emma’, Hawaiian Journal of History, 22 (1988), p. 106. 61. QVJ, 26 August 1854, p. 88. 62. Hope Dyson and Charles Tennyson, eds, Dear and Honoured Lady: The Correspondence between Queen Victoria and Alfred Tennyson (London: Macmillan, 1969), p. 134; Book of Common Prayer, RCIN 1005106.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

102

Queen Victoria

63. Amanda Paxton, Willful Submission: Sado-Erotics and Heavenly Marriage in Victorian Religious Poetry (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2018), pp. 1–5, ch. 2. 64. Theodore Martin, The Life of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (5 vols, London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1875–80), 4: p. 340. 65. Hodder, Shaftesbury, 1: p. 290. 66. See e.g. John Stock, The Heavenly Marriage: A Sermon Occasioned by the Marriage of Queen Victoria with Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha (London: C. Lancaster, 1840), pp. 4–5; John Cumming, Sabbath Evening Readings on the New Testament: Corinthians (London, 1858), p. 500; Edward Miller, A Sermon on Ephesians v. 32, 33 Preached the First Sunday after the Marriage of Queen Victoria (Chichester, 1840), pp. 8–9, 19. 67. Charlotte Gere, Jewellery in the Age of Victoria: A Mirror to the World (London: British Museum Press, 2010), p. 31. 68. QVJ, 26 February 1857, p. 100. 69. T. Hanly Ball, Marriage Instituted for the Happiness of Mankind (London: Groombridge, 1858), pp. 8, 9, 23. 70. Hoffmann-Kuhnt, Becker, p. 421. 71. Richard Williams, The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the Monarchy in the Age of Queen Victoria (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), p. 241; A. L. Kennedy, ed., ‘My Dear Duchess’: Social and Political Letters to the Duchess of Manchester, 1858–1869 (London: John Murray, 1956), p. 216. 72. Samuel Wilberforce, Fellowship in Joy and Sorrow: A Sermon Preached in Her Majesty’s Royal Chapel in Windsor Castle, on the Sunday Preceding the Marriage of the Prince of Wales, March 8, 1863 (London and Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1863), pp. 8–9, 12. 73. Edward Harston, The Former Days Not Better than These: A Sermon Preached on the Occasion of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales’s Marriage (London: Joseph Masters, 1863), p. 6. 74. Samuel Garratt, The Bridal of the Church: A Sermon Preached on the Sunday before the Marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales (London: Morgan and Chase, 1863), p. 5. Francis Close, Britain’s Gala Days: The Landing of H.R. H. Alexandra, Princess of Denmark, and Her Marriage with H.R.H. Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (London: Hatchard & Co., 1863), pp. 10–11. 75. Christopher Wordsworth, ‘Rejoice with Trembling’: A Sermon Preached in Westminster Abbey, on March 15, 1863 (London, 1863), pp. 4, 13, 11, 18. 76. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, The Marriage Feast: A Sermon Preached in the Chapel of the British Factory at St Petersburgh on January 6th 1874, being the Sunday Preceding

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82.

83.

84. 85.

86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

91. 92.

103

the Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and Her Imperial Highness the Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna (St Petersburg: Journal de St-Petersbourg, 1874), pp. 10–11. Susan Kingsley Kent, Queen Victoria: Gender and Empire (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2015), p. 151. Charles Bullock, ‘Wedding Bells’: Prince George and Princess May: with Glimpses of Royal Weddings (London: Home Words, 1893), pp. 7–8. Williams, Contentious Crown, pp. 169, 247–51. Henry Villiers to Lady Villiers, 1863 (copy to Victoria), RA VIC/MAIN/ S/12/38. Charles Bullock, England’s Royal Home, the Home Life of the Prince Consort, Memorials of the Princess Alice (London, 1879). On Chartist demands and the home see Anna Clark, ‘The Rhetoric of Chartist Domesticity: Gender, Language, and Class in the 1830s and 1840s’, Journal of British Studies, 31 (1992), pp. 62–88. Henry Roberts, The Dwellings of the Labouring Classes, Their Arrangement and Construction (3rd edition, London: Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes, 1857), p. 57. Frank Prochaska, Royal Bounty: The Making of a Welfare Monarchy (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1995), p. 120. QVJ, 19 March 1864, p. 96; 21 January 1866, p. 15; Gerard Wellesley to Archibald Campbell Tait, 4 March 1865, LPL, Tait Papers, 82, ff. 24–5; LPL Tait Papers 75, f. 186. ‘Does the Queen Know?’, The Sentinel, September 1880, p. 8; Alfred Dyer, ‘Must India Perish?’, The Sentinel, July 1888, p. 2. ‘The Queen and the East End Murders’, The Sentinel, December 1888, p. 154. W. T. Stead, Her Majesty the Queen. Studies of the Sovereign and the Reign, etc. (London: Review of Reviews, 1897), pp. 26, 106–7. Victoria to Charles Grey, 14 October 1862, DPGL, GRE/D/XIII/2/52. Roger Fulford, ed., Your Dear Letter: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1865–1871 (London: Evans Brothers, 1971), pp. 165–6, 262–3; Lutyens, Lytton, p. 82. Arthur Christopher Benson, The Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols, London, 1899–1900), 2: p. 404; Williams, Contentious Crown, p. 67. Quoted in John Davies, ‘Victoria and Victorian Wales’, in G. H. Jenkins and J. B. Smith, eds, Politics and Society in Wales, 1840–1922: Essays in Honour of Ieuan Gwynedd (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1988), p. 27.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

104

Queen Victoria

93. Dublin Evening Telegraph, 29 February 1872, p. 2. 94. Marie Belloc-Lowndes, His Most Gracious Majesty, King Edward VII (London: Grant Richards, 1901), p. 129. 95. Mike McLaughlin, ‘Catholicism, Masculinity, and Middle-Class Respectability in the Irish Catholic Temperance Movement in Nineteenth-Century Canada’, in Colin Barr and Hilary Carey, eds, Religion and Greater Ireland: Christianity and Greater Ireland, 1759–1950 (Montreal, Kingston and London; McGill UP, 2015), p. 181. 96. QVJ, 14 August 1859, p. 290. 97. William Brock, The Queen’s Sunday Visit to Guernsey (London: Shaw, 1860), pp. iv–v, 7, 13. 98. See John Wigley, The Rise and Fall of the Victorian Sunday (Manchester: Manchester UP, 1980). 99. Brock, Sunday Visit, p. ix; Memorial to the Queen, Presented by the National Sunday League (1860). 100. Hector Bolitho, ed., Further Letters of Queen Victoria from the Archives of House Brandenburg-Prussia (1936; London: Thornton Butterworth, 1976), p. 96. 101. QVJ, 26 August 1858, p. 88; Ashwell and Wilberforce, Wilberforce, 1: p. 58. 102. QVJ, 7 July 1855, p. 10. 103. Brian Harrison, ‘The Sunday Trading Riots of 1855’, Historical Journal, 8 (1965), pp. 219–45. 104. Victoria to Palmerston, 7 August 1855 and Victoria to Viscount Hardinge, 1 June 1856, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: pp. 171–2, 247. 105. QVJ, 13 March 1864, p. 127; 2 January 1866, p. 2; Fulford, Your Dear Letter, p. 52. 106. ‘A Bowl of “Punch” ’, Northern Star, 5 October 1844, p. 3. 107. John Robertson to Victoria, 19 Sept 1877 and John Tulloch to Victoria, 9 October 1877, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/108, 110. 108. Peter Gordon, ed., The Political Diaries of the Fourth Earl of Carnarvon, 1857–1890, Colonial Secretary and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009), p. 264; correspondence in LPL, Tait Papers 95, ff. 30–1. 109. Benson, Benson, 2: p. 45. 110. Frederick Temple to Victoria, 18 May 1899, RA VIC/MAIN/D/13/ 87; Davidson to Victoria, 20 May 1899, RA VIC/MAIN/D/13/88. 111. Salisbury memorandum, 22 May 1899 and correspondence, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/13/90–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

105

112. Marie Louise, My Memories of Six Reigns (London: Evans Brothers, 1956), p. 147. 113. Wilbur Crafts, The Sabbath for Man: A Study of the Origin, Obligation, History, Advantages and Present State of Sabbath Observance (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1885), p. 500. 114. Stephen Smith, Puckstruck: Distracted, Delighted and Distressed by Canada’s Hockey Obsession (Vancouver, BC: Greystone Books, 2014), p. 211. 115. Edwin Landseer, The Baptismal Font (1870), RCIN 406026; Victoria to Victoria, 5 May 1866 in Fulford, Your Dear Letter, p. 64. 116. Michael Turner, Osborne (London: English Heritage, 2007), p. 15. 117. Edwin Landseer, Victoria, Princess Royal, with Eos (1841), RCIN 401548; Princess Alice Asleep (1842), RCIN 403097; The Sanctuary (1842), RCIN 403195. See Diana Donald, Picturing Animals in Britain, 1750–1850 (Yale and London: Yale UP, 2007), pp. 132–45, 194–6, 300–1 and Richard Ormond, Sir Edwin Landseer (London: Thames and Hudson, 1981), pp. 153, 159. 118. QVJ, 11 June 1843, p. 196. 119. QVJ, 3 August 1851, p. 46. 120. QVJ, 27 June 1852, p. 291. 121. Arthur Helps, ed., The Principal Speeches and Addresses of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (London: John Murray, 1862), p. 268. 122. Charles Gibbon, The Life of George Combe (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1878), 2: pp. 298–300; Hoffmann-Kuhnt, Becker, p. 23; Martin, Prince Consort, 2: pp. 184–7; QVJ, 23 November 1850, p. 181; George Combe, On the Relation between Religion and Science (Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart & Co., 1857), pp. 12, 34, 4. On Combe’s allure see generally David Stack, Queen Victoria’s Skull (London: Hambledon Continuum, 2008). 123. Martin, Prince Consort, 2: pp. 184–7. 124. Helps, Speeches, pp. 191–2, 230. 125. QVJ, 4 May 1851, p. 224; 10 May 1851, pp. 237–8. 126. See Geoffrey Cantor, Religion and the Great Exhibition of 1851 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011) and Joseph Stubenrauch, The Evangelical Age of Ingenuity in Industrial Britain (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2016), ch. 6. 127. Hodder, Shaftesbury, 2: p. 300; Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 2, General Fasts, Thanksgivings and Special Prayers in the British Isles 1689–1870 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017), pp. 873–4, 879;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

106

128. 129. 130.

131. 132.

133.

134. 135.

136.

137. 138. 139.

140. 141. 142.

Queen Victoria Aberdeen to Victoria, 20 and 22 August 1854, BL Add MS 43 049, ff. 255, 257. Victoria to Aberdeen, 21 August 1854, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: p. 54. Martin, Prince Consort, 4: p. 339. George Prothero to Dean of Windsor, 30 January 1892, RA VIC/ MAIN/D13A/109; Dean to Prothero, RA VIC/MAIN/D/13A/157; Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 3, Worship for National and Royal Occasions in the United Kingdom, 1871–2016 (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2020), p. 15. Benson, Benson, 2: p. 423. Williamson et al., General Fasts, p. 893; Aberdeen to Victoria, 11 Sept 1857, BL Add MS 43 049, f. 281; Alasdair Raffe, ‘Nature’s Scourges: The Natural World and Special Prayers, Feasts and Thanksgivings, 1541–1866’, Studies in Church History, 46 (2010), pp. 237–48. Victoria to Aberdeen, 1 April 1854, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: p. 25; QVJ, 5 April 1854, p. 162; 22 April 1854, p. 191; 26 April 1854, p. 195. Williamson et al., General Fasts, p. 887. Thomas Binney, Objections to the Royal Proclamation: With Illustrations of the ‘Terribleness’ of God’s Doings Towards Men and Nations (London: Ward and Co., 1855), pp. 5, 8, 16. On Dissenting sensitivity to the use of the Royal Supremacy to call fast days see Williamson et al., General Fasts, pp. 887, 897. Williamson et al., General Fasts, pp. 905, 927; Palmerston to Victoria, 10 September 1857 and Victoria to Palmerston, 11 September 1857, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: pp. 313–14. Benson to Victoria, 29 April 1885 and Victoria to Benson, 1 May 1885, LPL, Benson Papers 27, ff. 98–100. QVJ, 11 October 1857, p. 53. John Tulloch, Some Facts of Religion and of Life: Sermons Preached before Her Majesty The Queen in Scotland 1866–76 (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1878), pp. 70–2. See Prochaska, Royal Bounty, pp. 5, 45, 55, 77, 93–4, 104, 111, 114 on the importance of hospitals to monarchy from George II onwards. QVJ, 7 March 1876, p. 8. See e.g. Nightingale to Crown Princess of Prussia, 22 Sept 1866, BL Add MS 45 750, f. 14; Crown Princess to Nightingale, 29 September

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Religion in Common Life

143. 144. 145. 146. 147.

148. 149. 150. 151.

152.

153.

107

1866, BL Add MS 45 750, f. 18 and 27 September 1868, f. 29; Alice to Nightingale, 19 February 1872, BL Add MS 45 750, f. 69; Lady Susan Melville to Florence Nightingale, 9 May 1872, BL Add MS 45 750, f. 89; Eckhart Franz, ‘Victorias Schwester in Darmstadt: Grossherzogin Alice von Hesse und bei Rhein’, in Rainer von Hessen, ed., Victoria Kaiserin Friedrich: Mission und Schicksal einer englischen Prinzessin in Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2002), pp. 87–90; Gerard Noel, Princess Alice: Queen Victoria’s Forgotten Daughter (London: Constable, 1974), pp. 125–6, 137–42; Frederick Ponsonby, The Empress Frederick: A Memoir (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1918), pp. 237–8, 253–4. QVJ, 7 and 8 May 1863, pp. 175–6. See e.g. QVJ, 29 March 1864, pp. 144–5. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley to Victoria, 24 August 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/ D5/47. See also QVJ, 4 October 1874, p. 258. Richard Hough, ed., Advice to a Grand-Daughter: Letters from Queen Victoria to Princess Victoria of Hesse (London: Heinemann, 1975), p. 51. Ponsonby, Mary Ponsonby, pp. 61, 85, 100; Hannah Pakula, An Uncommon Woman: Empress Frederick: Daughter of Queen Victoria, Wife of the Crown Prince of Prussia, Mother of Kaiser Wilhelm (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1995), p. 215; Ponsonby, Frederick, p. 202. Lori Anne Williamson, Power and Protest: Frances Power Cobbe and Victorian Society (London: Rivers Oram, 2005), p. 101. Gordon, Carnarvon, p. 254; Williamson, Cobbe, pp. 101–31. Gardiner, Harcourt, 1: p. 400. George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria: Second Series. A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1862 and 1878 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1926–8), 1: pp. 532–3; George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Third Series: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal between the Years 1886 and 1901 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1930–2), 1: pp. 176–7. Nancy Johnson, ed., The Diary of Gathorne Hardy, Later Lord Cranbrook, 1866–1892: Political Selections (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 79; Gardiner, Harcourt, 1: pp. 402–3. Williamson, Cobbe, p. 112; Humphrey, Balmoral, p. 185. A marble version adorned the grand staircase at Osborne: Guy Laking, An Illustrated Guide to Osborne House (London: Stationery Office, 1919), p. 77. Michaela Reid, Ask Sir James: The Life of Sir James Reid, Personal Physician to Queen Victoria (1989; London: Eland, 1996), p. 61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

4 A Darkened Earth

‘I have no home, no future, & no plans, & I feel incapable of making any for myself. I live but from day to day . . . I try to be resigned to what I know is God’s will but . . . the change is to be in everything . . . It can only be described as the difference between life and death’.1 So Lady Jocelyn wrote to Victoria after her soldier husband died of cholera in 1854. Women in Victoria’s world recognized a husband’s death as a shattering blow. In August 1861, the newly widowed Lady Herbert of Lea wrote to her that it had been impossible to ‘express in words the sorrow & desolation of my life! I lived but for Him.’2 Such sentiments are a reminder that the existential impact of widowhood on Victoria after Albert’s death on 14 December 1861 was worked out in conversation with others, especially women. Lady Jocelyn’s sorrows had given Victoria a premonitory ‘pang’ because they were contemporaries—and ‘what is life without the one Being who is all in all to me!’3 For the ladies who sought her support or condoled with her after Albert’s death, as for many Christians before and since, their religious beliefs alleviated but also complicated the shock of death.4 Over a decade after Lady Jocelyn’s husband died, she lost her daughter. She confided in the now widowed Victoria that ‘in spite of the great weight of sorrow and the long and dreary days & nights one has to live here . . . still time goes on . . . one may be thankful it does so, and brings one so much nearer to that glorious reunion with those we love. I don’t think one could ever desire to bring any of the dear ones back to earth, when one feels that they are in the Lord’s Keeping “for ever with the Lord”.’ Only certainty about the future life allowed her to quench her ‘earthly feelings’ and to ask God ‘to show her to me as she is now, and that nothing but himself may now fill the aching void in my heart’.5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

109

Victoria refused though to subsume her ‘earthly feelings’ to Christian consolation. Hers was a case of ‘chronic grief ’, which triggered a crisis of monarchical representation when she withdrew from ceremonial occasions, such as the opening of Parliament.6 This chapter presents Victoria’s grief, which was and is still often understood as a psychological oddity and which certainly became a political problem, as a spiritual crisis. Could Christian faith console mourners? If not, where should a widow seek relief? The chapter asks how her family, courtiers, and preachers wrestled with this question. They suggested to her that she cope with Albert’s loss by finding him to be immanent in this world or awaiting her in the next. Although they consoled Victoria by drawing on the productive vagueness of Victorian Protestant eschatology, it was not enough for her. Victoria’s sacralization of things and places connected with Albert was an idiosyncratic solution to the ‘aching void’, but also a variation on an urge in Protestant ‘death culture’ to construct for loved ones the material and textual reliquaries that it denied to Roman Catholic saints.7 Victoria initially carried her subjects with her in these commemorative efforts, for religious publics enjoyed nothing more than musing on a ‘great death’ and understood a widow’s mourning to be a holy duty.8 But they did not want to do so forever. The last section of the chapter shows that Victoria’s stubbornness, not just in mourning Albert but in commemorating his perfections, stirred up scepticism and indifference, not least because Victorians believed the most sacred emotions ought to remain private. ‘Desolation’: Grief and Christianity Victoria’s friends had always worried at her tendency to inordinate grief. After her half-brother Charles Leiningen died in November 1856, her uncle Leopold stressed that she must not ‘dwell too much on the very melancholy picture of the last moments of one whom you loved, however natural it may be’. Victoria’s reply was hardly reassuring: ‘I derive benefit and relief both in my body and soul in dwelling on the sad object which is the one which fills my heart!’ At least her mourning was short on this occasion. It was otherwise when her mother died on 16 March 1861, plunging her into depression, a ‘sort of cloud which hangs over you, and seems to oppress everything’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

110

Queen Victoria

and which was dark with guilt. After a fortnight, the ‘awful Sehnsucht und Wehmuth come back with redoubled force’.9 The urbane Lord Clarendon hoped ‘this state of things won’t last or she may fall into the morbid melancholy to wh: her mind has often tended & wh: is a constant cause of anxiety to P.A.’.10 Albert fumed to Ernst about the ‘horrid rumours about her mental state’; Disraeli retailed gossip that he had ‘lectured the Queen severely’ to accept this blow from ‘the hand of the All Wise’.11 With Albert’s death quickly arousing fears for Victoria’s state of mind, her intimates watched anxiously for signs that she was taking the loss as Christians should. Her maid of honour Lucy Lyttelton was delighted to find that she ‘seems to be taking up the cross . . . saying: “I will do anything”—showing that she accepts the dreadful change with meekness and courage’.12 Victoria had told Augusta Bruce, her mother’s former lady in waiting, that ‘she felt that the God whose law of love and truth had been so deeply engraved in the heart of that adored husband, is a God of love, and that in love He had taken her treasure’. Reassured, Augusta mused that as Victoria had felt ‘idolatry’ for a ‘Being in whom were realised all [her] aspirations and wishes’, his loss might even be a spiritual benefit, leading her ‘where even the nearest and dearest dare not’.13 She later put it differently to Victoria herself: her task was to bear a ‘terrible cross’.14 Many Victorians had hoisted that cross. A day after his wife’s death, Victoria’s favourite Samuel Wilberforce had been already ‘in some degree, yet but little, able to look to God, as the smiter of my soul, for healing’. Within a week, he felt that ‘the great object I design to gain from this affliction is a maintained communion with God’ who had sent ‘this affliction to be a blessing to me, as loving me, as training me, as being my Father’. The grim conclusion was that ‘I am called to take the cup of my Master’s sorrow and drink it.’15 High church folk like Wilberforce welcomed bereavement as an invisible hair shirt, but evangelical Protestants also rationalized sudden death.16 ‘Is it not that the fruit was ripe, and that God, in His mercy, plucked it before it rotted on the tree?’ mused Lord Shaftesbury, after his schoolboy son Francis died in the summer of 1849.17 Such rationalizations abounded in Victoria’s correspondence with widows, both before and after Albert’s demise. In August 1865, Mrs H. Preston-Bruce wrote to Victoria of her husband that she had ‘the perfect and blessed

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

111

conviction that his removal was at once to joy unutterable’. Though sometimes wishing herself ‘older & more likely soon to rejoin my dearest Husband’, she checked ‘such feelings knowing they are in fact murmurings’, praying instead for strength.18 Other members of Victoria’s circle succumbed to such ‘murmuring’. After Edward White Benson’s saintly son Martin died, he wrote that ‘I cannot yet master the feeling that twined in with His love . . . interior unsubduedness, and easily provoked and sullen judgment’.19 This was Victoria’s fate too. Decades after Albert’s death, she told another widow that ‘no praying or reading of Scriptures, or reading anything, can do much good to a broken heart like that’.20 Hers had been broken indeed. Think of her happiness, which had been ‘perfect, great, quite spotless and so beautiful’, she wrote to her daughter Alice on 3 July 1863. ‘Is it is not a miracle that I can live at all?’ ‘The horror of that desolation’, she rejoined a few weeks later ‘cannot be described till it is felt.’ ‘Oh! God! Oh! God! Is it possible I am alone all alone!’ she shrieked the next month. A year later and things were no better: ‘O God! That I were dead’ she exclaimed to Alice in June 1864.21 Life was ‘hopeless without Him I so worshipped, in this World, where all is joy & happiness for others’, Victoria told her daughter Victoria in September 1865.22 She refined her feelings of desolation by comparing her fate with that of others. When Lady Waterpark lost her husband in 1863, Victoria mused that she had enjoyed a longer married life, but had to watch her husband suffer longer—a score draw. Joined by the ‘sympathy of experience’, Victoria brought Waterpark into the household as a sounding board for her gloom. On her wedding anniversary in 1867, she mused to her that the ‘violent grief ’ had given way to ‘the constant blank & the constant cloud’. Though she no longer longed to die, ‘as I did for the first two, or three years after I lost my darling one’, the cloud was never lifted. Answering a letter from Waterpark before her Golden Jubilee in 1887, Victoria dwelt on ‘the many years I have worn this thorny crown, & carried a heavy cross’.23 Grief curdled into preoccupation with the shortness of life. When a riding accident killed the husband of a former lady in waiting, she wrote to her daughter Alice that ‘it seems as tho’ God wished that no happiness shd be lasting on earth!’24 Her gloom proved infectious. Alice’s last letter of 1865 to her mother noted that ‘each year brings us nearer to the Wiedersehen, though it is sad to think how

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

112

Queen Victoria

one’s glass is running out, and how little good goes with it, compared to the numberless blessings we receive. Time goes incredibly fast.’ They were mournful words for a 23-year-old to utter.25 Victoria’s Weltschmerz was also a political problem. Monarchs were supposed to stifle their sorrows. Just weeks after Louis Philippe’s eldest son died in a carriage accident in 1842, his daughter Louise had reported to Victoria that his ‘feelings of duty’ gave him ‘some command of his grief ’.26 Such command eluded Victoria. She answered a briefing from Lord John Russell on the threat of war with the United States with the confession that ‘the things of this world are of no interest to the Queen . . . there is now utter desolation, darkness, and loneliness, and she feels daily more and more worn and wretched. The eternal future is her only comfort.’27 The diarist Lord Stanley feared that her ‘hereditary eccentricities’ might lead her into ‘a state of mind in which it will be difficult to do business with her’.28 And a monarch’s business was also pleasure. Lucy Lyttelton was concerned that Victoria would renounce ‘court gaieties’, such as the holding of levees, which was ‘one of her many duties to her subjects (and not a small one)’.29 By March 1863, rumours were spreading that Victoria would abdicate; a year later, London tradesmen said she was ‘insane, and that she will never live in London again’.30 Her doctor James Clark warned courtiers of her hardening addiction to a ‘secluded life’, which ran against the ‘hopes and expectations of the nation’.31 These concerns about Victoria’s stability meant then that her clerics had a special duty to show her how she could subsume her grief in Christian hope. Augusta Bruce’s future husband Arthur Penrhyn Stanley took the lead in creating for her a liturgy of consolation. As the sun streamed into Albert’s room on the first anniversary of his death on 14 December 1862, he intoned a florilegium of Scriptural texts, then preached on them.32 The dead had merely taken the first of ‘many steps, in that upward, onward ascent, by which the blessed spirit of the departed rises ever higher and higher into communion with the Fountain of all Wisdom and Goodness’. Stanley coupled Christ and Albert’s deaths as ‘great visitations . . . wide rents in the veil between this world and the next’ which alerted us to the prospect of ‘a nearer union with God’.33 Later that morning, Stanley preached in the private chapel before the household. In Victoria’s absence, he shifted from forced brightness to Christian resignation. His text was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

113

Luke 11.2 (‘Thy Will be Done’), a verse which Victoria and her family repeatedly cited thereafter in confronting death and sang repeatedly after Charlotte Elliott’s poem of that name was set to music by Arthur Sullivan (1874). Stanley pointed out that ‘Thy Will be Done’ was ‘the very prayer which we most want’. Christ’s words in the agony in the garden could be ours in ‘all the great crises of our lives’. The worst loss opened up ‘spheres of usefulness, opportunities for good’. This ‘Christian resignation’ was not a capitulation to ‘some hard, irresistible, lifeless machine’, but obedience to the ‘will, the living, personal, careful, deliberate will, wish, design of (if I may say so) a Being, a Moral, Reasonable Being like ourselves’.34 In softening his demands for resignation with a consolatory emphasis on the ‘nearness of the Departed’, Stanley’s preaching suited Victoria.35 Scottish Presbyterians were just as comforting. Norman Macleod spoke to her of ‘our Eternal Home, where we should all be reunited again’, while John Caird evoked ‘the nearness of sympathetic loving souls, which no distance could divide’ and softened the ‘agony of losing those we love’ with the reflection that they had ‘great work to do elsewhere’.36 Even as Victoria constructed a ‘beloved shrine’ to Albert at Frogmore, she granted that he lived on ‘everywhere, not only there!’37 ‘I live here with Darling Papa constantly’, she assured her daughter Victoria a few years later.38 Although such customs as requiring visitors to leave their names in Albert’s guest book, keeping ‘his watch going, fresh flowers in a glass etc: etc’ attracted the incredulity of high society, they embodied the faith that he was at hand.39 Although Victoria benefited from the softening of Christian eschatology, the most satisfying articulations of Albert’s life came from poets, not theologians.40 They ranged from German Romantics to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, but one name was pre-eminent: Alfred Tennyson, whose In Memoriam first ‘soothed & pleased’ and then edified her, becoming a holy text.41 The Duke of Argyll passed on to Tennyson her ‘sacred’ annotations on In Memoriam and arranged a meeting in May 1863. They hit it off immediately, Argyll having warned Tennyson that ‘she dislikes very much the word “late” applied to the Prince’ and trusting him to respect her ‘belief in the Life presence of the Dead’.42 Immortality became their favourite topic, for, like Victoria, Tennyson inverted the way in which Protestants were meant to think about the consolations of faith. As Samuel Wilberforce once wrote in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

114

Queen Victoria

expounding the orthodox view, he never craved reunion with his wife ‘in separation from the thought of the King of Saints’ so that ‘the earthly love becomes the trellice, up which the Heavenly love creeps’.43 Instead of deriving immortality from theism, though, Tennyson began with the insistence that the dead must live on and ransacked Scripture and the natural world for confirmation of that hope.44 As he remarked to Victoria, ‘ “if there is no immortality of the soul, one does not see why there should be any God” ’.45 That gave In Memoriam a two-fold power for Victoria and other mourners. It builds a textual shrine to his beloved friend Arthur Hallam, which minutely evokes the irreparable loss that was his death. Yet it also contends that Hallam’s spirit is not gone, but had become immanent and progressively apparent in the world.46 Two decades later, Victoria met the now aged poet, who spoke of the many friends he had lost, & what it would be, if we did not feel & know, that there was another world, where there would be no partings, — of his horror of unbelievers & philosophers, who would try to make one believe there was no other world, no immortality, — who tried to explain everything away, in a miserable manner. We agreed, that were such a thing possible, God, Who is Love, would be far more cruel than a human being.

She found it ‘incredible’ that people had abused In Memoriam on its publication.47 Victoria had joined Tennyson’s invisible congregation, united by their affective bond with the poet.48 She copied excerpts from In Memoriam into her ‘Album Inconsolativum’, a manuscript anthology of mourning verses and made them give voice to her feelings thereafter. Visiting Claremont some years later to console her son Leopold’s widow, its verses came unbidden to her: ‘But I remained . . . / To wander on a darkened earth / Where all around me breathes of Him’.49 Consolation for Albert thus came with the assurance that his spirit was diffused throughout the world. In a letter sent from Darmstadt to coincide with Albert’s anniversary in December 1867, Alice insisted that ‘Dear darling Papa is, and ever will be, immortal. The good he has done; the great ideas he has promulgated in the world; the noble and unselfish example he has given, will live on, as I am sure he must ever do, as one of the best, purest, most God-like men that have come

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

115

50

down into this world.’ Victoria came around to that view. In 1889, she celebrated her birthday for the ‘27th time without my darling Husband, the light of my life. But if ever any one lived on, — he does, & his works do follow him!’51 Yet the survival of Albert’s spirit had never been enough: to the unease of her advisers, she also clung to his body on earth. ‘Earthly Treasure’: Materiality and Mourning Victoria’s obsession with Albert’s remains developed in an aristocratic and princely world which was preoccupied with housing its dead.52 Victoria and Albert were typical of their class in envisaging their deaths from the moment of their marriage. As early as March 1843, they admired the mausoleum that Leopold had created for Charlotte at Claremont by adapting a Gothic teahouse and ‘talked of building something of the kind for our resting place’. Visits to country houses offered similar models: Wyatt’s Rutland mausoleum at Belvoir Castle and the mausoleum at Castle Howard.53 The German Protestant courts from which Albert came were avid mausoleum builders.54 His father had commissioned a miniature temple flanked by sphinxes and large vases for his parents in the Coburg Hofgarten—a ‘nice’ building which Victoria visited for decades.55 When Albert’s father died, Albert urged the removal of his remains from Gotha to the Hofgarten, before prodding his brother into constructing a mausoleum on the Glockenberg, as the nucleus of the town’s new cemetery.56 A Grabkapelle in the form of a basilica with a capacious crypt for Coburg tombs, it was a model for the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore.57 When the cemetery in which it was located was walled in, with neo-Renaissance mortuary chapels at its corners, Victoria would commission Ferdinand Rothbart to design the first for Albert’s adviser, Baron Stockmar.58 Coburgers not only housed their dead magnificently, but clung to their traces. Uncle Leopold was mourning his second wife, Victoria’s friend Louise, when she and Albert visited their palace at Laeken in August 1852. In her rooms were ‘her writing table, papers, cushions, &c, all, just as if she must come & sit down there’.59 Her daughter Victoria’s marriage into the Hohenzollerns brought Victoria into contact with other forms of ancestor worship. Her daughter reported that she had been turned out of her sitting

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

116

Queen Victoria

room while heavily pregnant, so that it could be hung in black for the yearly commemoration of Friedrich Wilhelm III, who had died in that room.60 Visiting her in Berlin, Victoria was impressed by the mausoleum at Schloss Charlottenburg with its ‘splendid reclining statues’ of Friedrich Wilhelm III and his sainted Queen Louise by Christian Rauch.61 Nor had Victoria confined her interest to Protestant sites. In 1855, she visited the Parisian mausoleum chapel erected by Louis Philippe on the spot where his son the Duc de Chartres had died of his injuries in a carriage accident, finding its statuary by Henri de Triqueti ‘most pathetic’.62 Knowing that exile now barred Chartres’s mother Marie Amélie from this shrine, she sent her rose leaves from the chapel’s garden.63 When Victoria’s mother died, she thus embarked on commemorative rituals which were representative in their insistent materiality. What distinguished her from mourners then and since perhaps was a determination to see the loved one’s stuff as not just moving in its associations, but as sacred. She visited the Duchess of Kent’s rooms at Frogmore House, then sorted her things, an act that was almost ‘sacrilege’, for ‘these dumb souvenirs which she wore and used . . . touch chords in one’s heart and soul, which are most painful and yet pleasing too’.64 Victoria kept up Frogmore House ‘as if it were lived in’ and visited often to take in its ‘hallowed memories’, commissioning an inscription for the site of her mother’s last moments.65 She built her the mausoleum she had requested in the grounds, adding an epigraph by Tennyson which associated her with the Book of Proverbs: ‘Thy children shall rise up and call thee blessed’.66 Reporting on its consecration, the Dean of Windsor concluded that ‘there remains nothing for the future but an object always within your reach, continually suggesting affectate remembrances here & the hope of eternal reunion after’.67 The Duchess was accessible here and living elsewhere, Victoria remembering Albert’s sentiment at the intimate service preceding her funeral: that her death was ‘a birthday in another world’.68 On one of her visits to the mausoleum that summer, she felt that ‘only the earthly robe we loved so much was there’ but that the ‘pure, tender, loving spirit which loved us so tenderly, is above us . . . free from all suffering and woe’.69 It had become a ‘sacred place’ by the time she returned to sort through her dead mother’s furs and to lay wreaths at the mausoleum.70

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

117

Victoria ensouled Albert’s stuff too. One of Victoria’s first diary entries after his death described looking over his Christmas gifts.71 His room, ornamented with William Theed’s portrait bust, became the locus for memorial services.72 His bed was particularly sacred: on an early visit to the room, the Duchess of Sutherland found it decorated with a cross of white camellias.73 Already, it was the ‘sacred Blue Room’, a ‘beautiful living monument’, where Victoria prayed every evening and which ever after remained a place of intercession.74 Taken aback by reports that the room was ‘left precisely in the same state as the hour he died, even to an open pocket-handkerchief on the sofa’, Lord Clarendon murmured that ‘there is no reasoning on the modes that grief takes for satisfying itself ’.75 The ‘mode’ was her way of materializing the togetherness with Albert that her clerics had promised. In February 1864, Victoria headed in ‘an agony of loneliness, grief, and despair’ to the bedside ‘where he left us, decked with flowers, and pray[ed] earnestly to be enabled to be courageous, patient, and calm, and to be guided by my darling to do what HE would wish’.76 On Albert’s anniversary in December 1868, Victoria ‘knelt & prayed for help’ to bear with William Ewart Gladstone’s follies in the ‘hallowed room’, recollecting ‘every moment of that dreadful last morning, when the bright rising sun lit up my beloved heavenly one’s face’.77 The next step was to treasure Albert’s body. Days after his death, she was already missing his ‘blessed arms’ and the ‘sacred hours overnight’. For Victoria, if the ‘love of God’ was an ‘absurd fiction’, then erotic love for the loved one given by God was divine.78 She wore lockets containing Albert’s hair to her dying day.79 By the end of January, plans to move Albert from a temporary resting place in St George’s Chapel, Windsor to a sepulchre by Baron Marochetti in a new mausoleum were underway.80 By persisting with boggy Frogmore as its site, Victoria conjoined the memorialization of her mother and husband. She even laid its foundation stone on the anniversary of her mother’s death.81 She was ‘terribly anxious’ in advance of the two ‘sacred days’ of its consecration and the ‘translation’ of Albert’s body there.82 After the Bishop of Oxford had read prayers, ‘rather too slow, rather too pompous’, the household placed wreaths on a temporary sarcophagus adorned with a plaster cast of Marochetti’s as yet incomplete effigy. Courtiers hoped that this might be the end of the ‘mournful ceremonies’, but they had barely begun.83 The prayers read during

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

118

Queen Victoria

the translation underlined the theme of presence, turning the Royal Mausoleum into Christ’s tomb, asking that whoever entered its garden ‘may hear Thy voice as of one that walketh in it, as though, through Thee, the dead yet spake to him, and let that voice fall on his conscience and heart in a loving communion, as a strength against temptation, and as a call to every good thought, and word, and work’.84 In addition to the annual services of remembrance which took place at Frogmore, regular visits gave Victoria contact with her ‘earthly treasure’ and became the sole attraction of ‘sad, gloomy Windsor’.85 The gas-lit mausoleum resembled ‘some ancient shrine’ in which she could worship her beloved.86 Flustered by Albert Edward and Alexandra’s wedding in 1863, she went to the mausoleum, where just ‘gazing’ at the ‘beautiful & peaceful representation’ of Albert brought her peace.87 The Frogmore mausoleum was designed by Albert’s artistic fixer Ludwig Gruner not just as a tomb but as a place of prayer, with four chapels decorated with scenes from and allegories of the life of Christ and a fixed stone altar.88 It disturbed ‘English feelings’ by apparently catering for the practice of prayer for, or even to, the dead.89 Clarendon noted her visits to the mausoleum, archly conceding that ‘there is nothing more common than this token of affection—all over the Continent it is seen, tho’ it is more usual in Catholic than in Protestant countries’.90 If Victorian mourners sometimes behaved like Roman Catholics in their addiction to relics of their loved ones, then Frogmore aroused accusations that Victoria had directly imported devotions to the dead from the Catholic Continent. The author of A Fragment from the Fine Art Follies of Frogmore (1869) made paranoiac capital out of the Royal Mausoleum’s altars. ‘The Chapel of the Prince in Frogmore grounds’ was founded on the assumption that Albert had ‘immortal as a god become / Some demi-god as in the days of old, / And now invoked as a Saint in prayer. / Thus worshippers before dumb Idols knelt, / In ages long since past and fled away’. The author captured the aesthetics of this ‘gay Italian Chapelle-ardente Tomb’, before floating into fantasy, claiming that Albert had secretly converted to Roman Catholicism and that his confessor might be skulking in his ‘Mass-oleum’, ready to pervert the Queen.91 Victoria not only enshrined Albert’s body but recreated it. She belonged to a culture of ‘congealed romanticism’ in which sketches,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

119

photographs, and sculptures of loved ones were treasures, and had for instance long traded casts of body parts with relatives.92 In May 1863, Victoria was comforted to receive ‘a cast (only the bust) of the dear beautiful statue at the Mausoleum & as we held the light near it, the expression of the face was so touchingly beautiful & like!’93 Images of Albert without this mimetic aura left her unmoved.94 If public statues to Albert became forms of civic homage, then Victoria’s were central to private rituals. At Balmoral in August 1862, Victoria and the children decorated William Theed’s statue of Albert with ‘wreaths of heather’. Inscribed on its base were words from Norman Macleod: ‘His life sprang from a deep inner sympathy with God’s will, and therefore with all that is true and beautiful and bright.’95 The household gathered at a cast copy of Theed’s statue in the Balmoral grounds to toast him in silence on his birthday, in another ritual of presence.96 Busts, statues, and memorabilia of Albert appeared in photographs and paintings commissioned by Victoria of herself and her family as material markers of his otherwise invisible, but very real presence.97 If the remembrance of Albert at the mausoleum became a liturgical act during the anniversary services of 14 December, then ‘sad, yet dear visits’ to it and Marochetti’s effigy resembled social calls, which were ‘as much a loving duty, as a tender Kiss in blessed former days’.98 In George Housman Thomas’s painting The Visit to the Royal Mausoleum (1866), her servant John Brown holds Victoria’s horse as she sits in black, talking to her daughters Helena and Louise, who bear posies for their visit to the mausoleum.99 Its dark tower looms between Victoria’s and Brown’s heads, the third point in their spiritual triangle. Visitors to court were expected to visit Albert, the mausoleum being a presence chamber rather than a grave. Victoria brought Albert Edward and his bride Alexandra there before their wedding in 1863 and ‘said, “He gives you his blessing”’, while she was gratified when a year later uncle Leopold broke down ‘sobbing’ at his first sight ‘of that beloved and beautiful statue’.100 When Tennyson visited the mausoleum, she ‘observed that it was light & bright, which [Tennyson] thought a great point . . . Why should death, which was already so dreadful in itself, be clothed with everything to make it worse, as if it were the end of things?’101 The mausoleum was, then, less a cryptoCatholic shrine than a portal to ‘the blessed regions in which my Darling dwells now & where I too yearn to be’.102 The sacredness

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

120

Queen Victoria

also went for other places that Albert had inhabited. In the Highlands, Victoria felt, ‘everywhere there seems to be some kind of pilgrimage!’ She erected a cairn then a large statue to Albert at Balmoral, the unveiling of which was inaugurated with a ‘fine Prayer’ by the minister of Crathie Kirk.103 By the end of the 1860s, the anniversary services on 14 December were becoming a stimulus to renew and reflect on emotions rather than a direct articulation of them. Victoria’s habit of reading sermons delivered during past services made that ‘day of dreadful memories . . . more & more hallowed’, turning time from a linear corridor into a circular ambulatory, looped around loss.104 The mausoleum became a place of memory for other things and other people. ‘Stupefied & stunned’ by the death of uncle Leopold in December 1865, Victoria had rushed to the mausoleum, where ‘the two dear ones who loved each other in this life seemed strangely mingled together’.105 Memorials to other members of the family entered the Frogmore mausoleum and wreaths from Frogmore went to hallow other graves.106 Although it suited Victoria to see the mausoleum as ancient, it was anything but static, remaining for decades a building site, plagued by damp and shrouded in scaffolding, which Victoria visited to supervise the installation of art works as well as to pray. Victoria did not even put Albert’s remains into Marochetti’s finished sarcophagus until November 1868, by which time both Marochetti and the overseer of works at Frogmore had died.107 This was not only a provisional but also a public shrine. On 14 December 1863, hundreds of courtiers streamed in to inspect it. The ‘tradespeople’ of Windsor joined them the next year, with Victoria beginning an annual headcount of visitors. H. N. King’s widely reproduced photographs disclosed the interior of the mausoleum to a general public.108 Victoria’s devotion to her earthly treasure was an open secret. ‘A Great Communion’: Widowhood and Emotional Community In April 1864, Victoria instructed her secretary to write a reply to an address of condolence. Published in the newspapers, it dwelt upon ‘the utter nothingness of this world, of the terrible uncertainty of all earthly

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

121

happiness & of the utter vanity of all earthly greatness’. Yet Victoria felt it ‘worth struggling on in this wretched life, if I could be of use, could preserve peace & pour balm into wounded hearts!’ This was a democratic as well as an existential conception of what a Queen was for. She wished to honour courage, ‘unselfishness’, and love as ‘the only things truly great & eternal’, feeling as she did that ‘sorrow levelled all distinctions. I would as soon clasp the poorest widow in the land to my heart, if she had truly loved her husband & felt for me, as I would a Queen or any other in high position.’ Sorrow had induced ‘humility’ as well as compassion.109 Victoria meant what she said. The sympathy that her Highlander servant John Brown— this ‘strong hardy man, a child of the mountains’—showed Victoria at the 1865 Frogmore anniversary service fuelled her infatuation with him.110 As society gossip about Brown’s role at court mounted, Victoria commissioned Edwin Landseer’s painting Sorrow: Or, Queen Victoria at Osborne (1865–7), which showed Brown holding Victoria’s horse as she reads letters from a red box, supporting her in her duty as black clouds gathered overhead.111 This willingness to court popular sympathy aroused consternation. Reacting to an earlier communication to the press, Gladstone told their mutual friend the Duchess of Sutherland that ‘we cannot afford to create an intenser degree of pity for the woman at the cost of her character as a Queen’. The Duchess felt that Victoria was justified in craving ‘a great Fellowship—a great Communion’ and in penning the letter in ‘Heart’s Blood’, which she had printed in the journals. The Duchess, who was herself building monuments to her recently deceased husband, captured an innovation in Victoria’s relationship with her people: preachers, versifiers, and Christian journals all imagined their ‘great Communion’ with their suffering monarch.112 European monarchs had often looked to sympathy in their grief as a barometer of their popularity, but the sympathy for Victoria after the deaths of her mother and husband adumbrated a new relationship between people and sovereign, one which intrigued the royal family itself. Both Victoria and Alice treasured popular tributes to Albert alongside analgesic selections from In Memoriam in their mourning albums.113 Albert’s death had instantly solicited gestures of demotic Christian solidarity, especially from women. On 18 December 1862, the Duchess of Atholl brought the Queen ‘a handsome Bible, which

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

122

Queen Victoria

has been given me & subscribed for by “many Widows”. The very poorest have joined, 80 of the Hartley Colliery Widows, amongst them.’114 Victoria’s letter to the widows of the Hartley colliery disaster of 16 January 1862, which had killed 204 men and boys, had connected her sympathy to her ‘own overwhelming grief ’, speaking of her ‘sad satisfaction’ at having joined in efforts to alleviate their suffering and evoking a Christian bond between widows and the widow Queen which recurred after future royal bereavements.115 Preachers mused on what to feel for Albert. They often strained for a measured note, observing that his passing was not premature, as he had already fathered many heirs.116 Yet their warnings not to grumble at the ‘Great Ruler’, or to feel ‘excessive sorrow for the pious dead’, made them Canutes against the emotional tide.117 Dissenting preachers sought at least to ensure that sorrow did not lapse into undiscriminating royalism.118 Narrow evangelicals worried about whether Albert had found ‘the blessed shelter of the Cross’.119 Yet the emotions their congregations felt washed away these qualifications. Taking Isaiah 24:11 as his text in Salford, F. E. Gretton claimed that just as ‘there was a great cry in Egypt, when the first-born were slain; for there was not a house where there was not one dead’, so Albert’s funeral was the nation’s: ‘The heart of myriads, even as the heart of one man, are throbbing in sorrow for their departed Prince, and in sympathy for their widowed Queen.’120 For the evangelical George Albert Rogers, ‘the present visitation proves to us how much we are ourselves part of a mighty whole, and how intimate our relationships to the throne. We cannot sum up the parts which we have in our beloved Queen. Her interests and ours are identical.’ Grief reminded them that they were bound by ‘reciprocal responsibility’ and must work together to stem ‘the deep dark torrent of sin which rolls down our streets’.121 These affective bonds were not just national but imperial, with the Bishop of Montreal evoking the ‘throbbing heart of every subject of the empire’ in his funeral sermon. His call for sympathy was streaked with defiance: at a time of heightened international tension, Canada would join with Victoria in making war on the United States if necessary and ‘commit the issue of the battle in all confidence to the Great Ruler of the World’.122 Sympathy though was not just chauvinistic, but morally creative. The Liverpool Unitarian John Hamilton

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

123

Thom urged that having entered into the pain of one ‘single Heart’, the nation should expand its sympathies to ‘men of other nations, cast by the Hand of God into other moulds of Humanity . . . differences that are not departures from a standard of Perfection, but rich varieties of a common nature’. In America, that meant siding with the northern States in their dispute with the Southern Confederacy over the humanity of black slaves.123 The spiritual egalitarianism implicit in sympathy for Victoria emerged particularly strongly in sermons and gestures from colonized Christians. In South Africa, the Xhosa Presbyterian missionary Tiyo Soga preached that Victoria was ‘bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh’, trusting that she would find in ‘the Man of Sorrows . . . an High Priest who can be touched with the feelings of their infirmities’. Soga’s grief reflected his fascination with Victoria and her family, which had started when he was a seminary student in Glasgow. Yet he did not just shed tears with Victoria, but hoped for justice from her, looking to her, as his Scottish Presbyterian patrons also did, to protect his people against the evils of settler ‘civilization’.124 One of the New Zealand Māori who met Victoria at Osborne House in August 1863 was too overawed to condole with her in person, but wrote out his sentiments on returning to his hotel room. ‘It is well, your Majesty; he has gone to God’s right hand. Pray rather, your Majesty, for those who are in the world. It is the wicked that will perish. Enough.’ His words, which were quickly published in the colonial papers, showed he felt able not just to condole with her but to exhort her. The Māori felt that their shared Christianity and the Treaty of Waitangi they had signed with her not long after her accession put them on a spiritual level with her.125 Pity for Victoria was not the only note in the mourning literature: there was also much fear for what Albert’s death portended for the nation. John James told Peterborough Cathedral to ‘heed this national visitation as a warning to each of ourselves individually’.126 For evangelical Protestants, providential thunder still rumbled over royal hearses, because ‘to England it has been given to occupy very much the place which was once held by God’s chosen people’.127 Edward Henry Carr argued that Britons must see in this disaster ‘the very finger of God, and his finger manifested in such a way as to draw our thoughts irresistibly to Himself ’.128 Admittedly, many preachers recommended caution in interpreting ‘striking and afflictive

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

124

Queen Victoria

dispensations’, especially as Albert’s death was due to a common illness.129 But one thing all could agree on was that God had woken the British from the ‘even flow and tenor of our national as of our personal life’.130 A ‘National Sacred Work’: Remembering Albert Victoria’s grief urged her to erect permanent memorials to Albert’s spiritual and moral excellence. For decades after his death she patronized statues of Albert across Great Britain, every one of which was, as Gladstone once remarked, a ‘sermon made visible’.131 Although George Gilbert Scott had given the Albert Memorial in Hyde Park the character of a ‘vast shrine’ grouped around a Gothic cross, Victoria was less interested in this Parliamentary ‘National Memorial’ than in her own projects, which she was to keep out of Parliament’s funding and control.132 While Victoria had stolen Albert’s body away to Frogmore, she compensated St George’s Chapel, Windsor by turning its Wolsey Chapel into an elaborate shrine to him. George Gilbert Scott gave it a Gothic reworking before Victoria commissioned the French sculptor Henri de Triqueti, a devout Protestant and her daughter Victoria’s former art tutor, to cover its walls with inlaid marble ‘tarsias’ of Old Testament scenes, ‘illustrating the virtues of my beloved one’.133 While Triqueti’s tarsias on the nave walls likened Albert to David and Solomon, those in the apse modelled his death on the Passion of Christ. The parallel would have struck Victoria as appropriate, for she had once observed to her daughter that ‘like Our Saviour, [Albert] wept over Jerusalem’ in his struggle to iron out the wickedness of the world.134 Antonio Salviati’s mosaics for the ceilings and lower walls of the Chapel, which portrayed the implements of Christ’s passion, deepened this parallel.135 Triqueti’s effigy of Albert for his cenotaph in the body of the chapel continued his idealization by depicting him as a Christian knight, surrounded by allegorical figures of truth, ‘mourning science’, ‘mourning royalty’, ‘justice’, ‘charity’, ‘hope’, and two angels holding shields inscribed with verses from St Paul: ‘I have fought the good fight’. When Victoria and her daughter insisted that Albert should wear the armour of knighthood, Triqueti pointedly showed him sheathing his sword—a miles Christianus whose fight, like St Paul’s, was done. Victoria was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

125

familiar with such imagery. Edward Henry Corbould had painted an allegorical triptych for the door of the Blue Room, which borrowed from Robert Thorburn’s portrait of Albert in medieval armour, but cast him as a Pauline knight with sheathed sword, surrounded by allegories and images of crucifixion and ascension. He repeated the motif of the Pauline knight in the statuette he designed as Victoria’s Christening gift for Albert Edward’s son Albert Victor.136 Although the Albert Memorial Chapel was open to the public and its decorations were photographed and published in a lavish volume, Victoria’s textual monuments to Albert consumed even more of her energy and reached many more people than her sculpted ones.137 She spent over two decades superintending the publication of The Principal Speeches and Addresses of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (1862), The Early Years of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (1867) and a full-dress biography, The Life of the Prince Consort (1875–80). While society gossips feigned to believe that Victoria was the real author of these publications, the work was done by a coterie of high-minded literary men.138 The first was Arthur Helps, a Cambridge chum of Tennyson and a career bureaucrat who rose to become the Clerk of the Privy Council. In his numerous publications, which began with his philosophic dialogues Friends in Council (1847), Helps scorned Sabbatarianism, temperance agitation, and ‘miserable and pedantic’ views of the Bible while proclaiming that socially reforming Christianity was necessary to defeat Chartism. Helps yearned for great men whose ‘temperament’ could elevate the masses, and represented Albert as one of them in his edition of Albert’s Principal Speeches.139 In a preface dedicated to, and minutely edited by, Victoria, he portrayed Albert as a paladin whose purity allowed him to rise above his tricky position in England. Albert’s radiant brow was ‘accompanied by signs of a soul at peace with itself, and which was troubled chiefly by its love for others, and its solicitude for their welfare’. His religiosity was, like that of Helps, ‘entirely free from the faintest tinge of bigotry or sectarianism’ and expressed itself in what Albert called in his speeches the ‘sacred cause’ of education, philanthropy, missionary religion, and scientific research.140 The reception of this idealized portrait so delighted Victoria that she commissioned further memorials to her husband. The task of putting together The Early Years of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

126

Queen Victoria

a collection of documents initially intended for her family’s use, fell to Albert’s former secretary Charles Grey. His long service made him a natural choice, but as his diary and private correspondence reveal, his deep lay piety was also agreeable to Victoria. Though devoted to the sacraments and moved almost to tears by the incarnational preaching of Victoria’s favourite Norman Macleod, Grey was not churchy.141 Like Victoria he preferred the simple ‘Scotch service’ to the Anglican and he was a keen reader of Thomas Carlyle and works of natural science.142 Religion to him meant decency and sobriety—and an aversion to hedonism or eccentricity, such as William Ewart Gladstone’s quixotic attempts to rescue prostitutes.143 He was also an experienced hagiographer, having published a reverent life of his father, the Whig statesman Earl Grey, which led Macleod to exult that it was he who had taken on the ‘holy work of revealing to the nation more of the character of him whose memory we cherish with so much affection, and whom I worship on this side of idolatry’.144 The Early Years followed Helps in locating Albert’s power in his purity. The ‘difficult, and rare, and glorious life of God in the soul of man’ lay in exploiting power without succumbing to its temptations, wrote Grey in his ‘Introductory Remarks’, quoting Frederick William Robertson, a liberal preacher dear to Victoria. Albert’s rigid horror of ‘vice’ made him the ‘type of a new era, an era of power . . . the moral power of character, the power of intellectual culture, of extensive knowledge, of earnest thought; the power of the sagacious statesman, of the singleminded good man: that power which discerns, interprets, and guides the wants and the spirit of the age’.145 Victoria’s decision to publish an edition of The Early Years for the public had caused much fuss among her writers about how to reveal Albert’s character while keeping her mystique intact. Macleod advised Grey to omit Victoria’s comments on her retreat from public life after Albert’s death, so that the reader should feel no ‘disquietude while gazing on the face of the Prince Consort’.146 Such was the delicacy of the task that a third literary man got involved: the Scottish lawyer, poet, and Germanophile Theodore Martin. The need to safeguard Victoria’s privacy from ‘annoyance’ absorbed Martin, and in his preface to the volume he presented its publication as an attempt to stop the leak of ‘garbled’ extracts from the private memoir.147 Yet he was ambitious about the spiritual dividends of publication, quoting a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

127

letter from Albert’s friend the geologist Adam Sedgwick, which argued that ‘if it be good for man, as it is taught by the Poet Goethe, daily to see and to feast upon objects of great beauty in art and nature, surely the contemplation of a character at once so great and so beautiful as the Prince Consort, should be a sublime and touching lesson’. Alluding to Paul’s letter to the Philippians, Sedgwick asked if, ‘where everything is so pure, so lovely, and so true, why should not our honoured and beloved Queen lay open the innermost recesses of her heart, and thereby fix for ever the loyal sympathy of all who have faith in what is good’?148 The friendly reception of The Early Years in the journals, which Grey and others worked to fix in advance, thrilled Victoria and suggested the literary gamble had come off.149 Martin reported that no less than George Eliot was delighted at its ‘exquisite traits of character’, while Alice told her mother that the book would make his ‘great life . . . a model for many and many for generations to come’.150 Yet Victoria’s craving for ‘publicity’ made some readers queasy. The high church Christian Remembrancer felt it rash to strip monarchy of the ‘adventitious aids to the awe and reverence of the vulgar’.151 Victoria’s determination to capitalize on The Early Years by revealing more of her domestic bliss with Albert in her Leaves from the Journal of our Life in the Highlands (1868) initially horrified the fastidious Grey and Martin. They fretted at the dangers involved in giving the public ‘too much of the private thoughts of the sovereign’, especially if that involved disclosing the emotional support John Brown had provided to her in her grief.152 After the deaths of Grey and Helps, Martin was tasked with producing the most voluminous of Albert’s reliquaries, The Life of the Prince Consort (1875–80).153 His book heaped up so much information about Albert’s involvement in foreign and domestic policy that he frustrated readers who merely wished to learn about the pious paterfamilias.154 He also triggered a controversy over whether Albert had taught the court to be ‘un-English’ in its vigorous exercise of the royal prerogative.155 Yet, to Victoria, these tombstone volumes capped a ‘national sacred work’ of remembrance and she handed out gift copies as freely as photographs of her loved ones.156 Martin’s biography began by musing over how to capture the ‘infinite sacredness in all noble lives, such as alone merit the consecration of biography’, and resolved to do so by making events

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

128

Queen Victoria

in Albert’s life into revelations of his character.157 Here he followed humbler hagiographies by religious writers, which read ‘facts’ as ‘emblems’ of goodness.158 Many hundreds of pages later, Martin’s book culminates with the Passion of the Prince Consort, who has worked himself to death for his country. In the Blue Room, ‘a great light, which had blessed the world, and which the mourners had but yesterday hoped might long bless it, was waning fast away. A husband, a father, a friend, a master, endeared by every quality by which man in such relations can win the love of his fellow man, was passing into the Silent Land.’ Martin’s final remarks represent Albert once more as a knight of Christ, who had ‘fought the good fight . . . lived, not for himself, but for others: they can think of him as one who was ever “unwearied in well-doing” and who thus approved himself a true follower of the Founder of the Christian Faith, which he had striven by his life to illustrate’.159 Martin’s reward for completing his biography was a miniature of Baron Marochetti’s effigy of Albert.160 It was fitting because both men had created monuments to Albert’s religion and to a religion of Albert. Victoria’s sustained commemoration of him shows how, even when Victorian grief appears to be idiosyncratic and unmediated, it was in fact a social phenomenon, one in constant dialogue with organized religion, especially when expressed by a sovereign. Victoria’s attempts to sacralize Albert and her feelings for him met with a ready, but finally a critical response from her subjects. ‘Nobody understands how she can have brought herself to make public her most intimate thoughts & feelings which the natural delicacy would induce any one to keep private’, observed Lord Stanley when Martin’s last volume was published. ‘It is not easy to believe in the reality of a sentiment thus carefully noted at the time, & proclaimed to all England afterwards.’161 There were benefits for a sovereign in going public with grief, but the process needed more self-censorship than was natural to Victoria. Her courtiers realized this to their cost when John Brown died in 1883. It was bad enough when Victoria publicized her ‘grievous shock’ at his passing in the Court Circular, or filled More Leaves from the Journal of our Life in the Highlands (1884) with tributes to his virtue and patience.162 But when Victoria decided to commission a hagiography of Brown, the Dean of Windsor warned her that the ‘sacredness of deep grief ’ might be ‘desecrated by

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

129

163

unholy hands’ if she went ahead. Victorians gladly followed Victoria in sacralizing private life, but recognized that the sacredness might evaporate with the privacy. Notes 1. Lady Jocelyn to Victoria, 13 November 1854, RA VIC/MAIN/S/8/10. 2. Lady Herbert of Lea to Victoria, 12 August 1861, RA VIC/MAIN/S/ 8/62. 3. QVJ, 16 August 1854, p. 73. 4. Patricia Jalland, Death in the Victorian Family (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996), pp. 51, 265. 5. Lady Jocelyn to Queen Victoria, December 1867, RA VIC/MAIN/S/ 9/42. 6. Jalland, Death, pp. 242, 320–1; Walter Arnstein, ‘Queen Victoria Opens Parliament: The Disinvention of Tradition’, Historical Research, 63 (1990), pp. 178–94. 7. See Deborah Lutz, Relics of Death in Victorian Literature and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015), pp. 4–5. 8. John Wolffe, Great Deaths: Grieving, Religion, and Nationhood in Victorian and Edwardian Britain (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001); Mary Elizabeth Hotz, Literary Remains: Representations of Death and Burial in Victorian England (New York: SUNY Press, 2009). 9. Leopold to Victoria, 28 November 1856, Victoria to Leopold 26 March 1861 and 30 March 1861, in A. C. Benson and Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, eds, The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1907), 3: pp. 275–6, 556–7; Hector Bolitho, ed., Further Letters of Queen Victoria from the Archives of House Brandenburg-Prussia (1936; London: Thornton Butterworth, 1976), p. 117. 10. A. L. Kennedy, ed., ‘My Dear Duchess’: Social and Political Letters to the Duchess of Manchester, 1858–1869 (London: John Murray, 1956), p. 141. 11. Hector Bolitho, ed., The Prince Consort and his Brother: Two Hundred New Letters (London: Cobden-Sanderson, 1933), p. 213; W. F. Monypenny and G. E. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (6 vols, London: John Murray, 1910–20), 2: p. 117. 12. John Bailey, ed., The Diary of Lady Frederick Cavendish (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1927), 1: p. 120.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

130

Queen Victoria

13. Dean of Windsor and Hector Bolitho, ed., Letters of Lady Augusta Stanley, 1849–1863 (London: Gerald Howe, 1927), pp. 248, 257–9. 14. Augusta to Victoria, 29 April 1864, WAM, MS 635 17. 15. Arthur Rawson and Reginald Wilberforce, Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Revised with Additions (3 vols, London: Kegan Paul, 1888), 1: p. 47. 16. Jalland, Death, ch. 6. 17. Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G. (London: Cassell, 1886), p. 413. 18. RA VIC/MAIN/S/9/13. 19. A. C. Benson, Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1901), 1: p. 446; Jalland, Death, p. 139. See too Simon Goldhill, ‘A Mother’s Joy at Her Child’s Death: Conversion, Cognitive Dissonance, and Grief ’, Victorian Studies, 59 (2017), pp. 636–57 for Mrs Benson’s very different reaction. 20. Thomas Teignmouth Shore, Some Recollections (London: Hutchinson, 1911), p. 118. 21. Victoria to Alice, 13 August 1863, HSA, D24 Letters from Mama 1862–3, ff. 229, 243, 265; Victoria to Alice, 2 June 1864, HSA, D24, Letters from Mama 1864–5, f. 3. 22. Victoria to Vicky, 11 September 1865, HHA. 23. Diary of the Life at Court of Eliza Jane, Lady Waterpark between 1764 and 1893, BL Add MSS 60750, ff. 127–8, 137, 148. 24. Victoria to Alice, 29 August 1864, HSA, D 24, Letters from Mama 1864–5, f. 14. 25. Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland: Biographical Sketch and Letters (London: John Murray, 1884), 1: p. 114. 26. Louise of Belgium to Victoria, 21 July 1842, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/10/5. 27. George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Second Series. A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1862 and 1878 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1926, 28), 1: p. 10. 28. John Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby and the Conservative Party: Journals and Memoirs of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849–1869 (Hassocks: Harvester Press, 1978), p. 180. 29. Bailey, Cavendish, 1: pp. 202, 207. 30. Vincent, Disraeli, Derby, pp. 197, 210. 31. James Clark to Charles Phipps, 24 May 1864, DPGL, GRE/D/XI/3/18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

131

32. QVJ, 14 December 1862, p. 320. 33. Services held in Windsor Castle, on the Anniversary of the Lamented Death of the Prince Consort, December 14, 1862 (Oxford, 1862), pp. 13–16. 34. Ibid., pp. 35, 38–9. 35. Bolitho, Augusta Stanley, pp. 253, 265. 36. QVJ, 11 May 1862, p. 115; 25 May 1862, p. 129; 31 May 1863, pp. 201–2; Bolitho, Augusta Stanley, p. 275. 37. QVJ, 16 June 1864, p. 175. 38. Victoria to Vicky, 10 September 1866, HHA. 39. Vincent, Disraeli, Derby, p. 198; Kennedy, ‘My Dear Duchess’, pp. 188–9. 40. Jalland, Death, pp. 266–77. 41. QVJ, 5 January 1862, p. 5; 22 February 1862, p. 44. For Browning, see George Douglas Campbell [Eighth Duke of Argyll], Autobiography and Memoirs, ed. Ishbel Campbell (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1906), 2: p. 186. 42. Hope Dyson and Charles Tennyson, eds, Dear and Honoured Lady: The Correspondence between Queen Victoria and Alfred Tennyson (London: Macmillan, 1969), pp. 67, 69, 71. 43. Arthur Rawson Ashwell and Reginald Wilberforce, Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Revised with Additions (3 vols, London: Kegan Paul, 1888), 1: p. 246. 44. Michael Wheeler, Death and the Future Life in Victorian Literature and Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990), pp. 224, 234–5, 240. 45. QVJ, 9 May 1863, p. 178. 46. Lutz, Relics, ch. 4; Wheeler, Death, pp. 261–3. 47. QVJ, 7 August 1883, p. 152. 48. See Joshua King, Imagined Spiritual Communities in Britain’s Age of Print (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 2015). 49. ‘Album Inconsolativum’, BL Add MS 62089; QVJ, 30 July 1884, p. 259. 50. Alice, Grand Duchess, p. 189. 51. QVJ, 26 August 1888, p. 65. 52. Jalland, Death, pp. 291, 295–6. 53. QVJ, 7 March 1843, p. 97; 5 December 1843, pp. 246–7; 28 August 1850, p. 50. 54. Peter Pinnau, Gruft, Mausoleum, Grabkapelle: Studien zur Sepulkralarchitektur des 19. und des 20. Jahrhunderts mit besonderer Hinsicht auf Adolf von Hildebrand (München: Mäander, 1992), p. 22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

132

Queen Victoria

55. QVJ, 23 August 1845, p. 109. 56. QVJ, 11 April 1844, p. 143; Bolitho, Prince Consort, pp. 90, 125. 57. Pinnau, Gruft, pp. 90–100; Roger Fulford, Dearest Mama: Letters between Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1861–1864 (London: Walker Evans, 1968), pp. 36, 45. 58. QVJ, 30 August 1865, p. 246; 12 April 1876, p. 58. 59. QVJ, 12 August 1852, p. 18. 60. Roger Fulford, ed., Your Dear Letter: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia 1865–1871 (London: Evans Brothers, 1971), p. 69; Hanna Pakula, An Uncommon Woman: Empress Frederick, Daughter of Queen Victoria, Wife of the Crown Prince of Prussia, Mother of Kaiser Wilhelm (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1995), p. 138. 61. QVJ, 20 August 1858, pp. 69–70. 62. QVJ, 26 August 1855, p. 165. 63. QVJ, 5 September 1855, p. 196. 64. QVJ, 19 March 1861, p. 68; 27, 28 March 1861, p. 81; Victoria to Leopold, 30 March 1861, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: p. 557; see Daniel Miller, Stuff (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011), ch. 5 on identification of the dead with their stuff. 65. James Edgar Sheppard, George, Duke of Cambridge: A Memoir of his Private Life, Based on the Journals and Correspondence of His Royal Highness (2 vols, London: Longman and Co., 1906), 1: p. 239; QVJ, 3 April 1861, p. 89; 11 May 1861, p. 123. 66. Dyson and Tennyson, Dear and Honoured Lady, p. 81. 67. QVJ, 1 August 1861, p. 197 enclosing letter from the Dean of Windsor. 68. QVJ, 24 March 1861, p. 76. Stanley would transfer these consoling words to Albert’s death: QVJ, 13 December 1862, p. 320. 69. Victoria to Leopold, 20 August 1861, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: pp. 576–7. 70. QVJ, 25 October 1861, p. 318; 29 October 1861, p. 320. 71. QVJ, 7 January 1862, p. 7. 72. QVJ, 8 March 1862, p. 57; Elizabeth Darby and Nicola Smith, The Cult of the Prince Consort (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1983), p. 6. 73. Duchess of Sutherland to William Ewart Gladstone, 3 April 1862, BL Add MS 44 326, ff. 90–1. 74. QVJ, 5 June 1862, p. 138; Fulford, Dearest Mama, pp. 27, 31–2. 75. Kennedy, ‘My Dear Duchess’, p. 187.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

133

76. Victoria to Leopold, 25 February 1864 in Buckle, Letters. Second Series, 1: p. 28. 77. QVJ, 14 December 1868, p. 358. 78. Fulford, Dearest Mama, pp. 23, 46. 79. Charlotte Gere, Jewellery in the Age of Victoria: A Mirror to the World (London: British Museum Press, 2010), pp. 56–7. 80. QVJ, 28 January 1862, p. 22. 81. Kennedy, ‘My Dear Duchess’, p. 207; QVJ, 15 March 1862, p. 63. 82. QVJ, 18 December 1862, p. 324; Victoria to Alice, 24 November 1862, HSA, D24, Letters from Mama 1862–3, f. 165. 83. Mrs Erskine Steuart, ed., Twenty Years at Court: From the Correspondence of the Hon. Eleanor Stanley, Maid of Honour to Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria, 1842–1862 (London: Nisbet, 1916), p. 402. 84. Service in the Royal Mausoleum, at Frogmore, on the 18th December, 1862 (London, 1862). 85. QVJ, 10 August 1863, p. 279; Victoria to Duke of Argyll, 21 February 1867, AP, Royal Correspondence Binder. 86. QVJ, 19 December 1862, p. 326. 87. QVJ, 20 March 1863, p. 114. 88. Frogmore and the Royal Mausoleum (London: Royal Collection, 1997), pp. 46–7. 89. Bailey, Cavendish, 1: pp. 179, 181. 90. Kennedy, ‘My Dear Duchess’, p. 191. 91. A Fragment from the Fine Art Follies of Frogmore; or the Secrets of The Belgian Mystery Unveiled (Windsor, 1869), pp. 6–9. 92. John Morley, Death, Heaven and the Victorians (London: Studio Vista, 1971), p. 14; Jalland, Death, p. 291; Louise of Belgium to Victoria, 29 November 1835, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/3/13; Louise to Victoria, 26 December 1842 and 23 January 1843, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/10/43, 49. 93. QVJ, 3 May 1863, p. 171. 94. QVJ, 17 November 1862, p. 294; 11 May 1863, p. 181. 95. QVJ, 26 August 1862, p. 206; Innes Adair, Balmoral: Hall of Memories (Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable, 1900), p. 16; Darby and Smith, Cult, p. 13. 96. Frank Pope Humphrey [pseud.], The Queen at Balmoral (London: T. F. Unwin, 1893), p. 49; Adair, Balmoral, p. 6; Mary Lutyens, ed., Lady Lytton’s Court Diary: 1895–1899 (London: R. Hart-Davis, 1961),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

134

97.

98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.

108.

109. 110. 111. 112.

113. 114.

115.

Queen Victoria p. 149; Diary of Lady Waterpark, 26 April 1872, BL Add MS 60750, f. 30. Helen Trompeteler, ‘Afterlives: Photography and Mourning’, Victoria’s Self-Fashioning: Curating Royal Image for Dynasty, Nation and Empire conference, Kensington Palace, May 2019. QVJ, 15 February 1863, p. 54. RCIN 402504. QVJ, 9 March 1863, p. 92; Victoria to Alice, 9 April 1864, HSA, D24, Letters from Mama 1863–4, f. 119. Dyson and Tennyson, Dear and Honoured Lady, p. 91. QVJ, 22 February 1864, p. 101. QVJ, 17 October 1863, p. 357; 15 October 1867, p. 274. QVJ, 14 December 1867, p. 327. QVJ, 10 December 1865, p. 342. See e.g. Lily Wellesley to Victoria, March 1884, RA VIC/MAIN/YS/ 13/32. QVJ, 12 September 1868, p. 277; 4 November 1868, p. 317; 11 November 1868, p. 322; 19 August 1869, p. 210; 4 November 1869, p. 283; 11 December 1869, p. 324; 8 March 1870, p. 70; 25 November 1871, p. 272; 11 August 1873, p. 257; 10 July 1877, p. 195. QVJ, 14 December 1863, p. 15; 14 December 1864, p. 11. See e.g. Marquis of Lorne, V.R.I.: Her Life and Empire by the Marquis of Lorne, K.T., Now his Grace the Duke of Argyll (London: Harmsworth, 1901), p. 281 for King’s photographs. QVJ, 29 April 1865, p. 137. Fulford, Your Dear Letter, p. 48. Vincent, Disraeli, Derby, pp. 232, 248; RCIN 403580; Michael Turner, Osborne (London: English Heritage, 2007), p. 23. Gladstone to Harriet Leveson-Gower, 24 February 1862 and Harriet Leveson-Gower to Gladstone, 26 February 1862 and 19 September 1862, BL Add MS 44 326, ff. 44–5, 49–51, 202. ‘Poems and Favourite Extracts—Jan. 1862—Collected after Dear Papa’s Death’, HSA, D24 No. 1813; ‘Album Inconsolativum’. QVJ, 18 December 1862, p. 324; Arthur Penrhyn Stanley to Duchess of Argyll, 20 August 1862, AP, Bundle 323 notes her pleasure at receiving the ‘Widows’ Bible’. ‘The Hartley Colliery Disaster’, The Times, 28 January 1862, p. 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

135

116. John Jeffreys, Princes and Great Men: A Sermon Preached on the Occasion of the Death of the Prince Consort (Rochdale, 1861), p. 6; Lewis Page Mercier, The Mystery of God’s Providence: A Sermon Preached in the Chapel of the Foundling Hospital (London, 1861), p. 8. 117. William Robinson Clark, A Sermon Preached in St. Mary’s Church, Taunton, on the Day of the Funeral of his Late R.H. the Prince Consort (Taunton, 1861), p. 12; James John Eastmead, The Prince Consort’s Death: A Sermon Preached in Tyldesley Chapel near Manchester (London, 1862), p. 5; J. W. Spencer, Christian Sorrow for the Pious Dead: A Sermon, Preached on the Day of the Funeral of the Prince Consort (Taunton: F. May, 1861), p. 12. 118. See e.g. George Dawson, ‘Public Service on the Death of the Prince Consort, December 16th, 1861’, in Susan Dawson, ed., Sermons on Disputed Points (London: C. Kegan Paul, 1878), p. 269. 119. See e.g. Richard Roberts, ‘Lebanon Cedars Falling’, in My Later Ministry: Being Sermons (London: T. Woolmer, 1887), p. 256. 120. F. E. Gretton, A Sermon Preached in the Church of St Mary, Salford, December 23rd, 1861, on the Occasion of the Funeral of his Royal Highness the Prince Consort (Stamford: Henry Johnson, 1861), p. 13. 121. George Albert Rogers, The Royal Lament: A Funeral Sermon on Prince Albert, Dec. 22nd, 1861 (London: Wertheim, Macintosh and Hunt, 1861), pp. 12–14. 122. Francis Fulford, A Sermon, Preached on Sunday, 5th January, 1862, in Christ Church Cathedral, Montreal, after the Death of H.R.H. the Prince Consort (Montreal: J. Lovell, 1862), pp. 10, 13. 123. John Hamilton Thom, Sympathy with Humanity: The Channel of the Life from God: A Sermon Preached in Renshaw St Chapel, Liverpool, December 22, 1861, on a National Occasion (London: E. T. Whitfield, 1862), pp. 12, 19. 124. John Aitken Chalmers, Tiyo Soga: A Page of South African Mission Work (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliott, 1878), pp. 217, 256–60, 288–9; Vivian Bickford-Smith, ‘African Nationalist or British Loyalist? The Complicated Case of Tiyo Soga’, History Workshop Journal, 71 (2011), pp. 74–97; Hilary Sapire, ‘We have seen the Son of Heaven / We have seen the Son of our Queen’, in Sarah Carter and Maria Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything: Queen Victoria in Indigenous Worlds (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016), p. 37. 125. Australian and New Zealand Gazette, 8 August 1863, p. 85; Michael Belgrave, ‘ “We Rejoice to Honour the Queen, for she is a Good Woman

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

136

126.

127.

128.

129. 130.

131.

132.

133.

134. 135.

Queen Victoria who Cares for the Māori Race”: Loyalty and Protests in Māori Politics in Nineteenth-Century New Zealand’, in Carter and Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything, pp. 54–77. John James, A Sermon on the Lamented Death of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort Preached in the Cathedral Church of Peterborough (London: Rivington, 1862), p. 17. C. F. Money, All Flesh is Grass: A Sermon in St John’s Church, Deptford on the Death of H.R.H. the Prince Consort (London: Wertheim, Macintosh and Hunt, 1862), p. 3. Edward Henry Carr, The Nation Admonished: A Sermon Preached in Christ Church, Maida Hill, December 22nd, 1861 (London: Wertheim, Macintosh and Hunt, 1862), p. 13. See similarly Benjamin Hall Kennedy, Occasional Sermons Preached Before the University of Cambridge and Elsewhere (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1877), p. 209. William Lindsay Alexander, A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of H.R.H. the Prince Consort (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1861), p. 12. Enoch Mellor, ‘Be Still and Know that I am God.’ A Sermon on Occasion of the Death of His Royal Highness, the Prince Consort (Liverpool: D. Marples, 1861), p. 3. W. E. Gladstone, ‘The Life of the Prince Consort: Volume III’, in Gleanings of Past Years, 1848–1878, vol I: The Throne, and the Prince Consort; The Cabinet, and Constitution (London: John Murray, 1879), pp. 97–8. See Darby and Smith, Cult for the statues. Gavin Stamp, ‘George Gilbert Scott, the Memorial Competition, and the Critics’, in Chris Brooks, ed., The Albert Memorial: The Prince Consort National Memorial: Its History, Contexts, and Conservation (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2000), pp. 108–10; Victoria to Grey, 27 May 1863, DPGL, GRE/D/XIII/2/31; QVJ, 16 April 1862, p. 93; 26 May 1862, p. 131. QVJ, 10 May 1864, p. 188. See Veronique Galliot-Rateau and Richard Dagorne, eds, Henri de Triqueti: Le Sculpteur des Princes (Paris: Hazan, 2007), and for his piety Henri de Triqueti, Manuel de la Charité: Dans L’Eglise Reformée de Paris: Conseils Addressés aux Protestants Riches et Pauvres (Paris: Aux Librairies Protestantes, 1861). Fulford, Your Dear Letter, p. 207. Petra Schultheiss, Like an Ancient Shrine: Mid-Nineteenth Century Architectural Theory, the Memorial Mosaics for Prince Albert and Queen Victoria’s Position as Female Sovereign (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2018), pp. 207–11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Darkened Earth

137

136. QVJ, 12 and 15 February 1864, pp. 90, 93; Edward Henry Corbould, Memorial Portrait to the Prince Consort (1863), RCIN 927595; Elkington and Co., Prince Albert (1864–5), RCIN 50468; Jonathan Marsden, ed., Victoria and Albert: Art & Love (London: Royal Collection, 2000), pp. 436, 442–4; Darby and Smith, Cult, p. 37; Helen Rappaport, Magnificent Obsession: Victoria, Albert and the Death that Changed the Monarchy (London: Hutchinson, 2011), p. 145. See Theodore Martin, The Life of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (5 vols, London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1875–80), 1: p. 212 and QVJ, 31 January 1869, p. 27 for Thorburn. 137. Jane and Margaret Davison, The Triqueti Marbles in the Albert Memorial Chapel, Windsor (London: Chapman & Hall, 1876). 138. John Vincent, ed., The Diaries of Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby (1826-93) Between 1878 and 1893: A Selection (Oxford: Leopard’s Head Press, 1993), p. 221; ‘Verax’ [Henry Dunckley], The Crown and the Cabinet: Five Letters on the Biography of the Prince Consort (Manchester: A. Ireland and Co., 1878), p. 7. 139. Arthur Helps, Thoughts in the Cloister and Companions of my Solitude, ed. A. R. Waller (London, 1901), pp. 126, 64, 113, 125; E. A. Helps, ed., Correspondence of Sir Arthur Helps (London: Bodley Head, 1917), pp. 21, 29, 65–7, 155, 375–6; Arthur Helps, Life and Labours of Mr Brassey (London: Bell and Daldy, 1872), pp. v, 15. 140. Arthur Helps, ed., The Principal Speeches and Addresses of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (London: John Murray, 1862), pp. 32, 44, 183, 255. 141. Grey to Mrs Grey, 7 May 1848, 14 October 1848, 5 October 1856, 3 October 1858, DPGL, GRE/D/7/1; General Grey, diary, DPGL, GRE/D6/26; GRE/D/X/28; GRE/D/X/25–8. 142. Charles Grey to Mrs Grey, 12 May 1862, DPGL, GRE/D/7/1; Adam Sedgwick to General Grey, 30 March 1857, DPGL, GRE/D/XIV/3/ 2; Helps to Grey, 4 May 1865, DPGL, GRE/D/VIII/8/21. 143. Charles Grey to Mrs Grey, 15 October 1848, 23 July 1849, 16 November 1849, DPGL, GRE/D/7/1–2. 144. Macleod to Grey, 14 October 1864, DPGL, GRE/D/X/2/3. 145. Charles Grey, The Early Years of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1868), pp. xix, xxiii–xxix. 146. Notes and Memoranda on Memoir, ‘A’, ‘C’, DPGL, GRE/D/X/11, 57. 147. Theodore Martin to Charles Grey, 15 June 1867, DPGL, GRE/D/X/ 4/9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

138

Queen Victoria

148. Grey, Early Years, pp. ix, xii, xi. 149. QVJ, 27, 28, and 30 July 1867, pp. 194–6; 15 September 1867, p. 241; Martin to Grey, 23 June 1867 and 25 July 1867, DPGL, GRE/D/X/4/ 11, 14 on fixing the reviews. 150. Martin to Grey, 31 July 1867, DPGL, GRE/D/X/4/15; Alice, Grand Duchess, p. 154. 151. ‘Prince Albert’, Christian Remembrancer, 54 (1867), p. 327. 152. Grey to Victoria, 16 August 1867, GRE/D/VIII/8/31; Martin to Grey, August 1867, GRE/D/X/4/16–18. 153. Theodore Martin, Queen Victoria as I Knew Her (London: William Blackwood, 1901), p. 107. 154. See e.g. verdict of William Ewart Gladstone, ‘Life of the Prince Consort (I)’, in Gleanings, pp. 25–8. 155. See e.g. Gladstone, ‘Life (I)’, pp. 53–6; William Ewart Gladstone, ‘Life of the Prince Consort, Volume II’, in Gleanings, pp. 75–82; Gladstone, ‘Life of the Prince Consort (III)’, p. 100; Richard Williams, The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the Monarchy in the Age of Queen Victoria (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), pp. 96–7; ‘Verax’, Crown. 156. Alice, Grand Duchess, p. 335. 157. Martin, Prince Consort, 1: p. vi. 158. James Hall Wilson, The Late Prince Consort: Reminiscences of his Life and Character (London: S. W. Partridge, 1862), pp. 2–3. 159. Martin, Prince Consort, 5: pp. 442, 444. 160. Martin, Victoria, p. 104. 161. Vincent, Disraeli, Derby, p. 221. 162. ‘Court Circular’, The Times, 29 March 1883, p. 9; Victoria, More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1884), pp. v–vi, 37. 163. Davidson to Victoria, 6 March 1884, LPL, Davidson Papers 19, f. 72.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

5 The Supreme Head

By the end of her reign, Queen Victoria’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England struck many of its members as annoyingly incongruous. Summoned to preach at Osborne House in January 1898, Cosmo Gordon Lang disapprovingly noticed that Sunday began with a slap-up breakfast rather than the austere act of early communion that devout Anglicans had come to expect. Service at eleven involved ‘liturgically’ a more mangled office than one might have expected from ‘the “Supreme Head”’ of the Church, who on close inspection appeared to be a ‘simple good old woman whom the arks of so-called “Church Revival” had not touched’, one surrounded by ‘bibulous’ Scottish and exotic Indian attendants to boot.1 The inverted commas around Supreme Head signalled Lang’s dissent from a title dear to Victoria but which high church people felt was clumsily Erastian—only Christ could be the head of the church. In the heated Parliamentary debates over the legislation against Ritualism introduced at Victoria’s initiative, one high church Cabinet minister sharply observed that the description of the Queen as ‘ “Head” of the Church’ showed a ‘profound ignorance of what a Church is’.2 Deeply put out, Victoria set her secretary to investigate and was reassured to discover from him that although Elizabeth I had elected to be the governor rather than the head of the church, the difference was merely semantic.3 The Church of England, like the Army or the Empire, was a field in which she exercised her will with a vigour that received theories of constitutional monarchy once missed.4 The Congregational Dissenter W. T. Stead shrewdly noted that she almost regarded the Church as the ‘sole remaining branch of the Civil Service’ under her direct control.5 Yet the thrust of the high church thought and scholarship which burgeoned over Victoria’s reign was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

140

Queen Victoria

that it was the reverse of a civil service. It was an institution founded by Christ’s Apostles which predated the nation, one which had always been allied with, but was not dependent on, godly monarchs and had made the English what they were.6 Victoria was at odds with much of her church not only on the nature of her authority over it but also on how it should be exercised. As previous chapters of this book have argued, her marriage to a German Lutheran and her widowhood deeply marked her faith. She was a Protestant who accepted that British and German Protestantism stemmed from one Reformation, regarded the family rather than the church as divine, and came to identify faith not with the clerical quodlibets which preoccupied Lang, but with a widow’s quest for consolation. Believing that ordinary people shared these instincts, she thought of England as a Protestant nation, which demanded of its established church fidelity to the Reformation. Victoria was therefore intent on first encouraging and then bullying the Church into satisfying what she imagined were the wishes of the laity. As a young Whig Queen, this meant patronizing churchmen with progressive attitudes to theology who advocated the comprehension of Protestant Dissenters into the Church. Her avowed promotion of liberal Protestantism aroused resistance to the Royal Supremacy from the Tractarians, who had already shown themselves hostile to Victoria’s collaboration with Prussian Lutherans in creating the Jerusalem Bishopric. Their qualms though only strengthened Victoria’s commitment to broad church nationalism and the clerical leaders who espoused it. As Chapter six will show, her worship in the Church of Scotland when residing at Balmoral Castle encouraged her to think of Protestantism as a faith that flourished in but was also convertible between national establishments.7 If Victoria defined her Protestantism against high church critics, then she also distinguished it from low church evangelicalism, which she regarded as overly prone to a coarse antiCatholicism. She repeatedly clashed with prime ministers who believed that encouraging a low church counterweight to the high church party was pragmatic politics, urging instead the principled cultivation of ‘liberal’ clerics. By the end of her reign though, Victoria’s liberalism looked less expansive than aggressive and defensive. Her panic that Anglo-Catholics were alienating ordinary Protestants and selling out the Church to foreign, reactionary forces pushed her to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

141

try and legislate their experiments with reviving lost rituals out of existence. Yet Victoria was slow to grasp that many of her Protestant subjects were zealous Dissenters, whose quarrel was not with the faith of the Church as such but the basic fact of its establishment. Their push to disestablish churches around the United Kingdom in the interests of truth and justice discomfited Victoria, who ended her reign as an uneasy ‘Supreme Head’. ‘The State Religion’: Victoria and the Church Victoria had taken the throne primed by her uncle Leopold with the savvy Erastianism of the Coburgs. He had advised her in November 1836 that, in the light of attempts to paint her as a Whig ‘indifferent’ to the Church of England, she would ‘do well’ whenever possible ‘to express your sincere interest in the Church’. In Leopold’s conveniently breezy ecclesiology, Protestantism was the ‘State religion’, which she ought to support as the ‘head of the Church’. He returned to that theme after her accession, writing that she would ‘do wisely by showing yourself attached to the English Protestant Church as it exists in the State; you are particularly where you are, because you are a Protestant. I know you are averse to persecution, and you are right; miss, however, no opportunity to show your sincere feeling for the existing Church; it is right and meet that you should do so.’8 Victoria’s first prime minister Lord Melbourne likewise encouraged Victoria both to defend the established church and to identify it with the principles of the Reformation.9 What did those principles mean to him? Although resented by stiff churchmen as a ‘poco curante Minister’ who had made the Royal Supremacy ‘an instrument of tyranny’, Melbourne had a coherent vision of liberal Protestantism, informed by his study of theology, to which Victoria realized he was ‘addicted’.10 He was, above all, allergic to pomposity or fanaticism—the ‘papistical, and theatrical’ cathedral service, ‘comfortable’ evangelicals, or the millenarian followers of Edward Irving—and averse to metaphysical speculation, convincing Victoria that it is ‘better to believe what is in the Scriptures without considering what Christ’s nature was, for that isn’t comprehensible; the Trinity isn’t comprehensible’. He was half joking in September 1839 when he told Victoria that going to church was ‘against my creed’ and that he thought of himself as an early

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

142

Queen Victoria

modern Quietist, who could pursue God’s wishes for himself.11 Melbourne drew encouragement from the writings of liberal Anglican clerics whose Whiggish instincts and Germanizing studies of the Bible and church history moved them to play down doctrinal and liturgical differences, to maintain that God revealed himself to nations rather than churches and thus to urge the comprehension of Protestant Dissenters within the Church.12 Edward Stanley, the Whiggish Bishop of Norwich, thus preached the first sermon Victoria and Albert heard as a married couple, ‘setting forth the necessity of Christian mildness & forbearance towards those, not of our creed’, and on Melbourne’s recommendation they set to reading Thomas Arnold and Richard Whately, the leading intellectuals of this group.13 Melbourne also pointed Victoria to liberal histories of England by François Guizot and Henry Hallam, which sketched England’s ordered progress away from a bigoted past that involved the ‘cruel persecution of the unfortunate nonconformists’.14 Melbourne not only stimulated Victoria to airier views of Christian truth, but also to flex her muscles as a patron. Her patronage was extensive. A Parliamentary survey conducted before Victoria took the throne found that the Crown had the direct right of presentation to a tenth of all livings in England and Wales, with the Lord Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster controlling another 720 livings.15 Victoria began as a patron by taking an interest in the appointment of her chaplains and seeking to improve the terrible singing at the Chapel Royal in Whitehall, before turning her attention to canonries at Windsor.16 By the time that Sir Robert Peel became Prime Minister in 1841, she and Albert were insisting that he run candidates for major livings before the Queen, ‘as has always been done hitherto’.17 He took the hint, engaging in a tricornered discussion with the court and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London not just on appointments to bishoprics, deaneries, and college headships, but on finding committed candidates for crown livings. Both Peel and the royal couple disapproved of non-resident clergy, supported the efficient subdivision of major livings, and sought to reward ‘active parochial exertions’.18 In a letter to his chaplain Samuel Wilberforce in October 1845, Albert spelled out the spiritual utilitarianism that informed their patronage: given the ‘insufficiency of human knowledge’, a bishop’s role was not to be a doctrinal martinet, but to serve

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

143

‘humanity’ by monitoring the state’s activity. By the time of Albert’s death, royal interference in patronage even extended to the smaller livings under the control of the Duchy of Lancaster and continued unabated thereafter.20 The Anglican hierarchy did not share Victoria’s theological sympathies, but could agree with her and Albert on wishing to raise the calibre of the clergy. Her first Archbishop of Canterbury William Howley was a faithful servant of the monarchical and imperial state, who looked to it as an engine of global evangelization.21 Charles Blomfield, who had succeeded Howley on his elevation to Canterbury as Bishop of London, had raised clerical hackles by helping Peel to found the 1835 Ecclesiastical Commission, which pruned and redistributed clerical incomes. Despite empowering the state to reform the Church, however, he still viewed the latter as senior partner to the monarchy. His coronation sermon—at whose length Melbourne grumbled—envisaged that Victoria would adhere to ‘the true faith . . . upholding . . . that Church which is its depository and dispenser’, becoming a ‘living exemplification of its holy precepts’ and inaugurating a new Elizabethan age.22 Howley and Blomfield’s commitment to improving the calibre of parish priests and building churches aligned them with Victoria’s objectives, but they clashed over how far to go in defending the Church’s prerogatives, especially in the colonies. In 1839, the zeal of younger ministers, such as the Home Secretary Lord John Russell, who wished Victoria to inspire the Christianization and moralization of the whole nation by promoting ‘the operation of better laws and improved institutions’, led Melbourne’s government into proposing a national system of non-denominational primary education. Victoria defended it against Howley’s protests that it weakened the Church’s prerogatives, implicitly agreeing with Russell that the state rather than the Church would be a more powerful and inclusive educator of the nation.23 19

‘Very Violent People’: The Oxford Movement and the Papal Aggression Victoria’s vision of the monarch as a reformer of the Church ran headlong against Tractarian efforts to ratchet up the high church’s already marked aversion to Erastianism and liberal Protestantism.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

144

Queen Victoria

Victoria first heard of ‘a Dr Pusey and a Mr Newman’ through Melbourne, who styled them as ‘very violent people of the High Church character’.24 Their violence consisted not just in antipathy to Protestant Dissenters but in the refusal of the monarchy’s claims to rule the Church. At the Chapel Royal in June 1838, she was subjected to ‘the strangest, oddest sermon that can be imagined by a Dr. Hook—a Puseyite and a most violent High Churchman’.25 Hook had denied that the Church was the creature of the Crown in Parliament. No: the Church was ‘a religious community, intrinsically independent of the state’ and older than the Reformation. Break the connection between church and state, he warned, and ‘we may be sure the monarchy would be destroyed’.26 Though Melbourne the amateur theologian was intensely relaxed about the ecclesiological obsessions of Hook and the Tractarians, Victoria interpreted the turbid passion of such warnings as ‘violence’.27 Hearkening to Howley and Blomfield’s warnings that their sacerdotal bravado would turn the ‘middle & lower classes’ against the Church, Victoria used her position to deny them patronage, working initially with Peel to block their access to bishoprics, university chairs, or crown livings.28 If Peel had been diligent in squelching Tractarians, his Whig successor Lord John Russell was passionate. His Protestantism identified Christianity with the Bible—a copy of which always lay on his library table—and so he regarded Tractarian veneration of the Church’s authority as a challenge to its primacy.29 In his short term as Prime Minister, he rewarded intellectual critics of Tractarian ecclesiology, installing Archibald Campbell Tait and Henry Hart Milman as Deans of Carlisle and St Paul’s Cathedral and giving Edward Stanley’s son and Victoria’s future favourite Arthur Stanley his start. Victoria was fully behind Russell’s idealistic programme and quick to criticize him when he fell short by making nepotism or political connections instead of ‘scientific attainments’ a qualification for preferment.30 Victoria and Russell were resolute in the defence of the Royal Supremacy, especially after Tractarians and their allies sought to overturn his decision to make Renn Dickson Hampden—a philosophical theologian and friend to Dissenters who they had long considered to be a Germanizing rationalist—the Bishop of Hereford.31 Victoria and Albert followed the pamphlets about it and blamed the ‘dreadful ferment’ about this ‘very enlightened man’ entirely on the Puseyites.32

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

145

Victoria wrote to Russell of her shock at the antics of high church clergy, fuming that they should be prosecuted for ‘calling the Act settling the supremacy on the Crown a foul act and the Magna Charta of Tyranny’.33 For their part, high churchmen alleged that it was ‘degrading’ to farm out the ‘sacred prerogative’ of episcopal appointments to ministers like Russell.34 Victoria was unmoved. In February 1848, she and Russell appointed the evangelical John Bird Sumner as Howley’s successor as Archbishop of Canterbury. The Gorham Case deepened Tractarian fears that a liberal Protestant monarchy was hollowing out their church’s faith. When the Bishop of Exeter refused to institute the low churchman George Gorham to a living because of his refusal to declare his belief in baptismal regeneration, he successfully appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the predominantly lay body that determined such cases on the monarch’s behalf. That made Tractarians more restive than ever about the use of the Royal Supremacy in doctrinal questions: they wanted its exercise limited to matters concerning the ‘external economy of the church’.35 The question of whether Victoria’s personal faith was orthodox did not much matter to them—instead they wanted to end the ‘inharmonious and unintelligible role’ of parliamentary monarchy in doctrinal disputes altogether by reviving the clerical Convocation as a theological umpire.36 By contrast, Protestant churchmen argued that the attempt to distinguish civil and spiritual spheres in this way was false to church history and to the Old Testament’s vision of monarchy as a spiritual as well as a secular institution.37 Victoria backed Russell throughout this ‘terrible stir’, approving his resistance to the revival of Convocation.38 Two exterior shocks added to Victoria’s anxieties about the threat posed to her authority by the Tractarians. The first was the 1848 Revolutions, which her aunt Louise of Belgium encouraged her to think of as ‘the Deluge’, sweeping away or shaking sovereigns across Europe.39 Victoria and Albert were far from subscribing to the comforting belief that the character of the British isolated them from such problems. Since revolution had broken out in Paris in February, Victoria wrote to Leopold that summer, ‘I feel an uncertainty in everything existing, which (uncertain as all human affairs must be) one never felt before.’40 She and Albert had fled from tricolor-waving Chartists to the Isle of Wight. Though Chartists were not necessarily

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

146

Queen Victoria

republicans, the Privy Council’s decision to order prayers to coincide with their mass meeting on Kennington Common showed that their opponents regarded them as rebels against both altar and throne.41 Victoria and Albert even donated to a fund for an abortive ‘memorial’ to record their ‘deep gratitude to Almighty God’ for delivering the capital from ‘anarchy and confusion’.42 Back in London, on one night in June 1848, after we had left the Opera, not far from the Duke of York’s statue, a man ran up to the carriage on Albert’s side, where the window was open, saying several times over something like ‘a real murderer’. This frightened me dreadfully, on account of the Chartist troubles & I could not get over it for some time.43

Continental revolution and British Chartism provoked Victoria to reflect that the definition of ‘obedience to the laws & to the Sovereign’ as ‘obedience to a higher Power’ was the best way of avoiding revolution. Monarchy was ‘Divinely instituted for the good of the people, not of the Sovereign, who has equally duties & obligations’. That was the moral of the first volumes of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s History of England, which Victoria read on their appearance in 1848 and which put forward a chauvinistic tale of how patriotic elites had guaranteed national peace and prosperity by defeating religious fanaticism.44 The ‘Papal Aggression’ was the second challenge to Victoria’s supremacy. Nicholas Wiseman’s announcement that Pope Pius IX had authorized Roman Catholic bishops in England and Wales to bear territorial titles triggered protest meetings and pamphlets condemning him for insulting Victoria. In South London, the Pope was burned in effigy on Peckham Rye Common and a van of men dressed as cardinals made its way under armed guard to Camberwell, followed by a crowd shouting ‘No Popery!’, ‘Hurrah for the Queen!’45 This roughhousing was spontaneous, but also encouraged by elite Protestants such as Lord Shaftesbury, who took to platforms to attack the Pope for ‘usurp[ing] the functions of our Royal Mistress’.46 Victoria herself was instinctively angry at Wiseman’s ‘infringement of my prerogative’.47 Although Wiseman responded energetically to charges of lèse-majesté by publishing a best-selling Appeal, which reminded the public that Roman Catholics were no different to Scottish

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

147

Presbyterians or English Dissenters in refusing to accept Victoria’s ecclesiastical supremacy, he merely stirred up further controversy by doing so.48 Victoria kept a sense of proportion throughout the Aggression. She was responsive to doubts about whether legislative responses to Wiseman’s actions were workable and their implications for Ireland and for colonial Catholics, and dismayed by the ‘unchristian’ rioting of ‘low rabid Protestants’ against Roman Catholics.49 Though not immune to paranoia about the Jesuits, Victoria did not dislike Roman Catholics as such, but rather clergy of any church who asserted that they were beyond state control.50 In this respect, Tractarians within the Church of England appeared to be a greater threat than Roman Catholics without. Russell had advised Victoria that the crypto-Catholicism of the Puseyites had encouraged the Pope’s action, a view voiced in his notorious public letter to the Bishop of Durham.51 Albert used similar language in a memorandum of January 1851, attributing the Aggression to ‘the introduction of Romish doctrines and practices by the Clergy of England, contrary to the will and feelings of the Protestant congregations, under the assumption that the clergy alone had any authority in Church matters’.52 Victoria hoped that Wiseman’s letter ‘may open the eyes of many, who have gone too far towards the Church of Rome’.53 She therefore approved of Russell’s meetings with Sumner and the Bishop of London to ‘curb these efforts at Romanizing forms & doctrines’.54 She regarded it as a ‘very good thing’ when William Bennett, a Tractarian who had preached against the Royal Supremacy, resigned his living after harassment by Protestant roughs.55 An angry Bennett published a letter to Russell, who happened to be his parishioner, alleging that as one ‘charged by our Sovereign Lady the Queen’ to ‘keep order, peace and harmony among her subjects’ he should not have painted a mark on the clergy’s back.56 Conversions to Rome justified her watchfulness. In the summer of 1854, Robert Isaac Wilberforce justified his with the allegation that the Royal Supremacy had become a worm-eaten figurehead under the purely ‘parliamentary’ Hanoverian dynasty.57 In her discussions of patronage with her prime ministers Lord Derby (1852) and Aberdeen (1852–5), Victoria was now implacable in her hostility to candidates who had ‘any leaning’ to the Puseyites, who were ‘fatal to the Church of this Country’.58 She lectured Lord Derby,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

148

Queen Victoria

who seemed indulgent to Tractarian ambitions, on the need for ‘liberal minded men, & liberal minded Bishops, the disadvantage of our Church being apt to be too exclusive. The great thing to remember was the principle established at the Reformation of liberty of conscience.’ She was particularly alert to measures that might give the clergy more control over popular schooling, and adamant that it was unacceptable to revive Convocation as a purely clerical institution.59 The defence of the Church was for Victoria still synonymous with the Reformation, but what the Reformation mainly meant to her was the mental and moral freedom of the laity. The ‘Bug Bear of Broad Church’: Victoria and Liberal Protestantism Benjamin Disraeli once observed that the outcry over the publication of Essays and Reviews (1860) and Albert’s death had ‘checked the hopes of the Broad Church’.60 Yet in the decades after 1861, Victoria remained eager to use her patronage to advance liberal Protestantism in the Church, just as she had been indignant at the outcry raised against the rationalist Essays and Reviews, and reassured when the Privy Council cleared two of its authors of heresy.61 Without Albert, she considered herself ‘doubly bound’, as she told ministers in 1863 when they sought to rationalize royal patronage, ‘to watch jealously the rights of the Crown’ and was annoyed when ministers announced even minor appointments without her approval.62 Crown patronage remained unregulated till the end of her reign, when, despite Victoria’s reluctance, Arthur Balfour brought it under a bill which made it easier for bishops to remove unfit appointees.63 While naked partiality explained some of her patronage, with preferment going to the vicar of Whippingham or the clerical tutors of her sons, she encouraged what she judged to be good scholarship and liberal church politics, and took a keen interest in candidates for preferment, with sermons before her serving as nerve-racking auditions.64 The bookish Brooke Foss Westcott might have been a ‘saintly man’, the Dean of Windsor confided to Gladstone, but after his trial Victoria made it known that ‘she did not at all like the sermon’.65 Victoria also depended heavily on like-minded clerics in knowing who to promote. Albert’s former chaplain Henry Philpott selected her chaplains in his

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

149

role as Clerk of the Closet, while Gerald Wellesley, who she had insisted on making Dean of St George’s Chapel, Windsor, managed everything else. Terrier-like in asserting her rights over the ‘Windsor Churches’, royal deaneries, and canonries, Wellesley advised her bluntly on nominations for deaneries and bishoprics and excelled at the delicate communication to prime ministers of her often violent partialities for or against individual clergy.66 Victoria took to echoing not only his recommendations but even his phrasing in writing to ministers.67 An aristocratic professional who admired diligence and learning, Wellesley worked productively with prime ministers to advance the interests of the ‘liberal party’, especially with William Ewart Gladstone, whose mellowing religion in midlife put him ‘on the side of progress’.68 Liberal and broad churchmen, many of them Albert’s former chaplains, did well under Wellesley: Philpott became Bishop of Worcester and Henry George Liddell the Dean of Christ Church. Following an abortive bid to make Joseph Barber Lightfoot a bishop, as the ‘last person selected by the beloved Prince as his chaplain’ and a lynchpin of the ‘liberal party in the Church’, they later installed him as Clerk of the Closet.69 Above all, there was Arthur Stanley, whose chivalric delight in controversy made him a liberal paladin. He had ‘rather disappointed’ Victoria on his audition as a preacher, but gained in favour after he superintended the mourning for Albert, then chaperoned the Prince of Wales around the Middle East.70 He became domestic chaplain and Deputy Clerk of the Closet (1863–81), as well as a house exegete who could give breezy summaries of German biblical scholarship, advising on what really happened to Lot’s wife (Genesis 19:26) or recommending primers on the Church to the Danish husband of Victoria’s daughter Helena.71 In 1863, Victoria appointed Stanley as Dean of Westminster Abbey, which, with his antiquarian gusto, he soon turned into an inclusive museum of England’s spiritual traditions and a platform for broad church experimentation, burying the Scottish Congregationalist David Livingstone in it and inviting everyone from Presbyterians to Albert’s favourite Sanskritist Friedrich Max Müller to speak. Gladstone agreed to install Victoria’s favourite Charles Kingsley as a canon there and replaced him on his death with Leopold’s liberal tutor Duckworth.72 Stanley’s marriage to Victoria’s lady in waiting Augusta Bruce created

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

150

Queen Victoria

a power couple devoted to European freedom of thought. By inviting Victoria to tea at the Deanery with intellectuals from Robert Browning to Thomas Carlyle and John Tyndall and in passing on reports of their conversation, they supported her self-understanding as a monarch in touch with the best that was thought and said.73 Wellesley insisted though that Stanley’s extreme unpopularity with high churchmen made it impolitic to promote him further, while Victoria herself sought to restrain Stanley from too much outspokenness in the Abbey.74 Victoria and Wellesley’s determination to put liberals in charge of the Church brought them into collision with prime ministers who had their own visions of what the Protestant nation wanted—and their eye on elections. Lord Palmerston’s premierships (1855–8) were the first to confront Victoria’s intuitive exercise of the Royal Supremacy with a nakedly populist logic. In 1858, Wellesley penned a memorandum damning his patronage of ‘very inferior specimens’, low-browed low churchmen who shared his son-in-law Lord Shaftesbury’s horror of Tractarianism.75 Yet when Victoria chided Palmerston for overlooking ‘University men of acknowledged standing and theological learning’ in his patronage nominations to her, he retorted that donnish bishops had been ‘inefficient’ and ‘intolerant’, ‘exasperat[ing] the Dissenters who form a large portion of the nation’. The ‘aversion to Catholicism’ of his nominees mattered more than their learning, because it reassured the ‘essentially Protestant’ laity.76 Spats over patronage were the result of this clash between Palmerston’s pragmatic and Victoria’s programmatic visions.77 When Victoria mistakenly forwarded a letter of advice she had received about her candidate for an Oxford chair to Palmerston, he was ‘enraged’, refusing to appoint him in a protest against ‘backstairs influence’. Such episodes boosted Victoria’s determination to follow her ‘rule, as the Prince did’ of coming to her own judgement on ‘all those recommended to her, whether high or low, for appointments’.78 As Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli (1868, 1874–80) proved as obdurate as Palmerston in thinking that the nation wanted zealous opponents of Roman Catholicism, not well-meaning intellectuals, as its bishops. Disraeli might have known the Church only at second hand—he treated a trip to hear a sermon in the Abbey with Stanley as a ‘Haroun-al-Raschid’ expedition—but he had developed a vision of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

151

England as caught in a European culture war between sacerdotalism and atheism, one which was as deeply felt as it was melodramatic.79 His thinking was not just ideological but electoral: he believed that England’s Protestant laity would reward his patronage of low church street fighters by voting Conservative. Disraeli’s gallivanting on this ‘Protestant horse’ appalled Victoria and Wellesley, for whom it revived memories of Palmerston’s huckstering.80 Though acquiescing in Disraeli’s wish to appoint the virulently anti-Catholic Hugh McNeile as Dean of Ripon, Victoria impressed upon him the need to promote ‘moderate, sensible, clever men, neither Evangelical or Ritualistic in their views’ rather than boosting aggressive low churchmen, which would simply alienate the ‘liberal minded’ and create a ‘mere Party Church’.81 Though he agreed to promote some liberal candidates, Disraeli insisted that his antennae were more sensitive than Victoria’s, arguing that McNeile’s appointment had been a ‘safety valve’ that had pleased ‘some millions’ of her subjects.82 That October, Victoria and Disraeli tussled over his wish to make Charles Ellicott, the Bishop of Gloucester and a crusader against Essays and Reviews, the new Archbishop of Canterbury.83 Wellesley had briefed her that Ellicott had a ‘miserably thin—weak voice, with no dignity of manner’ and was a turncoat from the high church.84 Disraeli replied that Wellesley and Victoria’s candidate Archibald Campbell Tait was too ‘obscure in purpose’ to take part in battle against ‘Romanists & the Freethinkers’.85 In caving to ‘irresistible pressure’ and agreeing to Tait’s appointment, he handed a significant victory to broad church liberals, which Tait himself ascribed to ‘Divine Providence’.86 Disraeli’s return to Downing Street in 1874 pushed Victoria into a more dirigiste approach. She handed him a list of favourite candidates for bishoprics: ‘really intellectual, liberal-minded, courageous men’ who could tackle ‘materialistic tendencies’.87 Wellesley warned Victoria that Disraeli would never be browbeaten into backing liberalism because he regarded the Church as merely ‘a great Steam-Engine of the Conservatives’.88 He knew his man. Disraeli responded to Victoria that Conservatives regarded the ‘Broad Church movement’ with ‘more suspicion & aversion than they do the Ritualists’.89 Victoria dismissed fears of the ‘bug bear of broad Church’.90 Waving her list at Disraeli again that autumn, she insisted that only liberals could steer a safe course between ‘Romanism and Popery’ and ‘Atheism and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Queen Victoria

152 91

Materialism’. Victoria’s saviour complex not only ran counter to Disraeli’s convictions but put her ahead of what Wellesley considered prudent in a constitutional sovereign.92 He dismissed some of the names on her list as ‘indiscreet’ and ‘eccentric’, and later cautioned that Frederic William Farrar, another favourite, had been too ‘vehement’ in his denunciations of orthodox eschatology to replace Stanley as Dean of Westminster Abbey.93 Victoria regarded liberalism’s heroes as martyrs to bigotry—her daughter Victoria periodically assured her from Berlin that Germans regarded outcries against higher criticism as ‘preposterous’.94 That meant she failed to grasp doubts about whether it was wise for a monarch to push such a strong programme of their own on the Church. ‘Protestant to the Heart’s Core’: Victoria and Ritualism Victoria’s defensive commitment to Protestant liberty in the Church became aggressive in response to perceived threats. After midcentury, a second generation of Tractarians became preoccupied with liturgical reform, wishing to restore the use of Prayer Book in full, or even to add elements to it from Roman Catholic worship as they had observed and admired it on trips to the Continent. These Ritualist clergy gloried in outraging prejudices about what it was seemly for Protestant Englishmen to do in church.95 They rubbed Victoria’s courtiers up the wrong way. Visiting family at Purbrook, Charles Grey found ‘crowds of People, of not the Best Class only’ flocking to the ‘mummeries’ of a Ritualist priest. ‘What fools these Anglican Parsons are, not to see that they are cutting the ground from under the Establishment’ mused Grey in writing to Victoria’s secretary Charles Phipps.96 ‘In these days’, he grumbled to Victoria, ‘he is considered almost an infidel, who ventures to suppress a doubt whether elaborate pomp and ceremony’ produced a ‘feeling of devotion’. In Grey, they inspired ‘ridicule’.97 Her secretary Henry Ponsonby thought the same, mingling Protestant horror with class disdain. Ritualism, he told Victoria in January 1874, was now a ‘serious evil’ in London, alluring ‘the smaller shopkeepers and the lower classes’ to services ‘as like the Roman Catholic ritual as possible’.98 Victoria shared this love of simplicity, demanding black gowns rather than surplices from clergymen who preached to her regularly, and reading

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

153 99

up on scholarly arguments against distinctive clerical dress. Her Germanized daughters Victoria and Alice encouraged her to believe that Ritualist dressing up was a gateway to Rome.100 ‘Protestant to the very heart’s core as the Queen is’, she wrote to Gladstone, ‘she is shocked & grieved to see England forgetting her Position & the Higher Classes & so many of the young Clergy tainted with their leaning towards Rome!’101 These fears strengthened Victoria’s implacable opposition to the preferment of ‘Ritualists & High Churchmen’, even those who came recommended to her as moderate and scholarly.102 It also led her to seek the legislative eradication of Ritualism through bans on its supposed innovations and the remodelling of church services to make them ‘more truly Protestant’, bringing them closer to the worship of ‘Presbyterians & Dissenters’ than to ‘Churches with Roman Catholic & medieval tendencies’. Some of Victoria’s proposals were dear to friends such as Stanley: the omission of the spiky Athanasian Creed from services or allowing ‘Presbyterians & other Protestant Clergymen to preach in our Churches & chapels’. Others reflected her crotchets, such as a desire to cut ‘coarse & objectionable’ bits of the Prayer Book and to inject ‘greater variety’ into set prayers.103 She told Stanley in November 1873 that short of achieving its ‘Complete Reform’, which was sadly impracticable, the state needed to clip the ‘bigotry & self-sufficiency & distrust of all other Protestant churches’ by banning ‘Ritualistic practices’ and throwing open pulpits to Dissenters. As the cosmopolitan Stanley well knew, such a project would inscribe England in the ‘universal struggle’ against Catholic reaction.104 Though Victoria had tactlessly informed Gladstone that his assistance in passing a legislative crackdown was ‘especially necessary’ as he was ‘supposed to have rather a bias towards High Church views himself ’, he had demurred, urging that the intelligent deployment of crown patronage would keep the Church ‘as the people of England know it, and love it, and such as the Reformation of the Church and after history have made it’.105 Victoria’s closest advisers were just as unenthusiastic; Wellesley had long felt it was better to let ‘mummery’ discredit itself than to render it glamorous through proscription. Stanley likewise wanted to vindicate Protestantism ‘not by squeezing out, but by taking in’.106 Victoria found enablers of her authoritarianism in Archibald Campbell Tait, the Archbishop of Canterbury and a critic of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

154

Queen Victoria

Tractarianism since his Oxford days, and in Benjamin Disraeli, whose pugnacious Erastianism was suddenly an asset. Tait took charge in the House of Lords of Victoria’s proposed law to enable bishops to police how clergy performed services, though he demurred from her desire to simplify those services.107 Wellesley had briefed Tait that he should concentrate on the ‘suppression of illegalities’ because a ‘dispensing provision’ in the bill, which allowed bishops to suspend the bits of the Prayer Book behind which Ritualists sheltered, would meet opposition from high churchmen in Disraeli’s Cabinet.108 Although Victoria complicated matters by demanding from Disraeli just such a measure, her and Wellesley’s anxiety to forestall a ‘Protestant storm’ or even the ‘Disestablishment of the Church’ was crucial in getting the Public Worship Regulation Act through Parliament.109 Disraeli purred that ‘if this blow is dealt against the Sacerdotal school, it will be entirely thro’ the personal will of the Sovereign’.110 Victoria and Tait were jubilant at the Act’s passage, which they felt had delivered the Church both from crypto-Catholicism and unbelief.111 A thrilled Victoria urged that they needed to press on to a ‘full admission of the rights of reason and science’ and ‘harmony amongst all true Protestants of all Denominations’.112 Yet one stake could not finish off the Ritualist vampire. The implementation of the Act merely inflamed debate about whether the monarch could remake the Church in line with her Protestant tastes.113 Victoria was adamant that the Act had vindicated the Royal Supremacy and the Protestant Succession, by which, she told Disraeli, ‘Her family was placed upon the throne!’114 But where Victoria saw herself as representing the Protestant nation, high church critics saw only a tyrant, a worldly incubus on the Church. Victoria’s liberals conversely fretted that prosecutions under the Act created martyrs whose spectacular imprisonment built a case for disestablishment, which would free Ritualists to move further towards Rome.115 When Disraeli conjured up ‘rancorous’ hordes plotting against the ‘power of the sovereign’, he aimed to chill Victoria into supporting his low church patronage, but Ritualists and their allies did argue that she had become an ‘irresponsible and tyrannical emperor’ and that it was time to ‘view, without alarm, the crash and havoc’ of the Royal Supremacy.116 The involvement of high churchmen with Gladstone’s antipathy to the Ottoman Empire in opposition to Disraeli’s Eastern policy also fostered her sense that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

155

they were extremists and deepened her truculence against these enemies of ‘the true and enlightened principles of the Reformation’.117 Wellesley explained to Gladstone that any nomination ‘approaching “High” ’ was unacceptable to Victoria, principally because she would ‘sooner cut off her right hand than sign away the Establishment’.118 These antipathies frustrated Victoria’s later prime ministers, who wished her to preside over rather than to run church patronage. Lord Salisbury, for instance, thought the role of patronage was to pacify a divided church by giving balanced preferment to its various parties, rather than promoting one faction to the exclusion of the other.119 That constantly brought him up against Victoria’s veto on high churchmen.120 While continuing to be assertive in patronage questions, Victoria also itched to remove un-Protestant excrescences on the Church, vigorously backing for instance an 1883 bill to legalize marriage between men and their deceased wives’ sisters, a step which Protestant lay opinion considered to be fair and scriptural but which was anathema to the bishops, who defeated it in the Lords.121 The Dean of Windsor, Randall Davidson likewise had to stop her in November 1899 from ordering the Bishop of London to simplify the service at a society wedding she attended. He trusted that Victoria would not want to ‘place a weapon in the hands of those who want, so to speak, to “catch the Bishops out”’ by alleging that they could set aside church law at will.122 ‘Earnest Views’: Defending the Establishment In the last decades of her reign, Victoria’s priorities increasingly shifted from eagerness to boost the Protestant character of the Church to alarmism about the future of its establishment. The two issues were of course connected, with Victoria feeling that Ritualist practices had led to the Church being ‘gtly threatened with Disestablishment’.123 But it also reflected a generational shift. The deaths of Stanley (1881), Wellesley, and Tait (1882) robbed her of her most effective liberal Protestant spokesmen and fixers.124 Plans to commemorate Tait by building a hall in which speakers could ‘promote action against sin and infidelity’ came to nothing. Chairing its first fundraising meeting, Victoria’s son Leopold claimed that thanks to Tait there was ‘little of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

156

Queen Victoria

that antagonism which rages in some other countries—the false opposition between reason and reverence’.125 For all this bravado, Victoria fretted about the freethinkers at work in Britain, such as the ‘dreadful’, ‘horrid’ republican Charles Bradlaugh who had attempted to sit in Parliament without swearing an oath on the Scriptures.126 The attempted assassination of Kaiser Wilhelm I in 1878 prompted her to observe to her daughter Victoria that ‘an Empire without religion is like a house on sand’ and that a ‘want of reverence for priests, older people and those in authority’ imperilled stability across Europe.127 Hearing three years later that one of the nihilists who killed Tsar Alexander II had thrown his bomb at the cost of his life, she described nihilism as ‘fanaticism with no object of reformation, but a thirst for destruction’. She was horrified when the radical British newspaper Freiheit toasted the assassination, and itched to take action against its journalists.128 An assassination attempt on Victoria in March 1882 was a reminder of her own vulnerability, even if the only harm the insane Scotsman who attacked her with a cap gun did was to inspire an excruciating poem by William McGonagall. Victoria’s answer to the radical threat was the same as ever: to promote liberal clergymen. In doing so, she relied on Tait’s son-in-law Randall Davidson, who had eventually succeeded Wellesley as Dean of Windsor, fitting her need for a ‘tolerant, liberal minded, broad church clergyman, who at the same time is pleasant socially’ and establishing an intimacy with her that survived his promotion to the bishoprics of Rochester (1890) and Winchester (1895).129 When pressed in 1896 to make Davidson Archbishop of Canterbury, Salisbury had sharply reminded Victoria of his third-class degree, but if he was no scholar his instincts were liberal and he dutifully read himself into his role.130 The court had been quick to give him a cipher so they could tap his ‘very wide knowledge of the clergy’ by telegram.131 If a clutch of Victoria’s late favourites were high churchmen, such as Thomas James Rowsell, a London clergyman who worked as her philanthropic fixer and became Deputy Clerk of the Closet (1879), others were energetic broad churchmen. They included William Boyd Carpenter, who became canon of Windsor, Bishop of Ripon, and a close spiritual counsellor to Victoria, and Harry Jones, a slum vicar who reassured her that the East End had not yet ‘set against the upper classes’. Cosmo Gordon Lang, then scrapping with anti-clerical

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

157

dockers on the south coast, likewise recommended himself as ‘broad and sound’ and became an honorary chaplain.132 Intent on a liberal establishment, Victoria never grasped the increasingly fiery objections of Protestant Dissenters to the state promotion and control of religion. In the mid-1840s she had excoriated the ‘extreme bigotry & obstinacy of the Dissenters’, which had led them to oppose both more state funding for the training of Irish Roman Catholic clergy and the expansion of non-denominational state education in England and Wales. She agreed with Russell that their objections showed a ‘dreadful’ ignorance of religion.133 The Dissenters she met in person, such as Gladstone’s Quaker Cabinet minister John Bright, who had squeezed into tights for court visits and even kissed her hand, ‘which Quakers never do’, were housetrained.134 Victoria was incurious about the conversionist passions of evangelical Dissent. She refused invitations to attend Moody and Sankey’s revivalist services, judging that theirs was not the ‘religion which can last’, and to act as patron of the Boys Brigade.135 She was suspicious of the Salvation Army’s female preachers, sending Boyd Carpenter to investigate its operations.136 Although Victoria followed the beginnings of the Dissenting crusade in Parliament for disestablishment in England and Wales, she had hoped along with Stanley that legislation to remedy such concrete grievances as the inability to hold funerals in churchyards would ‘soften their prejudices’ and quench the cause.137 Victoria thus regarded the Liberal Party’s adoption of demands for disestablishment in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland as an unforced error and an existential threat to the Church. She was encouraged in this stance by Tait’s successor Edward White Benson, who combined antiquarian passion for his church’s liturgy with sulphurous gloom about its waning social and political prospects. He once boasted that he would hang the ‘principal agitators’ for disestablishment from the windows of Lambeth Palace and was glad to discover his monarch had ‘most earnest views as to the maintenance of Establishment’. Accompanying Victoria down the Mile End Road in May 1887, with the ‘vibrating mighty ribbons of human faces’ of the crowd ‘crushing into one’s eyeballs’, Benson mused that ‘the thought of communism, or socialism, or unbelief having hold on these people seems ridiculous in sight of this enthusiasm. That the Church too was not valued and even loved could never have entered the mind.’138

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

158

Queen Victoria

Victoria’s ears were sharper: she heard ‘“booing” & hooting’ along the route, which was understandable, ‘considering the masses of Socialists of all nationalities, & low bad Irish, who abound in London’.139 The conflict between Victoria’s stubborn commitment to a national religion which was liberal because it was established and the plans of the Liberal Party erupted over Wales, a place she rarely visited but where the divergence between the Protestant population and the Church of England and Wales was unmistakeably acute. Victoria’s advisers had hoped that nominating Welsh-speaking evangelicals to its dioceses could blunt the charge that their church was foreign to the Welsh. As Victoria’s rare visit to the Principality in 1889 showed, she had not grasped the ferocity of its disestablishment politics. Visiting Theodore Martin’s house to see the desk on which he had written his life of Albert, she not only drove through an area that had seen riots against church tithes but took as her guard the troops who had suppressed them. Local nonconformists, claiming to be no ‘lapdogs’, refused to sign a welcome address to her.140 Gladstone’s conversion to the belief that the Welsh were a nation of nonconformists, and his proposed introduction of a Welsh Suspensory Bill which proposed to freeze additional endowment of the Church in Wales, thus shocked Victoria.141 Victoria gave Benson a ceremonial reception when he brought her Convocation’s protest against the bill, even though on ministerial advice she shied away from openly agreeing with him.142 Victoria complained to Gladstone that his bill would ‘disestablish part of the English Church, of which she is the head, and of which she always thought Mr Gladstone a loyal member’. Gladstone’s argument that disestablishment was a ‘local question’ in Wales, where the Church only represented a quarter of the population, cut no ice with her. She refused to announce bills to end establishment in Wales and Scotland at the opening of Parliament in 1894, a decision which came as a ‘thunderclap’ to Gladstone’s successor as Prime Minister, the Earl of Rosebery. His concession that the government would not commit itself to a particular bill averted a clash and shelved the issue for the time being.143 When in 1895 she vainly objected to the nomination of a Welsh ‘Disestablisher’ as Bishop of Hereford, Rosebery noted that establishment in Wales was ‘very much what Gibraltar is to Spain: a foreign fortress placed on the territory of a jealous, proud and susceptible nation’. One of Victoria’s advisers

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

159

sourly observed that if his analogy held, the new bishop was the traitor who betrayed the garrison.144 Yet his consecration went ahead, leaving Victoria and Rosebery’s aides to bicker over who had been unfair to whom.145 Victoria was ‘vehement on the Church question’ until the end. In the 1890s, Cosmo Gordon Lang found her ‘full of wrath’ at high churchmen who had floated a possible reunion with Rome, insisting that ‘the one thing which the mass of the English people would not stand was any belittling or apparent undoing of the Reformation’.146 Her dislike of high churchmen had hardened into reflexive anticlericalism, leading her to mutter that the members of Convocation assembled to wish her well at the Diamond Jubilee were a ‘very ugly party’. ‘I do not like bishops!’147 Victoria regarded the Church of England’s prosperity as critical to her throne and she strove first to maintain, then to reform, and finally to defend it. But her insistence that she was best qualified to say what the Protestant nation wanted from its Church meant that she was always bound to be uneasy as its self-appointed ‘Supreme Head’. Notes 1. LPL, Lang Papers 223, ff. 44–5. 2. Nancy Johnson, ed., The Diary of Gathorne Hardy, Later Lord Cranbrook, 1866–1892: Political Selections (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. 214, 218; Alfred Gathorne Hardy, Gathorne Hardy, First Earl of Cranbrook: A Memoir: With Extracts from his Diary and Correspondence (2 vols, London: Longmans and Co., 1910), pp. 341, 345; Peter Gordon, ed., The Political Diaries of the Fourth Earl of Carnarvon, 1857–1890, Colonial Secretary and LordLieutenant of Ireland (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009), p. 230. 3. See correspondence in RA VIC/MAIN/D/5/20–3, 37, 43. 4. Frank Hardie, The Political Influence of Queen Victoria (1935; London: Frank Cass and Co., 1963), pp. 16–18, 132–3. 5. W. T. Stead, Her Majesty the Queen: Studies of the Sovereign and the Reign (London: Review of Reviews Office, 1897), p. 94. 6. James Kirby, Historians and the Church of England: Religion and Historical Scholarship, 1870–1920 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2016). 7. Stewart J. Brown, ‘The Broad Church Movement, National Culture, and the Established Churches of Great Britain, c.1850–1900’, in Hilary

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

160

8.

9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

Queen Victoria M. Carey and John Gascoigne, eds, Church and State in Old and New Worlds (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 99–130. Leopold to Victoria, 11 November 1836 and 17 June 1837, in A. C. Benson and Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, eds, The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1907), 1: p. 66. Melbourne to Victoria, 21 May 1841, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 1: p. 355. G. E. Biber, Bishop Blomfield and His Times: An Historical Sketch (London: Harrison, 1857), p. 204; Dudley Bahlman, ed., The Diary of Sir Edward Walter Hamilton, 1880–1885 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 239. See e.g. Melbourne to Victoria, 2 February 1841, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 1: pp. 325–6; Victoria to Melbourne, 12 June 1842, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 2: p. 567; and QVJ, 17 February 1838, p. 13 for Melbourne’s views. QVJ, 14 September 1839, pp. 166–7; 14 October 1838, p. 45; 15 October 1838, p. 55; 18 November 1838, p. 266. Richard Brent, Liberal Anglican Politics: Whiggery, Religion and Reform (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). QVJ, 16 February 1840, p. 99; 14 January 1838, p. 16; 27 December 1845, p. 281. QVJ, 4 September 1838, p. 112; 5 October 1839, p. 12; 8 October 1842, p. 158. Melbourne to Victoria, 20 October and 30 December 1842, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 1: pp. 436, 449. Peter Virgin, The Church in an Age of Negligence: Ecclesiastical Structure and Problems of Church Reform, 1700–1840 (London: James Clarke, 1989); Hansard, Third Series, 170 (1863), cc. 6–7. QVJ, 10 June 1838, p. 13; 13 July 1840, p. 56. Albert to Peel, BL Add MS 40436, ff. 169–70. See e.g. Peel correspondence with Victoria and Albert, BL Add MS 40433, f. 196; BL Add MS 40434, ff. 25, 253; Add MS 40435, ff. 8, 48; BL Add MS 40436, f. 397; BL Add MS 40437, f. 225; BL Add MS 40438, f. 256; BL Add MS 404039, ff. 352–4; Add MS 40440, f. 325. Kurt Jagow, ed., Letters of the Prince Consort, 1831–1861 (London: John Murray, 1938), p. 98. Angus Hawkins and John Powell, eds, The Journal of John Wodehouse, First Earl of Kimberley, 1862–1902 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997), pp. 99–100.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

161

21. William Howley, A Sermon Preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (London, 1817). 22. Charles Blomfield, A Sermon Preached at the Coronation of Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria in the Abbey Church of Westminster, June 28, 1838 (London: B. Fellowes, 1838), p. 17. 23. Spencer Walpole, The Life of Lord John Russell (2 vols, London: Longmans, 1889), 2: p. 285. QVJ, 14 June 1839, p. 34; Lord Broughton, Recollections of a Long Life. By Lord Broughton, With Additional Extracts from his Private Diaries (6 vols, London: John Murray, 1909–11), 5: p. 216. 24. QVJ, 19 April 1838, p. 76. 25. QVJ, 17 June 1838, p. 43. 26. Walter Farquhar Hook, Hear the Church (London: J. G. and F. Rivington, 1838), p. 4. 27. Melbourne to Victoria, 12 and 17 June 1842, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 1: pp. 469–70. 28. QVJ, 7 March 1845, p. 91; Peel correspondence with Albert, BL Add MS 40 433, f. 196; BL Add MS 40 434, f. 25; BL Add MS 40 439, ff. 165–6; BL Add MS 40 439, ff. 165–7. 29. Walpole, Russell, 2: pp. 468–9. 30. Victoria to Lord John Russell, 25 March 1847, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 2: p. 143. 31. Walpole, Russell, 1: p. 477. 32. QVJ, 16 December 1847, p. 179; 19 December 1847, p. 182; 11 November 1847, p. 141; 31 December 1847, p. 196. 33. Victoria to Lord John Russell, 19 December 1847, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 2: p. 165; QVJ, 25 November 1850, p. 182. 34. The Principles of the English Constitution in Church and State, Touching the Royal Supremacy, the Rights and Duties of Convocation, and the Prerogative of the Crown: In the Form of an Address to the Queen (London, 1848), pp. 9, 12. 35. See Charles Henry Burton, The Royal Supremacy: A Sermon (Liverpool: Deighton & Laughton, 1850), p. 13; Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Royal Supremacy not an Arbitrary Authority but Limited by the Laws of the Church, of which Kings are Members: Part I: Ancient Precedents (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1850). 36. William Josiah Irons, The Present Crisis of the Church of England (London: Joseph Masters, 1850), pp. 54–5; ‘The Supremacy Question’, English Review, 13 (1850), p. 177. 37. See e.g. Sanderson Robins, An Argument for the Royal Supremacy (London: William Pickering, 1851), pp. 13, 55–62.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

162 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45. 46.

47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

Queen Victoria QVJ, 19 March 1850, p. 79; 4 June 1850, p. 159; 19 June 1850, p. 176. Louise to Victoria, 3 January 1850, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/16/93. Victoria to Leopold, 11 July 1848, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 2: p. 218. Paul A. Pickering, ‘ “The Hearts of the Millions”: Chartism and Popular Monarchism in the 1840s’, History, 88 (2003), pp. 227–48. Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 2, General Fasts, Thanksgivings and Special Prayers in the British Isles 1689–1870 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017), p. 865. QVJ, 17 June 1848, p. 241. QVJ, 6 August 1848, p. 7; 10 November 1849, p. 97. Wilfrid Ward, The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman (2 vols, London: Longmans, 1897), 1: p. 552. Jörg Neuheiser, Krone, Kirche und Verfassung: Konservatismus in den englischen Unterschichten 1815–1867 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), ch. 4 and pp. 288–99; Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G. (2 vols, London: Cassell, 1886), 2: p. 331. QVJ, 29 October 1850, p. 153. Nicholas Wiseman, An Appeal to the Reason and Good Feeling of the English People on the Subject of the Catholic Hierarchy (London: Thomas Richardson and Son, 1850), p. 10. For replies to Wiseman, see e.g. John King, Cardinal Wiseman Unmasked! And the Sophistry of his Plea for the Roman Hierarchy Exposed (London: Seeleys, 1850) and John Cumming, Notes on the Cardinal’s Manifesto (London: Arthur Hall, Virtue & Co., 1850). QVJ, 11 and 12 December 1850, pp. 206–9; 7 March 1851, p. 152; 1 July 1852, p. 298. QVJ, 25 November 1847, p. 159; 2 February 1851, p. 38; 15 March 1851, p. 160; 10 June 1852, p. 267. Victoria to Leopold, 25 October 1850, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 2: p. 326. Theodore Martin, The Life of the Prince Consort (5 vols, London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1875–80), 2: p. 343. QVJ, 29 October 1850, p. 153. QVJ, 10 December 1850, p. 206. QVJ, 13 December 1850, p. 212. William J. E. Bennett, A First Letter to the Right Honourable Lord John Russell, MP on the Present Persecution of a Certain Portion of the English Church (London: W. J. Cleaver, 1850), pp. 1–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

163

57. Robert Isaac Wilberforce, An Inquiry into the Principles of Church Authority, or Reasons for Recalling my Subscription to the Royal Authority (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1854), pp. 278–9. 58. Victoria to Aberdeen, 11 March 1854, BL Add MS 43048, ff. 300–1; Victoria to Aberdeen, 21 March 1854, BL Add MS 43 048, f. 313; Aberdeen to Albert, 2 April 1854, Add MS 43 049; Arthur Rawson and Reginald Wilberforce, Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Revised with Additions (3 vols, London: Kegan Paul, 1888), 1: p. 236. 59. QVJ, 16 April 1852, p. 193; 15 June 1852, p. 276; 12 September 1852, p. 75. 60. W. F. Monypenny and G. E. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (6 vols, London: John Murray, 1910–20), 2: pp. 103–4. 61. QVJ, 28 June 1863, p. 236. 62. Charles Phipps to Earl Granville, 14 March 1863, in George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Second Series. A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1862 and 1878 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1926–8), 2: p. 78; Angus Hawkins and John Powell, eds, The Journal of John Wodehouse, First Earl of Kimberley, for 1862–1902 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997), p. 94. For annoyance at lack of consultation see e.g. Stafford Northcote to Victoria, 6 May 1868, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/76; Ponsonby to Victoria, 24 November 1872, RA VIC/MAIN/D/3/65. 63. See correspondence over the bill in RA VIC/MAIN/D/13/40–5. 64. Russell to Victoria, 15 February 1866 and 17 February 1866, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/1/3, 4; Victoria to Benjamin Disraeli, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/ 68; correspondence over Duckworth, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/3–9; Wellesley to Gladstone, 19 March 1873, BL Add MS 44, 340, f. 25. 65. Thomas Teignmouth Shore, Some Recollections (London: Hutchinson 1911), pp. 51–3; Gladstone to Wellesley, 22 August 1881, BL Add MS 44, 340, f. 119. 66. Wellesley to Tait, 20 June 1874, LPL, Tait Papers 93, f. 200; Wellesley to Victoria, 23 Sept 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/49; Wellesley correspondence with Gladstone over Wilkinson, BL Add MS 44, 340, ff. 187–200. 67. John Bailey, ed., The Diary of Lady Frederick Cavendish (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1927), 2: p. 70; Wellesley to Victoria, 27 November 1866; Victoria to Derby, 28 November 1865, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/46–8. 68. Wellesley to Victoria, 26 September 1869 and 8 October 1869, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/2/25, 29.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

164

Queen Victoria

69. QVJ, 30 July 1853, p. 252; 3 April 1864, p. 149; 18 March 1866, p. 67; Wellesley to Victoria, 27 November 1867 and Victoria to Derby (copy), 4 November 1867, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/46, 48; Lightfoot to Victoria, 13 February 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/19. 70. QVJ, 11 July 1847, p. 245; 3 April 1859, p. 80; 14 June 1862, p. 148. 71. Dean of Windsor and Hector Bolitho, eds, Later Letters of Lady Augusta Stanley, 1864–1876 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1929), pp. 48, 51; QVJ, 29 February 1864, p. 110; 13 April 1864, p. 158; 29 November 1864, p. 392. 72. Wellesley to Gladstone, 13 March 1873, BL Add MS 33, 340, ff. 23–4; Augusta to Victoria, 24 March 1873, WAM MS 63517; Victoria to Disraeli, 21 January 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/17; Victoria to Disraeli, 28 January 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/9. 73. Bolitho, Later Letters, p. 113; QVJ, 23 March 1870, p. 57; Augusta Stanley to Victoria, 24 March 1873, WAM MS 63517. 74. Wellesley to Gladstone, August 1880, BL Add MS 44, 340, f. 78; Duchess of Athole to Queen Victoria, 19 August 1879, RA VIC/ MAIN/S/12/17. 75. Wellesley Memorandum, RA VIC/MAIN/D13A, f. 1. 76. Victoria to Palmerston, 1 December 1860 and Palmerston to Victoria, 2 December 1860, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: pp. 529–30. See also Buckle, Letters. Second Series, 1: p. 178. 77. See John Wolffe, ‘Lord Palmerston and Religion: A Reappraisal’, English Historical Review, 120 (2005), pp. 907–36. 78. LPL, Tait Papers 75, ff. 222–3; Victoria to Palmerston, 5 July 1864, RA VIC/MAIN/D/13A/9. 79. Monypenny and Buckle, Disraeli, 2: p. 398. See Jon Parry, ‘Disraeli and England’, Historical Journal, 43 (2000), pp. 699–728; Meghan Kearney, ‘Disraeli and Religion’, Oxford University unpublished Dphil thesis, 2016; Allen Warren, ‘Disraeli, the Conservatives and the National Church, 1837–1881’, Parliamentary History, 19 (2000), pp. 96–117 on his agenda. 80. Monypenny and Buckle, Disraeli, 2: p. 405; Arthur Rawson Ashwell and Reginald Wilberforce, Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Revised with Additions (3 vols, London: Kegan Paul, 1888), 1: p. 336. 81. Correspondence over McNeile, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/79–84; Angus Hawkins, The Forgotten Prime Minister: The 14th Earl of Derby: Volume II: Achievement, 1851–1869 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008), pp. 374–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

165

82. Disraeli to Wellesley, 10 September 1868, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/87. 83. Disraeli to Victoria, 29 October 1868 and Victoria to Disraeli, 31 October 1868, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/107–8. 84. Wellesley to Victoria, 5 November 1868, RA VIC/MAIN/D/3/113. 85. Disraeli to Victoria, 4 December 1868, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/112. 86. Johnson, Gathorne Hardy, p. 85; LPL, Tait Papers 75, f. 240. 87. Victoria to Disraeli, 21 January 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/2. 88. Wellesley to Victoria, 30 January 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/12. 89. Disraeli to Victoria, 26 January 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/6. 90. Victoria to Disraeli, 21 January 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/17. 91. Victoria to Disraeli (copy), 9 November 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/54. 92. Wellesley to Victoria, 12 November 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/57. 93. Wellesley to Victoria, 28 January 1875 and 8 June 1875, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/6/10, 33; Wellesley to Victoria, 23 September 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/49; Wellesley to Tait, 28 July 1881, LPL, Tait Papers 100, f. 111. 94. Roger Fulford, ed., Your Dear Letter: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1865–1871 (London: Evans Bros, 1971), pp. 191, 193, 195, 201. 95. John Sheldon Reed, Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian AngloCatholicism (Nashville and London: Vanderbilt UP, 2000); Jeremy Morris, ‘British High Churchmen, Continental Church Tourism and the Roman Connection in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 66 (2015), pp. 772–91; Frank Turner, ‘Cultural Apostasy and the Foundations of Victorian Intellectual Life’, in Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993), pp. 38–72. 96. Grey to Phipps (copy), 1877, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/33. 97. Grey to Victoria, 27 February 1869, RA VIC/MAIN/D/2/5. 98. Ponsonby to Victoria, 25 January 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/4/7. 99. Correspondence over Prothero’s wish to wear a surplice at Whippingham, RA VIC/MAIN/D/3/78, 81, 104; Duckworth to Victoria, 23 April 1868, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/71. 100. Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland: Biographical Sketch and Letters (London: John Murray, 1884), p. 326. 101. Victoria to Gladstone, January 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/4/3. 102. Correspondence over William Bright (1868), RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/ 100–2; Disraeli to Victoria, 8 November 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

166

103. 104. 105. 106.

107.

108. 109.

110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116.

117.

Queen Victoria 52; Ponsonby to Victoria, 10 November 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/56; Wellesley to Victoria, 12 November 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/57. Victoria to Tait, LPL, Tait Papers 86, ff. 358–9. Victoria to Stanley, 13 November 1873, WAM MS 63519, f. 68. Victoria to Gladstone and Gladstone to Victoria, 21 January 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/4/3, 6. Wellesley to Victoria, 4 January 1865, RA VIC/MAIN/D/13A/10; Stanley to Duke of Argyll, 15 August 1876, AP, MSS Bundle 323. See also Stanley to Victoria, 18 June 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/1. Tait to Victoria, 15 January 1874, LPL, Davidson Papers 19, f. 14. On his background and role in the crisis see P. T. Marsh, The Victorian Church in Decline: Archbishop Tait and the Church of England, 1868–1882 (London: Routledge, 1969). Wellesley to Tait, 19 March 1874, LPL, Tait Papers 93, ff. 150–1. Wellesley to Victoria, 2 March and 17 March 1874, Victoria to Disraeli (copy), 20 March 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/4/14, 17, 21; Wellesley to Tait, 24 June 1874 and Victoria to Disraeli, LPL, Tait Papers 93, ff. 214, 226–7. Disraeli to Victoria, 12 July 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/5/9. Victoria to Tait, 6 August 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/5/42; Tait to Victoria, 20 December 1876, LPL, Davidson Papers 19, f. 19. Victoria to Tait, 8 January 1877, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/89. See James Bentley, Ritualism and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Attempt to Legislate for Belief (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978) and Reed, Glorious Battle. Victoria to Disraeli (copy), 10 July 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/5/2. See e.g. Ponsonby to Victoria, 13 August 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/5/ 44; Lightfoot to Wellesley, 29 March 1877, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/98. Disraeli to Victoria, 27 February 1877 and 27 May 1877, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/6/95, 100; R. S. Enraght, Not Law, but Unconstitutional Tyranny, A Lecture on the Present Unconstitutional Exercise of the Royal Supremacy in Matters Spiritual (London and Birmingham: J. T. Hayes, 1877), p. 4; Francis King, The Royal Supremacy: With Reference to Convocation, the Court of Appeal, and the Appointment of Bishops, Historically Examined in a Letter to the Rt Hon W. E. Gladstone (Oxford: Parker and Co., 1881), p. 72. Wellesley to Tait, 29 November 1876, LPL, Tait Papers 96, f. 259; Gordon, Carnarvon, p. 285; Johnson, Gathorne Hardy, p. 328; Victoria to Disraeli (copy), 27 January 1877, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/93.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Supreme Head

167

118. Wellesley to Gladstone, 6 July and 11 September 1881, BL Add MS 44 340, ff. 101, 131. 119. Michael Bentley, Lord Salisbury’s World: Conservative Environments in Late Victorian Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001), pp. 194–5. 120. Salisbury to Victoria, 2 February 1890, RA VIC/MAIN/D/13A/110; Salisbury to Victoria, 6 July 1888, RA VIC/MAIN/D/13A/85. 121. William Benham and Randall Davidson, The Life of Archibald Campbell Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1891) 2: p. 122; Frederick Ponsonby, Sidelights on Queen Victoria (London: Macmillan and Co., 1930), p. 54; Johnson, Gathorne Hardy, p. 519; Hawkins and Powell, Kimberley, p. 443. 122. Davidson to Victoria, 27 November 1899, LPL, Davidson Papers 26, f. 104. 123. Victoria to Stanley, 13 November 1873, WAM 63519. 124. Mrs Charles Grey to Horatia Stopford, 18 September 1882, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/8/38; Agatha Ramm, ed., The Political Correspondence of Mr Gladstone and Lord Granville, 1876–1886 (2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 1: p. 422. 125. Benham and Davidson, Tait, 2: p. 601. 126. QVJ, 22 May 1880, p. 204; 25 May 1880, p. 206; 23 June 1880, p. 232; 28 June 1880, p. 235. 127. Victoria to Victoria, 3 June 1878 and 17 June 1878 in Roger Fulford, ed., Darling Child: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1871–1878 (London: Evans Bros, 1976), pp. 292–3. 128. QVJ, 8 April 1881, p. 152; 30 March 1881, p. 136; 11 April 1881, p. 157. See Bernard Porter, The Refugee Question in Mid-Victorian Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979) for the prosecution of Freiheit. 129. Victoria to Gladstone, 26 September 1882, RA VIC/MAIN/D/8/82. 130. QVJ, 20 October 1896, p. 128; Salisbury to Victoria, 14, 16, and 22 October 1896, RA VIC/MAIN/D/12/91–2, 97; LPL, Davidson Papers 579, f. 7. 131. Ponsonby to Victoria, 27 December 1882, RA VIC/MAIN/D/8/211. 132. H. D. A. Major, The Life and Letters of William Boyd Carpenter (London: John Murray, 1925), pp. 19, 139–41, 148; QVJ, 9 March 1884, p. 58; 2 August 1891, p. 51; Victor Mallet, ed., Life with Queen Victoria: Marie Mallet’s Letters from Court, 1887–1901 (London: John Murray, 1968), pp. 77, 138. 133. QVJ, 25 March 1847, p. 90. See also QVJ, 22 July 1847, p. 255.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

168

Queen Victoria

134. QVJ, December 1868, p. 350; 30 December 1868, p. 372. 135. Victoria to Gainsborough, 27 April 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/27; Ponsonby to Lady Login, LPL, Benson Papers 114, f. 402. 136. Major, Carpenter, pp. 230, 780–1; Ponsonby to Victoria, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/11/9–10. 137. Ponsonby to Victoria, 17 May 1871, RA VIC/MAIN/D/2/72; Benham and Davidson, Tait, 2: p. 539; Stanley to Victoria, 14 June 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/4/62; Cairns to Victoria, 4 June 1880, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/7/41; Victoria to Lord Spencer, 8 August 1880, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/7/55. For the politics of burials see Deborah Wiggin, ‘The Burial Act of 1880, the Liberation Society and George Osborne Morgan’, Parliamentary History, 15 (1996), pp. 173–89. 138. A. C. Benson, Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1901), 2: pp. 3, 74–5, 102–3, 216. 139. QVJ, 14 May 1887, p. 222. 140. John Davies, ‘Victoria and Victorian Wales’, in G. H. Jenkins and J. B. Smith, eds, Politics and Society in Wales: Essays in Honour of Ieuan Gwynedd (Cardiff, 1988), p. 23. 141. Kenneth O. Morgan, ‘Gladstone, Wales, and the New Radicalism’, in Peter Jagger, ed., Gladstone (London: Bloomsbury, 1996), pp. 131–2. 142. Benson, Benson, 2: p. 518; Hawkins and Powell, Kimberley, p. 412; QVJ, 23 February 1893, p. 58. 143. George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Third Series: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal between the Years 1886 and 1901 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1930–32), 2: pp. 232–4; 379–81; QVJ, 9 March 1894, pp. 67–8. 144. Bigge to Davidson in Buckle, Letters. Third Series, 2: p. 468; Rosebery to Victoria (1895), RA VIC/MAIN/D/12/1, 3a. 145. Randall Davidson to Arthur Bigge, 23 January 1895, RA VIC/MAIN/ D/12/2b; Murray to Bigge, 12 April 1895, RA VIC/MAIN/D/12/ 12e; Murray to Bigge, 16 April 1895, RA VIC/MAIN/D/12/13a; Davidson to Bigge, 23 April 1895, RA VIC/MAIN/D/12/16a; Bigge to Murray 27 April 1895, RA VIC/MAIN/D/12/20d. 146. Mallet, Mallet, p. 163; LPL, Lang Papers 223, f. 66. 147. Marie Louise, My Memories of Six Reigns (London: Evans Brothers, 1956), p. 146.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

6 Disunited Kingdom

On 11 September 1893, crowds assembled to dedicate a new kirk at Crathie, near Balmoral Castle. Victoria, who had worshipped and taken communion there for decades as a ‘true Highland chieftain’, had not wanted the old building to go. A year earlier, one observer had seen her sitting alongside farmers and ghillies at the communion table as the parishioners sang unaccompanied paraphrases of the psalms—for Victoria refused to tolerate new-fangled hymns or an organ.1 Crathie Kirk, both old and new, was a material bond with the Church of Scotland and a memorial to her Highlands life with Albert, of which she had spoken and written so much. Laying the foundation stone for the new Crathie kirk, which she had largely funded—the first time a monarch had performed such an act since the Reformation—Victoria had spoken of her attachment to the Church of Scotland, ‘which so largely represents the religious feeling of the people of this country’. As she rose to go, ‘the national anthem was raised by the choir, and the multitude, glad to find so fitting an outlet for their pent-up feelings, joined in the strain’, which echoed around the ‘everlasting hills’.2 Victoria’s statement both aligned her throne with Scottish nationalism and represented an intervention in Scotland’s divisive religious politics. In pledging British monarchs to maintain the Presbyterian Kirk, the 1707 Union had made Scottish nationalism an ecclesiological phenomenon, which was often more preoccupied with independence for the Kirk than independence as such.3 The frustration of the evangelical party with Parliament’s refusal to return patronage rights to its godly congregations triggered the Disruption of the Church of Scotland (1843), creating a breakaway Free Church, which saw itself as the true national establishment. Its leaders eventually teamed up with other Dissenters to argue that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

170

Queen Victoria

only the disestablishment of the Kirk could preserve the purity of Scottish Protestantism. Gladstone’s Liberal Party accepted that in Scotland, no less than in Wales, demands for disestablishment reflected the religion of the nation, only to provoke a pushback from the Kirk’s leaders. Victoria’s love of the Kirk therefore both backed one vision of Scottish religion over another and extended north of the border what chapter five showed was her core conviction: that a liberal faith flourished best within established churches. The first part of this chapter explains why Victoria remarked that ‘I am very nearly a Dissenter—or rather more a Presbyterian—in my feelings.’4 This affective rather than doctrinal claim expressed fondness for the Highlands and the Church of Scotland ministers she met there. They represented the Kirk to her as a national, progressive institution, using the broad church arguments with which she was familiar in England but whose application was here appealingly realized in the lives of her Scottish friends and tenants.5 Crathie Kirk, then, draped the monarchy in tartan and turned Victoria into a British defender of British Protestantism. The second half of this chapter shows that the virtuous circle between residence and religion established at Crathie and Balmoral turned vicious in Ireland. Victoria’s visits to Ireland tailed off just as she set up home at Balmoral, a shift which coincided with the breakdown of her relationship with the Irish hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Historians rightly argue that there was nothing preordained in the monarchy’s failure to come to terms with Irish nationalism or to reach an entente with the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.6 Victoria came to the throne determined to follow a liberal Whig policy of constructive friendliness to Irish Catholics and shared Robert Peel’s grudging hope that Ireland could be ‘governed like Scotland & more assimilated with England’ by paying respect to its religious differences, befriending priests so as to do away with the need for ‘Troops’.7 The Irish hierarchy’s anger at British policy in the Famine undermined the hope that the monarchy could be a solvent of confessional tensions in Ireland. With Irish clergy increasingly sympathetic to nationalist demands, Victoria and her ministers turned from Dublin to Rome to find more amenable Catholic interlocutors for the British state. As she well understood, Roman Catholicism was a transnational faith as well as the national religion of Ireland, one centred in Rome but operating throughout the British Empire.8 Although Victoria was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

171

involved in overtures to two successive popes, Pius IX and Leo XIII, they could not bring the Irish hierarchy to heel. The estrangement of Irish Catholics from Victoria, which, as chapters eight and nine will show, was painfully visible during her Jubilees and after her death, was in ironic contrast with her growing personal appreciation of Roman Catholicism as a lived religion, thanks to family ties, friendships, and encounters on Continental holidays.9 Victoria’s devotion to the Kirk and her largely personal discovery of Roman Catholicism made her both more familiar with and sympathetic to the religious diversity of the United Kingdom than any of her predecessors were. But while this strengthened the status of the monarchy in Scotland, it did little to benefit her politically in Ireland. ‘The Real and True Stronghold of Protestantism’: Victoria and the Church of Scotland Victoria’s predecessors already had a close formal relationship with the Church of Scotland. They pledged to maintain it on their accession and their Lord High Commissioners ceremonially opened its annual General Assembly. The monarch had Presbyterian chaplains, headed by the Dean of the Thistle, and enjoyed extensive patronage rights over many parishes and university chairs. Yet these connections rarely occasioned displays of personal feeling, with William IV not following up on George IV’s kilted state visit to Edinburgh. As Benjamin Disraeli later told the Queen, in response to her feeling she was the head of the Kirk, ‘the connection of the Sovereign with the Kirk is purely civil’.10 In assisting Victoria to plan her first jaunt to Scotland in the summer of 1842, Robert Peel had worried that her participation in the Kirk’s services would embroil her in its controversies, and arranged that she would take Anglicanism with her, explaining that ‘prayers can be read at Drummond Castle in the same manner as they might at Dalkeith by an Episcopalian minister’. Victoria did take part in a Kirk service at Blair Athole, but the practice of taking Anglicanism to Scotland continued for a while.11 Victoria’s courtiers and Cabinet ministers resembled many English people in finding little to attract them in the Kirk’s worship. Victoria’s future Archbishop of Canterbury Edward White Benson found ‘nothing holy and Christian looking’ in Crathie Kirk when he visited it as a young

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Queen Victoria

172

man. A ‘very dreary and desperate affair’, sighed Lord Carnarvon when he was dragged to a service there in autumn 1874. ‘How the Scotch Nation can bear this sort of thing I cannot tell. It perhaps accounts for some of their defects.’13 Ardent Anglicans felt it improper for Victoria to even attend Presbyterian worship, the Tory paper John Bull feeling sure that Victoria would not want to attend a church whose ‘Creed is an insult to her faith’ as an Episcopalian.14 It was not John Knox but Walter Scott which had drawn Victoria and Albert to Scotland. Following Peel’s itinerary, their first visit had largely skirted the Whig lowlands and taken them into the ‘picturesque’ Highlands they knew from the Waverley novels.15 If Scott provided one set of spectacles to view Scotland, then Germany supplied another. Albert found the Highlanders ‘German-looking’ and the resemblance between the Thuringian hills and Deeside prompted them to lease the Balmoral estate, then purchase and rebuild it in baronial style. Victoria’s German dresser Frieda Arnold found its uncarpeted stairs gemütlich, writing that ‘what surrounded me was more like what I had left behind and love’ in Germany. The Spartan Crathie, where the couple worshipped in 1848 and 1849, reminded Albert of the Lutheran churches of his youth.16 When it was rebuilt in a pre-Reformation Scots style at the century’s close, Victoria’s daughters lobbied to add a tower modelled on one they liked in Coburg, adding another rhyme between Deeside and Lutheran Thuringia.17 After Albert’s death, the Highlands became a landscape of memory and consolation. Mad with longing for him at Balmoral in September 1863, hallucinating his return from deer stalking, she confessed that ‘the mountains, the woods, the rocks seem to talk of him, for he wandered and climbed so often among them’.18 She told her uncle Leopold that in the Highlands ‘the mountains seem fresh from God’s hand, nearer to Heaven, and the primitive people seem to have kept that chivalrous loyalty and devotion—seen hardly, indeed now nowhere, else!’19 Writing to Vicky of ‘dear Scotland’ in November 1867, she wrote that ‘I identify with all the habits ways feelings & the language as tho I was a native’ and that in her sad ‘widowed life’ it was ‘the one Element which has at all helped me on’.20 She commissioned and publicized paintings of Highlanders from Landseer and the miniaturist Kenneth Macleay to show off ‘the Race’.21 Her daughters shared her idealization of ‘those dear People’ and backed the publication of 12

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

173

Victoria’s Leaves in the belief that it would establish Balmoral as a model of social hierarchy, a counterweight to worldly and deracinated London.22 This was ironic, as patriots feared that by making the Highlands fashionable with sporting people, Victoria would accelerate their depopulation, as landlords such as her friends the Duke and Duchess of Sutherland evicted people for grouse. One activist implored Victoria to be a ‘good Queen Esther’ and prevent Highlanders being shipped off to ‘frost-bitten’ Ontario.23 Yet Albert advanced that outflow by acting as patron of the Highlands and Islands Emigration Society, while Victoria was less interested in economic justice than in the efforts to preserve mores, such as the use of Gaelic in schools.24 Victoria’s impressions of Scotland were, then, strictly parochial. She felt a ‘patriarchal’ responsibility to the parish of Crathie, visiting the Kirk in June 1869 to look at ‘the graves of some of my people’.25 Its rites of passage fascinated her. In November 1875, she attended the funeral of John Brown’s father—held, as was Scottish custom, at his house rather than the graveside.26 In October 1895, Victoria watched from a closed landau as a minister preached over the plaid-covered coffin of Brown’s nephew Albert before condoling with his mother. Going to Crathie a year later to ‘wreathe the tombs of various Browns’, her lady in waiting Marie Mallet was amused that the ‘Highland servants’ should share this ‘unique honour’ with Albert.27 Victoria’s reading strengthened her tendency to place the Kirk in a spiritualized Scottish landscape. She read novels and non-fiction by ministers she knew and by liberal Protestant authors such as Dinah Craik, Margaret Oliphant, and George Macdonald, which presented the rough but simple spirituality of Highlanders as participating in the ‘sombre sadness’ of the landscape.28 Her ministerial friends indulged her patriarchal illusions. John Tulloch ‘quite agreed’ with her about the ‘great mistake of over educating the lower classes, which prevented people from being good labourers & servants’.29 Through Crathie, Victoria came to know not just the Highlands, but the Kirk. Because she disliked the ‘dreary and tiresome’ delivery of Archibald Anderson, the minister of Crathie—preferring his characterful sheepdog Towser, who often joined him in the pulpit—she and her advisers chose preachers for Crathie and the private chapel at Balmoral during her stays.30 This cherry picking led her to think of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

174

Queen Victoria

Presbyterian clergymen as oatmeal-eating intellectuals—cleverer and plainer than Anglican priests—and introduced her to such favourites as John Tulloch and John Caird.31 Above all there was Norman Macleod, who made an instant hit with an ‘entirely extempore’ sermon in October 1854 and became an indispensable spiritual counsellor until his death in 1872.32 Two memorial windows in Crathie formed a lasting monument to his supremacy there, Victoria intervening to replace ‘ugly’ versions funded by his publisher Strahan.33 Macleod got his liberal brother Donald to join the rota of preachers, while after Anderson’s death the Macleods got the ‘liberal minded’ Germanophile Malcolm Taylor and the equally broad church Archibald Campbell appointed as the next two ministers of Crathie.34 Another important broker of ministerial acquaintances was the eighth Duke of Argyll, who had been brought up as a bookish ornithologist before unexpectedly becoming heir to the dukedom and shouldering his family’s historic defence of the Kirk’s interests. Known in London society for his ‘affected’ dress, flowing red hair, and ‘visible arrogance’, he appeared to Victoria to be ‘very superior’.35 Argyll’s marriage to Elizabeth Leveson-Gower, the daughter of Victoria’s beloved Harriet, Duchess of Sutherland, brought him closer to the court. Though an Anglican like her Tractarian mother, Elizabeth was a liberal friend of Arnold and Bunsen who was also close to leading ministers in the Kirk, such as James MacGregor, John Cumming, and Robert Herbert Story.36 Argyll recommended himself to Victoria as a ‘Highlander’, a friend of Tennyson, and as a writer on scientific theism.37 The marriage of his son the Marquis of Lorne to Victoria’s daughter Louise strengthened their connection—she spoke of them to him as ‘our Children’.38 The dilettantish Lorne was the butt of society jokes but he represented her as Governor General of Canada (1878–83) and did literary odd jobs for her. In September 1875, Argyll invited MacGregor, Story, and Donald Macleod to meet the Queen, confiding in them ‘her attachment to the Church of Scotland, and her great interest in its ministers’.39 Victoria’s relationship with MacGregor shows that her bond with ministers was above all an affective one, particularly in widowhood. Although Argyll had been interested in MacGregor ever since he began his ministerial career in Paisley as a defender of the Kirk against Free Church aggression, his ranting style was not calculated to please

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

175

Victoria. When he first preached at Balmoral in 1871, this Tartan Savonarola was so strident that he brought up ‘a little blood in the throat’. After another performance, John Brown passed on Victoria’s view that ‘it was a very fine sermon, but a little too long’ at forty minutes.40 At Inveraray, he showed a more domestic side: Argyll’s children called him ‘Mr Hamish’ and learned Gaelic from him. He developed close relations with Lorne and Louise, accompanying them to Canada.41 With Victoria he had grief in common. He had lost his wife, father, and sole surviving daughter shortly before their meeting, leaving him almost ‘mad’. On a subsequent interview, ‘the very first words were about my loss and how much she felt for me, comparing her own troubles with mine, when in the sight of God all are on the same footing of personal equality’. MacGregor’s sermon on that occasion was packed with ‘allusions to the future life & the loss of near & dear ones’. When MacGregor wrote to Victoria on his appointment as chaplain, he recalled ‘your tender and generous sympathy’ in a ‘dark time’.42 He became a consoled consoler. After the death of Leopold in 1884, his widow Helena wrote to MacGregor that ‘all you told me on our walk and your words that morning in church have been helping me on ever since’. A decade later, Beatrice thanked him for a funeral sermon on her husband, observing that ‘I know you can understand the yearning that comes over me for that sweet companionship’.43 Although they could not match MacGregor’s windswept charisma, other ministers close to Victoria also entered this circle of feeling. James Cameron Lees, who had condoled with Victoria after Leopold’s death, won her deep sympathy after the death of his wife (1887) and child (1894).44 The first time she met Robert Lee, the minister of Old Greyfriars, Edinburgh, she commented that ‘having had great misfortunes in his life he can sympathise with others’.45 The royal chaplain Archibald Charteris recalled that Victoria always struck him not just as a knowledgeable patron but also as a ‘bereaved wife, a sorrowing mother’.46 Victoria’s emotional identification with the Kirk’s ministers strengthened her willingness to side with them in the decades-long dispute over its relationship with state and nation. When in the early 1840s evangelicals in the Kirk had stepped up demands for legislation to take patronage rights from the aristocracy and vest them once more in godly congregations, Peel had encouraged Victoria to see their

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

176

Queen Victoria

demands as ‘religious fanaticism, coupled with democracy’, which menaced the ‘influence of the Crown’. Learning about Presbyterian ecclesiology for the first time, Victoria was startled to hear that ‘the Scotch people declare that I am not the Head of the church but that our Lord Jesus Christ, was the Head!!’47 Hostile briefings from courtiers even convinced her that these Presbyterians were ‘Papistical’ in their rejection of royal authority.48 Although Argyll’s book-length essay on the Kirk (1843), which interested Albert, had sympathized with the evangelicals, he regretted the Disruption, refusing to view it as a heroic ‘Exodus’ from a blighted ‘Egypt’.49 In a later book, he condemned the new Free Church’s attempts to decouple Presbyterianism from the state as ‘a priestly superstition’, defending instead a broad church conception of the Kirk as an institution which Parliament had moulded to suit the Scottish nation.50 As his Free Church critics recognized, this argument reflected the influence of his friends Stanley and Bunsen.51 Argyll correspondingly came to feel that Free Church folk were guilty of ‘Clerical Fanaticism against anything that threatens a Rival Church’.52 The Disruption pushed Victoria’s clergy to refine their case for why the Kirk should retain a privileged relationship with the state in the face of the Free Church and broader Dissenting challenge. Although they always argued that Presbyterianism was the church order closest to ‘apostolic ministry’, the most passionate arguments for the Kirk were not scriptural but national and historic.53 History showed that the Scots had never liked bishops and that every attempt to restore episcopacy since John Knox’s Reformation had failed. The Covenanting resistance to the Episcopal Church of the Restoration period assumed heroic status in their minds. Story ‘cursed Scotch Episcopacy and all its works’ when he visited a monument to its victims, while on his first visit to Balmoral as chaplain, he showed Victoria the thumbscrews applied by Episcopalians to the heroic Carstairs, William III’s chaplain and his own ancestor.54 Victoria’s favourites used their control of ancient buildings to present the Kirk as the custodian of this proud tradition. Robert Lee revived interest in Old Greyfriars, where the Covenant was signed and in whose graveyard some Covenanters had been martyred.55 Thanks to Argyll’s good offices, MacGregor and Story were able to commemorate the new church of St Columba (1897) on Iona, the Kirk’s most tangible point of origin.56

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

177

‘What mean these stones?’ James Cameron Lees asked at the reopening of St Giles’ Cathedral, whose renovation he had overseen as its Dean. The answer was ‘the story of our country’s faith’. St Giles’ was, like Westminster Abbey, a ‘temple of silence and reconciliation’, which gave ‘corporate form’ to the ‘continuity’ of ‘national piety’.57 The echoes of Arthur Penrhyn Stanley were deliberate, with Lees installing a portrait bust of him in the completed church. Stanley’s blend of antiquarian liberalism and Germanizing disdain for theological scruple appealed to a wide Scottish circle which overlapped with Victoria’s, particularly after his marriage to Augusta Bruce, a liberal Presbyterian. In August 1879, he could typically be found lunching with Tulloch and Victoria’s friend the Duchess of Athole at Dunkeld, before ransacking its ruined cathedral for the bones of St Columba.58 Story, who was one of Stanley’s pallbearers, remarked after his death that he had made the Abbey a ‘Mother Church’ to ‘Scotchmen’.59 As a historic institution, the Kirk could be relaxed about doctrine. If the odd Calvinist stalked Balmoral, such as the temperance fanatic Lady Erroll, who dished out temperance tracts to visiting statesmen, her evangelism merely amused Victoria.60 She was quick to react, though, when visiting ministers dealt out brimstone rather than ambrosia. MacGregor blotted his copy book with a sermon at Inveraray on ‘the personality of the Devil’.61 Most of the Queen’s Scots had matured in the backwash of romanticism, kindling, as did Arthur Stanley, to Thomas Erskine of Linlathen’s romantic disdain for the soteriological acrobatics of Calvinism.62 Macleod and Caird’s sermons to Victoria insisted that ‘there was always Mercy & hope, through our Saviour’ in God and presented him as ‘father & not so much as a Judge or “Magistrate” to use a homely phrase’.63 It was of a piece with Macleod’s teaching that his widow told Victoria he had died ‘happy & full of thoughts of joy’.64 As many of them had learned at German universities to decouple the study of Scripture from doctrinal commitments, they preached forbearance towards error. John Tulloch’s sermons inveighed against ‘all persecution, quarrels about form, & against the pretensions of any one Church’, and even suggested that all good people were ‘inspired by the Divine spirit, even though they might pretend they had no faith’.65 Tulloch and Caird had absorbed from their German studies a conception of theology as a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

178

Queen Victoria

historically conditioned discipline, a ‘history of variations’ whose coherence consisted in the ‘constant repetition of oppositions underlying its necessary development’.66 They argued that doctrinal elasticity was the best means of opposing ‘Materialism & Rationalism’, with Caird warning Victoria about ‘rancour, narrow-mindedness & bigotry’ within the Kirk.67 Victoria came to feel that Caird was asking for too much intellectual latitude and she disliked overly abstract, ‘cold’ Scots on the rare occasions they preached to her.68 In 1889, her courtiers and clerical advisers had hesitated before appointing Allan Menzies to a chair of biblical criticism for fear that he belonged to the ‘German rationalistic school’.69 Victoria’s embrace of the Kirk’s sacraments was an arresting indication of her belief that she had the Protestant freedom to move freely between national churches and to advertise her preference for Presbyterian worship. She felt that the frequent acts of communion dear to English high churchmen involved a ‘very mechanical view of the Sacrament’ and preferred the biannual Eucharists customary in rural Scottish parishes, which seemed to be unadorned celebrations of community.70 Her tastes ensured that such rituals remained especially ‘primitive’ at Crathie, for she did not share the growing aversion of her favourite ministers to unadorned ‘ugliness’ in worship and church architecture.71 Although Victoria and her children routinely took communion in German Lutheran churches, the prospect of their sacramental tourism in Scotland alarmed Wellesley and other advisers, who felt that it would look like a public rejection of the Eucharistic teaching of the Church of England. Archbishop Tait warned her that despite her ‘peculiar relation’ to the Kirk, an ‘intercommunion’ would endanger ‘a ready and loyal acceptance of the Royal Supremacy by all members of our English Church’.72 When Victoria finally went ahead in 1873, it was to her family’s consternation. Leopold told his mother that he would rather not join in, causing her to bark that it was his ‘sacred duty’ to do so.73 Victoria was at least aware that her act was a provocation, asking the Stanleys to look into the ‘legality’ of her position in case ‘church papers’ objected. Stanley pointed her to his recent essay on the ‘history of the Sacrament’, one of a series which demonstrated that as ecclesiastical rites had differed according to historical context, they should not be a barrier to fraternization.74 Victoria was grateful for support for her action to shore up the ‘church

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

179

of the people’ at a time when rich Scots seemed to be deserting it. As a ‘stronghold of Protestantism’, the ‘Scotch Church’ also offered reinforcements in her crusade against the ‘aping of Catholic forms’ by Ritualists. Victoria wished her established churches to find a ‘common object’ in defending themselves against the sacerdotalism creeping across Europe.75 Victoria’s More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands (1884) not only advertised her communion in the Kirk, but her admiration of its ‘touching’ baptisms.76 In the autumn of 1887, a telegram summoned James Cameron Lees back from a holiday in Salt Lake City, Utah to christen Beatrice’s daughter at Balmoral. The first member of the royal family to be born in Scotland since the sixteenth century, Victoria’s granddaughter was to be a ‘Highland lassie’. Ponsonby set to reading Ossian to find her a ‘Scotch’ and ‘a Highland name which I presume means a Gaelic name’, before Victoria settled on Ena. ‘I don’t know that that is Gaelic or Highland but the Queen I imagine can “make it so”’, he sighed.77 Robert Pritchett’s painting of the Christening shows a monarch gone native, standing on a violently tartan carpet to take part in a Presbyterian rite.78 George Reid’s painting of Lees christening Beatrice’s third son Maurice Victor Donald in October 1891 likewise celebrates the court as a religiously hybrid institution. It is not just the Lily Font, commonly employed in Anglican christenings, which catches the eye, but Victoria’s Muslim servant and Hindustani teacher, Abdul Karim.79 Victoria’s sacramental solidarity was designed to strengthen the Kirk against its rivals. When Argyll’s second son Archie wished to have his son baptized by an English clergyman, Victoria was unhappy, urging that ‘in my great Scotch families, if attention is not paid to this, the Christening may be made an excuse, a stepping stone, to their becoming Episcopalians’. She reminded him that his son’s first child had been christened by ‘my dear Dr McLeod’ and that the children of her Scottish aristocratic friends ‘have all been christened Presbyterians’.80 Although only three per cent of Scots belonged to the Scottish Episcopal Church of Scotland by the end of her reign, Victoria was right that it allured the aristocracy. Victoria’s first host in Scotland, the Duke of Buccleuch, was an Episcopalian whose duchess later converted to Roman Catholicism.81 Even the Duke of Argyll built an Episcopal church at Inveraray for his second duchess, the pious

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

180

Queen Victoria

daughter of an Anglican bishop, and allowed an Episcopal chapel to go up on Iona.82 Episcopalians, who had resisted the Presbyterian remodelling of their church during the Glorious Revolution, had worked to convince Victoria’s predecessors that they had sworn off their traditional Jacobitism.83 They dreamed that their church could become the nucleus of a powerful national or even British establishment. Charles Wordsworth, the Oxonian churchman who had become the Bishop of St Andrews, Dunblane, and Dunkeld, befriended MacGregor, Tulloch, and its other leaders and urged them to join with Episcopalians in creating a ‘united church of Scotland, England and Ireland’, claiming that Victoria would welcome the end of her ‘embarrassing position . . . in relation to the two disunited Establishments’ north and south of the Tweed.84 Yet Victoria regarded Episcopalians as enemies of establishment. A ‘Scotch bishop’ was ‘a mere dissenter’, she snorted, on hearing from her daughter Victoria that one was to tour Berlin.85 In the autumn of 1866, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s presence at the dedication of the Episcopal cathedral of St Andrew, Inverness infuriated her. Echoing Macleod, who had muttered that the Archbishop risked a ‘fierce sectarian war’ in recognizing the Episcopalians as a ‘true church’, Victoria said she did not see how, given such provocations, ‘the Established Church can stand. [Episcopalians] have already succeeded in carrying with them the great bulk of the aristocracy, in Scotland, & therefore establishing a Religion for the rich, & another for the poor, & thus in alienating the People from their superiors.’86 She likewise scolded Gladstone for boasting of Episcopalian gains in Scotland: this was a ‘very great misfortune, as it separates classes . . . a misfortune under all circumstances, but especially on the subject of religion’.87 Her favourites reinforced that view: MacGregor once told her it was a ‘fatal mistake’ for aristocrats to cease worshipping with the ‘people of the soil’.88 The loyalty of Episcopalians was an oxymoron to Victoria because she regarded their rivalry with the Kirk as ‘subversive of that respect for existing institutions which, above all, the Archbishops and Bishops ought to do everything to maintain—& she will maintain it’.89 Urged on by Norman Macleod and Charles Grey, Victoria mapped the rivalry between Episcopalians and the Kirk onto the European culture wars that her daughters wrote about from Germany. The plot against the Kirk was the more grievous because it was ‘especially

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

181

Protestant, &, as such, most valuable. The Reformation in this country was never full, completed’ and Victoria itched to get the ‘pruning knife’ out, just as advisers like Charles Grey urged her to do.90 If Victoria scorned Episcopalian claims to be the true national church, then she was also stalwart in resisting the increasingly vocal claims by Free Churchmen and other Dissenters that the disestablishment of the Kirk was the only way to protect the purity of Scottish Protestantism. Victoria had not needed to notice the Free Church at Balmoral: it had initially been invisible there, its members worshipping in a barn lent to them by the Queen’s land commissioner, whom they christened ‘Obed-Edom’ after the godly Gittite who had sheltered the Ark of the Lord in his house (2 Samuel 6:11). Not until 1870 did they complete Gothic churches in Braemar and Ballater, which ultimately provoked the competitive rebuilding of Crathie in a similar style.91 Although Free Church leaders such as Robert Candlish claimed to preach ‘loyalty to the Queen, as well as loyalty to Christ’, secessionist and Free Church ministers in British colonies undoubtedly assailed Victoria’s patronage rights over the Kirk as a ‘Spiritual Despotism’ and some flirted with republicanism.92 Candlish showed temerity enough when he criticized the inscription on Albert’s memorial cairn for citing the Apocrypha, which Presbyterians did not think belonged in their Bibles.93 Discussing Candlish with the painter Joseph Noel Paton, Victoria sighed that ‘“I don’t think they should have been so cross with me; I have always shown great affection for the Presbyterians.” ’94 The embrace of disestablishment by Gladstone’s Liberal Party heightened alarm at Victoria’s court. Victoria found her Kirk friends on high alert after the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1869, fearing that their establishment would be ‘next to fall’ and that ‘Mr Gladstone wanted to disestablish all churches’.95 In 1872, Stanley had inadvertently raked the sectarian ashes when he went to Edinburgh at Robert Lee’s invitation to deliver lectures on the church history of Scotland, which poked fun at the Covenanters and suggested that Scottish faith thrived best under state control. His historiographical sally stung Free Church leaders into advocating disestablishment.96 Argyll and Victoria’s ministerial friends hoped that the Patronage Act of 1874, which transferred control over ministerial appointments to congregations, would mollify the Free

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Queen Victoria

182 97

Church. Victoria’s friends among Presbyterian magnates wryly adjusted to the ‘new system’ it created, in which, as former patrons, they now had to vote for ministerial candidates alongside the congregation. The changes eventually caught up with Victoria herself, who in 1897 was surprised when she could longer simply pick a new minister for Crathie, and was amused when the congregation voted down her candidate.98 Argyll though was soon embroiled in renewed pamphlet wars with the Free Church and confessed that the Act had merely ‘excited the voluntary churches to increased hostility’.99 Victoria, who was close to Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the leading lay opponent of disestablishment, stiffened spines in the Kirk with displays of royal support.100 In his closing address to the General Assembly of 1877, her Lord High Commissioner congratulated his audience for the ‘proven stability of the National Church, notwithstanding the determined efforts for her destruction’.101 Facing Gladstone’s return to power in 1879, Victoria again channelled the dread of her Kirk friends, spreading the word that ‘I would never give way about the Scotch Church, which is the real and true stronghold of Protestantism’.102 The political diarist Lord Stanley was aghast: ‘no Cabinet will submit to have the conditions of their policy dictated in the way adopted by George the 3rd’. Thereafter Gladstone’s ministers quietly sought to prevent her expressing her exclusive devotion to the Kirk.103 By the time of the 1885 election, Liberal churchmen from Argyll to Charteris organized against Free Church attempts to win over the Liberal Party, while Victoria eagerly consumed intelligence that embracing disestablishment had been a vote loser for Gladstone.104 In the wake of his electoral setback, her allies stepped up their propaganda. Taylor, MacGregor, Tulloch, and Donald Macleod contributed to a lecture series on the Kirk, while Story edited The Church of Scotland, Past and Present (1890), a ‘lucid exposition’ of its doctrine and government against Free Church misrepresentations.105 Her courtiers were concerned when boos punctuated Story’s inaugural address as Principal of Glasgow University, fearing that his ‘loyalty in defence of the Church of Scotland had made him a marked man’ and she was reassured to hear that it was just student mischief.106 Victoria and her Scots dug in when a new Liberal government readied itself for a decisive blow against establishment in Scotland, as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

183

in Wales. As moderator of the 1893 General Assembly, Archibald Charteris threatened protests when the Queen’s Lord High Commissioner omitted the usual pledge to defend the established church in his address. Viewing as they did the Commissioner’s procession to the Assembly as a stirring representation of their ties with the state, church people were bound to oppose such reticence.107 Victoria was appalled when Gladstone’s government proposed to adopt a private member’s bill calling for Scottish disestablishment, and when the Earl of Rosebery succeeded as Prime Minister and proposed to announce in the Queen’s speech bills ‘for the discontinuance of the Ecclesiastical Establishments of Wales & Scotland’, Victoria was aghast. She told Ponsonby she could not ‘mention such a thing, after having promised at my accession to maintain the State Churches & had always assured the Clergy their rights could never be interfered with’. This was a ‘thunderclap’ for Rosebery, who had to walk his government back from his commitment and was thereafter continually reminded by Victoria of her commitment to the 1707 Union and to the Kirk.108 Order seemed to be restored when, in May 1895, her Lord High Commissioner reported on the ‘great Display of Loyalty & great crowds in the street’ on opening the Assembly. His announcement that Victoria would maintain the Kirk ‘was loudly cheered’.109 Victoria’s one-eyed Presbyterianism does not seem to have hurt her much in Scotland. Some Free Church leaders, such as the Rev. Thomas Guthrie, a protégé of the Argylls, became avid royalists, while it suited its historians to represent her as an admirer of Scottish Protestantism.110 During the Jubilees and after her death, Presbyterians of all stripes dwelt on memories of Victoria at Crathie, which assured them that she was their Queen too. The ‘family gathering’ there on the day of her funeral was one last mark of the bond, which her tenants trudged through two feet of snow to attend.111 So useful was Crathie as a synecdoche of the monarchy’s sensitivity to Scotland’s religion that Victoria’s son and his successors have worshipped there to the present. Yet none did so with her enthusiasm. When Lees preached to Edward VII in 1903, he found he was staying at the Crathie manse rather than the Castle, which the King, stout in his kilt, had packed with fashionables. In a further departure from Victoria’s day, his sermon was strictly limited to fifteen minutes.112

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

184

Queen Victoria

‘Erin’s Honour and Erin’s Pride’: Victoria and Irish Roman Catholicism Sitting in church on the solemn day of fasting and humiliation which had been called at the instigation of the Protestant Archbishop of Armagh on 24 March 1847 to show the Church’s concern for Irish suffering in the Famine, Victoria was unconvinced of the need to grovel before God ‘as if we were Jews’. Though mindful of the ‘Hand of Providence in everything’, she felt it was rather ‘the heedless & improvident way in which the poor Irish have long lived, together with the wicked agitations to which they have lent themselves, & the deeds of violence they have committed’ which had brought ‘misery & distress upon the country’.113 By the time the Famine had struck, Victoria was losing her youthful confidence that resolving the religious grievances of Ireland could make it a contented part of the United Kingdom. She had come to the throne with a Whig desire to befriend Roman Catholics. Unlike her immediate predecessors George and William, she refused to pay lip service to ‘Constitutional-national’ anti-Catholicism, a stubbornly durable belief system which held that the monarch must resist the Catholic Church’s tireless efforts at political supremacy.114 She agreed with Melbourne and Russell that rather than pledging herself to the highly unrepresentative Protestant Church of Ireland, she should back steps to improve the lives of Roman Catholics. Yet her anger at the priests who ‘influence the people dreadfully & turn the Chapel into “an orderly room”’ for Repealers of the Union soon soured her idealism.115 She and Albert instead backed Robert Peel’s plans to clip the wings of the priests by expanding state funding and thus control over their training, and by setting up non-denominational Queens Colleges to foster the education, and thus enlightenment, of lay Catholics.116 When Puseyites, evangelical Anglicans, and Protestant Dissenters variously complained that spending on Roman Catholics violated the Protestant constitution or propped up religious error, she dismissed their complaints as ‘bigotry & blind fanaticism’. Thorough as ever, Albert would later satisfy himself that her coronation oath was compatible with the endowment of Maynooth College.117 When Lord Winchilsea delivered petitions asking her to block endowment of Maynooth on 16 June 1845, she had icily replied that ‘I consider these Measures

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

185

calculated for the welfare & quiet of Ireland, & that they are at the same time in accordance with my own personal feelings & wishes’, dismissing this ‘poor deluded man’ without any ‘additional word’.118 By the time Victoria headed to the Continent in August 1845 with the Maynooth bill passed, rationality had apparently triumphed over the ‘ravings’ of bigots and attempts by some Roman Catholic bishops to stymie the Queens Colleges.119 The Famine had however strengthened nationalist elements among the Irish bishops, leading John MacHale the Archbishop of Tuam to overrule Daniel Murray the Archbishop of Dublin and to publish an open letter to Victoria taking her to task for her culpable neglect.120 Beginning with a citation from Saint Ambrose’s letter excommunicating the Emperor Theodosius for massacring the Thessalonians, it made the barbed suggestion that ‘your Majesty’s power is not at all commensurate with the well-known benevolence of your feelings’, for she had done nothing while starving people gnawed seaweed or perished in agony along the West Coast of Ireland. MacHale wrote not just as an Ambrose, but as a Flavian, the bishop who interceded to prevent Theodosius from massacring the people of Antioch. Ireland was innocent: its people ‘have not insulted your Majesty . . . they [are] guiltless of any crime. And yet they are enduring the most excruciating of all deaths, STARVATION, with a patience that transcends all belief.’ Only by getting her government to up spending on relief could she restore her credit.121 Victoria’s visit to Ireland that year, undertaken soon after her troops had put down a nationalist rebellion and she had dodged an assassination attempt by an Irish labourer, was intended to dissolve such criticism in the warmth of the monarch’s presence, just as George IV’s state visit had supposedly done.122 When she and Albert landed at Cork, its bishop and clergy informed her that the ‘heart of the afflicted’ now ‘throb[bed] with hope’ and there was wild enthusiasm in Dublin.123 Victoria showed an open face to Catholics, refusing to visit or subscribe to exclusively Protestant institutions and dining with the meek Archbishop Murray.124 MacHale, though, stood out against Murray’s attempts to present her with a loyal address, proposing an alternative text which rubbed her nose in the Famine and insisted on the church’s rights. He was yet more outraged about an address to the Lutheran Albert, which promised him ‘unfading glory in heaven’, arguing that it

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

186

Queen Victoria

insulted the church by including him in its offer of salvation.125 These rifts in the hierarchy contributed to a sense in the nationalist press that this trip was no more likely to pacify Ireland than ‘one of Morison’s pills’—a quack remedy of the time—was to ‘restore an amputated limb’.126 The Papal Aggression further estranged MacHale’s party from the Queen, not least because, in seeking to protest the Royal Supremacy in England, Russell’s Ecclesiastical Titles Act insulted them by also branding their episcopal titles illegal.127 In a caustic letter to Russell, MacHale claimed that if Victoria, ‘like Ahasuerus’ in the Book of Esther (6:1), wished to beguile a sleepless night by reading the chronicles of her reign, she would see that Orangemen were her real enemies, given that, as chapter one showed, they had been accused of plotting to replace her with her uncle, the Duke of Cumberland.128 When Victoria returned to Dublin for the 1853 Exhibition, which, in partial imitation of London’s Great Exhibition, was designed to advertise the material benefits of belonging to the Union, MacHale insisted that the slighted bishops felt they could not meet with her.129 The nationalist press denied that her welcome extended beyond the ‘rabble of pick-pockets, placard-posters, and Protestant operatives’; Ulster Protestants crowed that after this ‘vindictive’ boycotting, the Queen ‘will never visit Dublin again’.130 They spoke too soon, as she did visit Dublin again in 1861, but only to pass through quietly on the way to holiday with Albert in Killarney, which was blessed with a deferential gentry and almost Scottish flocks of red deer. His death soon afterwards banished hopes that Killarney would join Balmoral as a resort where Victoria could get comfortable with the Irish.131 The unruliness of the Irish hierarchy strengthened the growing inclination of Victoria and her governments to appeal over their heads to the Pope as the only power who could discipline them. Victoria and Albert endorsed Lord Minto’s 1847 mission to the Vatican, one of whose aims was to get Pius IX to stop the Irish clergy from abetting anti-landlord agitation. The Irish viceroy Lord Clarendon wrote that the clergy had become ‘slaves of the people’ and it was imperative that the Pope, ‘as a Sovereign in alliance with Great Britain’, stiffen their resolve to reimpose order. Pius issued just such an announcement, even though a measure by Russell’s government to officialize diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the Crown

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom 132

187

proved a dead letter. Pius’s anxiety for assistance in the 1848 Revolutions subsequently opened a direct line of communication between him and Victoria, with the Foreign Office deciding that she could follow George IV’s precedent in addressing him as ‘Most Eminent Sir’ and ‘Your Holiness’ in her warm if evasive reply to his request for assistance against the revolutionaries who had driven him from Rome.133 Pius was friendly to Victoria ever after. He ‘venerated’ her as a sacred monarch, refused to blame her for British support for the Risorgimento, and feigned to believe that she was ripe for conversion to Catholicism. He warmly greeted Albert Edward and the Crown Princess Victoria on their visits to Rome, giving the Prince a mosaic that he installed in his London home, Marlborough House.134 It was natural to look to Pius for assistance against the revolutionary nationalism of the Fenians, especially as he regarded them as the ‘Garibaldians of England’.135 Victoria’s voluble scorn for the religious exaltation of General Garibaldi, which peaked during an 1864 visit to England hosted by her friend the Duchess of Sutherland, fostered the Vatican’s sense that after 1848 they and the Queen had a common revolutionary enemy.136 The ultramontane Paul Cullen, who had been Archbishop of Armagh from 1850, shared this opposition to Fenianism and became openly loyalist, welcoming the Prince of Wales to Dublin in 1868.137 The Fenian terrorism which struck Clerkenwell and Manchester in the 1860s ‘shocked’ Victoria, while also convincing her that the problems posed by the Irish were an expression not of religious difference but rather of their ‘treacherous character’.138 The divide between the Scots and Irish in Victoria’s mind thus became ethnic rather than confessional: as Arthur Stanley told her, the ‘admixture of Scandinavian with the Celtic blood’ had given the Highlanders ‘dignity, self-respect & independence’, whereas the Irish were ‘unreliable & cringing’. She might go to Ireland occasionally, she told Grey, but its people were not ‘to be compared with the Scotch’.139 Victoria was consequently dismissive of Gladstone’s belief that Ireland could be ‘tranquilized’ by the disestablishment and disendowment of the Protestant Church—a key demand of Cullen. In her view, removing its influence would only make feuds between Protestants and Catholics ‘infinitely worse’ and accentuate its problems, for ‘the people were not true or reliable & the Priests so bad’.140 The Irish-born Bishop of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

188

Queen Victoria

Peterborough William Magee told her that ‘what the Irish peasantry wanted, was the settlement of their land & not this measure’. The problem was racial as well as economic, because the landlords were ‘Saxon’ and the peasants ‘Celts, & they have never agreed’. Lord Dufferin, diplomat and Irish landowner, chimed in, telling her that ‘land was the question & the difficulty there’.141 Though reluctant to ‘abandon the Irish Established Church’, for fear that she might violate her coronation oath and damage her ecclesiastical ‘supremacy’ in England, Victoria differed from Tory statesmen in seeing this as of secondary importance.142 She agreed with Disraeli’s decision to dissolve Parliament in defence of the Irish Church, but did not approve of his plan to mobilize the ‘abhorrence of Popery, the dread of Ritualism, and the hatred of the Irish’ against Gladstone in the ensuing election, dreading ‘turbulent’ meetings and the ‘violent instincts of the multitude’ more.143 With Gladstone returning to office in 1868 and putting his bill through Parliament, Victoria discountenanced Archbishop Tait’s plan to swarm it with hostile amendments.144 But her backing for the bill’s passage stemmed from a negative determination to quench ‘a belief that more things were to be disestablished’, not least her beloved Kirk.145 Victoria’s interest in Ireland’s problems diminished markedly thereafter. Although Augusta Stanley and General Grey had urged her to enlist ‘clan feeling’ and ‘personal loyalty’ against the priests by visiting Ireland, she refused to go, sending Grey a letter ‘vehement in asserting the superiority of Scotland to all the world!!’ She also slapped down Gladstone’s plan to send Albert Edward there as viceroy in the summer of 1871.146 The Prince had in any event annoyed Roman Catholics by meeting Orangemen and Freemasons on his 1868 visit to Ireland and they showed no enthusiasm for the Thanksgiving for his recovery from typhoid fever.147 Victoria’s aversion to Ireland coincided with the Irish hierarchy’s drift towards nationalism, epitomized by the rise of the Archbishop of Cashel, Thomas Croke and William Walsh, the Archbishop of Armagh.148 The Viceroy Lord Spencer complained that Walsh, who had succeeded the anti-Fenian Cardinal McCabe, was a ‘violent and dangerous man’ whose contempt for the monarchy was evident in his refusal to acknowledge Victoria’s telegram of condolence on McCabe’s death. The Irish hierarchy found support in England from Cardinal Manning, who had come to regard

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

189

the Queen’s rule in Ireland as mere ‘coercion’. When the Prince of Wales made an ill-advised trip to Cork in 1885, Victoria was accordingly horrified to receive reports that he had been greeted with ‘hissing & hooting, & black flags’.150 The news of his reception reached Victoria on the very day she had exchanged pleasantries with the ‘gentlemanlike’ Curé of Aix while holidaying in France. Victoria’s frustration at the political disloyalty of Irish Catholics sat oddly with her amiable relations with Roman Catholics beyond Ireland’s shores. Writing to Randall Davidson about her encounter, she felt that it would ‘do good in Ireland’ to publicize such ‘marks of respect from the Catholic clergy’ as she had lately received.151 As this example shows, the Continental holidays she took regularly in the last decades of her life nourished a personal partiality for Roman Catholicism and its clergy. Victoria displayed respectful curiosity when a ‘very civil young Priest’ showed her the ‘brown and shrivelled’ corpse of St Carlo Borromeo at the Milan Duomo in April 1879, and once dropped in on the monks at the Grand Chartreuse, leaving them a crucifix as a souvenir.152 Victoria’s sympathy to continental Catholicism was unusual in the Protestant and Scottish circles in which she now moved. Writing to Victoria as a Presbyterian tourist in Rome, the Dowager Duchess of Athole informed her for instance that the people crawling up the Scala Sancta to gain indulgences were a ‘very sad sight’.153 Victoria was especially drawn to convents. In 1889, she visited a house of penitents at Biarritz, sending Davidson photographs of its hollow-eyed inmates going about their ‘happy & useful life’.154 This interest in the useful religiosity of women reflected Victoria’s longstanding interest in the lived Catholicism of her Orléans relatives, which seemed reminiscent of her own faith in its sacralization of grief and trust in the ‘hope of eternal reunion’.155 As chapter seven shows, Victoria also became obsessively interested in the mournful piety of the former Empress Eugénie of France, regularly visiting the tombs she built in exile for her husband and son at Chislehurst and then the imperial mausoleum at the Benedictine abbey she founded at Farnborough and stocked with French monks.156 Victoria adored the novels by Pauline de la Ferronays, an ultramontane Bonapartist married to Augustus Craven, a Catholic diplomat nicknamed ‘General of the Jesuits’.157 Mrs Craven’s Le Récit d’une Soeur (1866), which Victoria pressed on 149

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

190

Queen Victoria

mourning friends, was a fictionalized memoir which evoked the sweetness of craving reunion with the dead.158 Victoria’s admiration of it exemplifies the eclecticism with which later nineteenth-century Protestant women appropriated such Roman Catholic devotions as the cult of St Francis.159 When a holidaying Archbishop Benson sent her a rose from the garden of St Francis at Assisi, she accepted it as a ‘most gratifying relic and mark of the kindly and Christian feeling on your part and on that of the Franciscan Prior’.160 Victoria’s personal openness to Roman Catholic religiosity did not help her in Ireland. Pius IX continued to make helpful noises about Ireland until his death in February 1878, an event which grieved Victoria, who was gripped by reports of his funeral.161 The new Pope Leo XIII was even friendlier with Victoria. In 1881, he sent her the works of Aquinas and she responded with a very different work: her Leaves.162 The socialite priest T. J. Capel purred that the British should capitalize on this moment to officialize relations with the Vatican, enlisting the help of ‘the Church of the poor, of the masses’ against revolutionary secret societies.163 Leo duly tried to assist the monarchy in Ireland, demanding that the hierarchy show Victoria’s grandson the Duke of Clarence the ‘usual acts of courtesy due to the members of reigning royal families’ on his visit there.164 Victoria’s ministers hoped to exploit Leo’s anxiety for an exchange of representatives at the Jubilees that both sovereigns were to celebrate in 1887 to extract a declaration against the Plan of Campaign, a nationalist agitation against landlords in Ireland. After Monsignor Ruffo-Scilla attended Victoria’s Jubilee, the Roman Catholic Duke of Norfolk travelled to Rome.165 This disquieted Protestant diehards, who published a protest claiming that Norfolk’s mission would ‘disturb the feelings of loyalty, respect and affection which they entertain towards your Royal Person’. But it also disconcerted Cardinal Manning, who feared that Norfolk would persuade the Pope to send an Anglophile nuncio to London, establishing a line of communication which would cut out Dublin. He was critical of the Pope’s intervention in the ‘conflict of religion’ between ‘Protestant England’ and ‘Catholic Ireland’, noting that as the ‘Plan of Campaign is not a Dogmatic Fact’ it was not covered by papal infallibility. Manning need not have worried: the Irish hierarchy easily deflected the Pope’s interventions. Walsh shunned Clarence, claiming that his visit was a demonstration

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

191

against Home Rule, and he and Croke ignored Leo’s condemnation of the Plan of Campaign.166 Victoria’s final visit to Dublin in 1900 epitomized her failed accommodation with Irish Catholicism. Taking place shortly after Irish Roman Catholics had boycotted her Diamond Jubilee, it was designed to bolster the commitment of Irish soldiers to the South African War by presenting them with a maternal sovereign, speaking the ‘unadorned language of the heart’. She was chaperoned by the Roman Catholic Earl of Denbigh; she pleaded fatigue to avoid going to Protestant Belfast and visited Roman Catholic hospitals, schools, and convents. ‘Blest for ever be she who relied on Erin’s honour and Erin’s pride’ wrote the Reverend Mother General of the Irish Institute of Mary of Loreto in the illuminated address Victoria received on a visit to Loreto Abbey.167 Yet nationalists scorned these nods to ‘Erin’s pride’. John Redmond thought it ‘too disgusting’ that ‘Catholic children’ should ‘yell God save the Queen’ by joining in an ecumenical picnic at Phoenix Park.168 Maude Gonne mocked Victoria as a mother who starved her subjects, and organized a rival Treat for children.169 The nationalist press was generally more respectful than Gonne, but insisted that the ‘existing disabilities of the Catholics of Ireland are not rendered the more easy’ by her dwelling ‘among us for a brief space’.170 There was emotional loyalism still in Ireland, but it came from the northern Protestants Victoria had diplomatically avoided. The Lord Mayor of Belfast brought to Dublin an address on vellum, stitched onto Irish poplin, rolled up into a golden cylinder in the form of a field marshal’s baton, topped with a crown and placed on a stand of polished Connemara marble, the whole housed in a casket lined with white velvet and covered with green Russian leather stamped with the arms of the city. The palpable neediness of their loyalism was a reminder that Victoria had not transcended sectarian divisions in Ireland. When it came to the Union, she remained a Protestant Queen.171 Notes 1. Donald Macleod, ‘Sermon Preached on the Sunday after the death of the Queen, 27 January 1901’, NLS, MS9833, f. 138; Frank Pope Humphrey [pseud.], The Queen at Balmoral (London: T. F. Unwin, 1893), p. 34.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

192

Queen Victoria

2. Donald Macleod, ‘Sermon Preached at the Opening of Crathie Church, June 15 1895’, NLS, MS9833, f. 220; R. A. Profeit, ed., Under Lochnagar (Crathie Parish Church: The Book of the Bazaar, Balmoral 4th & 5th September 1894) (Aberdeen: Taylor and Henderson, 1894), p. 35. 3. Colin Kidd, Union and Unionisms: Political Thought in Scotland, 1500–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008), ch. 6; Alvin Jackson, The Two Unions: Ireland, Scotland, and the Survival of the United Kingdom, 1707–2007 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012), pp. 127–35, 153–62. 4. Roger Fulford, ed., Your Dear Letter: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1865–1871 (London: Evans Bros, 1971), p. 161. 5. Stewart J. Brown, ‘The Broad Church Movement: National Culture, and the Established Churches of Great Britain, c.1850–1900’, in Hilary M. Carey and John Gascoigne, eds, Church and State in Old and New Worlds (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 99–128. 6. See James H. Murphy, Abject Loyalty: Nationalism and Monarchy in Ireland during the Reign of Queen Victoria (Cork: Cork UP, 2001) and James Loughlin, The British Monarchy and Ireland: 1800 to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007). 7. QVJ, 24 February 1844, p. 62; 15 February 1844, p. 50. 8. See Colin Barr, ‘ “Imperium in Imperio”: Irish Episcopal Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century’, English Historical Review, 123 (2008), pp. 611–50. 9. See Walter Arnstein, ‘Queen Victoria and the Challenge of Roman Catholicism’, The Historian, 58 (1996), pp. 295–314. 10. Disraeli to Victoria, 25 July 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/5/27. 11. Peel to Victoria, 9 August 1842, BL Add MS 40 434, f. 261; Victoria, Leaves from the Journal of Our Life in the Highlands from 1848 to 1861 (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1868), p. 33; Alex Tyrell, ‘The Queen’s “Little Trip”: The Royal Visit to Scotland in 1842’, Scottish Historical Review, 82 (2003), pp. 58–9; K. D. Reynolds, Aristocratic Women and Political Society in Victorian Britain (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 33. 12. A. C. Benson, Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1901), 1: p. 68. 13. Peter Gordon, ed., The Political Diaries of the Fourth Earl of Carnarvon, 1857–1890, Colonial Secretary and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009), p. 265. 14. ‘A Moderate Presbyterian, but no Puritan’, The Queen’s Attendance on Presbyterian Worship: Extracts from the ‘John Bull’ Newspaper, and Letters in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

15. 16.

17.

18. 19.

20. 21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

193

Reply to the Aspersions therein cast on the Queen and the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1850), p. 5. Peel to Victoria, July 1842, BL Add MS 40 434, ff. 241–2, 322; Tyrell, ‘Royal Visit’, pp. 54–6, 63, 65–7, 72. Victoria, Leaves, p. 13; Benita Stoney and Heinrich C. Weltzien, eds, My Mistress the Queen: The Letters of Frieda Arnold, Dresser to Queen Victoria, 1854–9, trans. Sheila de Bellaigue (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1994), p. 127; Patricia Lindsay, Recollections of a Royal Parish (London: John Murray, 1902), pp. 33–6, 99. Douglas Morgan, Windows on Crathie: Notes on the Stained Glass Windows in Crathie Parish Church, Aberdeenshire, Scotland (London: Arabesque, 1995), p. 10. Hector Bolitho, ed., Further Letters of Queen Victoria from the Archives of House Brandenburg-Prussia (1936; London: Thornton Butterworth, 1976), p. 145. George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Second Series. A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1862 and 1878 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1926–8), 1: p. 269. Victoria to Victoria, 3 November 1867, HHA. Edwin Landseer, The Highland Lassie (1850), RCIN 401516; Delia Miller, ed., The Highlanders of Scotland: The Complete Watercolours Commissioned by Queen Victoria from Kenneth Macleay of her Scottish Retainers and Clansmen (London: Haggerston Press, 1986), p. 22. Alice to Augusta Stanley, 13 October 1859, WAM, MS 63518, f. 8; John Vincent, ed., A Selection from the Diaries of Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby (1826–93), Between September 1869 and March 1878 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1994), p. 178; Fulford, Your Dear Letter, pp. 172–80, 189. Alexander Mackenzie, The History of the Highland Clearances: Containing a Reprint of Donald Macleod’s ‘Gloomy Memories of the Highlands’ (Edinburgh: Mercat Press, 1991), p. 254; Reynolds, Aristocratic Women, ch. 1. Miller, Highlanders, p. 15; Tyrell, ‘Royal Visit’, pp. 69–72; Victoria to Lansdowne, 3 March 1849, in A. C. Benson and Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, eds, The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1907), 2: p. 255; Alfred George Gardiner, The Life of Sir William Harcourt (London: Constable and Co., 1923), 1: pp. 531–4; QVJ, 13 October 1884, p. 87. QVJ, 8 June 1869, p. 142.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

194

Queen Victoria

26. Victoria to Alexandrine, CSA, Nachlass Segschneider (29), 1 November 1875, f. 1173. 27. Victor Mallet, ed., Life with Queen Victoria: Marie Mallet’s Letters from Court, 1887–1901 (London: John Murray, 1968), p. 95. 28. Norman Macleod, ‘On Some Characteristics of Highland Scenery’, in Mountain, Loch and Glen, Illustrating ‘Our Life in the Highlands’ from Paintings Executed by J. Adam, With an Essay on the Characteristics of Scottish Scenery, by Norman Macleod (London: Bell and Daldy, 1869). See Michael Ledger-Lomas, ‘Rereading Queen Victoria’s Religion’, in Josh King and Winter Jade Werner, eds, Constructing Nineteenth-Century Religion: Literary, Historical, and Religious Studies in Dialogue (Ohio: Ohio State UP, 2019), pp. 149–52 for Scottish novels. 29. QVJ, 1 June 1879, p. 172. 30. QVJ, 29 September 1850, p. 110; Lindsay, Recollections, p. 108; Herbert Maxwell, ed., The Life and Letters of George William Frederick, Fourth Earl of Clarendon (London: Edward Arnold, 1913), 2: p. 128. Albert had enjoyed imitating Anderson’s heavy brogue: QVJ, 4 October 1863, p. 341. 31. See DPGL GRE/XII/7/1/78 for Grey’s efforts to line up visiting preachers. 32. Victoria, Leaves, p. 147; QVJ, 17 June 1872, p. 185. 33. QVJ, 14 June 1873, p. 177; 22 November 1873, p. 363; Morgan, Windows, p. 59 and Correspondence on Crathie windows, RA VIC/ MAIN/D/13A/165–225. 34. Charles Phipps to Victoria, 4 January 1866, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/1. QVJ, 19 February 1867, p. 35; 31 August 1873, p. 275. 35. John Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby and the Conservative Party: Journals and Memoirs of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849–1869 (Hassocks: Harvester Press, 1978), pp. 17–18; QVJ, 31 May 1844, p. 176. 36. Transcript journal of the Duchess of Argyll, 13 June 1842, 14 August 1842, 1 September 1845, 8 August 1860, 30 October 1861, AP, Bundle 704. 37. QVJ, 11 December 1868, p. 353; Victoria to Argyll, 3 June 1863, 25 May 1878, AP, Royal Correspondence Binder. 38. QVJ, 11 March 1869, p. 63; 4 April 1869, p. 83; 16 May 1869, p. 127; 20 May 1869, p. 129; Victoria to Argyll, 2 June 1878, AP, Royal Correspondence Binder; QV 21 April 1871, p. 101. 39. Frances Balfour, Life and Letters of the Rev. James MacGregor, D.D., Minister of St Cuthbert’s Parish, Edinburgh (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912), p. 262; Argyll to Lorne, 2 July 1875, NLS MS Acc 9209/1, f. 183. 40. Balfour, MacGregor, pp. 215, 457.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

195

41. Louise to Mrs MacGregor, NLS MS Acc 4177; Argyll to Lorne, 19 August 1879, NLS MS Acc 9209/1, f. 250. 42. Balfour, MacGregor, pp. 278, 451; QVJ, 31 October 1875, p. 284. 43. Helena to MacGregor, October 1885 and Beatrice to MacGregor, December 1897, NLS MSS Acc 4177. 44. Victoria to Lees, 9 February 1888, NLS MS Acc 6700; Norman Maclean, The Life of James Cameron Lees (Glasgow: Maclehose & Co., 1922), pp. 190, 386–7. 45. QVJ, 29 May 1864, p. 209. 46. Arthur Gordon, The Life of Archibald Hamilton Charteris (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912), p. 392. 47. QVJ, 11 December 1842, p. 229; Peel to Victoria, 30 Dec 1842, BL Add MS 40 435, f. 232. 48. QVJ, 18 January 1843, p. 23; 11 February 1843, p. 65. 49. George Douglas Campbell [Eighth Duke of Argyll], Autobiography and Memoirs, ed. Ishbel Campbell (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1906), 1: pp. 103, 109, 125, 174–5, 309–11; Albert to Argyll, 17 November 1848, AP, Royal Correspondence Binder. 50. George Campbell [Eighth Duke of Argyll], ‘Presbytery Examined’: An Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland since the Reformation (London: Edward Moxon, 1848), p. 47. 51. See e.g. David Aitchison, Strictures on the Duke of Argyll’s Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland In a Letter to his Grace (London: John Masters, 1849); Patrick Macfarlan, A Vindication of the Church of Scotland: Occasioned by the Duke of Argyll’s ‘Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland’ (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1850); Andrew Gray, Correspondence between the Duke of Argyll and the Rev. Andrew Gray, Perth (London: John Johnstone, 1849), p. 35; Campbell, Autobiography, 1: pp. 332–3. 52. Argyll to Lorne, 21 June 1874, AP, Bundle 276. 53. Robert Herbert Story, The Apostolic Ministry in the Scottish Church (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1897). 54. Elizabeth Maria and Elma Story, Memoir of Robert Herbert Story, D.D., LL. D., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, one of His Majesty’s Chaplains in Scotland (Glasgow: J. MacLehose and Sons, 1909), pp. 187, 217–18, 177; QVJ, 12 September 1886, p. 53. 55. See James Coleman, ‘The Scottish Covenanters’, in Gareth Atkins, ed., Making and Remaking Saints in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016), pp. 177–92 for such monuments.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

196

Queen Victoria

56. Story, Story, pp. 185–7. 57. Service in St Giles’ upon the Reopening of the Church after its Restoration by William Chambers, (n.p.). See also James Cameron Lees, St Giles’, Edinburgh: Church, College, and Cathedral: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (Edinburgh and London: W. and R. Chambers, 1889). 58. Duchess of Athole to Queen Victoria, 19 August 1879, RA VIC/MAIN/ S/12/17. 59. Story, Story, pp. 155–6, 186. 60. Mallet, Mallet, pp. 78, 93. 61. QVJ, 26 September 1875, p. 258. 62. Autobiography of Donald Macleod, NLS MS9831, f. 19; A. P. Stanley to Argyll, 14 September 1862, AP, MSS Bundle 323. 63. QVJ, 2 June 1872, p. 173; 5 November 1871, p. 261. 64. QVJ, 24 June 1872, p. 192; see also Mrs Macleod to Jane Ely, 3 January 1872, RA VIC/MAIN/D/3/3 and Donald Macleod to Arthur Helps, 17 June 1872, RA VIC/MAIN/D/3/16. 65. QVJ, 6 June 1875, p. 141; 14 September 1884, p. 57. 66. John Tulloch, Some Facts of Religion and of Life: Sermons Preached before Her Majesty the Queen in Scotland, 1866–1876 (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood, 1877), pp. 21–2. See his Movements of Religious Thought in Britain during the Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1885) for his application of this paradigm to church history and Joshua Bennett, God and Progress: Religion and History in British Intellectual Culture, 1845–1914 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2019), chs 1, 4, 5 for his intellectual context. 67. QVJ, 25 May 1873, p. 158. 68. Malcolm Taylor to Victoria, RA VIC/MAIN/D/4/31; Ponsonby to Victoria, 8 April 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/4/32; QVJ, 30 May 1875, p. 135. For Robert Wallace, this ‘cold’ preacher, see QVJ, 19 September 1869, p. 247 and Robert Wallace, Life and Last Leaves, ed. J. Campbell Smith and William Wallace (London: Sands and Co., 1903). 69. See correspondence in RA VIC/MAIN/D/13A/95–100. 70. LPL, Lang Papers 223, f. 60. See e.g. Norman Macleod, Reminiscences of a Highland Parish (London and Edinburgh: Alexander Strahan, 1867), p. 22; Fulford, Your Dear Letter, p. 308. 71. See Macleod, ‘Crathie Church’ for this divergence. 72. Tait to Victoria, 30 January 1871, LPL, Benson papers 89, f. 282. See also Wellesley to Tait, 27 October 1871, LPL, Benson Papers 89, ff. 294–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

197

73. Quoted in Charlotte Zeepvat, Queen Victoria’s Youngest Son: The Untold Story of Prince Leopold (Sutton: Stroud, 1998), pp. 122–3. 74. Victoria to Augusta Stanley, 6 November 1873, and to Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, 13 November 1873 and 22 November 1873, WAM, MS 63517; Dean of Windsor and Hector Bolitho, eds, Later Letters of Lady Augusta Stanley, 1864–1876 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1929), p. 266; Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Christian Institutions: Essays on Ecclesiastical Subjects (London: John Murray, 1884). 75. Victoria to Stanley, 13 November 1873, WAM, MS 63519; Victoria to Victoria, 26 July 1874, in Roger Fulford, ed., Darling Child: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1871–1878 (London: Evans Brothers, 1976), p. 104; Ponsonby to Victoria, 5 November 1873, RA VIC/MAIN/D/3/113. 76. Victoria, More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1884), pp. 111–13. 77. Henry of Battenberg to James MacGregor, 1887, NLS Acc 4177; Henry Ponsonby to John Stuart Blackie, 2 November and 10 November 1887, NLS MS 237, ff. 89–90, 96–7. 78. Maclean, Lees, pp. 296–301; Robert Taylor Pritchett, Christening of Princess Victoria Eugénie of Battenberg at Balmoral, 23 November 1887 (1886–7), RCIN 923189. After all the fuss, Victoria Eugenia later converted to Roman Catholicism to marry the King of Spain. 79. Humphrey [pseud.], Balmoral, pp. 167–8; George Ogilvy Reid, The Baptism of Prince Maurice of Battenberg (1891), Scottish National Portrait Gallery, PG 1306. 80. Argyll to Victoria, 30 November 1873 and Victoria to Argyll (copy), December 1873, RA VIC/MAIN/D/3/119, 120. 81. Tyrell, ‘Royal Visit’, p. 60. 82. Rowan Strong, Episcopalianism in Nineteenth-Century Scotland: Religious Responses to a Modernizing Society (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002), p. 273. 83. Ibid., pp. 1–21, 31; George Grub, The Ecclesiastical History of Scotland (4 vols, Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1861), 4: pp. 173, 188. 84. John Wordsworth, The Episcopate of Charles Wordsworth, a Memoir (London: Longmans and Co., 1899), pp. 227–8, 250–1; Balfour, MacGregor, pp. 452–3; Strong, Episcopalianism, p. 231; Charles Wordsworth, A United Church of Scotland, England and Ireland Advocated: A Discourse on the Scottish Reformation (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1861), p. 30. Wordsworth’s other statements of this agenda included Euodias and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

198

85. 86.

87. 88. 89. 90.

91. 92.

93. 94. 95. 96.

97. 98.

Queen Victoria Syntyche: The Scottish Church in its Relations, Past and Present, to the Church of England (Perth: Robert Whittet, 1869) ; Prospects of Reconciliation between Presbytery and Episcopacy (Edinburgh: St Giles Printing Co., 1882), and A Discourse on Scottish Church History from the Reformation to the Present Time (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1881). Fulford, Your Dear Letter, p. 231. See correspondence in RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/11–19. For Wellesley’s annoyance at Macleod for blowing on ‘the coal’ of sectarian rivalry, see Wellesley to A. C. Tait, 3 November 1871, LPL, Benson Papers 89, f. 295. Victoria to Grey, 2 February 1869, DPGL MS D/GRE/XIII/9/18–20. Balfour, MacGregor, p. 244. Victoria to Wellesley (copy), 23 November 1866, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/ 11. Grey to Victoria, 23 November 1866, memorandum by Grey, 23 November 1866, and Norman Macleod to Victoria, 5 December 1866, RA VIC/MAIN/D/1/9, 11, 12, 16. Lindsay, Recollections, p. 111; Morgan, Windows, p. 9. William Wilson, Memorials of Robert Smith Candlish (Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1880), p. 367; Valerie Wallace, Scottish Presbyterianism and Settler Colonial Politics: Empires of Dissent (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), chs 9–11. Humphrey [pseud.], Balmoral, p. 48. M. H. Noel Paton, Tales of a Granddaughter (Elgin: The Author, 1970), p. 34. QVJ, 30 May 1869, p. 136; 6 June 1869, p. 140; Story, Story, p. 67; Campbell, Autobiography, 1: pp. 243–50. Kidd, Union, pp. 237–8; Stewart Brown, ‘The Controversy over Dean Stanley’s Lectures on the Scottish National Church, 1872’, Records of the Scottish Church History Society, 31 (2001), pp. 145–72; Gordon, Charteris, p. 396. QVJ, 14 June 1874, p. 170; Malcolm Taylor to Victoria, 3 June 1875, RA VIC/MAIN/D/6/31; Balfour, MacGregor, p. 244. Duchess of Athole to Queen Victoria, 7 February 1877, RA VIC/ MAIN/S/11/68; Frances Balfour, A Memoir of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, K.T. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1925), pp. 86–7; LPL, Lang Papers 223, f. 60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

199

99. Argyll to Victoria, 2 August 1874, RA VIC/MAIN/D/5/33. See e.g. Alexander Taylor Innes, The Church of Scotland Crisis, 1843 and 1874 and the Duke of Argyll (Edinburgh: Maclaren and Macniven, 1874) and George Campbell, The Patronage Act of 1874 All That Was Asked in 1843, a Reply (Edinburgh, 1874) for critics of Argyll. 100. Balfour, Balfour, pp. 31–2. 101. The Opening and Close of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland 1877: Addresses by the Lord High Commissioner and the Moderator (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1877), p. 28. 102. Victoria to Marchioness of Ely, in Buckle, Letters. Second Series, 3: p. 47. 103. John Vincent, ed., The Diaries of Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby (1826–93) Between 1878 and 1893: A Selection (Oxford: Leopard’s Head Press, 1993), p. 174; Milligan to Ponsonby, 21 June 1882 and commentary by William Harcourt, RA VIC/MAIN/D/7/117, 120. 104. Gordon, Charteris, pp. 399–400; Maclean, Lees, p. 252; QVJ, 8 June 1885, p. 198. 105. The Church and the People (Edinburgh: Macniven and Wallace, 1886). ; Robert Herbert Story, ed., The Church of Scotland, Past and Present: Its History, its Relation to the Law and the State, its Doctrine, Ritual, Discipline, and Patrimony (2 vols, London: William McKenzie, 1890), 1: p. xiii. 106. R. H. Story to Marie Mallet, 24 October 1898 and Balfour of Burleigh to Arthur Bigge, RA VIC/MAIN/D/13/55-56; Story, Story, p. 308. 107. Gordon, Charteris, pp. 409–10; Balfour, Balfour, p. 65; James MacGregor, ‘Disestablishment and Disendowment’, in The Church and the People, p. 256; Campbell, Autobiography, 2: pp. 452–3. 108. George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Third Series: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal between the Years 1886 and 1901 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1930–2), 2: p. 257, 378–9, 381, 452–3; QVJ, 9 March 1894, pp. 67–8. 109. Breadalbane to Victoria, 23 May 1895, RA VIC/MAIN/D/12/25. 110. Guthrie letters to Duchess of Argyll, NLS MS3007 and AP, MSS Bundle 323; Thomas Guthrie, Autobiography of Thomas Guthrie and Memoir by his Sons David K. Guthrie and Charles J. Guthrie (London: W. Isbister and Co., 1874), pp. 329, 452, 342, 346; PeterBayne, The Free Church of Scotland: Her Origin, Founders, and Testimony (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1894), p. 307. 111. Aberdeen Press and Journal, 4 February 1901, p. 2. 112. Maclean, Lees, pp. 414–15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

200

Queen Victoria

113. QVJ, 24 March 1847, p. 88; Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 2, General Fasts, Thanksgivings and Special Prayers in the British Isles 1689–1870 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017), pp. 846–53. 114. John Wolffe, ‘Anti-Catholicism and the British Empire, 1815–1914’, in Hilary Carey, ed., Empires of Religion (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 43–63 and John Wolffe, ‘A Comparative Historical Categorisation of Anti-Catholicism’, Journal of Religious History, 39 (2015), pp. 182–202; Geraldine Vaughan, ‘ “Britishers and Protestants”: Protestantism and Imperial British Identities in Britain, Canada and Australia from the 1880s to the 1920s’, Studies in Church History, 54 (2018), pp. 359–73. 115. QVJ, 14 June 1843, p. 201. 116. QVJ, 31 May 1843, p. 175. See Donal Kerr, Peel, Priests and Politics: Sir Robert Peel’s Administration and the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, 1841–1846 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). 117. QVJ, 15 April 1845, p. 136; Peel memorandum to Albert and Peel to Albert, 31 March 1846, BL Add MS 40 441, ff. 158, 160. 118. QVJ, 16 June 1845, p. 235. 119. QVJ, 24 April 1845, p. 153; 1 June 1845, p. 211; 1 June 1845, p. 211; 8 August 1845, p. 52. 120. Thomas J. Morrissey, The Life and Times of Daniel Murray: Archbishop of Dublin 1823–1852 (Dublin: Messenger Publications, 2018), p. 225. For context, see Murphy, Abject Loyalty, ch. 3; Saho Matsumoto-Best, Britain and the Papacy in the Age of Revolution, 1846–1851 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003), p. 20. 121. Bernard O’Reilly, John MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam. His Life, Times and Correspondence (2 vols, Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1890), 2: pp. 178–84. 122. James Loughlin, ‘Allegiance and Illusion: Queen Victoria’s Irish Visit of 1849’, History, 87 (2002), pp. 491–513. 123. QVJ, 11 August 1849, p. 502. See the recollections of William Boyd Carpenter, Some Pages of my Life (London: Williams and Norgate, 1911), p. 274. 124. ‘The Queen and the Protestant Institutions’, The Tablet, 4 August 1849, p. 486; The Tablet, 18 August 1849, p. 519. 125. Correspondence between the Most Rev. Dr MacHale Archbishop of Tuam and Most Rev. Dr Murphy (Dublin, 1885), pp. 10, 14–16, 21, 32; O’Reilly, MacHale, 2: p. 185.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

201

126. The Tablet, 11 August 1849, p. 504. See Loughlin, ‘Allegiance’. 127. QVJ, 16 January 1850, p. 20; Matsumoto-Best, Britain, pp. 166–9; Vincent Comerford, ‘Defence, Accommodation, and Conflict in Irish Confessional Relations’, in Colin Barr and Hilary M. Carey, eds, Religion and Greater Ireland: Christianity and Irish Global Networks, 1750–1950 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill UP, 2015), p. 39. 128. Emmet J. Larkin, Making of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, 1850–1860 (Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP, 1980), pp. 71–2; O’Reilly, MacHale, 2: p. 254. 129. Larkin, Making, pp. xxii–xxiii, 208; ‘The Queen’s Visit and the Catholic Hierarchy’, Limerick and Clare Examiner, 24 August 1853, p. 2; Evening Mail, 4 September 1853, p. 5. 130. ‘Ireland’, The Times, 29 August 1853, p. 5; Ulster Gazette and Armagh Weekly Journal, 10 September 1853, p. 2. 131. ‘The Queen’s Visit to Ireland’, The Times, 31 August 1861, p. 6. 132. Federico Curato, ed., Gran Bretagna e Italia: Nei Documenti della Missione Minto (2 vols, Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano, 1970), 1: pp. 38–9; 82, 227, 242, 190; Matsumoto-Best, Britain, pp. 51–60; Julian Reynolds, ‘Politics vs. Persuasion: The Attempt to Establish Anglo-Roman Diplomatic Relations in 1848’, Catholic Historical Review, 71 (1985), pp. 372–93. 133. Pius IX to Victoria, 4 December 1848, ‘Memorandum on Matters Connected with the Form of addressing the Pope in Answer to his Letter to Her Majesty of 4th December 1848’, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 2: pp. 243–4, 248–50. 134. Noel Blakiston, ed., The Roman Question: Extracts from the Despatches of Odo Russell from Rome, 1858–1870 (London: Chapman and Hall, 1962), pp. 178, 248, 280–1, 357; Karina Urbach, Bismarck’s Favourite Englishman: Lord Odo Russell’s Mission to Berlin (London: I. B. Tauris, 2009), p. 34; Peadar Mac Suibhne, ed., Paul Cullen and his Contemporaries: With their Letters from 1820–1902 (5 vols, Nass: Carlow College, 1961–77), 2: pp. 284–5. 135. Blakiston, Odo Russell, pp. 325–7, 351; Matthew Kelly, ‘Providence, Revolution and the Conditional Defence of the Union: Paul Cullen and the Fenians’, in Dáire Keogh and Albert McDonnell, eds, Cardinal Paul Cullen and his World (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2011), pp. 308–28. 136. QVJ, 12 April, 22 April, and 10 July 1864, pp. 157, 166, 270; Edmund Sheridan Purcell, The Life of Cardinal Manning (2 vols, London: Macmillan and Co., 1895), 2: p. 164.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

202

Queen Victoria

137. Emmet J. Larkin, The Consolidation of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, 1860–1870 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1987), p. 561. 138. QVJ, 10 May 1866, p. 121. 139. QVJ, 6 January 1869, p. 5; Victoria to Grey, 9 January 1869, DPGL, GRE/D/XIII/11; Buckle, Letters. Second Series, 1: p. 577. 140. QVJ, 5 April 1868, p. 101; 13 December 1868, p. 356. 141. QVJ, 11 February 1869, p. 35; 23 February 1869, p. 44; Fulford, Your Dear Letter, p. 228. 142. QVJ, 28 February 1868, p. 57; 23 January 1869, p. 19; Disraeli to Derby, 5 April 1868, in W. F. Monypenny and G. E. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (6 vols, London: John Murray, 1910–20), 2: p. 368; Nancy Johnson, ed., The Diary of Gathorne Hardy, Later Lord Cranbrook, 1866–1892: Political Selections (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 69; Angus Hawkins and John Powell, eds, The Journal of John Wodehouse, First Earl of Kimberley, for 1862–1902 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997), p. 221; Vincent, Disraeli, Derby, p. 337. 143. QVJ, 1 and 7 May 1868, pp. 126, 131; Buckle, Letters. Second Series, 1: pp. 517–19. 144. Tait to Grey, 4 March 1869, Grey to Tait, 4 June 1869, and Victoria to Tait, 11 July 1869, in LPL, Tait Papers 87, ff. 81–5, 122, 160–1; QVJ, 6 June 1869, p. 141. 145. QVJ, 25 July 1869, p. 194; Fulford, Darling Child, p. 59; Frank Hardie, The Political Influence of Queen Victoria (1935; London: Frank Cass and Co., 1963), p. 134. 146. Augusta Stanley to Victoria, 3 December 1868, WAM, MS 63517; Bolitho, Later Letters, p. 111; Charles Grey, Diary, 10 January 1869, DPGL, GRE/D6/26; Gladstone Memorandum, 25 June 1871, BL Add MS 44760, ff. 40–4. 147. Loughlin, British Monarchy, pp. 152–5. 148. Emmet Larkin, The Roman Catholic Church and the Emergence of the Modern Irish Political System, 1874–1878 (Blackrock, Co. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1996), pp. 458–63; C. J. Woods, ‘The Politics of Cardinal McCabe, Archbishop of Dublin, 1879–85’, Dublin Historical Record, 26 (1973), pp. 101–10. 149. Purcell, Manning, 2: p. 250. 150. QVJ, 18 April 1885, p. 142. See Freeman’s Journal, 16 April 1885, p. 5 for Cork, and Loughlin, British Monarchy, pp. 189–93 for the politics of the visit.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Disunited Kingdom

203

151. QVJ, 18 April 1885, p. 142; Victoria to Randall Davidson, 11 May 1885, LPL, Davidson Papers 25, f. 25. 152. For the Grand Chartreuse see correspondence in RA VIC/MAIN/D/ 10/62–3. 153. QVJ, 15 April 1879, p. 110; Duchess of Athole to Queen Victoria, 14 January 1876, RA VIC/MAIN/S/11/4. 154. Victoria to Randall Davidson, LPL, Davidson Papers 19, f. 88. 155. Clémentine to Victoria, 20 May 1884, RA VIC/MAIN/Z/147/5. 156. QVJ, 6 December 1880, p. 110; 3 March 1888, p. 53. 157. Mallet, Mallet, p. 94; Magdalen Ponsonby, ed., Mary Ponsonby: A Memoir, Some Letters and a Journal (London: John Murray, 1927), p. ix; Thomas Wodehouse, Baron Newton, Lord Lyons: A Record of British Diplomacy (2 vols, London: Edward Arnold, 1913), 2: p. 421. 158. Carol E. Harrison, Romantic Catholics: France’s Postrevolutionary Generation in Search of a Modern Faith (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2014), pp. 154–8, 180; Lily Wellesley to Queen Victoria, 1884, RA VIC/MAIN/S/12/32. 159. Ellen Ross, ‘St Francis in Soho: Emmeline Pethick, Mary Neal, the West London Wesleyan Mission, and the Allure of “Simple Living” in the 1890s’, Church History, 83 (2014), pp. 843–83. 160. Benson, Benson, 2: p. 567. 161. Larkin, Consolidation, pp. xx, 655–9; Herries to Derby (copy), RA VIC/ MAIN/D/5/48; Victoria telegram to Augustus Paget and Paget to Victoria, BL Add MS 51205, ff. 86, 90. 162. Emmet J. Larkin, The Roman Catholic Church and the Creation of the Modern Irish State, 1876–1886 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1975), p. 247. 163. T. J. Capel, Great Britain and Rome: Or, Ought the Queen of England to Hold Diplomatic Relations with the Sovereign Pontiff (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1882), p. 55. 164. Larkin, Creation, p. 287. 165. QVJ, 8 and 12 December 1887, pp. 159, 164. 166. William Adamson, Memorial to the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty Against the Dispatch of a Special Mission to Rome in the Person of the Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England (London: Waterlow and Sons, 1888), p. v; Emmet J. Larkin, The Roman Catholic Church and the Plan of Campaign in Ireland, 1886–1888 (Cork: Cork UP, 1978), pp. 110, 147–52, 170–4; Purcell, Manning, 2: pp. 625–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

204

Queen Victoria

167. The Times, 5 April 1900, p. 9; 7 April 1900, p. 7; 18 April 1900, p. 8; 21 April 1900, p. 12. 168. Donegal Independent, 27 April 1900, p. 4. 169. Andrea Bobotis, ‘Rival Maternities: Maud Gonne, Queen Victoria, and the Reign of the Political Mother’, Victorian Studies, 49 (2006), pp. 63–83. 170. Dublin Daily Nation, 27 April 1900, p. 4. 171. Belfast Newsletter, 19 April 1900, p. 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

7 The Crown of Sacrifice

In January 1897, Victoria began a new religious tradition: the holding of anniversary memorial services for her son-in-law Henry of Battenberg. Having died at Madeira of fever contracted in West Africa while serving as a volunteer on Francis Scott’s expedition to Asante, Henry had been repatriated and buried in St Mildred’s, Whippingham, which accordingly became a ‘beautiful hallowed spot’ to Victoria. Courtiers who hoped that his rites would end with his funeral found her persistence in anniversary services ‘morbid’, a ‘mistake’, and ‘very trying’, while conceding that ‘the Queen enjoys them, at any rate they are the only lodestones that draw her within the precincts of a church’.1 They were right to perceive that, as Victoria aged, she came to live for death. How rulers express and wield power depends on their sense of time, which is in turn moulded by holding power.2 The ageing Victoria’s chronoscape shelved into the past, as the commemoration of the dead blotted out thoughts for the future. Death hollowed out her subjective experience of power, whittling away her family and household even as her Empire expanded. ‘It is a sad and solemn feeling that there is no one above us any longer’, Victoria wrote to the Duke of Cambridge after they had attended his mother’s funeral in 1889. ‘We are now the only old ones left.’3 Her journal bore out her impression that ‘soon every day will be an anniversary’, becoming a mausoleum book in which she recorded the loss of relatives, friends, and servants and gloomed over newspaper reports of accidents and disasters. The Frogmore anniversary services for Albert became just the most important node in a constellation of sad recollections.4 Historians have argued that the ‘crêpe pall’ which descended on Victoria’s court after deaths like Henry’s was countercultural. By this time, the Victorian ‘celebration of death’ had

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

206

Queen Victoria

dwindled among the upper and middle classes. Funerals became less costly, mourning attire was quickly sloughed off, and overt discussion of death waned.5 Her courtiers were less polite, damning her absorption in funerals as a psychological defect—‘the dim shade of inherited melancholy from George III’.6 Contemporary critiques of her morbidity were not just psychological, but theological. In a sermon occasioned by the death of her half sister Feodore, John Tulloch bluntly informed her that ‘a sorrow which either refuses to accept facts, or to cease from anxieties and regrets which are no longer practicable, is an unchristian sorrow—for this reason, amongst others, that the duties of life await those who have suffered most’.7 Tulloch presented flamboyant mourning as an impediment to duty, but this chapter continues the argument of chapter four by demonstrating that mourning had become the widowed Victoria’s duty. Like her Habsburg and Romanov contemporaries, who were humanized and sanctified by repeated bereavements, her grief extended her power over the imagination of her subjects.8 Late Victorian people still felt that royal deaths could provoke reflection on the religious ideals of the nation, and looked to preachers to provide that reflection.9 Victoria mourned often and vehemently during her long widowhood, but this chapter focuses on her grief for four men: her son Leopold, the Duke of Albany, who died in March 1884; her grandson Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, who died in January 1892; Prince Henry; and her grandson Christian Victor, who died in October 1900. To single out these losses is not to suggest that they were unique in their impact on her—as chapter two argued, the deaths of her daughter Victoria’s children and husband Friedrich, and of Alice and her children had been dreadful blows. Each death that Victoria faced compounded the impact of all the others. The death of Alice’s husband Ludwig just two months after Clarence’s left Victoria ‘quite crushed & broken hearted’.10 Moreover, courtiers felt that Victoria’s mourning was promiscuous and indiscriminate: they regarded her absorption in the funerals and graves of Scottish villagers and household servants with disdain and were horrified by her determination to speak publicly of her anguish at John Brown’s death. What Victoria’s reaction to these four deaths does clearly reveal, however, is that her lavish mourning was not just a personal tic, but aligned the monarchy with important changes in religious culture.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

207

The most significant of these changes was the refitting of Christian manliness to suit the needs of Empire. Historians have long recognized that the Crimean War and the Indian Rebellion provoked evangelical Protestants to shed their inhibitions at the celebration of soldier heroes, which had still been evident in their suspicious reaction to the Duke of Wellington’s pompous obsequies, which Albert had helped organize in 1852.11 Captain Hedley Vicars in the Crimea and General Havelock in India captured their imagination not only because they were godly, but because they had died in pursuit of victory. Self-sacrifice was not only the ultimate Christian virtue, but increasingly allowed Christians to imagine empire as a gigantic act of self-abnegation, a theatre of noble suffering rather than a field of unbridled power. Many of the men who became Christian heroes in the later decades of Victoria’s reign—from David Livingstone to General Gordon—were remarkable for their endurance of great suffering, or for the fearless way in which they had confronted defeat or death. Later Victorian culture venerated ‘warriors of God’—as Tennyson once styled Gordon—lavishing the sorrow and pity that more properly belonged to the victims of imperialism onto its agents. The Church of England played a central role in establishing the iconography of what was still a distinctively Christian form of sacrifice. Stanley buried Livingstone in Westminster Abbey after the moving repatriation of his corpse, while his successor as Dean organized memorial services for Gordon there, with Victoria’s hearty approval.12 This use of great deaths to consecrate imperial manliness is familiar enough to historians, but this chapter shows that it received just as much support from the throne as the altar. Victoria was a warrior Queen who had never felt religious compunction about soldiering.13 She was in younger days frustrated not to take to it herself. Her aunt Louise of Belgium had sympathized with the ‘warm, and manlike feelings’ aroused by her first military review. ‘When I regretted not being a man, and I regretted it most deeply for many years, I used to entertain such feelings, particularly on horseback.’14 After her cousin George had survived the Crimean battle of Inkerman, Victoria wrote to him of her wish to ‘share your toils and dangers . . . I never regretted more than I have done these last few months that I was a poor woman and not a man!’ She contented herself by developing a matriarchal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

208

Queen Victoria

relationship to the army, writing to her uncle Leopold that her ‘heart beats for them as for my nearest and dearest’.15 Victoria sacralized the pain and danger to which they were exposed. If the Crimean War began the conversion of many evangelical Protestants to military values, then encounters with its survivors had a formative impact on Victoria. When decorating veterans or visiting military hospitals, she could not get over the sight of ‘fine, powerful frames laid low & prostrate with wounds & sickness on beds of sufferings, or maimed in the prime of life’. It was ‘indescribably touching to us women, who are born to suffer, & can bear pain more easily, so different to men, & soldiers, accustomed to activity & hardships, whom it is particularly sad & pitiable to see in such a condition’.16 Victoria’s gendered spirituality, in which women were born to admire the sacrifices that men made on their behalf, began to look old-fashioned at a time when many elite women were exploiting Christian theology to frame new rights and responsibilities.17 Yet it made her the ideal hierophant of the cult of imperial suffering, who listened to Livingstone’s African servant relate his last moments, telegraphed to Gordon’s sister her admiration for his ‘self-sacrifice’, and met survivors of the regiment massacred by Afghans at the Battle of Maiwand, including their mascot Bobbie, a Pomeranian dog who was dressed in velvet and decorations for his audience.18 Victoria’s own relatives were pressed into this cult, even though they largely made unconvincing soldiers. Her son Arthur was a career soldier who took part in Wolseley’s invasion of Egypt, leading a bayonet charge at Tell el Kebir. In More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands, Victoria revealed to the public how she had recited German hymns for his safety on the eve of the battle.19 But while Arthur ended up as commander in chief of the army, the haemophiliac Leopold had to be content with an honorary colonelcy in the Seaforth Highlanders. Clarence had been a notably reluctant officer, while Henry of Battenberg was a carpet soldier whose highest responsibility before volunteering for Scott’s expedition had been the defence of the Isle of Wight. This did not prevent Victoria granting all three imposing military funerals. Central to Leopold and Battenberg’s funerals, furthermore, was the imperial state’s prowess in arranging the speedy repatriation of their remains from abroad. They followed one model for mourning death at a distance which

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

209

had impressed Victoria: the funeral of Napoleon III’s son the Prince Imperial after his death in the Zulu War. By contrast, the mourning and commemoration of Christian Victor, who was buried in Pretoria after his death in the South African War, involved bringing home the reality of his distant sacrifice to Britain. While Victoria’s losses brought her family into line with other elite families, who dreaded telegrams with bad news from distant battlefields, her mourning strengthened and deepened perceptions of the Queen in other ways too. The funerals described in this chapter were not just militarized but were also aestheticized events, which used music and flowers to cast death as a gentle transition to another world continuous with this one. They reflect how sentiment was coming to replace eschatology in thinking about the dead, and as such they fastened the public’s attention on Victoria as the mourner in chief.20 The preachers who explained the meaning of these great deaths to their congregations took them as an occasion to strengthen their emotional community with Victoria. Her advisers encouraged her meanwhile to think of her grief as a blessing and a political asset, allowing her to solicit the Christian sympathy of the nation. Victoria may, as Tennyson once told her, have felt ‘so alone on that terrible height’, but her august loneliness made her a figurehead for the human costs of empire.21 ‘Whatever touches the heart of the Sovereign touches the hearts of the nation’, asserted her Presbyterian favourite James MacGregor in a sermon on the death of her first cousin Mary of Teck. ‘Every soldier lying stark and stiff under an Indian sun is somebody’s boy.’22 ‘Backward Glances into Forward Visions’: Mourning Leopold In March 1884, Victoria’s son Leopold, the Duke of Albany, bled to death at Cannes after falling down the stairs of the Villa Nevada during an epileptic fit. The repatriation and burial of his remains became a solemn drama of a kind increasingly familiar to Victorian high society, as male family members succumbed to sickness or misadventure abroad while on military, imperial, or missionary service. The transit of Leopold’s corpse from the South of France to Britain had shown off the Royal Navy’s efficiency while making it a celebrant

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

210

Queen Victoria

in a potent mourning rite. After taking charge of its cargo, the royal yacht Osborne had become a floating shrine, its deck saloon ‘arranged like a Chapel, surrounded with quantities of flowers, wreaths & crosses, from Cannes’.23 Victoria inspected the boat on its arrival at Portsmouth, noting the bronze cross let into the spot where ‘the dear Remains had rested’ and dishing out framed photographs of Leopold to the sailors.24 If the navy brought Leopold home to England, then the military laid him to rest in St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, befitting his role as an honorary colonel of the Seaforth Highlanders. As Leopold’s uniformed male relatives waited by the train at Windsor, the coffin was ‘reverently borne on the shoulders of 8 Seaforth Highlanders’ before being loaded onto a gun carriage, decorated with claymore and bonnet, Victoria’s camellias, and a ‘beautiful artificial wreath of violet from the Empress Eugénie’ of France. St George’s made a romantic sight the night before the funeral, as Highlanders kept watch over the coffin with reversed muskets.25 In May, Victoria met them to congratulate them on the performance of their ‘mournful duties’, handing out an enamelled pin with Leopold’s monogram in diamonds.26 The militarization of Leopold’s funeral at St George’s had at his own request taken ‘the Pce Imperial’s funeral’ as its model—an occasion whose deployment of minute guns and the Royal Artillery Band Victoria had found ‘fearfully thrilling [and] affecting’.27 Her longstanding admiration for the deposed Empress Eugénie had deepened into sisterly compassion after the deaths of first her husband the former Emperor Napoleon and then her only son the Prince, who was killed in June 1879 while serving with British forces in the Zulu War.28 Victoria haunted Eugénie’s home at Camden Place, Chislehurst in Kent and financed the remodelling of the nearby Roman Catholic church of St Mary as a mausoleum for father and son.29 Unusually, Victoria had gone to Camden Place for the Prince’s funeral—in support, as Cardinal Manning gushed, of the ‘lonely Mother’.30 After British ships had brought the Prince Imperial’s body to Woolwich, it travelled on to an elaborate Chapelle ardente at Camden Place, which Victoria found ‘without any of the horrid gloom of black hangings’ that disfigured English funerals.31 Leopold too would have a Chapelle ardente at the Villa Nevada before his repatriation to Britain—an elaborate kind of wake that a generation earlier had struck Victoria’s dour

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

211

32

relative Mary of Teck as popish. Victoria had respectfully noted the titles of the priests in attendance at Camden Place, while her sons went to hear the Roman Catholic Bishop of Southwark say Mass over the coffin.33 Victoria marvelled at the macabre cult of the Prince which Eugénie went on to create—she undertook a pilgrimage to Zululand, returning with African violets that she planted in a cross-shaped flower bed on the lawns of Camden Place, and stuffed a trunk full of ‘precious’ bloodstained ‘relics’ of the Prince, such as his slashed tunic.34 Although criticism in the press and in Parliament put paid to Victoria’s plans to commemorate the Prince Imperial inside Westminster Abbey, she installed a bronze copy of Joseph Edgar Boehm’s monument for St Mary’s, Chislehurst in St George’s, Windsor.35 Inscribed on the sarcophagus below the Prince’s martial effigy was a prayer found written in his missal, in which the Prince asked God to watch him do his duty, copies of which Victoria had distributed to friends and relations.36 Her family persevered in the Prince’s cult, her sons inaugurating a statue of him at Woolwich, in which he stood provocatively flanked by giant Napoleonic eagles.37 Victoria likewise not only buried but commemorated the invalid Leopold as a Christian warrior. In Boehm’s recumbent effigy for Leopold’s sarcophagus in the Wolsey Chapel at St George’s, he grips a flower-strewn claymore and a book—a fallen intellectual knight to be paired with Henri de Triqueti’s effigy of his father in the same chapel.38 When Victoria visited Christ Church, Esher, she admired F. J. Williamson’s bust of Leopold as a Highlander colonel, bristling with medals and moustachioes. Its alabaster frame echoed the monument across the aisle to the Tudor freebooter Richard Drake and was surmounted with the words, ‘I will give thee a crown of life’ (Revelation 2:10). Readers would have silently added the preceding words: ‘Be though faithful unto death’, which made this a passage about the manly endurance of ‘tribulation’.39 The urge to root Leopold’s spirit in place extended to Cannes, which she visited on the 1891 anniversary of his death and where she installed a marble seat at the Villa Nevada with a fulsome inscription: ‘Peace which the world cannot give’. Erigé par la Reine Victoria à la mémoire de son cher fils le Pce Leopold, Duc d’Albany, décédé à la Villa Névada le 28 mars 1884. ‘Heureux sont dès à présent les morts

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

212

Queen Victoria

qui meurent dans le Seigneur’. [Apocalypse XIV. 13.] Oft near to death, here our loved son Passed to God’s peace. He loved to share And lighten life. And duty done His youth is deathless in Thy Heavenly care.40

Arthur Blomfield designed St George’s Church on the Rue du Roi Albert, Cannes as a memorial to Leopold. It was consecrated in February 1887 to the strains of Charlotte Elliott and Arthur Sullivan’s hymn ‘Thy Will be Done’, which had long been a touchstone for Victoria and her children.41 A copy of Boehm’s statue faced the altar, while Leopold’s bereaved wife Helena embellished the church with a reredos and stained glass. Victoria was impressed by this fine ‘Memorial Church’, a corner of a foreign field which became, like Frogmore, the seat not just of tuneful anniversary services for Leopold but of family rites of passage and funerary services for other fallen royals, such as the Duke of Clarence.42 Leopold’s death raised once again the delicate question of Victoria’s darker emotions and their relationship to religious faith, with her clerical favourites scrambling to console her with roseate eschatological views.43 William Boyd Carpenter, the Bishop of Ripon, did so in a prolonged correspondence whose eloquence she valued so much she had it bound to be loaned to friends.44 Carpenter was an expert toady—who even named his son Victor and his daughter Beatrice—and his honeyed letters begged Victoria to dwell on the ‘sweet past scene’ only if ‘sunlight is let into the picture’, so that ‘our backward glances become transformed into forward visions’. In doing so, they followed Christ, who had always looked forward to ‘the time He would “come again and receive them unto himself ” ’.45 Carpenter’s mystic and broad evangelicalism led him to recommend the spirituality of the early modern Quietists to Victoria, for whom God suffered with sufferers.46 The cross was the sign of God’s solidarity with sufferers, he wrote, citing lines by Norman Macleod: ‘For patient suffering is the link / Which binds us to a glorious morrow’.47 Carpenter suggested other supports too, authors such as their mutual friend Tennyson, Mrs Harriet King, the American Theodore Munger, and the blind Presbyterian George Matheson, who practised a ‘ministry of hope’ in which stoicism combined with sunny eschatology.48

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

213

Although their chats were private, Carpenter assured Victoria that her grief was ‘a temple in which all our griefs become consecrated, and in which . . . solitary hours can find a shelter’. After Leopold’s death, he remarked on how ‘sweet & soothing’ the popular sympathy must have been. The cab drivers who tied black ribbon to their whips showed ‘loyal feeling among a class of men whose lives are often surrounded by roughness and hardship’.49 Archbishop Benson pitched in with a similar message, assuring Victoria that ‘the very looks of the poor working folk in the streets to-day showed that this has not fallen “in vain”—and if it is consolation to be sure of this already, how much fruit of it is stored in the great future’.50 Even during his lifetime, Leopold’s weakness had been recast as strength. Arthur Stanley had apostrophized him in a poem as The Untravelled Traveller, whose illness had prevented him from visiting ‘Egypt’s sands’ and ‘Russia’s snows’, but earned him ‘A Nation’s sympathising prayer’ and inspired others to bear their sufferings.51 Memorial sermons on Leopold presented him as a prince of broken hearts, of ‘pale-faced clerks in City offices, the harassed mothers in charge of dreary East End homes, the newspaper reporters in Fleet Street, the struggling mechanics of our great cities, the suffering patients in dull hospital wards’.52 One political diarist groused that such eulogies were ‘infinitely disgusting’ as Leopold had ‘done nothing & never had the opportunity of doing anything’.53 But that was immaterial: the religious emotion at Leopold’s passing expressed admiration for his mother’s model trust in ‘Divine Love’ rather than for his record.54 ‘Out of that Tomb, there is Yet More to Spring’: The Duke of Clarence When Albert Edward’s eldest son Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence died of influenza on the eve of his marriage in January 1892, his obsequies marked a new advance in the militarization of male spirituality and the spiritualization of militarism. His official biographer insisted that the weedy Clarence had been ‘no mimic soldier’, but rather one of those ‘“hard Englishmen”, active of body, skilled in the chase, masters of horse and gun’. At St George’s Chapel, Windsor, all had been ‘sternly and solemnly military’: the coffin had been wrapped in the Union Jack and borne on the shoulders of his fellow hussars,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

214

Queen Victoria

while the portly Prince of Wales had squeezed into military uniform to accompany it.55 During his interment, minute guns boomed at Osborne, Horseguards Parade Ground, and at other military and naval installations. Alfred Gilbert’s tomb for Clarence in the Albert Memorial Chapel within St George’s, the making of which deeply interested Victoria, wove together these martial notes with a dandyish aestheticism. Clarence’s effigy wore an exquisitely rendered Hussars uniform that evoked his sartorial dash, and gripped his sword in a pose that echoed Boehm’s statue of Victoria’s father elsewhere in St George’s.56 As Victoria noted on a visit to Gilbert’s Maida Vale studio, these military flourishes were softened by the ‘lovely’ angel bent over the dead man to offer a crown of life, while his feet rested against a ‘little angel of love’.57 With Victoria’s approval, Gilbert had placed the effigy behind a ‘grillage’, a hedge of art nouveau ironwork topped with an array of sinuous saints, who guarded Clarence in death.58 Other images of Clarence commissioned by Victoria and the family were just as martial: in stained glass windows at Buckingham Palace and Crathie Kirk, he swapped his Hussar’s uniform for medieval armour.59 Clarence’s death was also an episode in the secularization, or at least the sentimentalization, of Christian mourning. The feelings of those who survived him were of more interest than his fate in an afterlife which appeared to be a dulcet echo of this world. ‘SHALL WE KNOW EACH OTHER IN ANOTHER WORLD? Intense question!’ mused James Fleming in a sermon preached before Clarence’s parents, before answering with a thunderous ‘Yes’. ‘Their separation from their gentle Prince-boy is but temporary, their reunion with him shall be eternal before the throne of God.’60 Swathed in scent and melody rather than funereal gloom, Clarence’s obsequies caressed the feelings of the mourners. At a Sandringham service before his body was dispatched to Windsor for his funeral, the mourners sang once more ‘Thy Will be Done’, while at St George’s the service ended at Alexandra’s request with Arthur Sullivan’s chromatic anthem, ‘O Brother thou art Gone Before Us’. Its message that the next world was a continuation of this one made it a favourite at funerals in the royal household.61 Though Victoria was absent from St George’s, she held a service in the private chapel at Osborne to coincide with it, at which the band of the 60th Rifles played

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

215

Beethoven and Chopin’s funeral marches, while minute guns boomed from a guard ship in Osborne Bay.62 The prominence of music reflected a shift in Protestant culture from spiky word to consoling melody, a development nowhere more marked than in the anniversary services at the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore, which had long since taken on the character of private concerts.63 Death was attenuated with flowers as well as song. Though the coffin, draped in purple velvet, was sombre enough, Windsor railway station had been smothered for its arrival in yellow and white imortelles, red and white camellias. The ‘Queen’s tribute of flowers’ and a ‘brilliant scarlet wreath’ from his regiment decked the funeral car, while the ‘permeating fragrance of freezia and violet’ filled St George’s.64 The surfeit of flowers was a reminder of Leopold’s obsequies: both at the Villa Nevada and then in St George’s, his coffin and altar had been ‘literally covered with wreaths & crosses’. In wreathing death in flowers, the royal family followed elite fashion. When a daughter of the third Duchess of Sutherland had died in 1881, the Duchess informed Victoria that her ‘lovely’ open grave was festooned with floral wreaths and crosses.65 Given this emphasis on the feelings of the living, Clarence’s death became an important episode in the construction of an emotional community between Victoria and her religious subjects. Both she and The Times felt that the public reaction to the death of the heir to the throne’s eldest son resembled that following the ‘death of poor Pss Charlotte in 1817’, with businesses throughout Britain and the Empire shuttered for the funeral.66 By dying on 14 January, he also recalled Albert and Alice to Victoria and the public’s mind, sharing with them the ‘fatal number’ fourteen in the calendar.67 For the Marquis of Lorne, one of the poets who turned out threnodies for Clarence, all ‘who speak this English tongue’ mourned their ‘comrade’.68 The telegraphic dispatch of news of Clarence’s death let Anglican churches from Ottawa to Bombay arrange services to coincide with his funeral at Windsor and provoked condolences from people as various as the Huron people of Canada and the Amir of Afghanistan.69 Religious minorities waded into the torrents of feeling, the Chief Rabbi telling the Great Synagogue that ‘we have felt this as a bereavement in our own family circle’. With finding much good to say of Clarence an embarrassing job, preachers generally defaulted to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

216

Queen Victoria

stoking sympathy with Victoria. Preaching ‘with the tenderness of a woman’, the Bishop of London told a packed St Paul’s Cathedral that they came to indulge ‘natural emotions’ and to bolster the ‘stricken household, for “their sorrow is our sorrow”’. Sympathy was not just a natural but a Christian response, for ‘it is the Lord Himself who calls forth these feelings, and makes the subject approach the sovereign’ with devotion.70 The royal family acknowledged these noises. In a telegram, Clarence’s parents stated that the participation of ‘all classes’ in their grief had soothed their ‘sorrowing hearts’.71 Victoria followed with a letter in the London Gazette, blending ‘tragic’ pathos with resignation to the ‘inscrutable decrees of Providence’. Staggering under the ‘heavy’ weight of thirty years of bereavement, Victoria felt strengthened by God and the ‘sympathy of millions’.72 Once of doubtful propriety, such a letter now seemed to Boyd Carpenter a ‘witness of that simple and true national feeling which binds together the affections of a people at moments of great sorrow’.73 Monarchists rallied. The congenitally pessimistic Archbishop Benson could not ‘help hoping that out of that Tomb there is yet more to spring’. A Welsh contact told him that even radical Glamorganshire had been touched. ‘I don’t think Monarchy is near its career’s end.’74 ‘The Crown of Sacrifice’: Henry of Battenberg and Christian Victor ‘It is a sore stroke. Four widows in one family’, Benson wrote to Randall Davidson in January 1896. ‘No one can touch such a sorrow except the Hand that strikes.’75 Victoria could barely write down the news that Henry of Battenberg, the husband of her youngest daughter Beatrice, had died of fever contracted on Francis Scott’s expedition to depose Prempeh, the ruler of the West African Kingdom of Asante (or Ashanti, to use the spelling Victorians employed).76 ‘I feel as tho’ we were living through the years 61 = 62’ she wrote to Vicky, capturing her grief and craving for sympathy.77 The kind of penurious princeling that had turned the public against German alliances, the price of Henry’s marriage to Beatrice was permanent captivity to his motherin-law. Scenting escape, he had rushed to volunteer for Scott’s expedition.78 Yet though not the first member of Victoria’s close family to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

217

court danger in war, he was the unluckiest, dying of fever without hearing a shot fired.79 His slender achievements did not prevent one more funeral pageant, which celebrated martial sacrifice while softening its sting. Henry’s funeral, which at his request took place at St Mildred’s, Whippingham on the Isle of Wight, recalled Leopold and Clarence’s in mingling flowers, music, and muskets. When Victoria visited St Mildred’s in advance of the funeral, it looked ‘quite festive, the columns all being entwined with greenery & white flowers, & already many wreaths which have arrived being hung on the walls’.80 Newspaper reporters found the air thick with scent and noted the absence of mourning insignia.81 Music smoothed Henry’s passsage into the next world as it had Leopold and Clarence’s. His cortege had moved off to Beethoven and Chopin’s funeral marches and the chorale, Jesus, meine Zuversicht, while inside St Mildred’s the congregation sang hymns and listened to Sullivan’s anthem, ‘Brother, thou art Gone Before Us’, but also to the ‘Russian (Kieff) Requiem Chant’, a decidedly un-Protestant prayer for the dead which had already featured at Clarence’s funeral, before finishing with the narcotic hymn ‘Sleep thy Last Sleep’, which invited the dead man to ‘Rest, where none weep, / Till the eternal morrow’.82 At Beatrice’s request, Sullivan’s anthem had also featured in a commemorative service at Westminster Abbey attended by the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury and a large congregation.83 In Berlin, mourners at a service at St George’s, Monbijou sang that family favourite, ‘Thy Will be Done’. Henry’s funeral was also an imposing articulation of imperial power. The repatriation of his remains was, like Leopold’s, a melancholy, closely reported extravaganza. On 4 February 1896, Victoria rolled down to the docks at Cowes to board HMS Blenheim, the ship which had brought the ‘beloved Remains’ from Madeira to Portsmouth with impressive speed.84 On 23 July 1898, she visited HMS Blonde, the boat on which he had died off Madeira, to speak to its officers and even to pet the Captain’s faithful dog, ‘who had lain on dear Liko’s bed during his illness’.85 The captains of both ships later received the Royal Victorian Order in recognition of their parts in this sacred drama, while on the anniversary of Henry’s death Victoria gave Beatrice a painting of the Blenheim’s night-time arrival into Portsmouth.86 Henry was transferred from the Blenheim to the royal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

218

Queen Victoria

yacht and shipped to the Isle of Wight, where sailors transferred ‘their precious burden’ to a gun carriage drawn by six horses. The Scots Guards acted as Henry’s pall bearers, later receiving photogravures of Henry from a grateful Victoria.87 The last sounds heard at the funeral were shots, as Henry’s Isle of Wight Volunteer Regiment let off three volleys in his honour.88 St Mildred’s joined Frogmore, Darmstadt’s Rosenhöhe, and Potsdam’s Friedenskirche as a royal mausoleum and a ‘sacred spot’.89 Henry’s friend Alfred Gilbert, who was still at work on Clarence’s tomb, furnished one of its bays as a mortuary chapel with a bronze screen, and the Empress Eugénie chipped in with an altar and windows.90 The hanging up of Henry’s Garter banner intermingled martial and Christian symbolism, while the use of Iona marbles on the sarcophagus, which was topped with an iron broadsword and inscribed with the motto ‘Till death do us part, till death do us join’, made it British.91 Whippingham was just one of several shrines to Henry; others included a monolith on the Balmoral estate and Henry’s fastidiously preserved rooms at Osborne and Carisbrooke Castle.92 The cult was the stronger because it derived not just from Victoria but from the innocuous Beatrice too. In a public letter to ‘My People’ to thank them for their ‘feeling of universal sympathy’, Victoria claimed that her beloved child was an ‘example to all’ in her ‘courage, resignation, and submission to the will of God’.93 The idea that Henry died as a crusader against the human sacrifice practised by the Asante was not just an article of faith with Victoria but a staple of propaganda literature about the campaign, some of which she read with Beatrice.94 Victoria issued a campaign medal in the shape of a cross, later changed to a star to protect the sensibilities of non-Christian auxiliaries.95 The chaplain John Taylor Smith, who had been with Henry at the end and cashed in on that fact, shaped Victoria’s impressions of the expedition.96 Preaching to Victoria in March 1896, he glorified it for having crushed bloodstained idolatry, which had ended with an open-air service at ‘Coomassie, under one of the great fetish trees, where 100s of poor human victims had been sacrificed’.97 Visiting Windsor that May, Benson found Victoria full of Taylor’s message that the expedition had put paid to ‘cruelties in Ashanti’.98 Taylor was soon consecrated Bishop of Sierra Leone— Beatrice being the first to receive communion from him—and became

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

219

a fixture at Windsor. An anti-Ritualist evangelical and a boyish celibate addicted to cold water swimming, Taylor Smith later became the first chaplain general to the British forces at Victoria’s wish, and pressed his beliefs on the army in the First World War, one of whose early victims would be Henry and Beatrice’s son Maurice.100 The cult of Henry certainly aroused mordant scepticism in the republican and anti-clerical press, which dismissed him as a bloodthirsty German sponger. With his death not affecting the succession to the throne, it seemed of less consequence than Clarence’s.101 Yet however artificial the emotions unleashed by Henry’s death, preachers deployed them in their eagerness to condole with Beatrice and still more with Victoria, ‘the widow in her solitude’.102 These emotions extended beyond the Christian churches. Plucking on a ‘sympathetic chord’ at Liverpool’s Princes Road Synagogue, the Reverend Samuel Friedeberg saluted Victoria’s ‘resignation’, arguing that it would ‘strengthen the foundations on which England’s truest greatness rests’.103 The construction of Victoria as a widow put her beyond politics, but also affirmed imperial solidarities. Hanging from the organ loft at St Mildred’s at the funeral had been a huge floral emblem ‘From the Self-governing Colonies, in Memory of a Gallant Prince’.104 Ontario coupled its telegraphed condolences with a willingness to bear any ‘sacrifice’ to defend ‘the integrity of the Empire’.105 The outbreak of the South African War in October 1899 further blurred Victoria’s personal sorrows with her sovereign duties. Victoria had always advertised her compassionate admiration for her troops. During and after the Crimean War, she had met veterans and dished out medals to them in moving ceremonies recorded by court artists.106 She had made widely publicized visits to hospitals and collected photographs which recorded the disabling wounds that her soldiers incurred in her service.107 She patterned herself on Florence Nightingale, whose ‘Christian devotion’ she marked with the gift of a brooch decorated with the cross of St George and the inscription ‘Blessed are the Merciful’.108 In May 1856, a choir sang the 100th Psalm after Victoria had laid the foundation stone for the new Royal Victoria Hospital at Netley near Southampton. She returned as a widow to see its ‘fine Chapel’ in 1863 and made regular visits to it and other such institutions during and after the small but bloody imperial wars of subsequent decades.109 At times, the court seemed an annex to 99

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

220

Queen Victoria

a military hospital. Her daughter Victoria begged her mother to send ‘coarse poor men’s shirts’ to be used in her field hospitals during Prussia’s wars of 1866 and 1870.110 The spiritual as well as material welfare of the military concerned Victoria. She sent improving books to the Crimea and took part in religious ceremonies to dedicate regimental colours even after her retirement from public life.111 In June 1892, she laid the foundation stone of a new garrison church, St George’s, at Aldershot—where to this day the bas relief of the saint over the west door nicely evokes the association between male chivalry and faith in Victoria’s mind.112 It was natural then that ‘prayers for the war & our troops’, patriotic sermons, and specially composed war hymns dominated the religious life of the court following the outbreak of hostilities. They crept into Henry’s memorial services too, so that past and present sacrifices coalesced.113 Marie Mallet felt ‘quite out of place in these war-like circles where the only cry is “Let us slay the Amalekites!” ’114 When Victoria was not pondering the spiritual benefits of war, she was fussing over the dispatch of a special ration of chocolate to her soldiers. But even as she pestered her commanders about the sufferings of army horses and the ‘heavy loss of life’, her faith in sacrifice was abiding.115 During the Black Week of national reverses in February 1900, Lang addressed ‘aching hearts’ in a sermon at Osborne on the ‘crown of sacrifice’, speaking, Victoria felt, ‘interestingly & wisely’ on Matthew 16:25, ‘For whosoever will save his life shall lose it & whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it’. Lang, whose remarks had dwelt on ‘national sacrifice as possibly being the true culmination of the reign’, vividly remembered this visit ‘to the Mother of Empire—the one for whom the soldiers had laid down their lives’.116 His emphasis on unity in suffering was a characteristic one in Anglican preaching throughout the Empire at this time.117 The death of Victoria’s grandson Christian Victor in October 1900 was a chance to associate the royal family with national sacrifice. The very model of a Christian soldier, the son of Victoria’s daughter Princess Helena had received a christening gift of Corbould’s statue of Albert as a Pauline knight, and had been educated in its spirit at Wellington College, Oxford, and Sandhurst, before serving in the Sudanese and Ashanti campaigns.118 Despite Victoria’s efforts to keep him out of harm’s way, he died of enteric fever and was buried

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

221

in Pretoria, bringing back memories of Henry’s death, ‘dying of African fever, away from his dear ones’.119 James MacGregor’s sermon on 4 November made ‘beautiful allusions to dear Christie’, claiming that ‘the many who had fallen in S. Africa & were resting there’ made it ‘“a holy land”’—one which Victoria and his mother Helena reached in imagination by ordering flowers for his grave there.120 Victoria agreed with his father Christian that his burial in the field would ‘help others who have their dear ones buried far off ’.121 His memorialization was one of the last things to engage Victoria. At home she admired Emil Fuchs’s monument for St George’s Chapel, Windsor, which ended up in the Frogmore mausoleum—a lumbering angel cradling a large sword.122 At Victoria’s insistence, the ‘early Irish’ cross for Christian Victor’s grave in Pretoria had been fashioned from Balmoral granite and the railings from ‘old guns’. It bore trusty Pauline verses on its base—‘I have fought a good fight’, ‘I have kept the faith’, and ‘I have finished my course’—as well as verses by William Boyd Carpenter.123 An imposing obelisk installed on Plymouth Hoe made a public and civic statement of these themes, joining existing monuments to Francis Drake and the Pilgrim Fathers. On one of the two bronze plaques on its base, Fuchs sculpted two angels cradling the idealized Prince, with an inscription glossing one angel’s upward gesture: ‘Towards another world’. In this khaki pietà, Christian Victor is less a trained killer than a sacrificial victim, for whom death is a smooth ascension to something better.124 The donor of the Plymouth monument had taken a field hospital to South Africa, and the modest cult of Christian Victor in British society reflected the blend of memorialization with philanthropy that caught on during and after the war.125 Writing to The Times in December 1901, one correspondent envisaged localities endowing ‘Memorial Homes’ with the name of their regiments and a dedication to Christian Victor, making his name an umbrella for local patriotisms.126 Christian Victor’s biographer mused that this ‘crown of losses and sorrows’ might have finished off Victoria. He retreated from this ‘sacred’ theme, but not before quoting a private in the Prince’s regiment who felt that ‘Rich and poor have suffered alike, and the Queen (God bless her!) has had her full share.’127 By the end of her life, Victoria’s sorrows established her as the lynchpin of an imperial

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

222

Queen Victoria

religion of sacrifice, a role which her successors would play adeptly in the world wars to come.128 Addressing the volunteers of the Strathcona Horse before their departure for South African battlefields, the Canadian politician Nicholas Flood Davin had asked What nobler fate could await any man than to die in battle for such a cause, fighting as our fathers fought, dying as our fathers died, but today, the venerable Queen, with great and good men and nations, the seats and galleries of the Empire looking down on him, and sanctifying his throne of blood, with their blessings and songs of triumph and tears?129

The turbulent, alcoholic Davin, who shot himself in a Winnipeg hotel room a year later, was a frustrated epic poet, which perhaps explains the bloodsoaked cosmology of his address. His words nonetheless capture the way in which religious ideas of sacrifice had come to bind together Victoria with her people. Notes 1. QVJ, 20 January and 23 December 1897, pp. 20, 167; Mary Lutyens, ed., Lady Lytton’s Court Diary: 1895–1899 (London: R. Hart-Davis, 1961), pp. 59, 139; Victor Mallet, ed., Life with Queen Victoria: Marie Mallet’s Letters from Court, 1887–1901 (London: John Murray, 1968), pp. 179, 181. 2. See Christopher Clark, Time and Power (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2019). 3. James Edgar Sheppard, George, Duke of Cambridge: A Memoir of his Private Life, Based on the Journals and Correspondence of His Royal Highness (2 vols, London: Longman and Co., 1879), 2: p. 200. 4. Victoria to Victoria, 4 November 1879, in Richard Hough, ed., Advice to a Grand-Daughter: Letters from Queen Victoria to Princess Victoria of Hesse (London: Heinemann, 1975), p. 20. 5. Mallet, Mallet, p. 77; James Stevens Curl, The Victorian Celebration of Death (Stroud: Sutton, 2000); David Cannadine, ‘War and Death, Grief and Mourning in Modern Britain’, in Joachim Whaley, ed., Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the Social History of Death (London: Europa, 1981), pp. 187–242; Patricia Jalland, Death in the Victorian Family (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996). 6. Mallet, Mallet, p. 122. 7. John Tulloch, Some Facts of Religion and of Life: Sermons Preached before Her Majesty the Queen in Scotland 1866–76 (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1878), p. 141. See Jalland, Death, p. 53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

223

8. Richard Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in the Russian Monarchy from Peter the Great to the Abdication of Nicholas II (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2006), p. 313. 9. See John Wolffe, Great Deaths: Grieving, Religion, and Nationhood in Victorian and Edwardian Britain (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001). 10. QVJ, 13 March 1892, p. 82. 11. Olive Anderson, ‘The Growth of Christian Militarism in Mid-Victorian Britain’, English Historical Review, 86 (1971), pp. 46–72; Wolffe, Great Deaths, ch. 1; Graham Dawson, Soldier Heroes: British Adventure, Empire, and the Imagining of Masculinities (London: Routledge, 1994); David Alderson, Mansex Fine: Religion, Manliness and Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century British Culture (Manchester: Manchester UP, 1998), ‘Introduction’. 12. Stephanie Barczewski, Heroic Failure and the British (New Haven: Yale UP, 2016), p. 178 and passim; Joanna Lewis, ‘Empires of Sentiment; Intimacies from Death: David Livingstone and African Slavery and the “Heart of the Nation” in 1874’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 43 (2015), pp. 210–37 and Empire of Sentiment: The Death of Livingstone and the Myth of Victorian Imperialism (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018). 13. Walter Arnstein, ‘The Warrior Queen: Reflections on Victoria and Her World’, Albion, 30 (1998), p. 4. 14. Louise to Victoria, 8 August 1837, RA VIC/MAIN/Y/5/6. 15. Victoria to Leopold, 22 May 1855 in ‘Memorandum on Matters Connected with the Form of addressing the Pope in Answer to his Letter to Her Majesty of 4th December 1848’, in A. C. Benson and Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, eds, The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1907), 2: p. 161. 16. QVJ, 3 March 1855, p. 143. 17. See Robert Saunders, ‘ “A Great and Holy War”: Religious Routes to Women’s Suffrage, 1909–1914’, English Historical Review, 134 (2019), pp. 1471–502 and Arianne Chernock, The Right to Rule and the Rights of Women: Queen Victoria and the Women’s Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2019), chs 3, 4. 18. Barczewski, Heroic Failure, p. 184; QVJ, 29 April 1874, p. 127. 19. Victoria, More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1884), p. 397. 20. See Thomas Laqueur, The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2015), p. 131.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

224

Queen Victoria

21. QVJ, 7 August 1883, p. 152. 22. James MacGregor, The State of the Christian Dead: Preached in the Parish Church of Crathie on 7th November, Being the Sunday after the Funeral of HRH Princess Mary Adelaide Duchess of Teck (London and Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1897), pp. 3, 6. 23. QVJ, 4 April 1884, p. 94. 24. QVJ, 7 May 1884, p. 162. 25. QVJ, 4 April 1888, pp. 95–8. 26. QVJ, 21 May 1884, p. 178. 27. QVJ, 12 July 1879, p. 231. 28. QVJ, 23 June 1879; Lutyens, Lytton, p. 27. 29. QVJ, 20 February 1873, p. 47; 17 July 1879, p. 256. 30. Henry Edward Manning, In Memory of the Prince Imperial: Sermon at St. Mary’s, Chislehurst, on Sunday, July 13, 1879 (London: C. Kegan and Paul, 1879), p. 25. 31. QVJ, 12 July 1879, pp. 231, 240; Victoria to Vicky, 16 July 1878, HHA. 32. Clement Kinloch Cooke, A Memoir of Her Royal Highness Princess Mary Adelaide, Duchess of Teck: Based on her Private Diaries and Letters (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1900), 1: pp. 131–2. 33. Sheppard, Cambridge, 2: p. 77. 34. QVJ, 11 August 1879, p. 290; 12 October 1879, p. 65; 30 October 1879, pp. 84–5; 6 July 1880, p. 246; 25 November 1880, p. 93; 3 October 1879, p. 54; 6 December 1880, p. 110; Diary of the Life at Court of Eliza Jane Lady Waterpark, 1864 to 1893, BL MSS 60750, f. 80. 35. ‘Foreigners in Westminster Abbey’, Saturday Review, 16 August 1879, p. 201; George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Second Series. A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1862 and 1878 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1926–8), 3: pp. 119–20; QVJ, 26 November 1880, p. 97; 7 March 1881, p. 98. 36. Manning, Prince Imperial, p. 17; QVJ, 25 June 1879, p. 206. 37. QVJ, 3 January 1883, p. 7; Sheppard, Cambridge, 2: pp. 113–14; https:// www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/11884 38. QVJ, 27 February 1885, p. 56; 30 June 1885, p. 252. 39. QVJ, 4 December 1884, p. 167. 40. QVJ, 28 March 1891, p. 113. 41. Order of Service to be Observed at the Consecration of the English Church of St George, Cannes on February 12, 1887, at 3pm (Oxford: Parker and Co., 1887), pp. 10–11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

225

42. QVJ, 2 April 1887, p. 148; 22 April 1891, p. 156; 9 April 1898, p. 109; Sheppard, Cambridge, 2: p. 229. 43. See e.g. Randall Davidson, Promise and Fulfilment: Three Sermons, Preached in the Private Chapel of Windsor Castle, on the Three Sundays Following the Death of HRH the Duke of Albany, March 28, 1884 (London: n.p., 1884). 44. LPL, Davidson Papers 19, f. 70. 45. Carpenter to Victoria, 17 September 1887, BL Add MS 46 718, f. 17; Carpenter to Victoria, 15 January 1890, Add MS 46720, f. 41; Add MS 46717, ff. 5–6. 46. H. D. A. Major, The Life and Letters of William Boyd Carpenter (London: John Murray, 1925), pp. 135–48; Boyd Carpenter to Victoria, 11 February 1884, 9 August 1885, and 7 September 1885, BL Add MS 46 717, ff. 9, 11, 81, 86. 47. Boyd Carpenter to Victoria, 12 August 1884, BL Add MS 46 717, f. 28. 48. William Boyd Carpenter to Victoria, 5 October 1884, 26 December 1884, 25 January 1885, 27 March 1885, 23 May 1885, BL Add MS 46 717, ff. 44, 52, 56, 62, 67; 30 October 1888, BL Add MS 46 718, f. 43; 9 October 1892, BL Add MS 46 720, f. 16. For Carpenter and Tennyson, see William Boyd Carpenter, Some Pages of My Life (London: Williams and Norgate, 1911), pp. 252–73. 49. Boyd Carpenter to Victoria, 12 April and 23 May 1884, BL Add MS 46 717, ff. 13, 21–3. 50. A. C. Benson, Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1901), 2: p. 25. 51. Insert in QVJ, 11 February 1875, p. 35. 52. Davidson, Promise, p. 31. 53. Angus Hawkins and John Powell, eds, The Journal of John Wodehouse, First Earl of Kimberley, for 1862–1902 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997), p. 342. 54. John Tulloch, Sundays at Balmoral, ed. W. W. Tulloch (London: Nisbet and Co., 1887), p. 34. 55. James Edmund Vincent, His Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence and Avondale: A Memoir (London: John Murray, 1893), pp. 19, 23–4, 183, 283. 56. Richard Dorment, Alfred Gilbert (London: Yale UP, 1985), pp. 149–55; Jason Edwards, Alfred Gilbert’s Aestheticism: Gilbert Amongst Whistler, Wilde, Leighton, Pater and Burne-Jones (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), pp. 165–71. 57. QVJ, 10 March 1893, p. 73.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

226

Queen Victoria

58. QVJ, 10 March 1893, p. 73; 6 May 1898, p. 147; Dorment, Gilbert, pp. 168–70; Edwards, Gilbert’s Aestheticism, pp. 167–72, 183–97. 59. ‘Prince and Princess of Wales’, Morning Post, 20 March 1877, p. 5; J. W. Lisle, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (1903–5), RCIN 69046; Douglas Morgan, Windows on Crathie: Notes on the Stained Glass Windows in Crathie Parish Church, Aberdeenshire, Scotland (London: Arabesque, 1995), p. 43. 60. James Fleming, Recognition in Eternity: A Sermon Preached Before their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, in Sandringham Church, on Sunday Morning, January 24th, 1892 (London: Skeffington and Son, 1892), pp. 7–8, 10. 61. QVJ, 26 November 1895, p. 129; Matthias Range, British Royal and State Funerals: Music and Ceremonial since Elizabeth I (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2016), pp. 259–61. 62. QVJ, 20 January 1892, p. 34; ‘Funeral of the Duke of Clarence’, The Times, 21 January 1892, p. 8. 63. James Obelkevich, ‘Music and Religion in the Nineteenth Century’, in James Obelkevich, Lyndal Roper, and Raphael Samuel, eds, Disciplines of Faith: Studies in Religion, Politics and Patriarchy (London: Routledge, 1987), p. 555; Range, State Funerals, p. 265. See e.g. QVJ, 14 December 1899, p. 288 for the musical offering at Frogmore. 64. Vincent, Clarence, p. 279. 65. Telegram Duchess of Sutherland to Victoria, 17 October 1881 and Duchess to Victoria, 19 October 1881, RA VIC/MAIN/S/12/96, 98. 66. QVJ, 20 January 1892, p. 34; ‘A Parallel and A Contrast—1817 And 1892’, The Times, 27 January 1892, p. 10; Range, State Funerals, p. 258. 67. QVJ, 14 February 1892, p. 58. 68. Quoted in Marquis of Lorne, V.R.I.: Her Life and Empire by the Marquis of Lorne, K.T., Now his Grace the Duke of Argyll (London: Harmsworth, 1901), p. 351. 69. The Times, 20 January 1892, p. 5; George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Third Series: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal between the Years 1886 and 1901 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1930–2), 1: p. 109. 70. ‘The Funeral of the Duke of Clarence’, The Times, 21 January 1892, pp. 3, 8; Vincent, Clarence, p. 286. 71. ‘The Prince and Princess of Wales and the National Sympathy’, The Times, 21 January 1892, p. 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

227

72. ‘The Late Duke of Clarence’, The Times, 28 January 1892, p. 9. 73. William Boyd Carpenter to Victoria, 29 February 1892, BL Add MS 46 720, f. 4. 74. Benson, Benson, 2: p. 422. 75. Ibid., 2: p. 703. 76. QVJ, 22 January 1896, p. 25. 77. Victoria to Victoria, 23 January 1896, HHA. 78. Michaela Reid, Ask Sir James: The Life of Sir James Reid, Personal Physician to Queen Victoria (1989; London: Eland, 1996), p. 103. 79. Miles Taylor, ‘The British Royal Family and the Colonial Empire from the Georgians to Prince George’, in Cindy McCreery and Robert Aldrich, eds, Crowns and Colonies: European Monarchies and Overseas Empires (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016), p. 35. 80. QVJ, 3 February 1896, p. 41. 81. ‘Funeral of Prince Henry’, Morning Post, 6 February 1896, p. 5. 82. QVJ, 5 February 1896, p. 49; ‘Funeral of Prince Henry’, Morning Post, 6 February 1896, p. 5. 83. ‘Funeral of Prince Henry’, Morning Post, 6 February 1896, p. 5. 84. QVJ, 4 February 1896, p. 44. 85. QVJ, 23 July 1898, p. 34. 86. QVJ, 9 May 1896, p. 152; 20 January 1897, p. 20. 87. QVJ, 18 May 1896, p. 162. 88. QVJ, 5 February 1896, p. 52. 89. QVJ, 31 August 1896, p. 69. 90. QVJ, 25 January 1896, p. 32; 8 February 1896, p. 56; 28 July 1896, p. 35; 15 December 1896, p. 190; 25 December 1896, p. 194; 21 December 1898, p. 216; Dorment, Gilbert, pp. 183–6; Matthew Denniston, The Last Princess: The Devoted Life of Queen Victoria’s Youngest Daughter (London: Orion, 2007), p. 202. 91. QVJ, 15 January 1897, p. 13; Lorne, V.R.I., p. 356. 92. 12 June 1896, p. 187; Denniston, Last Princess, pp. 196–8. 93. ‘Letter from the Queen to the Nation’, The Times, 17 February 1896, p. 8. 94. B. C. Musgrave, To Kumassi with Scott: A Description of a Journey from Liverpool to Kumassi with the Ashanti Expedition, 1895–6 (London: Wightman & Co., 1896), pp. i–iii, 166–72; Harry John Meres, A Sermon Preached the Sunday after the Funeral of H.R.H. Prince Henry Maurice of Battenberg (Salford, 1896); QVJ, 1 September 1896, p. 71. 95. Buckle, Letters. Third Series, 3: p. 32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

228

Queen Victoria

96. QVJ, 18 March 1896, p. 100; Maurice Whitlow, J. Taylor Smith, K.C.B., C.V.O., D.D.: Everybody’s Bishop (London: Lutterworth Press, 1938), pp. 48–50; Earle Legh Langston, Bishop Taylor Smith: A Biography of Jn. T. Smith, Bishop of Sierra Leone, 1897–1901 (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1938), pp. 74–6. 97. QVJ, 22 March 1896, p. 103. 98. Benson, Benson, 2: p. 712. 99. QVJ, 27 June 1897, p. 222; 20 August 1899, p. 172; Langston, Bishop Taylor Smith, p. 83. 100. Whitlow, J. Taylor Smith, pp. 23–5, 67, 102; and Langston, Bishop Taylor Smith, pp. 103, 124–6, 135–6, 187–8; Michael Snape, The Royal Army Chaplains’ Department, 1796–1953: Clergy under Fire (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2008), pp. 177–87. 101. Reynolds’s Newspaper, 23 January 1896, 9 February 1896. See similarly Freeman’s Journal; Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, 23 February 1892. 102. ‘The Late Prince Henry of Battenberg’, The Times, 27 January 1896, p. 10. 103. ‘The Late Prince Henry’, Liverpool Mercury, 27 January 1896, p. 5. 104. ‘Funeral of Prince Henry’, Morning Post, 6 February 1896, p. 5. 105. ‘Loyal Address from Ontario’, Morning Post, 14 February 1896, p. 6. 106. George Housman Thomas, Buckingham Palace: Queen Victoria and Prince Albert Inspecting Wounded Grenadier Guards, 20 February 1855 (1855), RL 16782; The Presentation of Crimean Medals by Queen Victoria, 18 May 1855 (1855–8), RCIN 405109; John Tenniel, The Distribution of Crimean Medals on Horse Guards Parade, 18 May 1855 (1855), RCIN 916783; Jonathan Marsden, ed., Victoria and Albert: Art & Love (London: Royal Collection, 2000), p. 191. 107. Arnstein, ‘Warrior Queen’, p. 12. See e.g. Joseph Cundall and Robert Howlett, Corporal Michael McMahon, RCIN 760219 and Private John Dryden, RCIN 760220. 108. QVJ, 8 December 1854, p. 232; Victoria to Florence Nightingale, January 1856, in Benson and Esher, Letters, 3: p. 217. Rachel Bates, ‘ “All Touched my Hand”: Queenly Sentiment and Royal Prerogative’, 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century, 20 (2015), https:// 19.bbk.ac.uk/article/id/1497/. 109. William Simpson, Queen Victoria laying the Foundation Stone of the Royal Military Hospital at Netley, 19 May 1856 (1856), RCIN 920234; ‘Ceremony of Laying the First Stone of Victoria Hospital by the Queen’,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

The Crown of Sacrifice

110.

111.

112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117.

118.

119. 120.

121. 122. 123.

229

Standard, 19 May 1856, p. 3; QVJ, 8 May 1863, p. 176; 14 August 1864, p. 303; 20 July 1865, pp. 205–6; Waterpark Diary, ff. 40–1, 96; Magdalen Ponsonby, ed., Mary Ponsonby: A Memoir, Some Letters and a Journal (London: John Murray, 1927), p. 149. Frederick Ponsonby, The Empress Frederick: A Memoir (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1918), p. 237; Frederick Ponsonby, ed., Letters of the Empress Frederick (London: Macmillan and Co., 1928), pp. 63, 82. QVJ, 19 February 1885, p. 46. Paul Vickers, ‘A Gift So Graciously Bestowed’: The History of the Prince Consort’s Library (Winchester: Hampshire County Council, 1993), p. 63. QVJ, 27 June 1892, pp. 203–4. QVJ, 3 December 1899, p. 278; 20 and 21 January 1900, pp. 40–1. Mallet, Mallet, p. 184. The Amalekites were ‘utterly destroyed’ by Saul: 1 Samuel 15. Victoria to Lansdowne, 10 January 1900 and correspondence between courtiers and Lansdowne in BL Add 88906/18/7. QVJ, 4 February 1900, p. 54; LPL Lang Papers 223, f. 62. Mark D. Chapman, Theology at War and Peace: English Theology and Germany in the First World War (London: Routledge, 2017), p. 16. Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 3, Worship for National and Royal Occasions in the United Kingdom, 1871–2016 (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2020); Gordon L. Heath, A War with a Silver Lining: Canadian Protestant Churches and the South African War, 1899–1902 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens UP, 2009), pp. 64–7. John Bailey, ed., The Diary of Lady Frederick Cavendish (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1927), 2: p. 32; T. Herbert Warren, Christian Victor: The Story of a Young Soldier (London: John Murray, 1903); David Newsome, A History of Wellington College, 1859–1959 (London: John Murray, 1959), pp. 120, 226. Victoria to Marquis of Lansdowne, 6 November 1899, British Library Add 88906/18/7; QVJ, 29 October 1900, p. 73. QVJ, 4 November 1900, p. 80; ‘Court News’, The Times, Friday 9 September 1904, p. 7; ‘The British Association in the Transvaal’, The Times, 1 September 1905, p. 8. QVJ, 8 November 1900, p. 84. ‘Art Exhibitions’, The Times, 1 November 1902, p. 8. ‘Court Circular’, The Times, 13 June 1901, p. 6; Warren, Christian Victor, pp. 387, 392.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

230

Queen Victoria

124. ‘Memorial to Prince Christian Victor’, The Times, 5 August 1902; Prince Christian Victor Memorial, https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/ list-entry/1386467; Warren, Christian Victor, p. 387. 125. Prince Christian Victor Memorial; Andrew Thompson, ‘Publicity, Philanthropy and Commemoration: British Society and the War’, in David Omissi and Andrew Thompson, eds, The Impact of the South African War (London: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 113–18; Peter Donaldson, Remembering the South African War: Britain and the Memory of the Anglo-Boer War, from 1899 to the Present (Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2013), p. 45. 126. ‘Prince Victor Christian Memorial’, The Times, 23 July 1901, p. 3; ‘Regimental Cottage Homes for Disabled Soldiers’, The Times, 13 December 1901, p. 8. 127. Warren, Christian Victor, pp. 373, 420. 128. See Heather Jones, ‘The Nature of Kingship in First World War Britain’, in Matthew Glencross, Judith Rowbotham, and Michael Kandiah, eds, The Windsor Dynasty 1910 to the Present: ‘Long to Reign Over Us’? (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 195–216. 129. Nicholas Flood Davin, Strathcona Horse: Speech by Nicholas Flood Davin at Lansdowne Park, March 7th, A.D. 1900 on the Occasion of the First Parade of the Strathcona Horse (Ottawa: James Hope and Sons, 1900), p. 12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

8 Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

The pamphleteer ‘Non Placet’ was too furious to rejoice. In an attack on the religious service which formed the centrepiece of Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, the author of A Counterblast to the ‘Trumpet of Jubilee’ lamented that the Church of England had allowed the Empire to enjoy ‘its fit of self-adulation undisturbed by any reference to its sins against God . . . the words, “Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish” (St Luke xiii.3,5) may be as fully verified of the British Empire as they were of Nineveh, or Babylon, or Ancient Rome’. The disestablishment of the Church of Ireland and Liberal attacks on the Church of Wales had made the alliance of Church and Crown ‘that of a man who beats his wife’ and squanders her inheritance on ‘strange women’. And now ‘the poor woman is expected to crawl in the dust and lick the boots that kicked her, and adorn—nay, consecrate—a jubilation ceremony to the honour and glory of that perfidy of which she is a victim’. If it was necessary to ‘import sanctities suitable to the reign’, the authorities should have summoned ‘the Chief Rabbi and Wesleyan President’ instead of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Church should never have convened this ‘grand Imperial pantomine’, this ‘oecumenic Colonial carnival’.1 Where ‘Non Placet’ thought the Diamond Jubilee had debased the Church, the Irish poet George Francis Savage-Armstrong, an Ascendancy Protestant but also a religious seeker, felt it bore witness to the enlargement of religious truth. His Jubilee ode to Queen Empress and Empire called upon ‘Buddhist and Brahmin,—brood of the Orient, / Hosts of Mohammed, Hindu, Malayan, / [To] Honour your Empress’.2 Non Placet’s narrow and Savage-Armstrong’s misty perspectives illustrate Victoria’s centrality to religious visions of Empire by the time of her Jubilees. The Church of England twice concerted global thanksgivings for her rule, which its preachers identified with the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

232

Queen Victoria

Christianization and Anglicization of the world. Yet Victoria also figured in Jubilee rhetoric as an empress of plural churches and faiths, anticipating what became in the twentieth century a role for the monarchy as symbolic protectors of religious diversity.3 Historians have long recognized that Victoria’s Jubilees marked her apotheosis as a patriot Queen, indispensable to Britishness, colonial nationalisms, and ideologies of an Empire which was also a monarchy.4 Although often understood as primarily secular events—as splurges of ephemeral consumption, which in stereotyping images of Victoria brought a commodity culture into being, or as spectacular catalysts for the celebration of national and civic communities—they were in fact enabled by religion and strengthened religious bonds between Victoria and her subjects around the world.5 The chapter begins by explaining how despite Victoria’s personal inclinations, Jubilee celebrations were ecclesiastical occasions, reflecting the extent to which her Empire was held together imaginatively through worship.6 The next section shows that the Church of England took the lead in choreographing such worship and in using it to represent the Empire to itself as a single emotional space, which bridged time and space and overcame ethnic or racial distinctions. The fervent if cautious participation of other denominations and churches in the rejoicing is striking. If religious networks demonstrated an ‘extraordinary permeability and flexibility in generating and extending communities of feeling’ in the later nineteenth-century Empire, then the Jubilees revealed Victoria as the symbolic catheter for such feelings.7 The last two sections of the chapter suggest that they extended beyond Christianity to encompass Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists, all of whom made her a symbol for how they thought the Empire had served or could better serve their faiths. The Jubilees might have been ‘oecumenic carnivals’ but their diverse participants never forgot what they sought to gain in attending them. ‘Vehicle for a Great Show’: Liturgy and Jubilee The idea that Victoria should celebrate her Jubilees with acts of public worship reflected the growing appetite for national religious occasions. In 1868, the Privy Council had responded to the attempted assassination of Victoria’s son Alfred in Australia by ordering a day of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

233

national thanksgiving, which coincided with the thirtieth anniversary of Victoria’s coronation. Preaching in Westminster Abbey, Stanley noted that Alfred’s life ‘belongs not only to the nation but to the Empire’. His escape had moved the ‘whole vast continent of Australia . . . in oneness of heart and soul with this their mother-country’.8 Australasian thanksgivings for Alfred’s deliverance had been fervent, especially among Protestant churches.9 That mood could even suspend confessional differences: in New Zealand, Orangemen and Roman Catholics had joined together in thanksgiving.10 Albert Edward’s escape from death by typhoid fever in the winter of 1871 occasioned even greater expressions of feeling. Victoria, her daughters, and court experienced his recovery as a private visitation, which might propel him, as Stanley wrote, ‘not only from his sick bed, but to the height of his Mission’.11 Yet public desire for a liturgical recognition of his illness and recovery mounted. After the state prayers ordered for his recovery were used around the country, seeming to arouse ‘most deep and universal’ emotion, pious politicians had turned their minds to a national thanksgiving.12 The obstacle to such an event was Victoria herself. On Christmas Day 1871, Gladstone made notes on an argument with her about ‘this idea of a procession’ to St Paul’s. Already unhappy with a cathedral service of thanksgiving, Victoria ‘objected still more’ to a procession as ‘false & hollow. She considered that no religious act ought to be allied with pomp and show.’ Gladstone responded that ceremonies were not merely ‘vehicles for the impression of the religious feelings’ of the ‘principal actors in them’, but mattered for Britain’s nascent democracy. The ‘sympathy of the country has gone beyond precedent, beyond description: feeling has been wrought up to its highest point’ and needed earthing. The ‘principal personages’ in such rites must ‘cast aside all thought of themselves, and their own feelings’ and ‘remember the great religious importance of such an act for the people at large’. Even if the ‘religious interpretation’ of the thanksgiving was symbolic, ‘it was not therefore to be accounted slight; Royalty was in one point of view a symbol, and one of great consequence: its character & duties had greatly changed as in modern times but perhaps in the new forms they are no less important than the old’. Gladstone hoped that a religious display of allegiance would overawe the republican movement, then much on his mind, even if Victoria

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

234

Queen Victoria

dismissed it as a ripple from France’s recent revolution.13 Once Gladstone got his thanksgiving, he had to haggle with the court over the arrangements. Dean Wellesley informed Gladstone that the gouty Victoria’s dread of cold and fatigue made speed essential: a ‘ “Te Deum” and a short address from one of our best Preachers . . . the whole not to exceed an hour’.14 Despite Victoria’s reluctance to make ‘religion . . . the vehicle for a great show’, her worries about letting her convalescing son attend, and her disappointment with the ‘dingy’ St Paul’s, the Thanksgiving on 27 February 1872 was an innovative revival of tradition, which shifted the focus of such events from the life of the state to the life and health of the sovereign and her family.15 Victoria’s obstreperous decision to attend in semi-state created a potent visual contrast between the grandeur of the occasion and the modesty of the worshipping sovereign.16 The attendance of 12,400 people in St Paul’s, with the presence of Church of Scotland and Free Church representatives, English and Welsh dissenters, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, was for Arthur Stanley ‘living proof that such united worship within one common national sanctuary is not an idle dream’ and a vindication of broad church Erastianism: only a ‘National Church’ which was able to bond ‘life and limb, with the Nation and the State’ could have pulled it off.17 If the London crowds that journalists observed singing American march tunes and whistling at policemen were hardly reverent, Lord Shaftesbury still hailed their presence as implying consent in a ‘great national act of religion’ rather than the ‘satanical rejection of it’ one would expect in Paris.18 With their eye also on France, English Roman Catholics were just as glad to hail a gesture against the ‘spectacle of unbelief ’.19 The publication of the St Paul’s service meant that it was widely used elsewhere, not just by church people but also by Dissenters. Observance set patterns later followed in the Jubilees. Cathedral services were the anchor in many localities, but participation was patchy in Wales, and with the exception of Anglicans non-existent in most of Ireland.20 The sermons preached at Thanksgiving services focused on the ‘seed’ of feeling left behind once the ‘bright flower’ of spectacle had withered away.21 The highest emotions were corporate and national. With the Prince still ill, Stanley had preached that ‘the whole nation is gathered into one focus’: pressed ‘round one darkened

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

235

chamber . . . we are indeed one’. Once the Prince had recovered, Stanley mused that monarchy was the ‘supreme controlling spring which binds together, in the widest sense, all the forces of the State and all the forces of the Church’. Echoing Walter Bagehot, he argued that Victoria’s brood ‘unites the abstract idea of country and of duty with the personal endearments of family life, of domestic love, of individual character’. But if Bagehot modelled monarchy as a quasi-religion, Stanley suggested that identification with Victoria’s family could strengthen national Christianity.22 Yet if it suited Anglican preachers to construe the thanksgiving as overawing dissent about monarchy and church—‘Moses and Aaron’, ruler and priest, ‘for us alike are holy’—not all sermons were deferential.23 For some evangelicals, it licensed nosiness about the Prince’s inner state—the Rev. Isaac Spooner of Edgbaston muttering darkly that he would be a ‘reprobate and a castaway’ if he did not now change his ways.24 When, in December 1886, Salisbury set proceedings for the Golden Jubilee in motion by communicating to Archbishop Benson Victoria’s wish to ‘go in State to Westminster Abbey and at an altar erected on the spot where she was crowned, return thanks for the mercies of her reign’, he initiated a familiar struggle over how elaborate the proceedings should be. Victoria insisted that ‘there should be no discourse or sermon: because at that time of year the weather is likely to be hot; & in hot weather, her strength fails her almost entirely’.25 As the Cabinet minister Gathorne Hardy noted sympathetically, ‘in hot weather her ankles swell’.26 Benson, though, had ambitions to compose a service to incite national enthusiasm, while his clergy bombarded him with well-meant advice.27 Davidson contacted him about the ‘making public of the public service’, seeking Victoria’s sanction for its use in other churches. Eyre and Spottiswoode vigorously asserted their prerogative as Queen’s printers to monopolize its publication and sold millions of copies.28 One of their printers wrote to Benson to suggest that thanksgiving services for the Jubilee ought to be moved to Sunday so that ‘us working bees’ could take part. Benson was persuaded that to facilitate popular participation they needed a service for use not just on the Tuesday of the thanksgiving itself but on any day until the Sunday following, a suggestion adopted in the Privy Council’s order. He also commissioned a children’s Jubilee service, its hymns giving naïve expression to Christian imperialism. His services

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

236

Queen Victoria

provided Anglicans around the world with a template for their own thanksgivings, both within but also beyond the British Empire—by American bishops, for instance.29 Benson’s service may have ended with a collect asking for ‘grace seriously to lay to heart the great danger we are in by our unhappy divisions’, but many high church people resented it as an Erastian outrage. As chapter five argued, Victoria’s use of the Royal Supremacy against Ritualism had alienated them and it stuck in their craw that the Privy Council, whose ‘rancorous litigations’ had recently imprisoned the Ritualist priest James Bell Cox, had authorized the service they were expected to use. No wonder it sacralized the monarchy, ascribing ‘the qualities of Alfred the Great, St Louis, and Charlemagne’ to a woman who had ‘virtually abdicated, and has warehoused the monarchy’, while worshipping with Scottish Presbyterians.30 Even the many high church people who gladly conceded that the Privy Council had the right to order the service feared the ‘desecration’ of the Abbey by a ‘show’.31 They hankered for more liturgical elaboration, with one layman asking Benson to put on a mitre and carry a crozier to impress the visiting papal nuncio.32 It was a relief to leading churchmen that the ceremony was in the end ‘deeply devout and Church-like’, with Victoria ‘reverent’ and the Abbey not ‘unecclesiastical’. The only glitch Archbishop Benson experienced was nearly being prevented from entering the Abbey by an over-zealous policeman. For days afterwards, everyone he met felt ‘that the socialist movement has had a check’.33 A decade later, the havering over liturgical arrangements revived.34 Archbishop Temple complained to Randall Davidson that he had heard ‘absolutely nothing from any body about the proposed ceremonial’ at St Paul’s Cathedral. He was worried that an outdoor service might be rained off, but Davidson had learned that a service ‘however short inside’, was impossible because the portly Victoria could not leave her carriage. She would halt outside St Paul’s to ‘listen to—? The question is what? A Te Deum? A Chorale? Prayers?’35 The Prince of Wales chaired a committee to find an answer, its deliberations steered by Davidson’s recommendation that any service must be short.36 Ten days later, with nothing decided, the committee heard that it would be ‘very unpopular’ to order a service which only people crammed into houses around the West Front would see. They

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

237

mused that it might be better to confine thanksgiving services to the prior Sunday, when Victoria would worship at St George’s Chapel, Windsor. Yet if they took away the service, why did Victoria need a procession?37 People certainly wanted a show. Davidson kept a press cutting about the upper crust’s annoyance at forking out ‘enormous sums for poky rooms and small windows’ to view proceedings. Surely, if Victoria was so immobile, she might be carried inside St Paul’s by ‘twenty of her most illustrious subjects’? A bizarre idea—but one of Salisbury’s aides had indeed suggested having men drag her carriage into the cathedral.38 Victoria’s impatience was harder to deal with than popular pressure. Davidson reported to the Dean of St Paul’s in March that she was ‘evidently nervous’ about the ‘length’ of a service and would give it up unless it was extremely short: ‘“Abt a quarter of an hour or at all events well under 20 minutes” she repeated several times.’39 Victoria’s fidgets ran counter to what ‘Church-folk’ wanted: elaborate liturgy. They also feared that her procession would degenerate into a military cavalcade.40 Yet the Church Times was happy on the day, finding an ‘air of reverence about the crowd’ which the presence of the odd rough could not dispel. It was a triumph for church as well as monarchy, the rich vestments sported by Creighton the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury a blow for ecclesiastical correctness. And if Tuesday at St Paul’s exceeded their expectations, high Anglicans had been even happier with the thanksgiving service there two days earlier, when Creighton celebrated the Eucharist in a beautiful cope. Anglo-Catholic clergy gave sumptuous choral masses on Thanksgiving Sunday, as if to indicate that ‘Catholic’ sacramentalism could be as patriotic as it was flamboyant.41 The Jubilee Hymn amplified the emotional impact of the St Paul’s service. It made Victoria’s eyes water and was the music with which her band chose to play out Jubilee year.42 When Arthur Sullivan had patriotically offered the court some music to forestall the use of a ‘German Chorale’, Walsham How, the elderly Bishop of Wakefield, had been drafted to write the text, completing it not long before his death.43 A broad churchman who, as a suffragan bishop for East London, had enlisted Victoria’s daughter Helena and other royal ladies in such philanthropic causes as a refuge for prostitutes in Walthamstow, How apostrophized the Queen as a national rather than an Anglican figure, whose ‘Royal heart, with wide embrace’ was

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

238

Queen Victoria

‘For all her children yearning’.44 However, high churchmen resented that the state ordered them to sing How’s words, and alleged, as they had a decade earlier, that the Archbishop had been wrong to draw up a service on the say-so of the Privy Council. The more extreme among their number alleged that he had no power to prescribe liturgy beyond the bounds of Canterbury and argued that ‘Catholics’ should avoid Temple’s service altogether for their own tributes.45 Both Jubilees raised the question of whether and how Dissenters might participate in Anglican ceremonies. In 1887, Baptists got into a lather about the Queen’s failure to receive their address and disliked the ‘churchy’ Abbey service. They were cross a decade later when no Baptists got Jubilee honours.46 Yet Anglicans and Dissenters often experimented with shared services during both Jubilees, to the annoyance of high churchmen.47 In 1897, Dissenting ministers requested to boost their participation at St Paul’s.48 A ‘black-coated contingent’ duly darkened its steps, while at services up and down the country Dissenting congregations sang How’s hymn. After the vicar of Higham Ferrers in Essex turned down the request of Wesleyans to read lessons at his service, the Mayor refused to take part in a Church parade, leading the Church Times to fume that their ‘Dissenting friends . . . should claim to supersede the Church’s own faithful sons upon the two greatest national festivals of the reign’.49 Nonconformist preachers at their Jubilee services diverged from the hieratic rhetoric of Anglicans, warning, as they often had done in discussing monarchy, that servility or flummery should not distract from the moral meaning of Jubilee. Preaching in 1897 at the Union Chapel, a palatial Congregationalist rotunda in Islington, W. Hardy Harwood reminded his congregation that ‘their rejoicings’ were those of an ‘absolutely free people’. Urging them to think of Victoria as the ‘homely’ woman rather than the empress, and to turn their eyes from ‘great processions’, Harwood exhorted them to express their joy in philanthropy, for ‘when the sound of the trumpet of their jubilee went forth it should be to the needy and sorrowful as the sound of a compassionate God who had come to their help’.50 The Church of England not only supplied the nation with liturgical cues in Jubilee years but hosted memorials to them. Victoria’s failure to mark the Jubilees by giving anything to her people aroused hostile comment from radical papers, but it gave local communities the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

239

freedom to commemorate them as they chose. Many schemes were civic and imperial rather than ecclesiastical: the Imperial Institute (1887) and the Jubilee Institute for Nurses (1887) at the national level, and statues, clocks, fountains, reading rooms, and art galleries around Britain and the world, with sculptors doing a roaring trade in dispatching copies of their works to the colonies.51 Even these gestures had a religious dimension, often recording a ceasefire between Church and Dissent. Thanking Bishop Walsham How for inaugurating Golden Jubilee fountain that he had donated to Huddersfield, local magnate Sir John Ramsden noted that whatever the town’s disagreements on churches, ‘there could be none as to the honour, which Christian men desired to pay to one who had given them a noble example’.52 Conversely, Jubilee memorials could hint at stubborn enmities. In Dublin, the provision of new recreational space was a topic ‘upon which, if upon any, all classes in our too divided community may agree, irrespective of political or religious sentiment’.53 Ecclesiastical monuments to the Jubilees were also numerous. High church Anglicans pointedly put forward a Church House as their Golden Jubilee memorial, which was to house the Convocations whose revival Victoria and Albert had opposed.54 Anglican churches from St Margaret’s, Westminster to St Alban’s, Copenhagen acquired Jubilee windows, which represented Victoria presiding over the Christianization of the world and the expansion of Empire, or memorialized the spiritual histories of monarchy, celebrating an alliance of church and state, of monarchy and national religion that dated from Anglo-Saxon times. At St Mary the Virgin, Henley on Thames, Victoria typically sat in coronation robes beneath a cross-bearing St George and sandwiched between St Andrew and St Patrick.55 ‘England’s Opportunity and England’s Responsibility’: Victoria’s Christian Empire Although ‘Non Placet’ was right that the Church was guilty of sanctifying Victoria’s Empire, its preachers tried at least to do so on their terms, arguing that it was time to rediscover what they understood to be its original Christian idealism. ‘Our Jubilee danger is boastfulness and presumption’, Edward Talbot, the Bishop of Rochester, warned the congregation of St Saviour’s, Southwark, in terms that might have

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

240

Queen Victoria

mollified ‘Non Placet’: ‘our Jubilee duty is thankfulness and godly fear; our Jubilee lesson is the splendid one which its thoughts and its pageants will bring of England’s opportunity and England’s responsibility’.56 A liberal high churchman, Talbot never missed an opportunity to rally his South London diocese against selfishness and materialism, and he urged that the justification of Empire had not changed since St Paul had mused about power in Nero’s Rome: could it be made to serve the gospel? Speaking to the Universities Central Mission Society in 1897, the Christian Platonist Henry Scott Holland similarly warned about a ‘great flow of materialism’, arguing that only the ‘old Imperial hand’ of the Queen’s representatives and Anglican missionaries could prevent the ‘base, and gross’ exploitation of ‘black men’ throughout the colonies.57 Anglicans feigned to believe that love rather than power united Victoria’s Empire. On the Sunday before he greeted the Queen at St Paul’s, the Bishop of London had preached on 1 Peter 2:17 (‘Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King’), emphasizing above all ‘brotherhood’. With the thirteenth centenary of its conversion approaching, England could only continue on its ‘mighty course’ if it practised the missionary generosity through which it had been converted.58 At Westminster Abbey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Frederick Temple located national progress in ramifying solidarities. Temple’s contribution to Essays and Reviews (1860) had aroused controversy by suggesting that humans did not receive a single revelation in biblical times, but grew steadily in faith.59 Yesterday’s heresies were today’s public doctrine and Temple now identified the ‘education of the world’ with Empire. It was not just the ‘Holy Father’ but technological advances that underwrote ‘human progress’. In abolishing the time-lag on foreign news, the telegraph allowed us to live in the light of our fellow-Englishmen wherever they are. If some great calamity befalls those who are living, say in New Zealand, instead of its taking half a year to reach us, it reaches us in half-an-hour. We enter into their lives, because they are brought so near to us; we feel that we are in their presence . . . if there be anything that can move our hearts at all, it is what we know and learn by the news that reaches us every day of that which has befallen them at the moment that we are hearing of it.

Telegraphic sympathy was global, but this was a vision of Anglophone solidarity, centred on Victoria’s court, the home of the ‘tenderest

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

241

human sympathy’ and the hub for the network of cables which carried emotional ‘revelations’ around the world.60 The Diamond Jubilee celebrations exemplified Temple’s synchronic religion of humanity. On the Sunday before the service at St Paul’s, the foamingly patriotic Sons of England, a Toronto Masonic Lodge, had initiated with Victoria’s permission a ‘wave of song’, which involved singing the National Anthem at 4 pm, the ‘astronomical time’ when the sun was overhead. The rite began at Fiji, proceeded to Australasia and South Africa; hopped over the oceans with services on board Navy vessels; before landing at St John’s, Newfoundland and crossing Canada, ending within sight of the Pacific in Beacon Hill Park, Victoria, British Columbia.61 The Beacon Hill ceremony was an al fresco ‘semi-religious festival’, but throughout the Empire, Anglican churches were usually centres for the celebrations. Indeed, in Victoria the Lieutenant Governor had attended Christ Church Cathedral in the morning before heading to Beacon Hill.62 Churches rendered material the synchronization of religious time which the telegraph had made possible. At 11:30 pm on 22 June 1897, for instance, the doors of the cathedral at Christ Church in New Zealand were flung open and the organ played, the signal for the massed crowds to join the unseen congregation at St Paul’s in singing the National Anthem.63 The Church of England gave a cue for wider Protestant rejoicing, with the Archbishop’s instructions on special prayers circulated to the colonies in the justified expectation that many denominations would use them.64 As well as joining in with Anglican services, other Protestants sounded distinctive notes at their own. Presbyterians were voluble in their praise of a Kirk Queen. Preaching in St John’s, New Brunswick in 1897, D. J. Fraser presented Victoria as Scotch in her thriftiness and praised the indifference to ecclesiastical barriers which led her to commune at Crathie.65 In St Andrew’s Church, Calcutta the Rev. John Taylor painted a ‘pleasing picture’ of her worship at Crathie alongside her ghillies.66 Dissenters accepted that Victoria stood for their religion. The Baptist minister of Leinster St. Church in St John, Newfoundland reviewed Britain’s moral problems at the Golden Jubilee, from the church–state connection to the liquor question. Yet he was content to be ruled by a woman famed for flitting ‘from cottage to cottage with a bible in one hand and a basket in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Queen Victoria

242 67

other’. In his 1887 Jubilee Ode, the Toronto butcher and Methodist poetaster Robert Awde had likened Victoria’s sceptre to ‘Aaron’s rod’, compared the British Empire’s trade to the ‘ships of Tarshish’ mentioned in Isaiah’s prophecies, and presented her rule as a crucible for intractable ethnic and religious divides: ‘So shall our Union and concentrated power / Bring greater glory than the blood-wet sword. / So shall our bands of brotherhood, declared, / Be stronger still than race, or clan, of creed.’68 Colonial cities were the material result of this spiritual and moral progress. The city council of Toronto packaged its Diamond Jubilee address in a silver casket, decorated with views of its public buildings and the Federal Parliament in Ottawa. The silver casket rested on a gold base featuring four beavers and was protected by a box made from ‘important woods’.69 That box celebrated Canada’s extractive economy but had no place for its native peoples. The republican Reynolds’s Newspaper argued that the Diamond Jubilee procession should include ghosts of the M a¯ ori and ‘any remnant of the aboriginal Australians who survived the murder and rapine of the most Christian monarch Victoria’.70 Yet conversion to Christianity often supplied indigenous leaders with confidence that the Queen would help them against settler ‘rapine’.71 New Zealand M a¯ ori, who were tenacious in expressing such hopes, were prominent in the Diamond Jubilee festivities in New Zealand and sent volunteers to London with Prime Minister Richard Seddon, a committed Anglican.72 Headed by the activist Hoani Paraone Tunuirangi, they sought to secure the future of their lands.73 Their Jubilee song for Victoria noted that ‘alas, we in New Zealand are chewing dry bread’, a reference to dissatisfaction with the implications of the 1893 Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Bill—an act which enraged the press back home.74 The Marlborough Express dismissed the M a¯ ori as a ‘child in business’ and was reassured that now that the ‘ultra-sentimental old Exeter Hall element’—evangelical humanitarians in London—were no longer a political force, their demands would end up in the Colonial Office’s wastepaper baskets.75 Yet while the M a¯ ori address may have made no impact in Britain, Seddon printed it as the preamble to his 1898 Native Lands Settlement Administration Bill.76 African Christians likewise displayed fervent but pragmatic loyalism to Victoria. Victoria and Albert had initially interested themselves

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

243

in the Christianization of sub-Saharan Africa, Albert serving as a patron of the ill-starred African Civilisation Society and Victoria meeting the missionary Adajye Crowther, a ‘negro extremely black with woolly hair’, who told her of the ‘decimation of the slave trade, the progress of Christianity & the great fortitude & courage displayed by the Christians, even when tortured by the native Priests’.77 Though sharply colour conscious, Victoria undoubtedly felt that black lives mattered. A couple of decades later, she met the ‘very ugly, but very intelligent’ servant of David Livingstone, who explained his last voyages to her.78 Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin had impassioned her with its execration of slavery as the enemy of the Christian family, and she discussed its ‘horrid’ revelations with her Prime Minister Lord Aberdeen, insisting on ‘every nerve being strained’ to put down the slave trade.79 She attended the first soiree of the Jubilee Singers—Americans who were in London to fundraise for a university for freed blacks by singing melodies ‘learned in their slave cabins’. Victoria’s enthusiasm opened doors abroad. The Singers started their German tour by singing for her daughter Victoria in Potsdam, who, given her frustrations with Bismarck, wept on hearing ‘Nobody knows the troubles I’ve seen’.80 It was not, then, altogether far-fetched for African Christians to see in Victoria an ally against the moral asymmetries of colonialism. The three Bechuanaland chiefs who visited Osborne in 1895 may have recreated the apocryphal event in Thomas Barker’s famous painting The Secret of England’s Greatness (1862–3) by trading the ‘skins of leopards & jackals’ for ‘New Testaments & my photographs handsomely framed, & Indian shawls for their wives’, but they were not the awed supplicants of Barker’s imagination.81 They were savvy religious politicians, who represented themselves to large nonconformist crowds as teetotallers who had persuaded their followers to honour ‘Sestoria’. Sestoria herself was impressed by their condemnation of ‘strong drink’, the ‘terrible evil’ which ‘seems to follow civilisation’.82 To the frustration of Cecil Rhodes, who had enjoyed a brief audience of his own with Victoria some years earlier, they lobbied effectively against efforts by his British South Africa Company to gobble up Bechuanaland.83 Roman Catholics showed themselves most effective in questioning what Empire was really for at the Jubilees, determined as they were to resist assimilation to imperial Protestantism. Cardinal Manning, who

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

244

Queen Victoria

felt that Pope Leo XIII’s dispatch of a papal nuncio to the Golden Jubilee would strengthen conservative English Catholics against the Irish hierarchy, arranged for Monsignor Ruffo-Scilla to celebrate a mass in the pro-cathedral at Kensington on the day, thus keeping him from the thanksgiving at the Abbey. His insistence that they must ‘unite in Divine worship in the unity of the Church alone’ reflected his reserve about capture by the Crown, which had previously led him to turn down invitations to meet Victoria.84 Roman Catholics likewise celebrated the Diamond Jubilee sincerely but separately. Mass at the Brompton Oratory on Thanksgiving Sunday struck English observers as an un-English occasion, in which ‘the clank of the scabbards and the jingle of the spurs passing over the marble floors’ recalled Rome, not London. A change of cardinal had by this time improved the English hierarchy’s relations with the throne, with the coincidence of Manning’s death on the same day as the Duke of Clarence occasioning a warm exchange of condolences between his clergy and the court.85 Manning’s successor Herbert Vaughan had written effusively to Victoria on his appointment as Archbishop and subsequent elevation to the cardinalate, with Salisbury advising that she could reply to him, albeit personally not officially, because ‘a no-Popery residuum which still exists among us might make themselves disagreeable and say we had violated the oath of supremacy’.86 Pressure groups, such as the Protestant Alliance, were indeed active before the Diamond Jubilee, distributing reminders of Victoria’s declarations against Rome on her accession.87 The Roman Catholic press were no less annoying in a different way, vexing courtiers by spreading rumours that Victoria and her mother had converted to their faith.88 Such sensitivities explained why Vaughan sat on his Jubilee address to Victoria, because the Home Office had not agreed he could use his territorial title in it.89 His pastoral letter on the Jubilee praised the ‘combined influence of the Anglo-Saxon races’ on ‘the peoples that have come under their sway’, but presented the ‘highest cause for thanksgiving’ as the ‘growth of the Catholic Church under the English aegis of civil and religious liberty’. Catholics owed gratitude to ‘God, who alone rebuilds the walls of Sion’. Roman Catholic Irish, as chapter six suggested, did not feel this English aegis had anything to offer them. The hierarchy did not issue orders to celebrate either Jubilee, nationalists boycotted them both,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

245

and the press represented Protestant services as the lonely rites of an alien minority.90 While Protestants flocked to St Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin for a Golden Jubilee service, nationalist crowds gathered to cheer on the Plan of Campaign. In Cork, General Stevenson went to St Fin Barre’s Cathedral against a backdrop of black-bordered green posters, then had to abandon a military review after being pelted with clods of earth.91 The Freeman’s Journal acidly noted that the only mention of Ireland in metropolitan reporting on the Golden Jubilee service was the mention of rumours that Fenians had planned to dynamite Westminster Abbey.92 If the northern Protestant press attacked Catholic apathy as ‘disloyalty avowed’, even Jubilee sermons by Church of Ireland and Presbyterian ministers criticized Victoria for ‘favouritism towards Scotland and ignoring Ireland’. One Belfast Presbyterian marvelled that she had not found ‘one hour to give to Ireland in upwards of a quarter of a century’.93 Outside Ireland there were clashes in Boston, where a Father McKenna attacked the BritishAmerican Association for hiring Faneuil Hall to celebrate the Golden Jubilee—a profanation of a site of Revolutionary memory. The Association hit back, reminding McKenna that the Hall was named for a Huguenot victim of Popish persecution.94 In Australia, Cardinal Moran warned that participation in the Jubilee would be disloyal to Ireland, completing the estrangement from Australian loyalism which set in after the Fenian attack on Prince Alfred had caused a Protestant backlash.95 Irish wrongs weighed less heavily with Canadian Catholics. Joseph Lynch, the first Roman Catholic Archbishop of Toronto, had an exalted belief in the indivisibility of Irish nationality and Roman Catholicism throughout the world, and although he had once attended the Prince of Wales’s levee in London at Manning’s urging, he regretted the singing of a Te Deum for the Golden Jubilee. Yet he had also just distanced himself from an incendiary tour of Ontario by the nationalist politician William Smith O’Brien.96 The monarchy had long tiptoed around sectarian conflict in Canada, with the Prince of Wales dodging Orangemen on his 1860 visit and Governors General taking care in Quebec to avoid potential collisions between church and state.97 For Canadian Catholics of Irish stock, demonstrations of loyalty pressed their Anglophone advantage over the hitherto dominant French priesthood. Lynch’s successor thus participated

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

246

Queen Victoria

keenly in the Diamond Jubilee, while the bishop of heavily Irish Newfoundland decorated the cathedral for the Diamond Jubilee and had the National Anthem performed there for the first time.98 French Canada also succumbed to Victoria. While the ambitions of ultramontane clergy had once triggered clashes with the Crown in Quebec, in June 1897 the Basilique de Notre Dame in Montreal was bathed with electric light for an evening Te Deum attended by the papal delegate, the Governor General, and the Mayor. Monsignor Merry du Val said that French Catholics now felt affection as well as ‘duty’ for Victoria—words ‘which should go a long way to heal any acerbities which still linger in the good old province of Quebec’.99 In Quebec City, Zouaves, volunteers who had fought for the Pope against the Risorgimento, marched to dedicate the Parc Victoria.100 In La Reine Victoria et son Jubilé (1898) the fervently ultramontane lawyer Adolphe-Basile Routhier approvingly contrasted Victoria’s religious celebration of a milestone in her reign with the brittle secularism of contemporary France.101 ‘The Whole World Kin’: Jews and the Jubilees South Australian Jews were so proud of their Golden Jubilee gift to Victoria that they exhibited it in Adelaide before sending it to England. A Sepher Torah, made from 45 ounces of solid silver from the colony’s Broken Hill Mine, it was adorned with golden crowns and inscribed with their ‘love’ for her.102 While Jews placed themselves with non-Anglicans—‘British Methodists or British Catholics or British Quakers’—in celebrating the Jubilees, they also posited a peculiarly intimate bond with Victoria.103 Jews had always responded to Hanoverian births, marriages, deaths, and assassination attempts with sermons and addresses. Hyman Hurwitz had composed Hebrew laments for their protectors Princess Charlotte and George III, which were published with translations by his Highgate neighbour Samuel Taylor Coleridge.104 Yet the Jubilees marked a step change in Jewish loyalism, coinciding with the apogee of ‘the Queen’s Jewry’—the rabbinate, Anglo-Jewish magnates, and scholars—and its house journal, the Jewish Chronicle. Having gained access to Parliament, the professions, and the universities, this elite was intent on demonstrating its Englishness. One manifestation of that urge had been the Reform

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

247

movement, which wished to show that Judaism was as biblical, philanthropic, and spiritual as Protestantism.105 Jews were also aware of their comparatively fortunate situation in Britain. In the summer of the Golden Jubilee, the Board of Deputies thanked the visiting Crown Princess Victoria and Friedrich for criticizing the ‘Judenhetze’ then spreading across Europe.106 Yet they did not presume too much on English tolerance, fretting that the extensive immigration of Eastern European Jews would revive perceptions of them as unwanted aliens. Lord Rothschild thus warned parents at the Jewish Free School that June to give up Yiddish.107 The ‘pauper alien’ problem loomed as large for the Jewish Chronicle as the Jubilee in its review of the year 5647, which ended in September.108 In advance of the Golden Jubilee, one correspondent to the Jewish Chronicle therefore argued that as ‘Englishmen’ they should contribute to the ‘national memorial’, rather than a ‘sectarian’ one: ‘We have emerged from the Ghetto, let us not return to it.’ Plans for a yeshivah to be called Victoria College thus met with little support.109 So strong was this impulse that grandees from Rothschild to the Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler attended the thanksgiving service in Westminster Abbey. The Jewish Chronicle worried that it went against ‘Levitical Law’ for a man of priestly lineage to enter a ‘building containing several tombs’, but cleared Adler with a Talmudic citation, in which Rabbi Elieser bar Zadok ‘leapt upon the coffins of the dead to meet the Kings of Israel’.110 Adler became an imperial master of ceremonies, publishing a service for the synagogues of the British Empire, a step that some Sephardis regarded as Ashkenazi overreach.111 His Great Synagogue at Duke’s Place became a lavishly decorated ‘Cathedral Synagogue’ for the occasion, with a specially recruited orchestra playing music by Jewish composers—although the pipe organ failed, spoiling the closing march from Mendelssohn’s Athalie. The performance expressed a neo-romantic understanding of Jewish religiosity as cultivated feeling, much as Adler’s sermon presented the Queen in both affective and biblical terms—as a ‘woman of sorrows and acquainted with griefs’, who loved her subjects. Sermons at synagogue services throughout Britain and the Empire styled the Jubilee as an ‘old Jewish celebration’ and gloried in Victoria’s Jewish virtues.112 They credited her with their ‘manumission’, although privately she rarely displayed warmth towards Jewish causes. In 1847, the very

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

248

Queen Victoria

words Jewish emancipation ‘seemed to bring on a dead silence’ at court, while Victoria turned down Gladstone’s requests to make Lionel de Rothschild a peer because of ‘his religion’ as well as his commercial activities.113 When, in January 1891, the Lord Mayor sent Victoria a memorial against the Tsar’s expulsion of Jews from Moscow, she refused to interfere.114 The last note in Jewish thanksgiving was imperialism. The Jewish Chronicle had looked forward to creating a ‘community of sentiment . . . through the QUEEN’s wide dominions’, which in making a ‘whole world kin’, put ‘an Englishman or an Australian’ on a level with a ‘swarthy member of the Beni Israel’, while Adler’s Jubilee sermon argued that the character of ‘the Englishman’ gave him a right to rule.115 Jewish communities in British colonies such as Jamaica competed to show loyalty to their distant sovereign.116 Ten years later, liberal Jews were still more bullish about their place in Victoria’s Empire. In the run up to the Jubilee, they suggested altering the existing synagogue prayer towards the Queen, findings its request for her ‘kindness’ to be unnecessary or even insulting, given the ‘consolidation of absolute religious equality between Her Majesty’s subjects of every creed’.117 Hermann Adler, who had succeeded his father as Chief Rabbi, compromised between these demands and those who warned against complacency about the future security of Judaism by altering the prayer to request that Victoria and her counsellors ‘uphold the peace of the realm, advance the welfare of the nation, and deal kindly and truly with all Israel’. Religious equality was to be not a boon but a platform, allowing Jews to speak up for ‘oppressed nationalities of every creed’.118 His prayer for ‘the Synagogues of the British Empire on the appointed day’ was fulsome in its devotion to ‘a mother that loveth her children’ and averse to chauvinism, asking God to ‘Speed the days when the abundance of peace will flourish upon the face of the earth, when the world will be filled with the spirit of thy brotherly love.’119 The Great Synagogue, twinkling under newly installed electric lights, again advertised Judaism’s clout, with crowds gathering to see the arrival of the Jewish Lord Mayor, while Jews from Melbourne, Cape Town, and St Louis were prominent among the grandees.120 Rabbis in their thanksgiving sermons again presented Victoria as a woman who had enjoyed ‘that domestic happiness so prized in Jewish

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

249

religion’, a Queen under whose rule Jews had attained the ‘rights of manhood’, and as the sovereign of an Empire that remained insulated against anti-Semitism.121 Lord Rothschild led the Jewish children invited to be regaled with milk, buns, and medals on Victoria’s return to Windsor, joining the Bishop of London, Cardinal Vaughan, and a Wesleyan leader in a prismatic display of religious harmony.122 Jews vied to take a lead in Jubilee philanthropy, with Adler fundraising for a lifeboat named for the Jewish Chronicle editor Michael Henry— shipwrecks knowing no distinction of creed.123 The Jubilee baronetcy bestowed on the imperial epidemiologist Waldemar Haffkine particularly impressed the Jewish Chronicle with the thought that a ‘descendant of William the Conqueror’ had recognized ‘a Russian Jew’ for saving ‘the lives of helpless Hindoos and Mohammedans’ in India.124 Many Jewish leaders saw the Jubilee as a spur to the Anglicization of Eastern European Jews, which could draw them away from irreligious socialism, and revived a Golden Jubilee campaign to slash naturalization fees.125 Yet, in another mood, the Jewish Chronicle wondered if the rude fervour of East London’s immigrant synagogues did not shame the ‘more fashionable shrines of the West End’.126 When Adler visited the North London Synagogue after the Jubilee, he fretted that the ‘engrossing homage paid to Mammon’ was distracting Jews from ‘heaven’.127 Adler’s fears of worldliness found a toxic echo in radical anti-Semitism. For Reynolds’s Newspaper, the Jewish owner of the St James’s Gazette had been ‘more English than the English themselves over the Jubilee’, aping in this ‘the Jewish Daily Telegraph, and other organs owned by rich Hebrews’. Jews had won the unwelcome honour of parity with Christians in radical diatribes against ‘barrel organ’ thanksgiving.128 ‘The Lord of the Soil’: Victoria, the Jubilees, and Religion in Asia With a forty-two-foot high clock tower, the Maghen David Synagogue on Canning Street, Calcutta was an imposing setting for a Diamond Jubilee service. Joseph Ezra, the son of its wealthy donor, had served as municipal sheriff of Calcutta and represented Jews at the meeting held to plan the Diamond Jubilee celebrations.129 While Jewish merchants in both Bombay and Calcutta had long been integral to royalist

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

250

Queen Victoria

demonstrations in India, this meeting had also involved Hindus.130 Jotendra Mohun Tagore, a patron of Sanskrit scholarship but also an English-educated landowner bound to the Raj by office holding and titles, had urged that ‘the loyalty of the Hindus is of the nature of a religious duty’. Just as they made offerings to their deities or to the ‘manes of our ancestors’, so they were ‘bound to make offerings to the Bhooswami, the lord of the soil, under whose protection we live’.131 By the time the Jubilee was celebrated, two hundred elaborately housed addresses had reached London from India, many referencing Hindu deities.132 The casket in which the Calcutta Corporation housed its address featured Kamala, the goddess of wealth and plenty, while Ganesh adorned the casket with the address from Calcutta’s Hindu community.133 A decade earlier, Golden Jubilee celebrations in India, which had taken place earlier than in Britain to avoid the rainy season, had been top-down affairs, but participation in the Diamond Jubilee was more extensive, thanks to the Indianization of Victoria in the vernacular press as a pious, compassionate widow.134 Victoria’s 1858 Proclamation in the aftermath of the Rebellion had also been crucial in winning her the esteem of Indians. Marking a volte face in her youthful tendency to support the Christianization of India, it invoked the ‘truth of Christianity’, only to ‘disclaim alike the Right and the Desire to impose our Convictions on any of Our Subjects. WE declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure that none be in any wise favored, none molested or disquieted, by reason of their Religious Faith or Observances; but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the Law.’135 Although Victoria had understood the Rebellion in religious terms, crediting reports that ‘the mutilation of the women of their enemies’ was ‘part of the religion of Eastern nations’, the neutrality of the Proclamation was her achievement, after facing down efforts by Derby’s government to take evangelical sensibilities into account.136 The Earl of Dufferin, the Viceroy of India, initiated the Golden Jubilee with a service at St Paul’s Cathedral, Calcutta, a monument to conversionist Anglicanism, but in a speech to religious communities later that day, he claimed that ‘there have gone to-day from every shrine, from every place of worship, from the tabernacle of every heart, prayers for her happiness, blessings on her goodness, and the incense of an honest and trustful devotion’. His liberal Protestant ecumenicism envisioned individuals treasuring the ‘Wisdom, Justice, Piety, Duty’ of the Queen in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

251

the ‘tabernacle’ of the heart, whatever their creed. Less than a year after the Jubilee, Dufferin’s farewell speeches as viceroy laboured the point that Victoria’s rule was extinguishing the ‘evanescent fires’ of ‘fanaticism’.137 Lord Elgin repeated these talking points when serving as viceroy during the Diamond Jubilee. He celebrated it with a service at Christ Church, Simla before receiving addresses from ‘men of different race, lineage, occupation, interest, language’. Speaking of the mounds of sand left by ‘pilgrims to holy places’ around India, he urged that they should leave a spiritual monument to Victoria, ‘removing the differences or at least softening the asperities which too often disfigure the intercourse of the inhabitants of this land in which we live (Cheers)’. The Jubilee Year had been marked by efforts to repair the damage of a devastating earthquake; now Elgin wanted to see ‘forebearance where racial or religious feeling is apt to lead to strife’. Officials around India talked up this state-sponsored ‘harmony and amity’.138 Victoria became too interested in Indian religions to remain the distant umpire of official rhetoric. Under Albert, the court became a clearing house for Anglo-German Orientalists.139 Friedrich Max Müller, who had assured Victoria that the Rig Vedas preached an ancient monotheism, was the natural choice to add a Sanskrit verse to the Jubilee statue of Albert in Windsor Great Park.140 Victoria’s determination to learn Hindustani contributed to the ascendancy of her attendant Abdul Karim, the Munshi, and through him of Islam. In October 1895, Mary Lytton reported Victoria wishing ‘the Mahomedans could be left alone by Missionaries, and many things with which I agree, but rather openly discussing them with the Munshi which is a risk’.141 Abdul Karim even tinctured Victoria’s theology. Theodore Martin was nonplussed when Victoria reacted to Kaiser Friedrich III’s death by quoting ‘one of her Indian attendants (who are all Mohammedans) . . . “God ordered it”!!’142 The Tory statesman Gathorne Hardy was aghast when in a discussion of the Trinity she ‘spoke of her Mahomedan servants, their strictness, non belief in the possibility of a Son of God, with a reverence for Jesus’ as an argument against the doctrine. ‘I am afraid that she is not strong or right in theology & knows but little while she thinks her vague ideas a religion.’143 An ardent high churchman such as Hardy was bound to find such thinking ‘vague’ of course, but with the India Office regarding her closeness to Karim as a security threat, her physician James

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

252

Queen Victoria

Reid prevailed upon her to sideline him. Yet Victoria’s interest in Islam had other sources, not least Karim’s friend the activist Rafiuddin Ahmad, a ‘liberal minded Mohammedan’.144 She was also interested in the jewel-like Shah Jahan mosque at Woking (1889).145 Designed by the Hungarian Orientalist G. W. Leitner, who had coined the Sanskrit rendering of her imperial title, Kaisar-i-Hind, it was designed to advertise Islam to the British, a religion he thought could frustrate the ‘Nihilists’ and ‘socialists’ of Europe.146 These partialities mattered. During the Rebellion, some Muslims had talked of jihad against the ‘infidel Victoria’.147 With the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire once more in question from the mid1870s onwards, the British elite worried about the unnerving sympathy of Indian Muslims with the Sultan, asking whether it was compatible with loyalty to an earthly sovereign. Muslim writers reacted to this strange variation on political anti-popery by emphasizing their loyalty.148 Victoria had indeed come to regard ‘Mahommedans’ as ‘the most loyal of the Indian people’, blaming Hindus for communal disturbances and pressing her viceroys to cancel festivals which competed with theirs. She told Elgin that, notwithstanding her ‘religious impartiality . . . the Brahmins are those who irritate the people against us, and that the Mohammedans are the real supporters of the British rule; and she does think that they should be protected from insults and disturbance in their very peaceful and quiet worship which is opposed to idolatry’.149 The fulsome Muslim rhetoric during the Jubilees suggested that her sympathies registered with them.150 A biased referee between Islam and Hinduism, Victoria also posed rather equivocally as a protector of Buddhism. Victoria had sympathized with the Christian missionizing of Buddhist lands, donating a marble font to the Anglican church built at Mandalay in Upper Burma by the missionary John Ebenezer Marks.151 Yet the Earl of Dufferin argued that the 1885–6 invasion of Upper Burma had established the Queen as not just ‘Sovereign of Burma’ but as protector of the ‘Buddhistic Church’.152 Old colonial hands had warned that if the British were to avoid ‘religious anarchy’ there, they would need to complete their conquest by making Buddhism an ‘established Church’—warnings borne out when Buddhist abbots joined in rebellions against the Queen.153 Other British observers looked forward, though, to the collapse of Buddhism, as a ‘cold, cynical, and thoroughly selfish creed’.154 Similar attitudes prevailed in Sri Lanka. Although the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

253

British conquest of 1815 had put them in direct charge of a holy Buddhist site, the Temple of the Tooth at Kandy, the unease of evangelical Protestants caused them to relinquish it, bringing the ‘union of tooth and state’ to an end before Victoria took the throne. Settlers in Sri Lanka often looked forward to the waning of Buddhism.155 John Ferguson, the Baptist author of Ceylon in the ‘Jubilee Year’ (1887) put a triumphant interpretation on the participation of Buddhist monks in the Golden Jubilee celebrations at Galle.156 ‘What would the Buddha’—in Ferguson’s account, a notorious misogynist— ‘have said if he had thus seen them gathered to do honour to a woman’?157 One reason Ferguson and other settler voices were so scornful is that they were aware of the European theosophists who had flocked to Sri Lanka to urge the rehabilitation of Buddhism as a spiritual and distinctly Protestant world religion.158 The mystagogue Arthur Lillie, who believed that Christ had learned religion from Buddha, commented in 1900 that Buddha’s tooth in the Temple at Kandy was a relic ‘little valued by her white-faced subjects’, but could, if properly handled, guarantee Victoria the loyalty of millions of Asians.159 Although Victoria received Jubilee presents from Burma and knew enough to spot the ‘Buddhist monk, dressed in yellow’ among the Burmese dancers who visited her in July 1896, there is no indication that such dreams reached her. Other monarchs, such as the King of Siam, who had visited the Temple of the Tooth at Kandy while travelling to London for the Diamond Jubilee, made in the end more convincing patrons of Buddhism.160 Yet they indicate how the Jubilees expanded the religious possibilities she might represent. Victoria remained the Supreme Governor of an imperial Church of England. But, as ‘Non Placet’ had recognized, the joy of jubilee was not confined to one ecclesiastical mould. Religious people sanctified Victoria not because they had meekly subsumed their identities into her Empire, but because they hoped to expand the expression of their faiths in the global space over which she presided. Notes 1. ‘Non Placet’, To the Citizens of Empire . . . A Counterblast to the ‘Trumpet of Jubilee’ Being a Sermon Designed for Paul’s Cross, on June 10th 1897 (London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1897), pp. 5, 27, 29–30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

254

Queen Victoria

2. George Francis Savage-Armstrong, Queen Empress and Empire (Belfast: M. Ward & Co., 1897), p. 13. See George Francis Savage-Armstrong, One in the Infinite (London: Longmans and Co., 1891) for his religiosity. 3. See Daniel Loss, ‘Missionaries, the Monarchy, and the Emergence of Anglican Pluralism in the 1960s and 1970s’, Journal of British Studies, 57 (2018), pp. 543–63. 4. David Cannadine, Ornamentalism: How the British Saw their Empire (London: Allen Lane, 2000), ch. 8; Duncan Bell, ‘The Idea of a Patriot Queen? The Monarchy, the Constitution, and the Iconographic Order of Greater Britain, 1860–1900’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 34 (2006), pp. 3–22; Miles Taylor, ‘The British Royal Family and the Colonial Empire from the Georgians to Prince George’, in Robert Aldrich and Cindy McCreery, eds, Crowns and Colonies: European Monarchies and Overseas Empires (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016), p. 30. For Victoria and Jubilee in general see Walter L. Arnstein, ‘Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee’, The American Scholar, 66 (1997), pp. 591–7. 5. Thomas Richards, The Commodity Culture of Victorian England (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990), ch. 2; Tori Smith, ‘ “Almost Pathetic . . . but also Very Glorious”: The Consumer Spectacle of the Diamond Jubilee’, Histoire Sociale/Social History, 24 (1997), pp. 333–56; Elizabeth Hammerton and David Cannadine, ‘Conflict and Consensus on a Ceremonial Occasion: The Diamond Jubilee in Cambridge in 1897’, Historical Journal, 24 (1981), pp. 111–46; Karen Stanworth, Visibly Canadian: Imaging Collective Identities in the Canadas, 1820–1910 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill UP, 2014), chs 5 and 6. See Mark Looker, ‘ “God Save the Queen”: Victoria’s Jubilees and the Religious Press’, Victorian Periodicals Review, 21 (1988), pp. 115–19 for useful thoughts on the Jubilees and religious opinion. 6. Joseph Hardwick and Philip Williamson, ‘Special Worship in the British Empire: From the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Centuries’, Studies in Church History, 54 (2018), p. 260. 7. Colin Barr and Hilary Carey, ‘Introduction: Religion and Greater Ireland’, in Colin Barr and Hilary Carey, eds, Religion and Greater Ireland: Christianity and Irish Global Networks 1750–1950 (Montreal: McGill-Queens UP, 2015), p. 13. 8. Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 2, General Fasts, Thanksgivings and Special Prayers in the British Isles 1689–1870 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017), p. 934; Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, A Threefold

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

255

Call: A Sermon Preached in Westminster Abbey on June 28, 1868, the Anniversary of the Queen’s Coronation, on Occasion of the Public Thanksgiving for the Escape of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh and for the Success of the Abyssinian War (Oxford and London: James Parker, 1868), p. 15. Williamson and Hardwick, ‘Special Worship’, p. 260; Williamson et al., General Fasts, p. cxlvi. Brad Patterson, ‘Loyalism in Early Colonial New Zealand’, in Allan Blackstock and Frank O’Gorman, eds, Loyalism and the Formation of the British World: 1775–1914 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014), pp. 249–50. Dean of Windsor and Hector Bolitho, eds, Later Letters of Lady Augusta Stanley, 1864–1876 (London: Cape, 1929), p. 149. John Bailey, ed., The Diary of Lady Frederick Cavendish (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1927), p. 120; Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 3: Worship for National and Royal Occasions in the United Kingdom, 1871–2016 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2020), n.p.; Alfred Gathorne Hardy, Gathorne Hardy, First Earl of Cranbrook: A Memoir: With Extracts from his Diary and Correspondence (2 vols, London: Longmans and Co., 1910), 1: pp. 302–4. BL Add MS 44760, ff. 129–36. On this exchange see William Kuhn, Democratic Royalism: The Transformation of the British Monarchy, 1861–1914 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996), pp. 42–7. Gladstone BL Add MS 44 760, ff. 129–36. Wellesley to Gladstone, 8 January 1872; 6 and 9 February 1872, BL Add MS 44, 340, f. 1. Victoria to George, Duke of Cambridge in James Edgar Sheppard, George, Duke of Cambridge: A Memoir of his Private Life, Based on the Journals and Correspondence of His Royal Highness (2 vols, London: Longman and Co., 1879), 1: p. 308; Victoria to Victoria, 21 February 1872, in Roger Fulford, ed., Darling Child: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1871–1878 (London: Evans Bros, 1976), pp. 30–2; QVJ, 27 February 1872, p. 56; Williamson et al., National and Royal Occasions. Jeffrey Lant, Insubstantial Pageant: Ceremony and Confusion at Queen Victoria’s Court (London: H. Hamilton, 1979), pp. 27–9. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, The National Thanksgiving: Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey (London: Macmillan’s, 1872), p. 46. ‘The Day in London’, Freeman’s Journal, 28 February 1872, p. 3; Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G. (3 vols, London: Cassell, 1886), 3: p. 308.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

256

Queen Victoria

19. ‘Catholic Thanksgiving’, Freeman’s Journal, 27 February 1872, p. 3. 20. Freeman’s Journal, 28 February 1872, p. 3; for Wales, Tenby Observer, 29 February 1872, p. 4. 21. W. H. Karslake, England’s Thanksgiving for God’s Answer to Her Prayer: A Sermon Preached at Holy Trinity Church, Westcott, Dorking (London: J. Parker and Co., 1872), p. 4. 22. Stanley, National Thanksgiving, pp. 3, 50–1, 58. 23. Archibald Gurney, Loyalty: and Church and State: A Sermon, Preached at the Leicester Festival Service, at St. Margaret’s Church, on the Occasion of the National Thanksgiving for the Recovery of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales (London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1872), p. 7. 24. Birmingham Daily Post, 28 February 1872, p. 8. 25. Salisbury to Benson, 9 December 1886, LPL, Benson Papers 48, f. 4. 26. Hardy, Gathorne Hardy, 2: p. 283. 27. LPL, Benson Papers 48, ff. 15, 19. 28. Davidson to Benson, 29 March 1887, Eyre and Spottiswoode to Benson, 16 April 1887, and James Theipott to Benson, 11 April 1887, LPL, Benson Papers 48, ff. 31, 60, 58. 29. Ibid., ff. 69, 87, 137, 150. 30. Church Times, 3 June 1887, p. 451; Mary C. Church, ed., The Life and Letters of Dean Church (London: Macmillan, 1897), p. 300. 31. Church Times, 10 June 1887, pp. 471–2; 17 June 1887, p. 491. See Lant, Insubstantial Pageant, pp. 163–5. 32. Benson to Viscount Halifax and Davidson to Benson, 15 June 1887, LPL, Benson Papers 48, ff. 183–4, 192. 33. A. C. Benson, Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1901), 2: p. 133. See similarly Louise Creighton, The Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton (2 vols, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1904), 1: p. 379. 34. Lant, Insubstantial Pageant, p. 221. 35. F. J. Edwards to Davidson, 11 February 1897 and Frederick Temple to Davidson to Temple, LPL, Temple Papers 49, ff. 348–9, 352. 36. Davidson to Temple, 19 February 1897, LPL, Temple Papers 4, ff. 156–9. 37. Arthur Bigge to Davidson, 29 February 1897, LPL, Davidson Papers 49, f. 359. 38. Davidson to Dean, LPL, Davidson Papers 49, f. 360; Lant, Insubstantial Pageant, p. 223.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

257

39. Davidson to Robert Gregory, 2 March 1897, LPL, Davidson Papers 49, f. 361; Creighton, Creighton, 2: p. 237. 40. ‘Summary’, Church Times, 18 June 1897, p. 711. 41. ‘The Scene on Tuesday: From the Steps of St Paul’s’, Church Times, 25 June 1897, pp. 740–5. 42. QVJ, 24 and 25 July 1897, pp. 5, 6; 17 October 1897, p. 89; 31 December 1897, p. 174; Privy Council Office to Temple, 13 May 1897, LPL, Temple Papers 4, f. 196. For discussion see Jeffrey Richards, Imperialism and Music: Britain, 1876–1953 (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2001), p. 405. 43. George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Third Series: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal between the Years 1886 and 1901 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1930–2), 3: p. 148; QVJ, 10 August 1897, p. 24; 5 September 1897, p. 53. 44. Frederick Douglas How, Bishop Walsham How: A Memoir (London: Isbister & Co., 1898), pp. 60, 182, 196, 217–18. 45. ‘The Privy Council and the Jubilee Service’, Church Times, 11 June 1897, p. 691; ‘The Jubilee Service’, Church Times, 18 June 1897, pp. 712–13. 46. Looker, ‘God Save the Queen’, p. 172. 47. Church Times, 17 June 1887, p. 491. 48. W. Harold Ashton to Temple, 12 April 1897, LPL, Temple Papers 4, ff. 180–1. 49. Church Times, 25 June 1897, p. 739. 50. The Times, 21 June 1897, p. 10. 51. Jennifer Powell, ‘The Dissemination of Commemorative Statues of Queen Victoria’, in Penelope Curtis and Keith Wilson, eds, Modern British Sculpture (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2011), pp. 282–8; entries in Martina Droth, Jason Edwards, and Michael Hatt, eds, Sculpture Victorious: Art in an Age of Invention, 1837–1901 (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2015), pp. 105–9. 52. ‘Celebration of the Queen’s Jubilee at Huddersfield’, Leeds Mercury, 13 June 1888, p. 3. 53. Freeman’s Journal, 16 March 1887. 54. Lant, Insubstantial Pageant, pp. 119–21. 55. ‘Ecclesiastical Intelligence’, Morning Post, 15 June 1897, p. 3. See Michael Ledger-Lomas, ‘Daylight upon Magic: Stained Glass and the Victorian Monarchy’ and Jim Cheshire, ‘Remediation, Medievalism, and Empire in T. W. Camm’s “Jubilee of Nations” Window at Great Malvern Priory’,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

258

56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

61.

62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

68. 69. 70. 71.

Queen Victoria 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century, 30: Reframing Stained Glass in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Culture, Aesthetics, Contexts, ed. Jasmine Allen and Gareth Atkins (2020), https://19.bbk.ac.uk/. Edward Talbot, ‘The Ministry of Monarchy’, in Sermons at Southwark, Preached in the Collegiate Church of S. Saviour (London: Nisbet, 1905), p. 37. Church Times, 11 June 1897, p. 687. Church Times, 25 June 1897, p. 741. Frederick Temple, ‘The Education of the World’, in Essays and Reviews (London: John W. Parker, 1860). Church Times, 25 June 1897, p. 742. For transnational religious sympathy and the telegraph, see Brian Murray, ‘Saxon Shore to Celtic Coast: Diasporic Telegraphy in the Atlantic World’, in Matthew Ingleby and Matthew P. M. Kerr, eds, Coastal Cultures of the Long Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2018), pp. 149–68. Barlow Cumberland, A Sketch of How ‘The Diamond Anthem’ was Sung Around the World through the Colonies of the Empire on the 20th June, 1897 (Toronto: Robinson-Arbuthnot, 1898); Official Programme: Diamond Jubilee at Victoria, British Columbia (Victoria, BC, 1897) ; Daily Colonist, 20 June 1897, p. 5. Daily Colonist, 20 June 1897, p. 1. ‘The Christ Church Celebrations’, Lyttelton Times, 23 June 1897, p. 5. Williamson and Hardwick, ‘Special Worship’. D. J. Fraser, Victoria: Queen and Woman (Toronto: Hart and Riddell, 1897), pp. 12, 15. The Jubilee Pamphlet: Being a Reprint from the ‘Englishman’ of all Matters Connected with the Jubilee (Calcutta: S. N. Banerji, ‘Englishman’ Press, 1897), p. 20. Moses Harvey, Newfoundland in 1897: Being Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee Year and the Four Hundredth Anniversary of the Discovery of the Island by John Cabot (London: Low, Marston & Co., 1897), p. 34. Robert Awde, Jubilee, Patriotic, and Other Poems (Toronto: William Briggs, 1888), p. 9. Toronto’s Tribute to Her Majesty Queen Victoria (Toronto, 1897). Reynolds’s Newspaper, 20 June 1897, p. 1. For Canada see Sarah Carter, ‘ “The Faithful Children of the Great Mother are Starving”: Queen Victoria in Contact Zone Dialogues in Western Canada’, in Sarah Carter and Maria Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything: Queen Victoria in Indigenous Worlds (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016), pp. 84–6, 90–2; R. W. Sandwell, ‘Dreaming of the Princess: Love, Subversion, and the Rituals of Empire in British Columbia, 1882’, in Colin M. Coates, ed., Majesty in Canada: Essays on the Role of Royalty

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

72.

73.

74.

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84.

259

(Toronto: Dundurin Group, 2006), p. 62. For Australia and New Zealand see Penny van Toorn, Writing Never Arrives Naked: Early Aboriginal Cultures of Writing in Australia (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 2000), pp. 119–20, 125, 177 and Michael Belgrave, ‘ “We Rejoice to Honour the Queen, for she is a Good Woman who Cares for the Maori ¯ Race”: Loyalty and Protests in M¯aori Politics in Nineteenth-Century New Zealand’, in Carter and Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything, p. 54. ‘The Christ Church Celebrations’, Lyttelton Times, 23 June 1897, p. 5. See Mark Stocker, ‘ “A Token of their Love”: Queen Victoria Memorials in New Zealand’, 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century, 22 (2016), 19.bbk.ac.uk. Belgrave, ‘Loyalty and Protests’, pp. 68–73; Chanel Clarke, ‘M¯aori Encounters with “Wikitoria” in 1863 and Albert Victor Pomare, her M¯aori Godchild’, in Carter and Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything, pp. 146, 56. ‘The Song of the Jubilee’, Morning Post, 12 June 1897; Tom Brooking, Richard Seddon: King of God’s Own: The Life and Times of New Zealand’s LongestServing Prime Minister (Auckland: Penguin, 2014), pp. 193–8; Belgrave, ‘Loyalty and Protests’, pp. 67–71. Marlborough Express, 17 June 1897, p. 2. See also ‘The Land and the Maori’, Wanganui Herald, 4 May 1897, p. 2. Brooking, Seddon, p. 217. QVJ, 18 November 1851, p. 192. QVJ, 29 April 1874, p. 127. QVJ, 8 February 1853, p. 41; 27 February 1853, p. 66; 22 March 1853, p. 96; 27 March 1853, p. 99. J. B. T. Marsh, The Story of the Jubilee Singers: With their Songs (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878), pp. 53–64, 93. QVJ, 19 November 1895, p. 121; Mallet, Mallet, p. 69. Edwin Lloyd, Three Great African Chiefs (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1895), p. 281; QVJ, 19 November 1895, p. 121. QVJ, 24 February 1891, p. 57; Neil Parsons, King Khama, Emperor Joe, and the Great White Queen: Victorian Britain through African Eyes (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1998), pp. 50, 157; Neil Parsons, ‘South African Royalty and Delegates visit Queen Victoria, 1882–1895’, in Carter and Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything, pp. 170, 131. Edmund Sheridan Purcell, The Life of Cardinal Manning (2 vols, London: Macmillan and Co., 1895), 2: pp. 687, 734, 743; Birmingham Daily Post, 21 June 1887; ‘Catholics and the Queen’s Jubilee’, The Tablet, 25 June 1887, p. 1017.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

260 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

96.

97.

98.

99. 100.

Queen Victoria Purcell, Manning, 2: pp. 807–8. Buckle, Letters. Third Series, 2: pp. 113–14, 217–18. LPL, Davidson Papers 49, ff. 299, 303, 304, 308. Ponsonby to Davidson, 2 August 1897, LPL, Davidson Papers, 49, ff. 314–15. J. G. S. Cox, The Life of Cardinal Vaughan (London: Herbert & Daniel, 1910), p. 232. Williamson and Hardwick, ‘Special Worship’. ‘Jubilee Celebrations in Dublin’, Freeman’s Journal, 21 June 1887, p. 6; ‘The Provinces’, Freeman’s Journal, 22 June 1887, p. 5. Freeman’s Journal, 23 June 1887, p. 4; Lant, Insubstantial Pageant, p. 76. Belfast News-Letter, 16 and 21 June 1887, pp. 7, 8. Faneuil Hall: Who are its Conservators? The Story of the Victoria Jubilee Banquet Re-Told for the Benefit of the American Public (Boston, 1887), pp. 8, 16, 45. Gordon Pentland, ‘The Indignant Nation: Australian Responses to the Attempted Assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1868’, English Historical Review, 130 (2015), pp. 57–88. Thomas McKeown, The Life and Labours of Most Rev. John Joseph Lynch, D.D., Cong. Miss., First Archbishop of Toronto (Toronto: J. A. Sadlier, 1886), pp. 116, 227, 241; Mark G. McGowan, The Waning of the Green: Catholics, the Irish, and Identity in Toronto, 1887–1922 (Toronto: McGill UP, 1992), pp. 59, 202, 4–5. Philip Buckner, ‘The Invention of Tradition? The Royal Tours of 1860 and 1901 to Canada’, in Coates, ed., Majesty, pp. 24–6; John Castell Hopkins, Queen Victoria: Her Life and Reign: A Study of British Monarchical Institutions and the Queen’s Personal Career, Foreign Policy, and Imperial Influence (Toronto: Bradley-Garretson, 1896), p. 328; Which? England or Rome? A Review of the Guibord Burial Case (Montréal, 1871). Carolyn Lambert, ‘This Sacred Feeling: Patriotism, Nation-Building, and the Catholic Church in Newfoundland, 1850–1914’, in Barr and Carey, eds, Religion, p. 130; Mark McGowan, ‘The Trials and Tales of a “Double Minority”: The Irish and French Engagement for the Soul of the Canadian Church, 1815–1947’, in Barr and Carey, eds, Religion, pp. 97–123. The Metropolitan Jubilee Souvenir (Montreal: W. Wallach, 1897), p. 17. Célébration à Québec du 60e Anniversaire de l’Heureux Avènement de Sa Majesté la Reine Victoria au Trône d’Angleterre, et de la Fête Nationale des Canadiens Français, la St-Jean Baptiste, 1837–1897 (Québec: G. Vincent, 1897), pp. 4–13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

261

101. Adolphe-Basile Routhier, La Reine Victoria et son Jubilé (Québec, 1898), p. 12. 102. Jewish Chronicle, 5 and 12 August 1887, pp. 5, 13. 103. Jewish Chronicle, 17 June 1887, p. 11. 104. Karen Weisman, Singing in a Foreign Land: Anglo-Jewish Poetry, 1812–1847 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2018). 105. Lucien Wolf, ‘The Queen’s Jewry’, in his Essays in Jewish History (London: Jewish Historical Society, 1934); Mark Levine, ‘Authority and Legitimacy in Jewish Leadership: The Case of Lucien Wolf (1857–1930)’, Jewish Political Studies Review, 4 (1992), pp. 85–110. David Feldman, Englishmen and Jews: Social Relations and Political Culture, 1840–1914 (New Haven: Yale UP, 1994). 106. Jewish Chronicle, 24 June 1887, p. 12. 107. ‘Jews’ Free School’, Jewish Chronicle, 24 June 1887, p. 7. 108. Jewish Chronicle, 16 September 1887, p. 8. 109. ‘The Queen’s Jubilee’, Jewish Chronicle, 26 November 1887, p. 9; ‘Anglo Judaeus’, Jewish Chronicle, 3 December 1886, p. 7; Jewish Chronicle, 17 December 1886, p. 8. 110. Jewish Chronicle, 17 June 1887, p. 5. 111. Jewish Chronicle, 22 April 1887, p. 16; ‘The Spanish and Portuguese Congregations’, Jewish Chronicle, 15 July 1887, p. 6. 112. Jewish Chronicle, 24 June 1887, pp. 12–14. 113. Erskine Steuart, ed., Twenty Years at Court: From the Correspondence of the Hon. Eleanor Stanley, Maid of Honour to Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria, 1842–1862 (London: Nisbet, 1916), p. 158; QVJ, 31 October 1869, p. 280; Agatha Ramm, ed., The Political Correspondence of Mr Gladstone and Lord Granville, 1876–1886 (2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 2: pp. 50–1, 66–7, 69. 114. Buckle, Letters. Third Series, 1: pp. 5–6. 115. Jewish Chronicle, 17 June 1887, p. 10; 24 June 1887, p. 13. 116. W. A. Feurtado, The Jubilee Reign of her most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria in Jamaica (Jamaica: W. A. Feurtado, 1890). 117. ‘A New Prayer for the Queen’, Jewish Chronicle, 25 December 1896, p. 7; ‘The Prayer for the Queen and the Royal Family’, Jewish Chronicle, 8 January 1897, p. 7. 118. Jewish Chronicle, 22 January 1897, p. 9; ‘The Prayer for the Royal Family’, Jewish Chronicle, 23 April 1897, p. 13. 119. ‘The Queen’s Reign’, Jewish Chronicle, 30 April 1897, p. 10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

262

Queen Victoria

120. ‘Diamond Jubilee Celebrations: Imposing Services in the Synagogues’, Jewish Chronicle, 25 June 1897, p. 19. 121. Jewish Chronicle, 25 June 1897, pp. 19–23. 122. QVJ, 23 June 1897, p. 218; ‘The Queen’s Review of Schoolchildren’, Jewish Chronicle, 25 June 1897, p. 10. 123. ‘Prince of Wales Hospital Fund: A Chat with the Chief Rabbi [by a correspondent]’, Jewish Chronicle, 12 February 1897, p. 15; ‘The Hospitals and the Jubilee’, Jewish Chronicle, 28 May 1897, p. 15; ‘Jewish Literary Scholars’ Fund’, Jewish Chronicle, 5 March 1897, p. 17. 124. ‘Jubilee Honours’, Jewish Chronicle, 25 June 1897, p. 17. 125. ‘The Provinces’, Jewish Chronicle, 22 January 1897, p. 25; ‘Jubilee Naturalisation Scheme’, Jewish Chronicle, 7 and 28 May 1897, pp. 6, 24. 126. ‘The Jubilee Services in the Synagogues’, Jewish Chronicle, 25 June 1897, p. 17. 127. Jewish Chronicle, 7 July 1897, p. 13. 128. ‘Notes and Gossip’, Reynolds’s Newspaper, 27 June 1897, p. 1. 129. Jubilee Pamphlet, pp. 24, 219. 130. Simin Patel, ‘Commemorating the Consort in Colonial Bombay’, in Charles Beem and Miles Taylor, eds, The Man Behind the Queen: Male Consorts in History (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), pp. 157–62. 131. Jubilee Pamphlet, p. 212; James W. Furrell, The Tagore Family: A Memoir (London: Kegan Paul and Trench, 1886), p. 166. 132. Miles Taylor, Empress: Queen Victoria and India (Yale and London: Yale UP, 2018), p. 234. 133. Jubilee Pamphlet, pp. 101, 236. 134. Taylor, Empress, pp. 232–3, 244, chs 6, 8, 9. 135. ‘Proclamation, Read at Allahabad, 1 November 1858’, BL MSS EUR D62D. 136. QVJ, 27 October 1858, p. 77; 22 March 1858, p. 124; Victoria to Lady Canning, 2 December 1858, MSS Eur F699/1/1/1/1, f. 3. See Taylor, Empress, pp. 80–3. 137. Frederick Temple Hamilton-Temple Blackwood [First Marquess of Dufferin and Ava], Speeches Delivered in India, 1884–1888 (London: John Murray, 1890), pp. 271, 358. 138. Jubilee Pamphlet, pp. 57, 71. 139. Taylor, Empress, pp. 50–1. 140. QVJ, 29 June 1875, p. 162; Taylor, Empress, p. 231.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Oecumenic Colonial Carnivals

263

141. Taylor, Empress, p. 253; Mary Lutyens, ed., Lady Lytton’s Court Diary: 1895–1899 (London: R. Hart-Davis, 1961), p. 38. 142. Theodore Martin, Queen Victoria as I Knew Her (London: William Blackwood, 1901), p. 135. 143. Nancy Johnson, ed., The Diary of Gathorne Hardy, Later Lord Cranbrook, 1866–1892: Political Selections (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 715. 144. Taylor, Empress, pp. 254–5. 145. H. D. A. Major, The Life and Letters of William Boyd Carpenter (London: John Murray, 1925), p. 141; Victoria to William Boyd Carpenter, 19 January 1890, BL Add MS 46 719, f. 72; Carpenter to Victoria, 31 December 1887 and 25 January 1890, BL Add MS 46 720, ff. 27–8, 78–9. 146. G. W. Leitner, Kaisar-i-Hind. The Only Appropriate Translation of the Title of Empress of India (Lahore: I. P. O. Press, 1876) and G. W. Leitner, Muhammadanism: Being the Report of an Extempore Address (Woking: Oriental Nobility Institute, 1889), p. 12. 147. Taylor, Empress, pp. 67–9. 148. W. W. Hunter, The Indian Mussulmans: Are they Bound in Conscience to Rebel Against the Queen? (London: Trubner and Co., 1872); ‘Mohammedan Views on the Present Situation and the Queen’s Reign’, Homeward Mail, 26 May 1887, p. 712; Homeward Mail, 19 June 1897, p. 2. See generally Oliver Godsmark and William Gould, ‘Loyalism in Nineteenth-Century Colonial India’, in Allan Blackstock and Frank O’Gorman, eds, Loyalism and the Formation of the British World: 1775–1914 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014), pp. 276–7. 149. Queen Victoria to Lord Lansdowne, 9 June 1892, BL Add MS 88906/ 18/3, f. 97; George Earle Buckle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Second Series: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1862 and 1878 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1926–8), 3: p. 526; Buckle, Letters. Third Series, 1: pp. 302–3, 427, 436. 150. Homeward Mail, 26 May 1887, p. 712. 151. John Ebenezer Marks, Forty Years in Burma (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1917), p. 170. 152. Anne M. Blackburn, Locations of Buddhism: Colonialism and Modernity in Sri Lanka (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2010), p. 167; Blackwood, Speeches, p. 109. 153. Grattan Geary, Burma, After the Conquest, Viewed in its Political, Social and Commercial Aspects, From Mandalay (London: Sampson and Low, 1886), pp. 118–19; Jordan Carlyle Winfield, ‘Buddhism and Insurrection in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

264

154. 155.

156.

157. 158.

159. 160.

Queen Victoria Burma, 1888–1890’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 20 (2010), pp. 346, 354–6. John Nisbet, Burma under British Rule, and Before (2 vols, London: Archibald Constable, 1901), 2: pp. 125–6, 154. J. Gerson Da Cunha, Memoir on the History of the Tooth-Relic of Ceylon; With a Preliminary Essay on the Life and System of Gautama Buddha (London: W. Thacker and Co., 1875), pp. 34, 53–4, 57; C. F. Gordon Cumming, Two Happy Years in Ceylon (2 vols, London: Chatto and Windus, 1901), 1: p. 288; John S. Strong, Relics of the Buddha (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2004), p. 197. John Ferguson, Ceylon in the ‘Jubilee Year’ (London: John Haddon, 1887), p. 176; Elizabeth Harris, Therav¯ada Buddhism and the British Encounter: Religious, Missionary and Colonial Experience in Nineteenth-Century Sri Lanka (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2006), pp. 109, 126. Ferguson, Ceylon, p. 176. Harris, Buddhism, pp. 89–91, 101; Steven Kemper, Rescued from the Nation: Anagarika Dharmapala and the Buddhist World (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2015), pp. 34–41, ch. 1. Arthur Lillie, Buddha and Buddhism (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1900), p. vi. ‘The Golden Jubilee in Rangoon’, Homeward Mail, 23 March 1887, p. 6; QVJ, 12 July 1896, p. 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

9 A Completed Life

‘In the stately homes of England, in the bungalows of India, from the far-off island-continent, through the length and breadth of this Dominion, amid the clash of arms in Southern Africa, rises the voice of lamentation . . . A whole Empire mourns, and the civilised world with it.’1 W. T. Herridge’s sermon at St Andrew’s Church, Ottawa illustrates that Victoria’s final contribution to Victorian religion was her death. The ‘world-embracing’ sorrow it triggered was no spontaneous wave, but a set of performances scripted and interpreted by civic and clerical leaders, which represented her Empire to its settlers as having transcended ethnic and sectarian differences. Victoria had long been a ‘linchpin’ for the ‘iconographic order of Greater Britain’, the ‘imaginative system of resonant symbols, stirring rituals, and vague poetic imagery’ that unified her Empire.2 Religion both supercharged and complicated this work and this was never truer than in death. Herridge was a case in point. A Presbyterian, an avid AngloSaxon imperialist, and a cheerleader for the South African War who had ministered to St Andrew’s since 1883, he blended Scottish, Protestant, Canadian, and royalist identities. As he had remarked in an 1889 address, his ‘Scotchmen’ had become ‘citizen[s] of the whole world’, fostering a ‘cosmopolitan sentiment’, which could turn Canada into the ‘brightest gem that sparkles in the coronet of the Queen’.3 Herridge’s eulogy focused this sentiment onto Victoria, who from ‘behind the veil’ was now ‘calling us to put away everything which is vile and valueless’.4 In lingering on Victoria’s compassion for wounded soldiers, Herridge’s sermon was also a call to arms during the ongoing South African War, one which anticipated his later career, when during the Great War he became an honorary

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

266

Queen Victoria

lieutenant colonel and exhorted young Canadians to sacrifice themselves on the ‘altar of freedom’.5 Herridge’s sermon on Victoria was just one of thousands which expressed, while also explaining, sorrow for her, constructing her Empire as an emotional community within which religions, races, and nations could share powerful feelings.6 It fell in particular to preachers to set out ‘feeling rules’ to govern how people should respond to the death of their sovereign.7 Grief is not strictly a religious emotion, but in Victorian Britain it was always in dialogue with organized religion, which sought to discipline, alleviate, and sanctify it. Sorrow at Victoria’s death thus articulated ideas about the relationship between religions and the imperial state. To observe that mourning for Victoria was orchestrated need not entail asking the unprofitable question of whether it was ‘real’. Rather, this final chapter asks what work it did. It begins by assessing how a small group scripted Victoria’s last moments and rites, which became the template for a worldwide network of memorial services. It turns to the sermons preached on these occasions, observing how Anglicans, Dissenters, and Jews all asked people to feel for Victoria in ways that made sense to them as members of particular emotional sub-communities. Such preaching often claimed that Victoria had been a ‘great white mother’ to the peoples of her Empire. This was a transparent projection of the colonizer’s feelings onto the colonized, but the next section shows how the latter could advance their faiths on a global stage by associating themselves with Victoria. ‘Literally Orphaned’: Burying Victoria Alerted by a telegram, Randall Davidson promptly chucked an engagement at Royal Holloway College and rushed to the Isle of Wight on 20 January 1901 to find Victoria ‘very very ill. Not dying immediately (I mean not tonight) so far as the doctors can judge but very little real hope of life even in an impaired condition which God forbid’. Having taken part in a commemorative service for Prince Henry at St Mildred’s, Whippingham, he entered the sacred drama of Victoria’s death at Osborne House. It was gratifying, Davidson wrote to his wife, that ‘so far as we can judge, there is no prospect of her life being prolonged in a broken & marred condition . . . How splendid that she should just end like this without putting off her armour. God

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

267

bless her.’ Already complacently composing his obituary, Davidson was put out by her brief rally on the evening of 21 January. ‘I cannot honestly say I am glad—for I imagine they think it impossible she can get back to her former level & I don’t want a shortened life to go on with the utter complications it would cause & the unhappiness to her and others which would I fear in all the peculiar circumstances be inevitable.’8 Near her end, Victoria lashed out against ‘over-churchiness’. Davidson relayed to his wife her deathbed confessions: her ‘hate’ when young of ‘ “religious” books’ and her suspicion that her grandson Christian Victor had been browbeaten into asking for communion on his deathbed: ‘I don’t feel at all sure that I shd wish for it just then.’ The ‘most delicious’ revelation was her admission that ‘I sometimes feel that when I die I shall be just a little nervous about meeting grandpapa [George III] for I have taken to doing a good many things that he would not quite approve of.’ Displaying his uncanny ability to be in the right place at the right time, Davidson was at Victoria’s bedside as she died, and perfectly placed to record events. The morning after her death a ‘calm and bright little service’ took place in her room: Victoria was clad in white lace, flowers were placed on her bed and a crucifix at its head.9 Although Albert Edward gave up Osborne after Victoria’s death, this room would be preserved as a shrine. Having commissioned Hubert von Herkomer to paint Victoria on her deathbed, he and Alexandra decorated the room with Gustav Jaeger’s The Entombment of Christ (1845) and an altar, putting a bronze plaque into the bedhead and installing iron gates to protect it. Davidson and the Princesses turned a dining room into a ‘Mortuary Chapel’—the kind of Continental chapelle ardente to which her son Leopold and son-in-law Henry had been treated. In doing so they followed a suggestion from Kaiser Wilhelm II, who had rushed to his grandmother’s deathbed to decorate it with Old Masters from Albert’s collection, whose subjects evoked the home life of Christ.10 As well as hosting a family service, the chapel was also the scene of low farce: Davidson found the undertaker who turned up to measure for the coffin so rough that he insisted on doing the job himself—with the Kaiser and a ‘confidential dresser’ helping. Press photographs, like the one reprinted in Lorne’s guide to the reign, hid these goings on, but allowed Victoria’s subjects vicarious entry to the room.11

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

268

Queen Victoria

The family’s mourning went public with two services at St Mildred’s, Whippingham. Davidson, who had hoped to keep these services strictly private, ostentatiously ignored the eavesdropping globe in his hurriedly composed sermon, telling the household that though, to some extent, people are feeling this the whole world through, there is here in Whippingham for all of us, for all of you, something more direct and personal. No one probably in this parish but has a sort of numbing sense this Sunday morning of being literally orphaned.12

The choreography of Victoria’s funeral still had to be thrashed out. In April 1889, Victoria had copies made of the austere directions on royal funerals she had drawn up decades earlier. No royal should be embalmed or put in a shroud, ‘unless any of them should express a particular wish to that effect’. Kings and princes were to be buried in a simple uniform; queens or princesses in white or black silk gowns.13 But the broader arrangements were muddled, Reginald Brett of the Office of Works grumbling as Victoria lay on her deathbed that ‘you would think the English Monarchy had been buried since the time of Alfred’ so little information about precedents could he find. He knew that it would be ‘impossible to escape from a great national demonstration of respect and sorrow in London’, but was not sure what form that ought to take.14 The Roman Catholic Duke of Norfolk, who as Earl Marshal wrested control of the arrangements, seemed to be ‘curiously ignorant of many of the things that everyone else knew’. Randall Davidson noted that the design of Victoria’s coffin foxed him: ‘It appeared new to him to learn that the Lutherans (and therefore the Prince Consort) had no objections to a crucifix, and that the Queen had never shared the antipathy of English Protestants to that figure.’15 Victoria’s death on the Isle of Wight posed a logistical problem, but like Henry of Battenberg’s a decade earlier it was also an opportunity to consecrate imperial power. Cosmo Gordon Lang, who led a service on board the royal yacht Alberta before it landed the coffin at Portsmouth, captured the liturgical quality of the proceedings. Waiting to board the Alberta, he recalled that the black-clad crowds on the beach preserved the ‘strangest silence I have ever known’—so much so that ‘when two children talked at a distance of about 200 crowded yards, it seemed an intolerable jar’. The guns fired at Osborne to announce

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

269

that Victoria’s body had been consigned to the ‘little Alberta’, which was preceded by ‘torpedo-boats weaving black and silent into admirably kept intervals like dark messengers of Death’. The ‘solemn playing of Chopin’s Marche Funèbre by the ship’s bands’ deepened the pathos, but what delighted Lang most was the setting of the sun ‘with a rich glow of quiet and tranquil glory’, just as the Alberta passed the harbour bar. ‘I heard an old General behind me cough, clear his throat and say as it were to himself, “No one will persuade me that Providence didn’t arrange that!”’ Lang boarded the Alberta to say a few versicles, parts of the 91st Psalm, and two prayers. He found the most impressive feature of these proceedings the consecration of state power: the ‘sudden unpremeditated episode’ in which Albert Edward knelt in prayer with the Kaiser by the coffin, or the procession of the coffin from the gangway to the railway platform as medalled officers ‘who had fought for the Queen in all parts of the world’ made their ‘last salute’.16 Victoria’s coffin reached London’s Victoria Station by train, where it rested in a pavilion kitted out with Persian rugs and Louis Seize furniture, before travelling to Paddington Station on a khaki-coloured gun carriage pulled by cream-coloured horses. The newspapers minutely covered this part of the proceedings, noting that, by Victoria’s wish, the procession was a military ‘pageant’, with Indian troops and representatives of colonial troops fighting in South Africa prominent in the cavalcade. The military overtones continued on her coffin’s arrival at Windsor. As it was once more transferred to a gun carriage, minute guns started up in the Long Walk, answered by the Sebastopol bell, a Crimean War trophy installed on the Castle’s Round Tower. Even the ‘regrettable incident’ in which the horses refused to pull the gun carriage became an occasion for display, as naval blue jackets cut its traces and hauled it to St George’s Chapel. They were met by ‘huge grey-coated Guardsmen in the striking attitude of military sorrow’, with their weapons reversed, who carried the hearse inside.17 St George’s was only half full due to a mix-up over ticketing and there were other wobbles, such as the near blind Archbishop of Canterbury Frederick Temple nearly falling on the chapel steps after pronouncing the Benediction.18 The next day Victoria made one more journey, travelling on a gun carriage to the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore, as guns again boomed and the Sebastopol

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

270

Queen Victoria

bell tolled. One last hitch became apparent on her arrival: the coffin was too large and bits of the sarcophagus had to be sawn off so it could fit inside.19 Finally secure in her resting place, Victoria would henceforth be the object rather than the celebrant of intimate, flower-strewn anniversary services at Frogmore.20 The St George’s service, which was remarkable for its sumptuous music, was the product of hushed negotiations, undertaken with an eye on public opinion.21 The thorniest question concerned the boundaries between Protestantism and other varieties of Christianity. Having appointed himself as a Protestant watchdog, Davidson moved against plans by the Princesses to include a funeral anthem from the Russian Orthodox Office for the Faithful Departed, because it would ‘certainly hurt the feelings of very many, and might do real harm’. When the King countered that it had already been used at the Frogmore mausoleum, Davidson explained that it would sanction intercessory prayer for the dead in the ‘eyes of the world’. ‘The King said repeatedly, “I see. What you want to protect is the Nonconformist conscience”.’ He and Davidson rang the printers and changed the anthem at the last minute. Davidson’s alarm was ironic, given that, as Cosmo Gordon Lang noted, Victoria herself had believed in prayer to the dead—her one great divergence from ‘ordinary Protestantism’.22 A day later, Davidson ventriloquized the Puritans once more, protesting that there would be a scandal if Victoria’s friend, the Roman Catholic opera singer Madame Albani, were permitted to sing an anthem in St George’s. She was finally allowed to do so at a strictly private service held in the Albert Memorial Chapel, where the coffin rested before making its way to Frogmore.23 The memorial service at St Paul’s Cathedral was no less significant. Timed to coincide with proceedings at Windsor Castle, its composition was Archbishop Temple’s doing. The speed of Victoria’s demise had stranded him in London, and newspapers suggested that the new King had snubbed him because he was annoyed that his recent sermons had not dwelt sufficiently on his ailing mother.24 He was nonetheless bombarded with clerical inquiries about her passing. Bishops wanted to know if they were expected in London.25 Country vicars asked if they could improvise memorial services.26 The Duke of Devonshire pressed the Archbishops to come up with a form of prayer

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

271

and Oxford University Press’ printer Henry Frowde chased Temple for confirmation that they could go ahead and print it.27 By 28 January, Temple had agreed with the King two forms for the country. The ‘simple form’ was a tweaked version of the Burial Service and the longer one modelled on the St Paul’s memorial service. Temple considered that both would give the people ‘an opportunity of expressing before God the deep affection and admiration with which they regarded the good and great sovereign whom they have just lost’.28 Like Davidson, he had to reckon with Protestant scruples. The vicar of Woolsey, Devon was one of those who wrote to him as a ‘loyal son of the Church’ to express his dismay that his service petitioned God to ‘grant to us with all the faithful departed rest and peace’—a phrase which, in apparently contradicting the Prayer Book and Scripture by envisaging intercessory prayer for the dead, brought ‘additional pain’ at a ‘very sad and solemn moment in the nation’s history’. ‘Nil’, Temple scrawled across his letter—too cross to reply.29 On the whole, Protestant Nonconformists were glad to follow Temple’s cue. The National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches had requested from him a memorial service ‘in which all the Protestant Churches could join, and their ministers take part’, as this would ‘illustrate the essential unity of Christians, as well as express a national sentiment’. Temple murmured that they could avail themselves of his services. He had already written to clergy that they could use their discretion in letting Nonconformist ministers participate in them.30 The most important step taken by the government in this regard was the declaration of 2 February 1901 as a day of general mourning throughout the United Kingdom, with a suspension of all business, so that special services around the country could coincide with events at Windsor.31 St George’s became the node for ceremonial throughout Britain, the Empire, and the world. The contrast was sharp with George IV and William IV’s muted, nocturnal obsequies. The Northern Whig contrasted Belfast’s participation in mourning with the ‘uncertainty and indifference’ about William IV’s funeral. As a preacher at Belfast’s May Street Presbyterian Church put it, ‘in spirit we are taking part in that solemn procession’.32 Technology made that possible. Davidson had noted that policemen swarmed around Osborne House the minute Victoria died, to make sure the news did not leak out.33

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

272

Queen Victoria

Once it was official, transoceanic telegraphs made it instantly global. The synchronic grieving of 1901 followed the experiments of 1897 in instantaneous rejoicing and fulfilled Temple’s aspirations for a telegraphic religion of sympathy. The South African War had strengthened the demand of colonial publics for imperial news and amplified its speed and volume.34 Colonial publics could thus manifest grief for Victoria in real time, and British newspapers filled with stricken telegrams. Richard Seddon, the devoutly Anglican premier of New Zealand, cabled: Sad tidings reached us, grief, profound sorrow; we must bow submissively. God’s will be done; terrestrial crown surrendered, assured crown glory won; heartfelt sympathy all peoples will go forth bereaved Royal Family; earnest prayers offered our Divine Master strengthen them great hour trial; they have lost loving mother, humanity true noble friend; grief sorrow world-wide prevails irreparable loss.

A running column in The Times, entitled ‘Colonial Sympathy’, printed terse sobs from bodies as various as the Chinese Empire Reform Association, Vancouver and the Muslim community of Mauritius, allowing participants in British services to feel that they met ‘as part of a mourning empire, or, more properly speaking, part of a mourning world’.35 In due course, the telegraph permitted remote participation in the funeral at St George’s. Among the wreaths piled up there was for instance one from the Royal Borneo Company, the order placed at the florist by telegram from distant Labuan.36 If Temple’s service illustrated the power of the church–state connection, so did the solemn procession of civic dignitaries to cathedrals and town churches around the country. In Nottingham, the Mayor and Corporation battled sleet to process from Exchange Hall to St Mary’s; in Worcester, a civic procession to the cathedral was followed by a service for 5,000.37 Throughout the Empire, officials headed to Anglican cathedrals, while the ‘English Church’ was the venue for memorial services in places as various as the Hague, Cannes, Odessa, Nice, Budapest, and Tangiers.38 If the Church set the tempo of proceedings, then Nonconformists eagerly participated in them. Sometimes their clergy joined with their Anglican counterparts.39 Many Scottish towns saw a brief entente between the Kirk and its Dissenting rivals. At St Andrews, Church of Scotland and United Free

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

273

Church ministers led a joint memorial service in the Town Church.40 But just as often, Nonconformists preferred their own services. As a large ‘civic procession’ moved to the cathedral in Swansea, Nonconformists ‘fell out’ and headed into the Albert Hall for a Free Church service.41 These ‘union’ services generally took place in civic rather than religious buildings. In Vancouver, British Columbia, the Canadian Pacific Railway’s new opera house was ‘packed like sardines’ with members of the various denominations.42 In Wales, the linguistic barrier complicated this unity, with separate services for Welsh- and English-speaking Nonconformists taking place alongside cathedral services.43 The ecumenical mood encompassed Jews as well as Protestants, with civic dignitaries often attending synagogues. There were also experiments with religious, but non-ecclesiastical, rituals of veneration. Statues of Victoria in Birmingham, Cape Town, Kingston, and Rangoon became ‘surrogate gravestones’ carpeted in wreaths.44 The civic religiosity aroused by Victoria’s death appealed to Protestant Americans who flocked to memorial services, shuttered shops on the day of her funeral, and lowered flags over civic buildings. Robert van Wyck, the Mayor of New York, aroused controversy when he refused to follow suit, with the American minister of St Gabriel’s, Montreal, telling Canadians that he had ‘pander[ed] unworthily to the embittered’ Irish who ‘had found a home in that city’.45 The memorialization of Victoria continued this blend of Anglican and civic motifs. James Hawke Dennis bankrolled the completion of Truro Cathedral on condition that its central tower was named for Victoria.46 Stained glass windows and memorial screens in cathedrals, parish churches, and schools around the country and the world wove together Victoria’s memory with Gothicizing images of Crucifixion, Ascension, Resurrection, or even, in the now demolished church of St Michael’s, Folkestone, the Second Coming. At the Church of England High School for Girls in West London’s Eaton Square, Henry Scott Holland unveiled a window in which figures of truth, justice, humility, fortitude, fidelity, and humanity flocked around Victoria.47 These ecclesiastical constructions of Victoria’s legacy complemented civic tributes to her, notably in the form of statues. Sometimes commissioned as memorials and sometimes as delayed monuments to the Jubilees, these statutes celebrated Victoria as a stern embodiment of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Queen Victoria

274 48

devotion to duty. Albert Toft’s statue outside the town hall at Leamington Spa was typical in being inscribed with a verse from Tennyson: ‘She wrought her people lasting good’.49 The Women’s Memorial drive, which raised funds for the Jubilee Nurses Institute, strengthened the interpretation of Victoria’s legacy as philanthropic devotion. The Protestant huddle around Victoria’s grave made the uncertain quality of Roman Catholic mourning evident. Cardinal Vaughan stirred up performative indignation when he announced in a pastoral letter that while Catholics could fly flags at half mast, they could not perform requiem masses for Victoria. One Protestant correspondent in The Times rumbled that at a time when ‘African chiefs have ordered tom-toms beaten or cattle sacrificed for the soul of the Great White Queen’, he had struck a ‘discordant’ note. As newspaper columns filled with disconcerted letters from English Catholics, The Tablet protested that Vaughan’s restriction merely perpetuated the ‘usage of ages’.50 Yet Pope Leo XIII’s reported reaction to Victoria’s death—falling to his knees to pray for her soul—strengthened the sense that Catholics could and should mourn her. The Canadian Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier headed to the Catholic Cathedral in Ottawa and there were solemn masses in Montreal, Victoria, British Columbia, and an apparent ‘requiem mass’ at Cape Town.51 Some authorities insisted these were not requiems, but the distinction seemed shaky, especially when it emerged that Vaughan’s brother Bernard had celebrated a memorial mass for Victoria.52 Vaughan himself, then in Rome, put on a service at S. Silvestro at which he intoned the Te Deum for the new King.53 At home, the Bishop of Hemopolis clarified that Vaughan had not meant to deny that ‘Catholic hearts are beating in union’ with others, and proposed the exposition of the blessed sacrament on the following Sunday to comfort ‘the Empire sorrowing under its great loss’.54 In Ireland, the hierarchy’s refusal to emote as Vaughan had done reflected popular alienation from the Queen, as well as religious scruples. Loyalist Catholics complained that the ‘wretched local politics’ of their clergy had cut them off from ‘all other Christian Churches, also Mahommedans and other Pagans—down even to fetish-worshipping savages in remote corners of the Empire’.55 The hierarchy’s attitude mirrored that of the nationalist population. Tipperary refused to shutter its

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

275

shops for the funeral because ‘Ireland had reaped no benefit whatever during the long reign of Queen Victoria’.56 Orangemen and other anti-Catholics remembered that Victoria had kept her coronation oath to defend Protestantism and withstand the Mass, and now insisted that Edward do the same.57 Despite Vaughan’s argument that it would be ‘national folly to begin this century’ by using the throne ‘as a party weapon for striking at the articles of a particular Creed’, Edward VII mumbled through it at the State Opening of Parliament in February 1901. The Tablet furiously demanded that the state extend the same respect to Roman Catholicism as it did to ‘Jews, Hindus, Mahommedans, and Negroes’.58 The hierarchies of Australia and Canada strongly supported Vaughan’s stance.59 Indignation at Edward VII’s action was strong in Ireland, where the nationalist MP Tim Healy sardonically told a meeting of his ‘fellow idolaters’ that they could not ‘fear God; honour the king’ so long as kings refused to show ‘common decency towards the cherished creed of [their] subjects’. Although Vaughan kneeled in homage to the new King once he had agreed to receive him in ecclesiastical dress, he sent in a memorandum to the Home Secretary noting that Catholics remained sore about the declaration.60 Unabashed, the Imperial Protestant Federation reminded Catholics that they had refused to pray for ‘Queen Victoria of blessed memory’.61 Loyalist papers averted their eyes from the emotional strike of Irish Catholics, emphasizing instead the high emotion of the Protestant portion of Dublin.62 In their alienation from Victoria, though, Roman Catholic newspaper reporters asked hard questions about what mass participation in Victoria’s obsequies really meant. One suggested that for the London crowd it had been ‘nothing more than a Jubilee in black’, with much laughter and joking. The plodding militarism of the London procession disquieted them. The sight of Edward VII riding his charger next to the Kaiser—the ‘living embodiment of a medieval despot’—suggested that the ‘British Middle Classes’ had chosen ‘Caesarism’ over Christianity.63 Non-Catholics shared these misgivings. The novelist Marie Corelli attacked Vaughan for his abstention from the mourning, but nonetheless sniped at the insincerity of well-heeled sightseers at Portsmouth, noticing the elaborate ‘luncheons “planned” for the occasion’ and the ‘slangy epithets heaped on the somewhat chill weather’.64 The difficulty of reading mass participation properly

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

276

Queen Victoria

made the job of preachers in inciting and construing feelings about Victoria all the more significant. The ‘Soul of a Great Empire’: Victoria in Imperial Sermons Preaching in Brockville, Ontario, Thomas Bedford-Jones carried his listeners into distant Osborne House, asking them to picture the ‘stately vigils’ in a ‘magnificent chamber papered and darkened to the likeness of a mortuary chapel’ and the mourners ‘kneeling day and night before a ‘rich splendid purple pall’ and ‘wreaths of fragrant flowers’. Bedford-Jones then floated from Osborne to the thousands of Anglican churches and cathedrals linked to it in prayer, whose worshippers requested a ‘crown of everlasting glory’ for Victoria, in a display of the unity of the visible church.65 As these words show, memorial sermons solemnized the emotional relationship between Victoria and British and colonial Christians. Temple told a packed St Paul’s cathedral that ‘there was established between her and them a sympathy of hearts which will never be forgotten, a sympathy of hearts which shall be recorded in all the histories of this eventful time, which shall for generations hence make men look back on this wonderful reign, and look back upon it with admiration as well as love’.66 The emotion was not convulsive grief, but something mellower. Alexander Mackennal, a Congregational minister to a comfortable Cheshire chapel, observed that no one would wish the Queen’s life to be any longer, for after many years of carrying not only ‘such sorrows as a woman bears: bereavement, desolation, weakness’, but also ‘the yoke of sovereignty’, hers was a ‘completed life’.67 Preachers did not worry unduly about Victoria’s afterlife, as for most of them ‘the religious growth of the Victorian era’ included the waning of hell. As Frederic William Farrar had commented at the time of the Diamond Jubilee, ‘tender souls have learnt that God is not God of the inquisition, not a Moloch of hideous tortures and implacable revenge’.68 Their sermons tended to imagine Victoria’s death as a progress from one field of glory to another. In taking Victoria, growled her Presbyterian chaplain Archibald Charteris, God was ‘adding to the legions of Angels that do His will’.69 ‘Dead! Who said so?’ asked a Baptist preacher in Victoria, British Columbia. ‘Over such as her, death has no power. She has joined the choir invisible,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life 70

277

and is alive forever more.’ The same confidence informed reams of commemorative verse. The Canadian poetaster Richard Wornall Wilson felt that as ‘a willing captive of God’s grace’ she had been ‘borne / To heaven in the chariot race’ where she was ‘forever safe within Christ’s fold’.71 In his book on the reign, the Marquis of Lorne noted signs of ascension on the day of the funeral: a flight of doves glimpsed by a young girl; a bright star seen in the sky by a Zulu.72 High churchmen, by contrast, held on to the prospect of divine judgement, as it underlined the need for prayer for the dead. Bedford-Jones began his sermon by arguing that when ‘like the poorest of the poor, like one of ourselves, she had to strip off her robes of State, and to take with her naked soul to the other world’, she needed the intercessory prayers they had so often uttered in the liturgy.73 This heart language was powerful, because flexible and inclusive. Rabbis used it in memorial services for example. Moses Hyamson told Dalston Synagogue that Victoria’s death united ‘Britain’s stalwart sons in a still stronger fraternal bond, the bond of a common sorrow, and the sympathy shown by foreign countries reveals “the one touch of nature that makes the whole world kin”’. He invited Jews—grateful to have shed their ‘ghetto bend’—to erect ‘a memorial in our hearts’. The rush of emotion did not however efface differences between church parties and denominations. Many Anglicans remained aware that Victoria’s piety was out of kilter with their own. Preaching in St Paul’s, Henry Scott Holland found that Albert and the ‘personal subjective spirituality so characteristic of Teutonic religion’ had accentuated Victoria’s drift from orthodoxy. Her emotional religion ‘found itself more congenially at home in the simpler rites north of the Tweed’.74 What Holland regarded as an ecclesiastical glitch was a plus for Scots, who lingered, as they had during the Jubilees, over Victoria’s fondness for the religion of the Highlands. Donald Sage Mackay spoke fondly ‘as a Scotchman’ of Victoria handing out Bibles to Highlanders in a sermon preached in the Collegiate Church of St Nicholas, New York. This was a Congregational church, but the enterprising Mackay, who had married a railway tycoon’s daughter, was Glaswegian-born and from generations of Presbyterian clergy, a ‘true Scot’ who often visited the ‘dear land of the heather’.75 Preachers hoped that the Empire could rediscover its ideals in mourning Victoria. Henry Scott Holland told St Paul’s, the parish

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

278

Queen Victoria

church of Empire, that her domestic virtue had made her the ‘soul of a great Empire’: the one ‘word of magic’ that could overcome racial differences, the ‘one spell that works upon the dusky populations of that strange mystery which we call India’. And ‘for millions upon millions of black Africans the one power that draws them to faith in England’ was the ‘name of the Great White Mother’. Holland waxed eloquent because he dreaded ‘Machiavellian politics’ in which competition between Empires might lead them to oppress the ‘millions of dark natives to whom the Queen’s name has been a shield against all that would exploit them for the white man’s wealth, or deny them their full liberty of growth’.76 Many other preachers echoed Holland’s arguments. Arthur Winnington-Ingram, the celibate Bishop of London, told St Paul’s Cathedral that Young mothers in Canada, Australia, and the islands of the sea, mothers of grown up sons and daughters who found it difficult to keep the standard high in their own homes, thousands of them, without knowing it, were helped and inspired and enlightened by the sight of the far-away rainbow round the throne at the centre of the empire.77

These mothers were white chips off an English block, but other preachers revelled in the heterogeneity of the Empire, regarding Victoria’s ability to unite its populations in sorrow as symbolic of its assimilative power. ‘Eastern blossom and Western pine, gorgeous tropic bloom and modest English daisy, all combine to make a funeral wreath for England’s Queen’, trilled H. J. Wilmot Buxton.78 Empires demanded not just love but sacrifice. Colonial preachers often argued that Victoria’s last feelings had been for her troops in South Africa, a thought which, they argued, should spur them to renewed zeal. Addressing the memorial service outside Parliament in Victoria, British Columbia, the Methodist Elliott Rowe argued that their pain expressed loyalty and their loyalty inured them to pain, as ‘many a mouldering heap in Africa’ demonstrated.79 Commemoration of Victoria and the war converged, as when the Duke and Duchess of York both unveiled Ottawa’s new statue of Victoria and handed out medals to Canadian troops in September 1901.80 Yet Christian sorrow could not occlude religious divisions over the war. A speech by Lord Wantage, a founder of the British Red Cross, gave currency to the belief that Victoria’s last words had been ‘O that peace

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

279

may come’. One Welsh newspaper wondered whether the war had not finished her off, a suggestion which should attract ‘ignominy and anathema’ on the politicians who had started it.81 Irish nationalist newspapers shared this view and argued that a military funeral was inappropriate while the nation was ‘sunk in humiliation’.82 Patriotic newspapers were left to claim either that the ‘peace’ Victoria craved was simply death, or else that her actual last words had been the apolitical, ‘Albert, Albert, Albert’.83 ‘The Great White Queen’: Victoria and Colonial Subjects Preaching in Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape, Theodore Wirgman argued that we are burying the Great White Queen, beloved and revered by races, diverse from our own . . . Think of our own South African Natives, and the natives of New Zealand and other Colonies and Dependencies, who are this day mourning in sympathy with us of the ruling race! . . . As we think today of our own South Africa, scourged by war, and torn by bitter dissensions and race feuds, we feel that we can forget for a time our own sorrows and troubles in sympathy with the universal sorrow of the Empire.84

‘Universal sorrow’ did not dissolve but reinforced here the grip of the ‘ruling race’—a reminder that Christian universalism and racial hierarchy had become reinforcing rather than contradictory concepts by the end of Victoria’s reign. Wirgman was an Anglo-Catholic critic of the Royal Supremacy, who had urged disestablishment from the pulpit of St Paul’s.85 Yet his sermon exalted monarchy and hoped that ‘natives’ would share his veneration for Victoria. British newspapers had been keen to find evidence that this was indeed true. The Queen of Swaziland’s regret at the death of the ‘Great White Queen’ and her pledge to stand with Britain against Boers in the South African War was widely reported, although such reports occluded the pragmatic rationale for such African Christian loyalism. Labotsibeni Mdluli, the Queen Mother of Swaziland, was a pious but wily ruler who kept missionary interests in check and was quick to invoke her homage to Victoria when lobbying London over land rights.86

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

280

Queen Victoria

State-sponsored memorialization of Victoria in India advanced the claim that her rule flattened partitions between races and religions. Speaking at a public meeting in Calcutta, Lord Curzon claimed that as ‘she was equally a mother’ to the ‘Hindu and Mohammedan’, a ‘concrete memorial’ would be a point ‘to which all the resident population, European and Native, will flock, where all classes will learn the lessons of history, and see revived before their eyes the marvels of the past’. Though Curzon envisioned a civic rather than a religious monument, his language took on a Pauline quality, as he noted that ‘at the mouth of the grave all petty feelings must be extinguished; and charity which, as our great Christian Apostle has told us, “envieth not, vaunteth not itself, and is not puffed up,” must quarrel with nobody, but must be permitted to seek and find its outlet.’ Curzon’s vision for what might fill a Victoria Memorial Hall, other than ‘personal relics’, was sketchy, but central to it was the presentation of Victoria as the patron of toleration. On its walls would be inscribed in gold ‘both in English and in the different vernaculars, the famous Proclamation of 1858’. Although the Hall would accept donated artefacts, it would not be a mere museum, but a Valhalla, which reminded Indians ‘of the veneration that all alike entertain for the great Sovereign in whose honour it was built’. If a large part was devoted to the British conquerors of India, that veneration would bind ‘together the two races whom Providence, for its mysterious ends, has associated in the administration of this great Empire, and whose fusion has been so immeasurably enhanced by the example . . . of Queen Victoria’.87 If the marmoreal didacticism of Curzon’s Victoria Memorial as built was plainly an imposition on India, there were nonetheless numerous tributes to Victoria from Indian elites.88 Signalling his support for Curzon’s project, Jotendra Mohun Tagore claimed that Victoria had shown the ‘loving and beneficent attributes of the Great Universal Mother, who is worshipped as the Ayda-Sakti of our mythology’.89 Such language advocated a fairer deal for Indians from the British. As the Bengalee newspaper wrote, they venerated ‘not the Queen of Kipling’s verse, not the Queen of the hard-hearted, iron-heeled, pitiless NeoImperialism which is at present the master passion of England’, but the ‘incarnation of the lofty womanhood’.90

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

281

The Sri Lankan Buddhist activist Anagarika Dharmapala was one of those who shared Curzon’s enthusiasm. Writing to Curzon ‘on behalf of all Buddhists’ to bewail the ‘irreparable loss to the British Empire, by the extinction of the light that was burning in the noble frame’ of the Queen, the general secretary of the Maha-Bodhi Society remembered that her reign ‘and the first diffusion of the principles of their Religion in her Empire had come on simultaneously’. He announced his intention to raise a memorial to her at Bodh Gaya, the temple complex in Bihar, India which marked the spot where Buddha had gained enlightenment. Three lights on marble platforms would burn continually, the first two on either side of the throne which marked the spot, the third in the sanctum of the temple founded by the Emperor Asóka, and there would be a Memorial Hall for pilgrims. For Dharmapala, Asóka and Victoria were parallel figures, for it was the translation of his edicts in the year of her accession which had supposedly triggered the revival of Buddhism as a world religion. Like Curzon, he felt that the religious tolerance of Asóka’s edicts was reminiscent of Victoria’s 1858 Proclamation. Her virtues had been Buddhist ones: ‘Once in a thousand years the heavenly Mandala tree puts forth flowers for the good of the world, and the late good Queen was such a rare flower’.91 When Curzon did not reply to him, he tried again, this time suggesting a plan for a ‘Temple of Saint Victoria’ to be located at Calcutta, Benares, or Sarnath, in which members of all religions could venerate her.92 Dharmapala’s spiritual royalism was part of his campaign to make Bodh Gaya the seat of a world religion. Although Dharmapala repeatedly condemned the moral and social impact of colonialism on Sri Lanka, he capitalized on its opportunities as an Englishspeaking member of one of its wealthy families. Meetings with Anglo-American Theosophists in Colombo had kindled his ambition to weave East Asia’s Buddhist traditions into a universal faith.93 While passing through London en route to the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago, where he was a spokesman for Buddhism, he had joined forces with the journalist Edwin Arnold, who was urging the British to acknowledge Bodh Gaya as a site which resembled ‘in deep human import the sacred sites of Palestine itself, since Buddhism, justly understood, is in certain aspects an Asiatic Christianity’. Bodh

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

282

Queen Victoria

Gaya might be no bigger than ‘Russell Square’, but by wresting what Arnold mistakenly regarded as the ‘Mecca’ and Jerusalem of Buddhism from the Hindus who currently controlled it, they could make ‘four hundred millions of Asiatics for ever the friends and admirers of England’.94 Having become the secretary of Arnold’s Maha-Bodhi Society, Dharmapala had begun a campaign to convince the British to turn out its Hindu owners. Because Dharmapala’s royalism was tactical, it could easily sour. When the British authorities ordered him to remove Buddhist statues he had smuggled into the temple at Bodh Gaya, he argued that ‘the glorious reign of Her Majesty the Queen should not be marred by an inglorious consummation in having it stained with the stigma of persecution of the ascetic followers of the all-merciful Lord’.95 The ‘monument’ at Bodh Gaya would be a gesture of love for Victoria, but one which would declare it to be ‘the holiest shrine’ of Buddhism.96 The British distrusted Dharmapala’s blend of emotional royalism and anti-colonialism, particularly once he began courting the Japanese monarchy as alternative patrons, and they interned him once the First World War had broken out.97 Yet his abortive plan to enshrine Victoria at Bodh Gaya is a reminder that she could represent not just her religion, but religion itself to the fissiparous mass of churches and denominations that made up her kingdom, Empire, and world. ‘A Handful of Dust’: Victoria in Retrospect In the decades after her death, the religious cult of Victoria came to seem as embarrassing as her religiosity had appeared to be grimly funereal to late Victorian progressives. In his novel Joan and Peter (1918), H. G. Wells portrayed the silent alienation of the ‘real England’ under the ‘canopy of the Hanoverian monarchy’ at the turn of the twentieth century. ‘The Court dominated, but it did not dominate intelligently; it controlled the church to no effect, its influence upon universities and schools and art and literature was merely deadening . . . it was the court of an alien-spirited old lady, making much of the pathos of her widowhood.’ Although ‘the great roof of church and state hung over’ his novel’s young heroes Joan and Peter, they were ‘out of the system . . . just as they were out of religion’. In his gentle derision of Victorianism, Wells nonetheless perceived how

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

283

organized Christianity and veneration for the ‘poor little old panting German widow’ had once buttressed one another. He wrote that ‘the court thought in German; Teutonized Anglicans, sentimental, materialistic and resolutely “loyal,” dominated society . . . and the old Queen’s selection of bishops guided feeling in the way it ought to go’.98 This book has shown how what Victoria believed and the way in which she lived her life provided a generous ‘canopy’ for Victorian religious life. It has traced the development of Victoria’s deeply held religious views, which she sought to advance from the throne. Although she had pledged at her accession to defend both the Church of England and Protestantism, she interpreted these inherited commitments in a distinctively liberal manner. In her Whiggish youth, she disdained hostility to Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, while her marriage to Albert distanced her from Anglocentrism. While stubbornly committed to the defence of the Reformation, she viewed this as a liberal and a European rather than as a national and sectarian cause. Protestantism, for Victoria and the Lutheran rationalist she had married, meant spiritual and intellectual freedom. Its enemy was reactionary and exclusionary priestcraft wherever it was found: not just at Rome, but in the Tractarian and Ritualist wing of the Church of England, in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, or even among the Presbyterians who had rebelled against the spiritual authority of the state in founding the Free Church of Scotland. Victoria surrounded herself not just with the ‘Teutonized Anglicans’ who amused Wells, but with Teutonized Presbyterians, who believed in preserving established churches as social and intellectual powers by embracing biblical criticism, disclaiming hostility to the sciences, and cultivating charity in the face of doctrinal differences. Victoria might not have wrestled with the German theological and philosophical texts which inspired them, but she admired the ‘courage’ of Stanley and his friends and championed them through the exercise of her patronage.99 Sharing the conviction that historic national churches were strongholds of liberal religion, she tried to shield them against disestablishment. Victoria embraced liberalism not just as a policy, but as a lived commitment to what the Germanophile John Caird had told her was a ‘religion of common life’. God was in the world, she and Albert felt, rather than, as evangelicals and Tractarians apparently

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

284

Queen Victoria

believed, confined to the Bible or the Church. Because Victoria saw human love as the manifestation of the divine, the most sacred spaces for her were not churches but the home, and—after the deaths of Albert, her children, and other relatives—the tomb. Victoria’s creed may have seemed sentimental, materialistic, and offensively Erastian to the sticklers for theological and ecclesiological correctness who abounded in Victorian churches, but they appealed to a broad section of Protestant lay opinion. Roman Catholics and non-Christians too could admire a woman who seemed to incarnate religiosity rather than any specific doctrinal or ecclesiological position. Victoria’s sorrows were vital in broadening her religious appeal. They strengthened her tendency to identify religion less with beliefs than emotions, while her visible grief emboldened people of all creeds to offer their sympathy for her, creating an emotional community between people and sovereign. Repeated bereavements in later life strengthened representations of Victoria as a widow sacralized by sorrow, rather than the partisan and capricious politician she actually still was. Although royal deaths heightened attachment to Victoria, they served other purposes too, aligning her family with the cult of masculine self-sacrifice which became integral to imperial ideology. By the time of Victoria’s death, her holy sorrows and the costs of Empire came together in Christian commitment to the South African War. Those, such as Wells, who chafed against Victorianism were right that Victoria’s addiction to the ‘pathos of her widowhood’ was a personal foible, but it was one which had fuelled the maudlin loyalism of imperial preaching. Evelyn Waugh, with his gimlet eye for Victorian kitsch, produced a perfect pastiche of it in his novel A Handful of Dust (1934). Decades after Victoria’s death, the Reverend Tendril recycles his old Indian Army sermons to his Home Counties congregation, urging the puzzled villagers of Hetton to ‘remember our Gracious Queen in whose service we are here, and pray that she may be long spared to send us at her bidding to do our duty in the uttermost parts of the earth’ and to consider that, though divided from England by ‘miles of barren continent and leagues of ocean’, they were on Sunday mornings ‘united with them across dune and mountain in our loyalty to our sovereign and thanksgiving for her welfare’.100 It is possible that Tendril’s sermon made no more impact on the Coldstream Guards who first heard it in late nineteenth-century

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

285

Jellalabad than it did on the interwar villagers of Hetton. In placing Victoria against a background of pervasive religious royalism, this book could be said at times to have mistaken gushing noise for signal. The monarchy undoubtedly left many Victorians cold, just as many cheerful pagans probably never opened a Bible. While Victoria’s presence in the religious imagination grew over time, we cannot plot attitudes to the Victorian monarchy on a neat curve from scepticism to enthusiasm. Just as plenty of people held exalted views of the throne at the beginning of her reign, so many persisted in feelings of antagonism or ridicule at its end. Even high-flown royalist preaching had to acknowledge the existence of hard-bitten republicans, or the broader constituency who had a pragmatic and secular, rather than a spiritual, vision of Britain’s constitutional monarchy. Hailing Victoria for the ‘Christian wisdom which has led her to admit her people to her life, and let them share with her alike the sunny days of domestic happiness and the sorrows of widowhood’, the Bishop of Rochester acknowledged in his Diamond Jubilee sermon that ‘cynics’ will ‘carp and scoff at loyalty to the throne, and say that the Crown is a name and the people rule’.101 These ‘cynics’ were alike immune to the affective tug of organized religion and the allure of personality in politics. Yet republican frustration with the ‘barbaric mummery’ that surrounded Victoria’s throne was arguably a tribute to its effectiveness.102 Theorizing enthusiasm for the Diamond Jubilee, the journalist W. S. Lilly argued that ‘sympathies and antipathies, passions and prejudices, fancies and foibles, caprices and cupidities’ were the essence of politics, because ‘emotions are called forth by objects’ not by ‘abstractions and generalisations’.103 Impressed by the ‘archaic’ aura of the British throne, Lilly equated monarchist feeling with the irrational, but this book has argued that when religious communities engaged in emotional talk about Victoria, they deliberately articulated their distinctive traditions in doing so and sought greater representation for them. To recognize that the religious royalism evoked in this book struck many Victorians as hollow is then compatible with insisting upon the social noise that it made and the intellectual and political purposes it served. In the year of the Diamond Jubilee, one journalist sneered that the ‘ultra-loyal subjects’ intent on putting up a monument to the Queen in Auckland, New Zealand resembled adolescents with a crush.104 Yet F. J. Williamson’s statue of her went up in Albert Park

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

286

Queen Victoria

all the same. Many such statues remain today in their original locations—fossil shells from a lost British world. Williamson’s works alone still stand from St Leonard’s-on-Sea, East Sussex to Perth, Australia. If the hagiographic impulse which led to their erection seemed comic to H. G. Wells, then to modern eyes it now looks offensive in its evasions. The graffitied accusations of ‘slave owner’, ‘colonizer’, ‘racist’, and ‘murderer’ tagged on George Frampton’s statue of Victoria (1903) at Leeds during the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 express a conviction that the material and mental legacies of the veneration of Victoria discourage the pursuit of truth about her Empire today. This book has, though, argued that Victoria’s position in Victorian religion and among Victorian religions was more complex than the dour and cumbrous monuments to her cult might suggest. Like Victoria’s own religious opinions and interests, the religious meaning of her life was not fixed but fluid, not singular but plural—so much so that victims of her Empire had often hoped she might share their moral indignation at its evils. In telling the story of Victoria’s piety and how perceptions of it became integral to problematic but powerful visions of what her Empire ought to be, this book has explained why hers remains a thorny crown. Notes 1. W. T. Herridge, A Sermon in Memory of her Most Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria ([Ottawa], 1901), p. 5. 2. Duncan Bell, ‘The Idea of a Patriot Queen? The Monarchy, the Constitution, and the Iconographic Order of Greater Britain, 1860–1900’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 34 (2006), pp. 5–6. 3. W. T. Herridge, St Andrew’s Society of Ottawa: Anniversary Sermon, 1889 (Ottawa: St Andrew’s Society of Ottawa, 1889), pp. 4–5, 16, 18. 4. Herridge, Victoria, pp. 5, 12, 14. 5. W. T. Herridge, The Call of the War: A Recruiting Sermon (Ottawa, 1915), pp. 2, 8, 12. 6. See Barbara Rosenwein, Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell UP, 2006) and Rosenwein, Generations of Feeling: A History of Emotions, 600–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015) for this useful concept.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

287

7. Arlie Hochschild, ‘Emotion Work and Feeling Rules’, in John Corrigan, ed., Religion and Emotion: Approaches and Interpretations (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004). 8. Davidson to Mrs Davidson, 20 January 1901, LPL, Davidson Papers 19, ff. 101a, 101–2. 9. Ibid., f. 102; Davidson, ‘Memorandum as to Details Connected with the Dean and Funeral of the Queen: January 1–February 4 1901’, LPL, Davidson Papers 19, f. 6. 10. Ibid., ff. 13–16; Hubert von Herkomer, Queen Victoria on her Death-bed, 24 January 1901, RCIN 450066; Michael Turner, Osborne House (London: English Heritage, 1994), p. 21; LPL, Lang Papers 223, f. 73. 11. Davidson, ‘Memorandum’, f. 16; Marquis of Lorne, V.R.I.: Her Life and Empire by the Marquis of Lorne, K.T., Now His Grace the Duke of Argyll (London: Harmsworth, 1901), p. 386. 12. Davidson, ‘Memorandum’; ‘The Death of the Queen: Touching Scenes at Osborne’, The Times, 28 January 1901, p. 7. 13. ‘Copies of Orders Respecting Funerals’, 3 April 1863/13 April 1889, LPL, Davidson Papers 19, f. 96. 14. Maurice V. Brett, ed., Journals and Letters of Reginald, Viscount Esher (4 vols, London: I. Nicholson and Watson, 1934–8), 1: p. 276. 15. Davidson, ‘Memorandum’, f. 22; Jeffrey Lant, Insubstantial Pageant: Ceremony and Confusion at Queen Victoria’s Court (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1979), pp. 249–50. 16. LPL, Lang Papers 223, ff. 74–6. 17. ‘The Queen’s Funeral’, Nottingham Evening Post, 4 February 1901, pp. 2–3. 18. Daily Colonist, 3 February 1901, p. 3. 19. Davidson, ‘Memorandum’, ff. 30–2. 20. Dundee Evening Telegraph, 22 June 1903, p. 3. 21. Ceremonials Observed at the Funeral of Her Late Most Sacred Majesty Queen Victoria of Blessed Memory (London: Harrison and Sons, 1901) . 22. Davidson, ‘Memorandum’, pp. 25–6; LPL, Lang Papers 223, f. 308; Mary Lutyens, ed., Lady Lytton’s Court Diary: 1895–1899 (London: R. Hart-Davis, 1961), p. 90; Matthias Range, British Royal and State Funerals: Music and Ceremonial since Elizabeth I (Martlesham: Boydell, 2016), pp. 271–2. 23. Davidson, ‘Memorandum’, ff. 25–7. 24. One Grantley Martin thoughtfully sent one such article to Temple: LPL, Frederick Temple Papers 48, ff. 188–90.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

288

Queen Victoria

25. Bishop of Salisbury to Temple, LPL, Frederick Temple Papers 48, f. 83. 26. Vicar of Lee, Ilfracombe, 23 January 1901 and Vicar of Maidstone, 24 January 1901, LPL, Frederick Temple Papers 48, ff. 91–3, 105. 27. Duke of Devonshire to Temple, 26 January 1901 and Henry Frowde to Temple, 28 January 1901, LPL, Frederick Temple Papers 48, ff. 118, 132–3. 28. ‘A Form of Memorial Service for her Late Majesty Queen Victoria’, proof, and Temple to Edward VII, LPL, Frederick Temple Papers 48, ff. 146–7, 160–3; Special Forms of Service in Commemoration of Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria of Blessed Memory, to be Used in All Churches and Chapels (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1901). 29. Courtenay Burrough to Temple, 4 February 1901, LPL, Frederick Temple Papers 48, f. 183. See also Thomas Houghton to Frederick Temple, LPL, Frederick Temple Papers 48, ff. 185–7. 30. Charles Kelly to Frederick Temple, 29 January 1901, LPL, Frederick Temple Papers 48, f. 152. 31. Philip Williamson, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 3: Worship for National and Royal Occasions in the United Kingdom, 1871–2016 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2020). 32. Northern Whig, 4 February 1901, p. 8. 33. Davidson, ‘Memorandum’, f. 12. 34. See Simon Potter, News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial Press System, 1876–1922 (Oxford, 2003). 35. ‘Colonial Sympathy’, The Times, 25 January 1901, p. 9; Northern Whig, 4 February 1901, p. 9. 36. ‘The Death of the Queen’, The Times, 2 February 1901, p. 9. 37. Nottingham Evening Post, 4 February 1901, p. 4; Worcester Chronicle, 9 February 1901, p. 6. 38. Reuters telegrams summarized in Cork Examiner, 4 February 1901, p. 6. 39. Worcester Chronicle, 9 February 1901, p. 7. 40. Aberdeen Press and Journal, 4 February 1901, p. 3. 41. South Wales Daily News, 4 February 1901, p. 7. 42. Daily Colonist, 3 February 1901, p. 1. 43. South Wales Daily News, 4 February 1901, p. 7. 44. Tess Korobin, ‘Victoria’s Statue in 1901’, in Martina Droth, Jason Edwards, and Michael Hatt, eds, Sculpture Victorious: Art in an Age of Invention, 1837–1901 (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2014), p. 115; Worcester Chronicle, 9 February 1901, p. 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

289

45. Thomas Samuel McWilliams, A Tribute to our Lamented Queen (n.p., n.d.) ; A History of the Scotch Presbyterian Church: St Gabriel, Montreal (Montreal: W. Drysdale and Co., 1887). 46. The Cornishman, 28 March 1901, p. 3. 47. For examples see e.g. Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate and Cheriton Herald, 9 August 1902, p. 12; ‘Queen Victoria Memorial Window’, St James Gazette, 3 March 1902, p. 14. See similarly The Newsman, 17 May 1902, p. 3; Western Daily Mail, 7 April 1902, p. 3; ‘Victoria Memorial at Flore’, Northampton Mercury, 31 July 1903, p. 6. 48. Michael Hatt, ‘Edwardian Monuments to Victoria’, in Droth, Edwards, and Hatt, Sculpture Victorious, pp. 122–6. 49. ‘Leamington’s Memorial’, Leamington Spa Courier, 17 October 1902, p. 7. 50. ‘Notes’, The Tablet, 9 February 1901, p. 196. 51. ‘Letters to the Editor: Requiems for the Queen’, The Tablet, 9 February 1901, p. 216; ‘Cardinal Vaughan and the Late Queen’, The Times, 4 February 1901, p. 15. 52. ‘Cardinal Vaughan and the Late Queen’, The Times, 11 February 1901, p. 12; ‘Cardinal Vaughan and the Late Queen’, The Times, 12 February 1901. 53. ‘The Death of the Queen: Service at San Silvestro’, The Tablet, 9 February 1901, p. 214. 54. ‘Roman Catholics and the Queen’, Irish Times, 4 February 1901, p. 2. 55. ‘A Strange Omission’, Irish Times, 4 February 1901, p. 2. 56. Cork Examiner, 4 February 1901, p. 6. 57. ‘The Orange Institution’, Dublin Daily, 4 February 1901, p. 2; Walter Walsh, A Defence of the King’s Protestant Declaration (London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co., 1901). 58. ‘A Degrading Formula’, The Tablet, 9 February 1901, p. 218; Joseph Fewster, ‘The Royal Declaration Against Transubstantiation and the Struggle Against Religious Discrimination in the Early Twentieth Century’, British Catholic History, 30 (2011), pp. 555–72. 59. J. G. S. Cox, The Life of Cardinal Vaughan (London: Herbert & Daniel, 1910), p. 247; Mark McGowan, The Waning of the Green: Catholics, the Irish, and Identity in Toronto, 1887–1922 (Montreal and London: McGill UP, 1999), p. 376. 60. Cox, Vaughan, pp. 240–4. 61. Sidney Collet, The King’s Declaration: Its Object, History and Present Value (London: Imperial Protestant Federation, 1910), p. 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

290

Queen Victoria

62. Dublin Daily, 4 February 1901, p. 3. 63. Dublin Evening Telegraph, 4 February 1901, p. 2; Freeman’s Journal, 4 February 1901, p. 3. 64. Marie Corelli, The Passing of the Great Queen: A Tribute to the Noble Life of Victoria Regina (London: Methuen and Co., 1901), p. 45. 65. Thomas Bedford-Jones, The Dead Queen: A Sermon (Brockville, Ontario, 1901), pp. 10–12. 66. The Times, 26 January 1901, p. 10. 67. Alexander Mackennal, A Completed Life (London: James Clarke and Co., 1901), p. 8. 68. Frederic William Farrar, ‘The Religious Growth of the Victorian Era’, in Farrar et al., Sermons for the Commemoration of Queen Victoria (London: Skeffington and Sons, 1897), p. 16. 69. Kenneth Maclaren, A Memoir of the Very Reverend Professor Charteris (London: A. and C. Black, 1914), p. 117. 70. Daily Colonist, 3 February 1901, p. 5. 71. Richard Wornall Wilson, Queen Victoria in Memoriam (Toronto, 1901), n.p.. 72. Lorne, V.R.I., p. 395. 73. Bedford-Jones, The Dead Queen, pp. 4–5, 7. 74. Henry Scott Holland, ‘In Memoriam’, in Personal Studies (London: Wells, Gardner, Darton, 1905), p. 11. 75. Donald Sage Mackay, In Memoriam. Victoria, the Woman: Sermon Preached at the Memorial Service of Her Majesty Queen Victoria at the Collegiate Church, January 27th, 1901 (New York, 1901), p. 12; Donald Sage Mackay, The Religion of the Threshold: And Other Sermons, ed. Hugh Black (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), p. xxii. 76. Holland, ‘In Memoriam’, pp. 5, 12–13. 77. Arthur Winnington-Ingram, The Afterglow of a Great Reign: Four Addresses Delivered in St Paul’s Cathedral (London: Wells Gardner, Darton & Co., 1901), p. 42. 78. H. J. Wilmot Buxton, Full of Days and Honour: A Plain Sermon on the Death of Her Majesty Queen Victoria (London: Skeffington, 1901), p. 7. 79. ‘Memorial Services’, Daily Colonist, 3 February 1901, p. 6. See Philip Buckner, ‘Canada’, in David Omissi and Andrew Thompson, eds, The Impact of the South African War (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), p. 236; Carman Miller, Painting the Map Red: Canada and the South African War, 1899–1902 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill UP, 1993), pp. 23–5, 62–3 for Canadian loyalism.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

A Completed Life

291

80. Michael Hatt, ‘Edwardian Memorials’, in Droth, Edwards, and Hatt, eds, Sculpture Victorious, p. 122. 81. South Wales Daily News, 4 February 1900, p. 4. 82. Freeman’s Journal, 4 February 1900, p. 3; Evening Herald, 4 February 1901, p. 2; Irish Independent, 4 February 1901, p. 2. 83. Aberdeen Press and Journal, 4 February 1900, p. 4. 84. A. Theodore Wirgman, ‘An Empire’s Lamentation’, in Queen Victoria of Blessed Memory (London: Longmans, Green, 1901), pp. 12–13. 85. A. Theodore Wirgman, The Church and the Civil Power: Or, The Relations of Church and State Historically Considered (London: Bemrose and Sons, 1893) and A. Theodore Wirgman, The History of the English Church and People in South Africa (London: Longmans and Co., 1895), p. viii. 86. ThokoGinidza, ‘Labotsibeni/Gwamile Mdludi: The Power Behind the Swazi Throne, 1875–1925’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 810 (1997), pp. 135–58. 87. Thomas Raleigh, ed., Lord Curzon in India: Being a Selection from his Speeches as Viceroy & Governor-General of India, 1898–1905 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1906), pp. 253, 255–7, 269, 285. 88. G. H. R. Tillotson, ‘A Visible Monument: Architectural Politics and the Victoria Memorial Hall’, in Philippa Vaughan et al., eds, The Victoria Memorial Hall, Calcutta: Conceptions, Collections, Conservation (Mumbai: Marg Publications, 1997), p. 8; Miles Taylor, Empress: Queen Victoria and India (New Haven: Yale UP, 2018), pp. 265–6; Tess Korobkin and Martina Droth, ‘Memorials to Victoria in India’, in Droth, Edwards, and Hatt, eds, Sculpture Victorious, pp. 132–5. 89. Raj Jageshur Mitter, ed., Bengal’s Tribute to her Late Majesty the Queen Empress (Calcutta: Standard Press, 1901), pp. 17, 42–3. 90. Quoted in Homeward Mail, 18 February 1901, p. 6. 91. [Anagarika Dharmapala], ‘The Death of Her Majesty Queen Victoria’, Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, 10 (1901), p. 89; ‘Queen Victoria Memorial Fund’, Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, 10 (1901), p. 103. 92. Noel Salmond, ‘Queen Victoria Beneath the Bodhi Tree: Anagarika Dharmapala as Anti-Imperialist and Victorian’, in David Geary, Matthew R. Sayers, and Abhishek Singh Amar, eds, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on a Contested Buddhist Site (London: Routledge, 2012), p. 102. 93. See Steven Kemper, Rescued from the Nation: Anagarika Dharmapala and the Buddhist World (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2015).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

292

Queen Victoria

94. Edwin Arnold, India Revisited: Reprinted, with Additions from the ‘Daily Telegraph’ (London: Trübner and Co., 1886), p. 224; Edwin Arnold, East and West: Being Papers Reprinted from the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and Other Sources (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1896), p. 308; Kemper, Rescued, p. 222. 95. [Anagarika Dharmapala], ‘Further Persecution of Buddhists: The First Shot’, Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, 5 (1896), p. 4; Kemper, Rescued, pp. 261–70. 96. [Dharmapala], ‘Death’, p. 89. 97. Kemper, Rescued, ch. 5. 98. H. G. Wells, Joan and Peter: The Story of an Education (London: Macmillan, 1921), ch. 2. 99. QVJ, 7 May 1863, p. 175. 100. Evelyn Waugh, A Handful of Dust (1934; London: Penguin, 1980), pp. 32–3. 101. Edward Talbot, ‘The Ministry of Monarchy’, in Talbot, Sermons at Southwark, Preached in the Collegiate Church of S. Saviour (London: Nisbet, 1905), p. 34. 102. See Richard Williams, The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the Monarchy in the Age of Queen Victoria (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), pp. 67, 234, 237. 103. W. S. Lilly, ‘British Monarchy and Modern Democracy’, Nineteenth Century, 41 (1897), p. 859. 104. ‘Random Shots by Zamaliel’, Auckland Star, 12 June 1897, p. 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography Manuscripts AP, Bundles 323, 704; Royal Correspondence Binder. BL Add MSS Eur D62D, E 377/1–2. BL Add MSS 33 340, 40 433–41, 43 049–50, 44 326, 44 340, 44 760, 45 750, 46 717–20, 51 205, 60 750, 62 089, 88 906. CSA, LA A870912. CSA, Nachlass Segschneider 29. DPGL, Grey Papers. HHA, correspondence Empress Frederick. HSA, D24. LPL, MS 1751. LPL, Benson papers 48, 89. LPL, Davidson Papers 19, 25, 578–9. LPL, Fulham Papers, Blomfield 67/8. LPL, MS Lang 223. LPL, Tait Papers 75, 82, 86, 87, 93, 95, 100, 409, 431. LPL, Temple Papers 4, 48. NLS MSS 237, 16444 MARTIN, 2634, 2636, 3007, Acc 4177, Acc 6700, Acc 9209/1, 9752 F36, 9833. RA/VIC/MAIN/D/1–13. RA/VIC/MAIN/S/8–13. RA/VIC/MAIN/Z/144–47. RA/VIC/MAIN/Y/1–16. RA/VIC/MAIN/Z/144–147. WAM, MS 53519, MS 63517.

Primary printed sources Adair, Innes, Balmoral: The Hall of Memories (Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable, 1901). Adamson, William, Memorial to the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty against the Dispatch of a Special Mission to Rome in the Person of the Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England (London: Waterlow and Sons, 1888). Aitchison, David, Strictures on the Duke of Argyll’s Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland in a Letter to his Grace (London: John Masters, 1849). Alexander, John, The Baptism of the Prince: A Sermon (Norwich: Josiah Fletcher, 1842).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

294

Selected Bibliography

Alexander, William Lindsay, A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of H.R.H. the Prince Consort (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1861). Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Letters to Her Majesty the Queen. New and Popular Edition, with a Memoir by H.R.H. Princess Christian (London: John Murray, 1885). Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland: Biographical Sketch and Letters (London: John Murray, 1884). Armstrong, George Francis, One in the Infinite (London: Longmans Green, 1891). Armstrong, George Francis, Queen-Empress and Empire, 1837–1897 (Belfast: M. Ward and Co., 1897). Arnold, Edwin, India Revisited: Reprinted, with Additions from the ‘Daily Telegraph’ (London: Trübner and Co., 1886). Arnold, Edwin, East and West: Being Papers Reprinted from the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and Other Sources (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1896). Arnold, Edwin, Victoria, Queen and Empress: The Sixty Years (London: Longman and Co., 1896). Ashwell, Arthur Rawson and Reginald Wilberforce, Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Revised with Additions (3 vols, London: Kegan Paul, 1888). Aspland, Robert, A Funeral Sermon Preached November 19, 1817, the Day of the Interment of . . . the Princess Charlotte of Wales (London: R. Hunter & D. Eaton, 1817). Atkinson, George, The Lamentation of David over Saul and Jonathan: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Much Lamented Death of his Late Majesty George the III and of his Late Royal Highness, Edward, Duke of Kent (London: Westley, 1820). Awde, Robert, Jubilee, Patriotic, and Other Poems (Toronto: William Briggs, 1887). Bagehot, Walter, The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, ed. by Norman St John-Stevas (15 vols, London: The Economist, 1965–86). Bahlman, Dudley, ed., The Diary of Sir Edward Walter Hamilton, 1880–1885 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). Bailey, John, ed., The Diary of Lady Frederick Cavendish (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1927). Balfour, Frances, Life and Letters of the Rev. James MacGregor, D.D., Minister of St Cuthbert’s Parish, Edinburgh (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912). Balfour, Frances, A Memoir of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, K.T. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1925).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

295

Ball, T. Hanly, Marriage Instituted for the Happiness of Mankind (London: Groombridge, 1858). Bayne, Peter, The Free Church of Scotland: Her Origin, Founders, and Testimony (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1894). Bedford-Jones, Thomas, The Dead Queen: A Sermon (Brockville: Ontario, 1901). Belloc-Lowndes, Marie, His Most Gracious Majesty, King Edward VII (London: Grant Richards, 1901). Benham, William and Randall Davidson, The Life of Archibald Campbell Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1891). Bennett, William John, A First Letter to the Right Honourable Lord John Russell, MP on the Present Persecution of a Certain Portion of the English Church (London: W. J. Cleaver, 1850). Benson, A. C., Life of Edward White Benson (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1901). Benson, A. C. and Reginald Brett, Viscount Esher, eds, The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1907). Biber, G. E., Bishop Blomfield and His Times: An Historical Sketch (London: Harrison, 1857). Biddulph, Thomas, National Affliction Improved: A Sermon Delivered at St James’s Church, Bristol, on Wednesday, February 16th, 1820, Being the Day Appointed for the Funeral of His Majesty King George the Third (Bristol: J. & W. Richardson, 1820). Blackwood, Frederick Temple Hamilton-Temple [First Marquess of Dufferin and Ava], Speeches Delivered in India, 1884–1888 (London: John Murray, 1890). Blakiston, Noel, ed., The Roman Question: Extracts from the Despatches of Odo Russell from Rome, 1858–1870 (London: Chapman and Hall, 1962). Blomfield, Arthur, ed., A Memoir of Charles James Blomfield (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1863). Blomfield, Charles, A Sermon Preached at the Coronation of their Most Excellent Majesties King William IV and Queen Adelaide (London: B. Fellowes, 1831). Blomfield, Charles, A Sermon Preached at the Coronation of Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Victoria in the Abbey Church of Westminster, June 28, 1838 (London: B. Fellowes, 1838). Blomfield, Charles, The Duty of Prayer and Intercession for Our Rulers: A Sermon Preached at St James, Westminster on Sunday, the 1st July 1838 (London: B. Fellowes, 1838).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

296

Selected Bibliography

Blomfield, Charles, The Light of the World: A Sermon Preached on Sunday, January 30, 1842 (London: B. Fellowes, 1842). Bloomfield, Georgiana, Reminiscences of Court and Diplomatic Life (2 vols, London: K. Paul, Trench, 1883). Bolitho, Hector, ed., The Prince Consort and his Brother: Two Hundred New Letters (London: Cobden-Sanderson, 1933). Bolitho, Hector, ed., Further Letters of Queen Victoria from the Archives of House Brandenburg-Prussia (1936; London: Thornton Butterworth, 1976). Bolitho, Hector and the Dean of Windsor, eds, Letters of Lady Augusta Stanley, 1849–1863 (London: Gerald Howe, 1927). Bolitho, Hector and the Dean of Windsor, eds, Later Letters of Lady Augusta Stanley, 1864–1876 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1929). Bosbach, Franz, John R. Davis, and Karina Urbach, eds, Common Heritage: Documents and Sources Relating to German-British Relations in the Archives and Collections of Windsor and Coburg: Vol. 2: The Photograph Collections and Private Libraries (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2015). Bowen, Christopher, Esther: A Sermon Preached in St Thomas’s, Winchester, March 8, 1863, on the Occasion of the Marriage of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales (London: Hatchard, 1863). Boyd Carpenter, William, Some Pages of my Life (London: Williams and Norgate, 1911). Bradlaugh, Hypatia, Charles Bradlaugh. A Record of his Life and Work . . . With an Account of his Parliamentary Struggle, Politics and Teachings, by John M. Robertson (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1902). Bree, Robert, The Character of a Virtuous Princess: A Sermon on the Death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte of Wales (London: J. Mawman, 1817). Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb, Zwei Predigten am ersten und dritten Tage des Reformations-Jubelfestes den 31 Oct. und 2. Nov. 1817 in der Augustinerkirche zu Gotha, gehalten (Gotha: Renherschen Buchdruckerei, 1817). Brett, Maurice V., ed., Journals and Letters of Reginald, Viscount Esher (4 vols, London: I. Nicholson and Watson, 1934–8). Brett, Reginald, Viscount Esher, ed., The Girlhood of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Diaries between the Years 1832 and 1840 (London: John Murray, 1912). Bridgett, Thomas Edward, The English Coronation Oath (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1896). Brock, William, The Queen’s Sunday Visit to Guernsey: A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St. Peter’s Port, Guernsey, August 5, 1860 (4th edition, London: Shaw, 1860).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

297

Broughton, Lord, Recollections of a Long Life. By Lord Broughton, With Additional Extracts from his Private Diaries (6 vols, London: John Murray, 1909–11). Buckle, George Earle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Second Series. A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1862 and 1878 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1926–8). Buckle, George Earle, ed., The Letters of Queen Victoria. Third Series: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence and Journal Between the Years 1886 and 1901 (3 vols, London: John Murray, 1930–2). Bull, Nicholas, A Sermon, on the Death of our Late Revered and Beloved King George the Third, Preached on the Day of his Interment, February 16, 1820 (Saffron Walden: George Youngman, 1820). Bullock, Charles, England’s Royal Home, the Home Life of the Prince Consort, Memorials of the Princess Alice (London, 1879). Bullock, Charles, The Queen’s Resolve: ‘I Will be Good’: With Royal Anecdotes and Incidents (London: Home Words, 1887). Bullock, Charles, ‘Wedding Bells’: Prince George and Princess May: With Glimpses of Royal Weddings (London: Home Words, 1893). Bunsen, Christian Carl Josias, The Constitution of the Church of the Future: A Practical Explanation of the Correspondence with the Right Honourable William Gladstone on the German Church, Episcopacy and Jerusalem (London: Longman, 1847). Bunsen, Frances, Memoirs of Baron Bunsen Drawn Chiefly from Family Papers (1868; 2 vols, London: Longman, Green and Co., 1869). Burton, Charles Henry, The Royal Supremacy: A Sermon (Liverpool: Deighton & Laughton, 1850). Caird, John, Religion in Common Life: A Sermon Preached in Crathie Church, October 14, 1855 Before Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Albert (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1855). Caird, John, Die Religion im gemeinen Leben. Eine Predigt Mit einem Vorwort von Christian Carl Josias Bunsen (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1857). Campbell, Alexander, A History of the Scotch Presbyterian Church: St Gabriel, Montreal (Montreal: W. Drysdale and Co., 1887). Campbell, George Douglas [Eighth Duke of Argyll], ‘Presbytery Examined’: An Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland since the Reformation (London: Edward Moxon, 1848). Campbell, George Douglas, The Patronage Act of 1874 All That Was Asked in 1843, a Reply (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1874). Campbell, George Douglas, Autobiography and Memoirs, ed. Ishbel Campbell (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1906).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

298

Selected Bibliography

Capel, T. J., Great Britain and Rome: Or, Ought the Queen of England to Hold Diplomatic Relations with the Sovereign Pontiff (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1882). Carr, Edward Henry, The Nation Admonished: A Sermon Preached in Christ Church, Maida Hill, December 22nd, 1861 (London: Wertheim, Macintosh and Hunt, 1862). Carr, Emily, The Book of Small (1943; Toronto and Vancouver: Clark, Irwin and Co., 1966). Célébration à Québec du 60e Anniversaire de l’Heureux Avènement de Sa Majesté la Reine Victoria au Trône d’Angleterre, et de la Fête Nationale des Canadiens Français, la St-Jean Baptiste, 1837–1897 (Québec: G. Vincent, 1897). Ceremonials Observed at the Funeral of Her Late Most Sacred Majesty Queen Victoria of Blessed Memory (London: Harrison and Sons, 1901). Chalmers, John Aitken, Tiyo Soga: A Page of South African Mission Work (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliott, 1878). Chevallier, Temple, The Expectations and the Duties of a Christian Nation, on the Death of King William IV and the Accession of our Gracious Sovereign, Queen Victoria: A Sermon (London: J. G. and F. Rivington, 1837). Church, Mary C., ed., The Life and Letters of Dean Church (London: Macmillan, 1897). Churchill, James, A Voice from Royal Sepulchres: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Death of his Late Majesty George III, King of Great Britain (London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1820). Clark, William Robinson, A Sermon Preached in St. Mary’s Church, Taunton, on the Day of the Funeral of His Late R.H. the Prince Consort (Taunton, 1861). Clay, Edmund, Marriage: Its Model and Image: Its Duties and Obligations, A Sermon (London: Wertheim & Macintosh, 1863). Close, Francis, Britain’s Gala Days: The Landing of H.R.H. Alexandra, Princess of Denmark, and Her Marriage with H.R.H. Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (London: Hatchard & Co., 1863). Collet, Sidney, The King’s Declaration: Its Object, History and Present Value (London: Imperial Protestant Federation, 1910). Collyer, William Bengo’, Joy Turned into Mourning: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta (4th edition, London: Black and Co., 1817). Collyer, William Bengo’, The Double Bereavement: Two Sermons Occasioned by the Death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, and of His Late Majesty George the Third (London: Black, Kingsbury and Co., 1820).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

299

Cooke, Clement Kinloch, A Memoir of Her Royal Highness Princess Mary Adelaide, Duchess of Teck (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1900). Corelli, Marie, The Passing of the Great Queen: A Tribute to the Noble Life of Victoria Regina (London: Methuen and Co., 1901). Correspondence between the most Rev. Dr MacHale Archbishop of Tuam and Most Rev Dr Murphy (Dublin, 1885). Cox, J. G. S., The Life of Cardinal Vaughan (London: Herbert & Daniel, 1910). Crafts, Wilbur, The Sabbath for Man: A Study of the Origin, Obligation, History, Advantages and Present State of Sabbath Observance (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1885). Cramp, John Mockett, A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of His late Majesty, William the Fourth, Preached at the Baptist Chapel, St. Peter’s, Thanet, on July 9th, 1837 (Ramsgate: Burdett and Hunt, 1837). Creighton, Louise, The Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton (2 vols, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1904). Croly, George, The Life and Times of George IV (London: James Duncan, 1830). Cumberland, Barlow, A Sketch of How ‘The Diamond Anthem’ was Sung around the World Through the Colonies of the Empire on the 20th June, 1897 (Toronto: Robinson-Arbuthnot, 1898). Cumming, John, Our Queen’s Responsibilities and Reward: A Sermon to Her Majesty, on Her Coronation (London: Francis Baisler, 1838). Cumming, John, Notes on the Cardinal’s Manifesto (London: Arthur Hall, Virtue & Co., 1850). Curato, Federico, ed., Gran Bretagna e Italia: Nei Documenti della Missione Minto (2 vols, Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano, 1970). The Cypress Wreath: A Collection of All the Most Beautiful Fugitive Flowers of Poesy, Strewn by the Hand of Genius and Affection Oe’r the Corse of the Lamented Princess Charlotte (London: G. Smeaton, 1817). Da Cunha, J. Gerson, Memoir on the History of the Tooth-Relic of Ceylon; With a Preliminary Essay on the Life and System of Gautama Buddha (London: W. Thacker and Co., 1875). Davidson, Randall, Promise and Fulfilment: Three Sermons, Preached in the Private Chapel of Windsor Castle, on the Three Sundays Following the Death of H.R. H. the Duke of Albany, March 28, 1884 (London: n.p., 1884). Davin, Nicholas Flood, Strathcona Horse: Speech by Nicholas Flood Davin at Lansdowne Park, March 7th, A.D. 1900 on the Occasion of the First Parade of the Strathcona Horse (Ottawa: James Hope and Sons, 1900).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

300

Selected Bibliography

Davin, Nicholas Flood, In Memory of the Queen: An Address Delivered in the Town Hall, Regina, on 2 February, 1901, on the Day of the Funeral of Her Late Imperial Majesty (Regina: West Co., 1901). Davison, Jane and Margaret Davison, The Triqueti Marbles in the Albert Memorial Chapel, Windsor (London: Chapman & Hall, 1876). Dawson, George, Sermons on Disputed Points, ed. Susan Dawson (London: C. Kegan Paul, 1878). Dyson, Hope and Charles Tennyson, eds, Dear and Honoured Lady: The Correspondence between Queen Victoria and Alfred Tennyson (London: Macmillan, 1969). Ebden, J. C., A Sermon on the Preservation of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, from the Late Atrocious Attempt (Ipswich: F. Pawsey, 1840). Ellenborough, Lord, A Political Diary, 1828–1830 (2 vols, London: Bentley and Sons, 1881). Enraght, R. S., Not Law, but Unconstitutional Tyranny, A Lecture on the Present Unconstitutional Exercise of the Royal Supremacy in Matters Spiritual (London and Birmingham: J. T. Hayes, 1877). Ernst II, Aus meinem Leben und aus meiner Zeit (3 vols, Berlin: Wilhelm Herz, 1887–90). Faneuil Hall: Who are its Conservators? The Story of the Victoria Jubilee Banquet Retold for the Benefit of the American Public (Boston, 1887). Farrar, Frederic William et al, Sermons for the Commemoration of Queen Victoria (London: Skeffington and Sons, 1897). Ferguson, John, Ceylon in the ‘Jubilee Year’ (London: John Haddon, 1887). Feurtado, W. A., The Jubilee Reign of her most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria in Jamaica (Jamaica: W. A. Feurtado, 1890). Fleming, James, Recognition in Eternity: A Sermon Preached Before their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, in Sandringham Church, on Sunday Morning, January 24th, 1892 (London: Skeffington and Son, 1892). Fletcher, Alexander, A Sermon on the Death of Her Late Majesty Queen Caroline, Consort of George the Fourth: Delivered in Albion Chapel, Moorgate (London: W. Tew, 1821). Fletcher, Alexander, The Funeral Sermon of Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (London: G. Virtue, 1843). Fox, William Johnson, A Funeral Sermon for Caroline, Queen of England, Delivered on August 19th, 1821 (London: Rowland Hunter, 1821). A Fragment from the Fine Art Follies of Frogmore; Or the Secrets of The Belgian Mystery Unveiled (Windsor, 1869).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

301

Fraser, Donald, Victoria: Queen and Woman (Toronto: Hart & Riddell, 1897). Fremantle, William Robert, God Save the Queen: A Sermon Preached in Godalming Church, on Occasion of the Coronation of our Most Gracious Queen Victoria the 1st (Godalming: J. Nisbet & Co., 1838). Fry, Katherine and Rachel Cresswell, Memoirs of the Life of Elizabeth Fry: With Extracts from her Journal and Letters (2 vols, London: Gilpin, 1847). Fulford, Francis, A Sermon, Preached on Sunday, 5th January 1862, in Christ Church Cathedral, Montreal, after the Death of H.R.H. the Prince Consort (Montreal: J. Lovell, 1862). Fulford, Roger, ed., Your Dear Letter: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1865–1871 (London: Evans Bros, 1971). Fulford, Roger, ed., Darling Child: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1871–1878 (London: Evans Bros, 1976). Fulford, Roger, ed., Dearest Mama: Private Correspondence of Queen Victoria and the Crown Princess of Prussia, 1861–1864 (London: Evans Bros, 1977). Fulford, Roger and Agatha Ramm, eds, Dearest Child: Letters from Queen Victoria and the Princess Royal, 1858–1861 (London: Evans Bros, 1962). Fulford, Roger and Agatha Ramm, eds, Beloved and Darling Child: Last Letters between Queen Victoria and her Eldest Daughter 1886–1901 (Stroud: Sutton, 1990). Furrell, James W., The Tagore Family: A Memoir (London: Kegan Paul and Trench, 1886). Gardiner, Alfred, The Life of William Harcourt (2 vols, London: Constable, 1923). Garratt, Samuel, The Bridal of the Church: A Sermon Preached on the Sunday Before the Marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales (London: Morgan and Chase, 1863). Gathorne Hardy, Alfred, Gathorne Hardy, First Earl of Cranbrook: A Memoir: With Extracts from his Diary and Correspondence (2 vols, London: Longmans and Co., 1910). Geary, Grattan, Burma, After the Conquest, Viewed in its Political, Social and Commercial Aspects, From Mandalay (London: Sampson and Low, 1886). Genssler, Wilhelm August Gottfried, Die Saecularfeier der Augsburgischen Confession in der herzogl. S. Residenzstadt Coburg Festschreibung (Coburg: F. D. Mensel und Sohn, 1830). Genssler, Wilhelm August Gottfried, Die Herzogliche Hofkirche zur Ehrenburg in Coburg, seit dem Zeitalter der Reformation: Nachrichten von den Schicksalen dieser

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

302

Selected Bibliography

Kirche und von dem Leben sämmtliche Hofgeistlichen (Coburg: F. D. Mensel und Sohn, 1838). The German Bridegroom: A Satire (London, 1840). Gibbon, Charles, The Life of George Combe (2 vols, London: Macmillan, 1878). Gilbart, Thomas, Britain’s Song: A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of King George the Third; And of the Duke of Kent (Dublin: M. Keene, 1820). Gladstone, William Ewart, ‘Life of the Prince Consort (I)’, ‘(II)’, ‘(III)’, in Gleanings of Past Years, 1848–1878, vol. I: The Throne, and the Prince Consort; The Cabinet, and Constitution (London: John Murray, 1879), pp. 23–62, 63–96, 97–130. Gordon, Arthur, The Life of Archibald Hamilton Charteris (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912). Gordon, Peter, ed., The Political Diaries of the Fourth Earl of Carnarvon, 1857–1890, Colonial Secretary and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009). Gordon Cumming, C. F., Two Happy Years in Ceylon (2 vols, London: Chatto and Windus, 1901). Graham, John, A Sermon Preached Before the University of Cambridge in Great St Mary’s on Saturday, July 8 1837 (Cambridge: John W. Parker, 1838). Gray, Andrew, Correspondence Between the Duke of Argyll and the Rev. Andrew Gray, Perth (London: John Johnstone, 1849). Gregory, Olinthus, ed., Works of the Rev. Robert Hall (3 vols, London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855). Gretton, F. E., A Sermon Preached in the Church of St Mary, Salford, December 23rd 1861, on the Occasion of the Funeral of his Royal Highness the Prince Consort (Stamford: Henry Johnson, 1861). Grey, Charles, The Early Years of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1868). Grey, Charles, Some Account of the Life and Opinions of Charles, Second Earl Grey (London: Richard Bentley, 1861). Grub, George, The Ecclesiastical History of Scotland (4 vols, Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1861). Gurney, Archibald, Loyalty: And Church and State: A Sermon, Preached at the Leicester Festival Service, at St. Margaret’s Church, on the Occasion of the National Thanksgiving for the Recovery of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales (London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1872). Guthrie, Thomas, Autobiography of Thomas Guthrie, D.D. and Memoir, ed. David K. Guthrie and Charles J. Guthrie (2 vols, London: W. Isbister and Co., 1874).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

303

Harston, Edward, The Former Days not Better than These: A Sermon Preached on the Occasion of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales’s Marriage (London: Joseph Masters, 1863). Harvard, William, The Substance of a Funeral Sermon, Delivered in the Wesleyan Chapel, St James St, Montreal, on Sunday, August 13, 1837, on Occasion of the Lamented Demise of his Most Gracious Majesty, William the Fourth (Montreal: Campbell and Becket, 1837). Harvey, Moses, Newfoundland in 1897: Being Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee Year and the Four Hundredth Anniversary of the Discovery of the Island by John Cabot (London: S. Low, Marston & Company, 1897). Die Hauschronik der Herzogin Alexandrine als nobles Geschenk an dem Herzog Ernst II enlässlich der silbernen Hochzeit (1867), Coburg Landesbibliothek, HP-F 61.136. Hawkins, Angus and John Powell, eds, The Journal of John Wodehouse, First Earl of Kimberley, for 1862–1902 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997). Hayward, Abraham, ed., Diaries of a Lady of Quality, From 1797 to 1844 (London: Longmans, 1864). Heaton, George, The Royal Supremacy Defended; In Regard of the Declaration Put Forth by the Venerable Archdeacons Manning and Wilberforce and the Reverend Professor Mill (London: Thomas Hatchard, 1850). Hechler, William Henry, ed., The Jerusalem Bishopric: Documents with Translations Chiefly Derived from ‘Das Evangelische Bisthum in Jerusalem’: Geschichtliche Darstellung mit Urkunden (London: Trübner & Co., 1883). Helps, Arthur, ed., The Principal Speeches and Addresses of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (London: John Murray, 1862). Helps, Arthur, Life and Labours of Mr Brassey (London: Bell and Daldy, 1872). Helps, Arthur, Thoughts in the Cloister & the Crowd and Companions of my Solitude (London, 1905 edition). Helps, E. A., ed., Correspondence of Sir Arthur Helps (London: Bodley Head, 1917). Hermit of Marlow [Percy Bysshe Shelley], ‘We Pity the Plumage but Forget the Dying Bird’: An Address to the People on the Death of the Princess Charlotte (1817; Edinburgh, 1883). Herridge, W. T., Anniversary Sermon, 1889 (Ottawa: St Andrew’s Society of Ottawa, 1889). Herridge, W. T., A Sermon in Memory of Her Most Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria (1901). Herridge, W. T., The Call of the War: A Recruiting Sermon (Ottawa, 1915).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

304

Selected Bibliography

Hill, Micaiah, The Sabbath Made for Man: Or, The Origin, History, and Principles of the Lord’s Day (London, 1857). Hodder, Edwin, The Life and Work of the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G. (3 vols, London: Cassell, 1886). Hodgson, John, A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of Sittingbourne on the Day Appointed for the Funeral of King George the Third (London, 1820). Hoffmann-Kuhnt, Lotte, ed., Dr Ernst Becker: Briefe aus einem Leben im Dienste von Queen Victoria und ihrer Familie (Plaidt: Cardamina Verlag, 2014). Holland, Henry Scott, Personal Studies (London: Wells, Gardner, Darton, 1905). Holmes, Richard R., Queen Victoria (London: Boussod, Valadon, 1897). Hook, Walter Farquhar, Hear the Church (London: J. G. and F. Rivington, 1838). Hopkins, John Castell, Queen Victoria: Her Life and Reign: A Study of British Monarchical Institutions and the Queen’s Personal Career, Foreign Policy, and Imperial Influence (Toronto: Bradley-Garretson, 1896). Horne, Thomas Hartwell, The Sovereign’s Prayer and the People’s Duty: A Sermon Delivered on the Sunday after the Coronation of Her Majesty (London: T. Cadell, 1838). Hough, Richard, ed., Advice to a Grand-Daughter: Letters from Queen Victoria to Princess Victoria of Hesse (London: Heinemann, 1975). How, Frederick Douglas, Bishop Walsham How: A Memoir (London: Isbister and Co., 1899). Howley, William, A Sermon Preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (London: S. Brooke, 1817). Hunter, W. W., The Indian Mussulmans: Are they Bound in Conscience to Rebel Against the Queen? (London: Trubner and Co., 1872). Hutton, Hugh, Reflections on the Death of King William the Fourth: A Sermon Delivered Before a Congregation of Protestant Dissenters (London: Smallfield, 1837). Hymns for Use during 1887, the Year of the Jubilee of Queen Victoria (London: Skeffington, 1887). Innes, Alexander Taylor, The Church of Scotland Crisis, 1843 and 1874 and the Duke of Argyll (Edinburgh: Maclaren and Macniven, 1874). Irons, William John, The Present Crisis of the Church of England (London: Joseph Masters, 1850). Ivimey, Joseph, Reasons Why the Protestant Dissenters Lament the Death of the Princess Charlotte Augusta: A Sermon, Second Edition (London, 1817).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

305

Jagow, Kurt, ed., Letters of the Prince Consort 1831–1861 (London: John Murray, 1938). James, John, A Sermon on the Lamented Death of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort Preached in the Cathedral Church of Peterborough (London: Rivington, 1862). James, William Browne, National Blessings a Ground for National Gratitude and Obedience: A Sermon Preached on Occasion of the Death of George IV (London, 1830). Jamieson, John, The Hopes of an Empire Reversed; Or, the Night of Pleasure Turned into Fear (Edinburgh: A. Jameson, 1817). Jeffcock, John Thomas, A Middle Class and Other Sermons (London: Bemrose and Sons, 1881). Jeffreys, John, Princes and Great Men: A Sermon Preached on the Occasion of the Death of the Prince Consort (Rochdale, 1861). Johnson, Nancy, ed., The Diary of Gathorne Hardy, Later Lord Cranbrook, 1866–1892: Political Selections (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). The Jubilee Pamphlet: Being a Reprint from the ‘Englishman’ of all Matters Connected with the Jubilee (Calcutta: S. N. Banerji, ‘Englishman’ Press, 1897). Karslake, W. H., England’s Thanksgiving for God’s Answer to Her Prayer: A Sermon Preached at Holy Trinity Church, Westcott, Dorking (London: J. Parker and Co., 1872). Kaye, John, A Sermon Preached before the University of Cambridge . . . Second Edition (Cambridge: Deighton and Sons, 1817). Kaye, William, ed., Sermons and Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions by John Kaye, Late Bishop of Lincoln (London, 1856). Kennedy, A. L., ed., ‘My Dear Duchess’: Social and Political Letters to the Duchess of Manchester, 1858–1869 (London: John Murray, 1956). King, Francis, The Royal Supremacy: With Reference to Convocation, the Court of Appeal, and the Appointment of Bishops, Historically Examined in a Letter to the Rt Hon W.E. Gladstone (Oxford: Parker and Co., 1881). King, John, Cardinal Wiseman Unmasked! And the Sophistry of his Plea for the Roman Hierarchy Exposed (London: Seeleys, 1850). Kirton, John W., True Royalty; Or, the Noble Example of an Illustrious Life as Seen in the Lofty Purpose and Generous Deeds of Victoria as Maiden, Mother, and Monarch (London: Ward, Lock and Co., 1887). Knapp, Henry John, A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St Andrew Undershaft, London on the Day of the Funeral of his Late Gracious Majesty George the Third (Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, 1820).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

306

Selected Bibliography

Knighton, Dorothea, ed., Memoirs of Sir William Knighton (2 vols, London, 1838). Lacey, Henry, A Sermon, Occasioned by the Lamented Death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta, of Wales, and of Saxe Cobourg Saalfeld: Delivered at Salters’ Hall, London (London: Henry Teape, 1817). Lamb, John, A Sermon Preached on the Day of the Coronation of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, in the Cathedral Church of Bristol (London, 1838). Lee, Arthur Gould, ed., The Empress Frederick Writes to Sophie, Her Daughter, Crown Princess and Later Queen of the Hellenes: Letters, 1889–1901 (London: Faber, 1955). Lees, James Cameron, Sermon Preached in St Giles’ Cathedral, Edinburgh, at the Funeral Service for the Death of the Princess Alice (Edinburgh: John Menzies and Co., 1878). Lees, James Cameron, St Giles’, Edinburgh: Church, College, and Cathedral: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (Edinburgh and London: W. and R. Chambers, 1889). Legh, Thomas Wodehouse, Baron Newton, Lord Lyons: A Record of British Diplomacy (2 vols, London: Edward Arnold, 1913). Leitner, G. W., Kaisar-i-Hind. The Only Appropriate Translation of the Title of Empress of India (Lahore: I. P. O. Press, 1876). Leitner, G. W., Muhammadanism: Being the Report of an Extempore Address (Woking: Oriental Nobility Institute, 1889). Letters of Feodora, Princess of Hohenlohe-Langenburg from 1828 to 1872 (London: Spottiswoode, 1874). Lewis, Thomas, A Tribute of Respect and Affection to the Memory of his Late Most Gracious Majesty George the Third (London, 1820). Lillie, Arthur, Buddha and Buddhism (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1900). Lilly, W. S., ‘British Monarchy and Modern Democracy’, Nineteenth Century, 41 (1897), pp. 853–64. Lindsay, Patricia, Recollections of a Royal Parish (London: John Murray, 1902). Lingard, John, ‘Letter to the Lord Chancellor, on the “Declaration” Made and Subscribed by Her Majesty’, Dublin Review, 4 (1838), p. 265. Lloyd, Edwin, Three Great African Chiefs (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1895). Loftus, Augustus, The Diplomatic Reminiscences of Lord Augustus Loftus, 1837–1862 (2 vols, London: Cassell and Co., 1892). Loftus, Augustus, The Diplomatic Reminiscences of Lord Augustus Loftus, 1862–1879: Second Series (2 vols, London: Cassell, 1894). Lord, A. E., A Prince and a Great Man Fallen: Or, the Great Sorrow of England’s Queen and People Considered and Improved (London, 1862).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

307

Lorne, Marquis of, V.R.I.: Her Life and Empire by the Marquis of Lorne, K.T., Now his Grace the Duke of Argyll (London: Harmsworth, 1901). Lucas, Edward, The Life of Frederick Lucas, MP (2 vols, London: Burns and Oates, 1886). Lutyens, Mary, ed., Lady Lytton’s Court Diary: 1895–1899 (London: R. Hart-Davis, 1961). Lyall, Alfred, The Life of the Marquis of Dufferin and Ava (2 vols, London: John Murray, 1905). McColl, Malcolm, The Heart and its Treasure: A Sermon Preached on the Sunday After the Death of H.R.H. the Grand Duchess of Hesse (London: Rivingtons, 1878). Macdonnell, John Cotter, The Life and Correspondence of William Connor Magee (2 vols, London: Isbister, 1896). Macfarlan, Patrick, A Vindication of the Church of Scotland: Occasioned by the Duke of Argyll’s ‘Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland’ (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1850). MacGregor, James, The State of the Christian Dead: Preached in the Parish Church of Crathie on 7th November 1897 Being the Sunday After the Funeral of HRH Princess Mary Adelaide Duchess of Teck (London and Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1897). Mackay, Donald Sage, In Memoriam. Victoria, the Woman: Sermon Preached at the Memorial Service of Her Majesty Queen Victoria at the Collegiate Church, January 27th, 1901 (New York, 1901). Mackay, Donald Sage, The Religion of the Threshold: And Other Sermons, ed. Hugh Black (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908). Mackennal, Alexander, A Completed Life: A Sermon Preached After the Death of Queen Victoria (London: James Clarke and Co., 1901). Mackenzie, Alexander, The History of the Highland Clearances: Containing a Reprint of Donald Macleod’s ‘Gloomy Memories of the Highlands’ (Edinburgh: Mercat Press, 1991). Mackenzie, William Bell, Jehovah, the Shield of Britain: A Sermon, on the Late Merciful Preservation of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria (London: Seeley, 1840). McKeown, H. C., The Life and Labors of the Most Rev. John Joseph Lynch, D.D. (Toronto: J. A. Sadlier, 1886). Maclaren, Kenneth D., Memoir of the Right Reverend Professor Charteris (London: A. and C. Black, 1914). Maclean, Norman, The Life of James Cameron Lees (Glasgow: Maclehose & Co., 1922).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

308

Selected Bibliography

Macleane, Douglas, The Great Solemnity of the Coronation of the King and Queen of England According to the Use of the Ch of Westminster: With Liturgical, Ceremonial, and Historical Notes (London: F. E. Robinson and Co., 1902). Macleod, Norman, Reminiscences of a Highland Parish (London and Edinburgh: Alexander Strahan, 1867). McWilliams, Thomas Samuel, A Tribute to our Lamented Queen (n.p., n.d.). Madge, Thomas, The Character of George III, and the Character of his Reign, Considered Separately (Norwich: John Stacy, 1820). Major, H. D. A., The Life and Letters of William Boyd Carpenter (London: John Murray, 1925). Mallet, Victor, ed., Life with Queen Victoria: Marie Mallet’s Letters from Court, 1887–1901 (London: John Murray, 1968). Manning, Henry Edward, In Memory of the Prince Imperial: Sermon at St. Mary’s, Chislehurst, on Sunday, July 13 1879 (London: C. Kegan and Paul, 1879). Mardon, Benjamin, The Evanescence of Human Glory: The Permanence of the Word of God. A Discourse Delivered on Occasion of the Death of William the Fourth, and the Accession of Victoria (London: Smallfield, 1837). Marie Louise, My Memories of Six Reigns (London: Evans Brothers, 1956). Marks, John Ebenezer, Forty Years in Burma (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1917). Marsh, J. T. B., The Story of the Jubilee Singers: With their Songs (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878). Martin, Theodore, The Life of the His Royal Highness the Prince Consort (5 vols, London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1875–80). Martin, Theodore, Queen Victoria as I Knew Her (London: William Blackwood, 1901). Maxwell, Herbert, ed., The Life and Letters of George William Frederick, Fourth Earl of Clarendon (2 vols, London: Edward Arnold, 1913). Meldola, Raphael, Funeral Sermon, Delivered at the Spanish and Portuguese Ancient and Chief Synagogue in England, on the Day of Burial of her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Augusta (London, 1817). Mellor, Enoch, ‘Be Still and Know that I am God.’ A Sermon on Occasion of the Death of His Royal Highness, the Prince Consort (Liverpool: D. Marples, 1861). Mercier, Lewis Page, ‘The Mystery of God’s Providence’: A Sermon Preached December 22, 1861 on the Occasion of the Death of H.R.H. the Prince Consort (London, 1861). Meres, Harry John, A Sermon Preached the Sunday After the Funeral of H.R.H. Prince Henry Maurice of Battenberg (Salford, 1896).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

309

The Metropolitan Jubilee Souvenir (Montreal: W. Wallach, 1897). Miley, John, Sermon Preached in the Metropolitan Church, on June 28th, 1840, on Occasion of the Solemn High Mass and Te Deum in Thanksgiving for the Providential Escape of Queen Victoria (Dublin: Richard Coyne, 1840). Miller, Delia, ed., The Highlanders of Scotland: The Complete Watercolours Commissioned by Queen Victoria from Kenneth Macleay of her Scottish Retainers and Clansmen (London: Haggerston Press, 1986). Miller, Edward, A Sermon on Ephesians v. 32, 33 Preached the First Sunday After the Marriage of Queen Victoria (Chichester, 1840). Miller, Edward, England’s Irreparable Loss, A Sermon Preached After the Funeral of the Prince Consort (London, 1862). Mitter, Raj Jageshur, ed., Bengal’s Tribute to her Late Majesty the Queen Empress (Calcutta: Standard Press, 1901). ‘A Moderate Presbyterian, but no Puritan’, The Queen’s Attendance on Presbyterian Worship. Extracts from the ‘John Bull’ Newspaper, and Letters in Reply to the Aspersions Therein Cast on the Queen and the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1850). Mösslang, Markus, Torsten Riotte and Chris Manias, eds., British Envoys to Germany, 1816–1866, Volume IV: 1851–1866 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Monypenny, W. F. and G. E. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (6 vols, London: John Murray, 1910–20). [Morier, Robert], ‘Prussia and the Vatican’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 30 (1874), pp. 464–72; 559–68; 31 (1874), 72–86, 171–84. Mountain, Loch and Glen, Illustrating ‘Our Life in the Highlands’ from Paintings Executed by J. Adam with an Essay on the Characteristics of Scottish Scenery, by Norman Macleod (London: Bell and Daldy, 1869). Müller, F. Max, ‘Royalties [II]’, Cosmopolis, 7 (1897), pp. 618–42. Musgrave, George C., To Kumassi with Scott: A Description of a Journey from Liverpool to Kumassi with the Ashanti Expedition, 1895–6 (London: Wightman, 1896). Newman, Richard, Two Sermons Occasioned by the Death of the Duke of Kent and of George the Third, Delivered on the 6th and 16th of Feb. 1820 (Faversham, 1820). Newman, William, The British Empire in Mourning! A Funeral Sermon Occasioned by the Death of H.R.H. the Princess Charlotte Augusta (London: Button, 1817). Nisbet, John, Burma under British Rule, and Before (2 vols, London: Archibald Constable, 1901).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

310

Selected Bibliography

‘Non Placet’, To the Citizens of Empire . . . A Counterblast to the ‘Trumpet of Jubilee’, Being a Sermon Designed for Paul’s Cross, on June 10th, 1897 (London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1897). Norton, Caroline, A Letter to the Queen on Lord Chancellor Cranworth’s Marriage and Divorce Bill (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longman, 1853). Nye, John, The Palace and the Cottage: A Memorial Address (London: Elliott Stock, 1879). Official Programme: Diamond Jubilee at Victoria, British Columbia (Victoria, BC, 1897). Oliphant, Margaret, Queen Victoria: A Personal Sketch (London: Cassell and Co., 1900). The Opening and Close of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1877: Addresses by the Lord High Commissioner and the Moderator (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1877). Order of Service to be Observed at the Consecration of the English Church of St George, Cannes on February 12, 1887, at 3pm (Oxford: Parker and Co., 1887). O’Reilly, Bernard, John MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam. His Life, Times and Correspondence (2 vols, Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1890). Ornsby, Robert, Memoirs of James Robert Hope-Scott of Abbotsford (2 vols, London, 1884). Palmer, William [of Magdalen], Aids to Reflection on the Seemingly Double Character of the Established Church, with Reference to the Foundation of a ‘Protestant Bishopric’ at Jerusalem, Recently Announced in the Prussian State Gazette (London, 1842). Ponsonby, Frederick, The Empress Frederick: A Memoir (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1918). Ponsonby, Frederick, ed., Letters of the Empress Frederick (London: Macmillan and Co., 1928). Ponsonby, Frederick, Sidelights on Queen Victoria (London: Macmillan and Co., 1930). Ponsonby, Magdalen, ed., Mary Ponsonby: A Memoir, Some Letters and a Journal (London: John Murray, 1927). Pope-Hennessy, James, ed., Queen Victoria at Windsor and Balmoral: Letters from her Grand-Daughter Princess Victoria of Prussia, June 1889 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1959). Pope Humphrey, Frank [pseud.], The Queen at Balmoral (London: T. F. Unwin, 1893). Powell, Howell W., A Sermon Preached on November 23, 1817, the Sunday After the Interment of the . . . Princess Charlotte of Wales (York, 1817).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

311

Power, M. C., ed., Selections from the Letters of Caroline Frances Cornwallis (London: Trübner, 1864). The Principles of the English Constitution in Church and State, Touching the Royal Supremacy, the Rights and Duties of Convocation, and the Prerogative of the Crown: In the Form of an Address to the Queen (London, 1848). The Private Life of Queen Victoria by One of Her Majesty’s Servants (London: C. Arthur Pearson, 1901). Prothero, George, Man Working with God: A Sermon (London: Rivingtons, 1874). Prothero, George, Arthur Penrhyn Stanley: A Funeral Sermon Preached at Whippingham Church on July 24th, 1881 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1881). Prothero, George, The Armour of Light, and Other Sermons Preached before the Queen, ed. Rowland Prothero (London: Rivingtons, 1888). Prothero, Rowland E., Whippingham to Westminster: The Reminiscences of Lord Ernle (London: John Murray, 1938). Purcell, Edmund Sheridan, The Life of Cardinal Manning (2 vols, London: Macmillan and Co., 1895). Pusey, Edward Bouverie, The Royal Supremacy not an Arbitrary Authority but Limited by the Laws of the Church, of which Kings are Members: Part I: Ancient Precedents (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1850). Queen Adelaide: A Memoir (London: Wertheim & Macintosh, 1851). Raleigh, Thomas, ed., Lord Curzon in India: Being a Selection from his Speeches as Viceroy & Governor-General of India, 1898–1905 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1906). Ramm, Agatha, ed., The Political Correspondence of Mr Gladstone and Lord Granville, 1876–1886 (2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962). Roberts, Henry, The Dwellings of the Labouring Classes, Their Arrangement and Construction (3rd edition, London: Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes, 1857). Roberts, Richard, My Later Ministry: Being Sermons (London: T. Woolmer, 1887). Robins, Sanderson, An Argument for the Royal Supremacy (London: William Pickering, 1851). Roe, Henry, Sermon Preached at St. George’s Church, Lennoxville, P.Q. on June 21st, 1887 (Sherbrooke: Québec, 1887). Rogers, George Albert, The Royal Lament: A Funeral Sermon on Prince Albert, Dec. 22nd, 1861 (London: Wertheim, Macintosh and Hunt, 1861). Routhier, Adolphe-Basile, La Reine Victoria et son Jubilé (Québec: C. Darveau, 1898).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

312

Selected Bibliography

St John, Molyneux, The Sea of Mountains: An Account of Lord Dufferin’s Tour through British Columbia in 1876 (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1876). Salter, Joseph, The Asiatic in England: Sketches of 16 Years Work Among Orientals (London: Seeley, Jackson and Halliday, 1873). Savage-Armstrong, George Francis, One in the Infinite (London: Longmans and Co., 1891). Savage-Armstrong, George Francis, Queen-Empress and Empire (Belfast: M. Ward & Co., 1897). Scoto-Britannus [Thomas McCrie], Free Thoughts on the Late Religious Celebration of the Funeral of the Princess Charlotte of Wales (Edinburgh: Macredie and Co., 1817). Service in the Royal Mausoleum, at Frogmore, on the 18th December, 1862 (London, 1862). Service in St Giles upon the Reopening of the Church after its Restoration by William Chambers (n.p.) Services held in Windsor Castle, on the Anniversary of the Lamented Death of the Prince Consort, December 14, 1862 (Oxford, 1862). Sheppard, James Edgar, George, Duke of Cambridge: A Memoir of his Private Life, Based on the Journals and Correspondence of His Royal Highness (2 vols, London: Longman and Co., 1906). Shore, Thomas Teignmouth, Some Recollections (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1911). Smith, Henry, The Protestant Bishopric in Jerusalem, its Origin and Progress: From the Official Documents Published by Command of the King of Prussia (London: B. Wertheim, 1847). Smith, John Pye, The Sorrows of Britain, Her Sad Forebodings, and Her Only Refuge. A Sermon on Occasion of the Death of the Princess Charlotte Augusta (London: Josiah Conder, 1817). Smith, Sydney, The New Reign: The Duties of Queen Victoria: A Sermon Preached at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul’s (London: Longmans, 1837). Smith, Vincent, Asoka: The Buddhist Emperor of India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1901). ‘Snap Dragon’, The One-Eyed Coronation; Or, A Peep into Westminster Abbey: A Satirical Poem (London: J. Johnston, 1821). Special Forms of Service in Commemoration of Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria of Blessed Memory, to be Used in All Churches and Chapels (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1901). Spencer, J. W., Christian Sorrow for the Pious Dead: A Sermon, Preached on the Day of the Funeral of the Prince Consort (Taunton: F. May, 1861).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

313

Spink, Samuel, The Exalted Nation: A Sermon Preached at Wimborne, on the Accession of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria (Poole: J. Lankester, 1837). Stanford, John Frederick, Rambles and Researches in Thuringian Saxony (London: John W. Parker, 1842). Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, A Threefold Call: A Sermon Preached in Westminster Abbey on June 28, 1868, the Anniversary of the Queen’s Coronation, on Occasion of the Public Thanksgiving for the Escape of H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh and for the Success of the Abyssinian War (Oxford and London: James Parker, 1868). Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, The National Thanksgiving: Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey (London: Macmillan’s, 1872). Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, Christian Suretyship: A Sermon Preached in the Private Chapel of Windsor Castle, March 8, 1874 (London: Spottiswoode and Co., 1874). Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, The Marriage Feast: A Sermon Preached in the Chapel of the British Factory at St Petersburgh on January 6th, 1874, Being the Sunday Preceding the Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and Her Imperial Highness the Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna (St Petersburg: Journal de St-Petersbourg, 1874). Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, Christian Institutions: Essays on Ecclesiastical Subjects (London: John Murray, 1884). Stead, W. T., Her Majesty the Queen: Studies of the Sovereign and the Reign, etc. (London: Review of Reviews Office, 1897). Steane, Edward, The Eternal King: A Sermon on the Death of King William the Fourth (London: Thomas Ward and Co., 1837). Steuart, Mrs Erskine, ed., Twenty Years at Court: From the Correspondence of the Hon. Eleanor Stanley, Maid of Honour to Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria, 1842–1862 (London: Nisbet, 1916). Stevenson, Sarah Coles, Victoria, Albert and Mrs Stevenson (London: Frederick Müller, 1958). Stock, John, The Heavenly Marriage: A Sermon Occasioned by the Marriage of Queen Victoria with Prince Albert, of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, etc. (London: C. Lancaster, 1840). Stone, William, A Funeral Oration: Occasioned by the Demise of the Most Illustrious Duke of York (London: C. and J. Rivington, 1827). Stones, William, The National Loss Deplored: A Sermon Preached November 19, 1817, on Occasion of the Death of Princess Charlotte of Wales (Whitby, 1818). Stoney, Benita and Heinrich C. Weltzien, eds, My Mistress the Queen: The Letters of Frieda Arnold, Dresser to Queen Victoria, 1854–9, trans. Sheila de Bellaigue (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1994).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

314

Selected Bibliography

Story, Elizabeth Maria and Elma Story, Memoir of Robert Herbert Story, D.D., LL. D., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, One of His Majesty’s Chaplains in Scotland (Glasgow: J. MacLehose and Sons, 1909). Story, Robert Herbert, ed., The Church of Scotland, Past and Present: Its History, its Relation to the Law and the State, its Doctrine, Ritual, Discipline, and Patrimony (2 vols, London: William McKenzie, 1890). Story, Robert Herbert, The Apostolic Ministry in the Scottish Church (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1897). Sumner, John Bird, A Charge Delivered at the Confirmation of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, April 1, 1858 (London: C. F. Hodgson, 1858). ‘The Supremacy Question’, English Review, 13 (1850), pp. 173–96. Talbot, Edward, Sermons at Southwark, Preached in the Collegiate Church of S. Saviour (London: Nisbet, 1905). Taylor, Arthur, The Glory of Regality: An Historical Treatise of the Anointing and Crowning of the Kings and Queens of England (London: Messrs Payne and Foss, 1820). Taylor, William, A Sermon Delivered in St Enoch’s Church, Glasgow on the Death of Her Late Majesty, Queen Charlotte (Glasgow: John Smith, 1818). Taylor, William, A Sermon Delivered in St Enoch’s Church, Glasgow, February 20, 1820 on the Death of King George III (Glasgow: John Smith, 1820). Thistlethwayte, Tryphena, ed., Memoirs and Correspondence of Dr. H. Bathurst, Bishop of Norwich (London: Richard Bentley, 1853). Thom, John Hamilton, Sympathy with Humanity: The Channel of the Life from God: A Sermon Preached in Renshaw St Chapel, Liverpool, December 22, 1861, on a National Occasion (London: E. T. Whitfield, 1862). Toronto’s Tribute to Her Majesty Queen Victoria: On the Occasion of her Diamond Jubilee, 1897 (1897). Tracey, Gerald, ed., The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. Vol. 8, Tract 90 and the Jerusalem Bishopric, January 1841–April 1842 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). Triqueti, Henri de, Manuel de la Charité: Dans l’Eglise Reformée de Paris: Conseils Addressés aux Protestants Riches et Pauvres (Paris: Aux Librairies protestantes, 1861). Tufnell, Charles Henry, A Sermon on the Death of Her Late Majesty, the Lamented Queen Charlotte (Northampton: T. E. Dicey and R. Smithson, 1818). [Tulloch, John], ‘German Protestantism’, British Quarterly Review, 26 (1851), pp. 432–76.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

315

Tulloch, John, Some Facts of Religion and of Life: Sermons Preached Before Her Majesty The Queen in Scotland, 1866–76 (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1878). Tulloch, John, Movements of Religious Thought in Britain during the Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1885). Tulloch, John, Sundays at Balmoral, ed. William Tulloch (London: Nisbet and Co., 1887). Tulloch, William, The Story of the Life of Queen Victoria (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1897). ‘Verax’ [Henry Dunckley], The Crown and the Cabinet: Five Letters on the Biography of the Prince Consort (Manchester: A. Ireland and Co., 1878). Victoria, Queen, Leaves from the Journal of Our Life in the Highlands from 1848 to 1861 (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1868). Victoria, Queen, More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1884). Vincent, James Edmund, His Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence and Avondale: A Memoir (London: John Murray, 1893). Vincent, John, ed., Disraeli, Derby and the Conservative Party: Journals and Memoirs of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849–1869 (Hassocks: Harvester Press, 1978). Vincent, John, ed., The Later Derby Diaries: Home Rule, Liberal Unionism, and Aristocratic Life in Late Victorian England (Bristol, 1981). Vincent, John, ed., The Diaries of Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby (1826–93) Between 1878 and 1893: A Selection (Oxford: Leopard’s Head Press, 1993). Vincent, John, ed., Derby Diaries, 1869–78: Selection from the Diaries of Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby, Between September 1869 and March 1878 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995). Wallace, Robert, Life and Last Leaves, ed. J. Campbell Smith and William Wallace (London: Sands and Co., 1903). Walpole, Spencer, The Life of Lord John Russell (2 vols, London: Longman, Green and Co., 1889). Walsh, Walter, The Religious Life and Influence of Queen Victoria (London: Swan and Sonnenschein, 1902). Ward, Wilfrid, The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman (2 vols, London: Longmans, 1897). Warren, T. Herbert, Christian Victor: The Story of a Young Soldier (London: John Murray, 1903). Waugh, Evelyn, A Handful of Dust (1934; London: Penguin, 1980).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

316

Selected Bibliography

Wellford, George, National Prayers Conservative of National Welfare: A Sermon Occasioned by the Form of Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for His Preservation of the Queen from a Traiterous Attempt on her Life (London, 1842). Wells, H. G., Joan and Peter: The Story of an Education (London: Macmillan, 1921). Wemyss, Victoria, ed., Memoirs and Letters of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Morier, G.C.B., from 1826 to 1876 (2 vols, London: Edward Arnold, 1911). Were, Ellis Bowden, A Sermon, Preached in the Parish Church of Chipping Norton (Oxford, 1838). Which? England or Rome? A Review of the Guibord Burial Case (Montréal, 1871). Whish, Martin, A Sermon, Preached on the Occasion of the Death of King George III (Bristol: T. Lane, 1820). Whyte, Frederic, The Life of W.T. Stead (2 vols, London: Jonathan Cape, 1925). Wilberforce, Robert Isaac, An Inquiry into the Principles of Church Authority, or Reasons for Recalling my Subscription to the Royal Authority (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1854). Wilberforce, Samuel, ed., Eucharistica: Meditations and Prayers on the Most Holy Eucharist: From Old English Divines, etc. (London: James Burns, 1839). Wilberforce, Samuel, Fellowship in Joy and Sorrow: A Sermon Preached in Her Majesty’s Royal Chapel in Windsor Castle, on the Sunday Preceding the Marriage of the Prince of Wales, March 8, 1863 (London and Oxford: John Henry and James Parker, 1863). Wilmot Buxton, H. J., Full of Days and Honour: A Plain Sermon on the Death of Her Majesty Queen Victoria (London: Skeffington, 1901). Wilson, Daniel, Death the Last Enemy of Man: A Sermon Preached at the Church of St Mary, Islington, January 20th, 1827, on the Occasion of the Lamented Death of His Royal Highness the Duke of York and Albany (London: George Wilson, 1827). Wilson, James Hall, The Late Prince Consort: Reminiscences of his Life and Character (London: S. W. Partridge, 1862). Wilson, Richard Wornall, Queen Victoria in Memoriam (Toronto, 1900). Wilson, William, Memorials of Robert Smith Candlish (Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1880). Winter, Robert, The Retrospect: A Sermon, Occasioned by the Lamented Decease of His Most Gracious Majesty George the Third, and Preached on the Day of his Interment (London: James Black, 1820). Wirgman, Augustus Theodore, The Church and the Civil Power: or, The Relations of Church and State Historically Considered (London: Bemrose and Sons, 1893).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

317

Wirgman, Augustus Theodore, The History of the English Church and People in South Africa (London: Longmans and Co., 1895). Wirgman, Augustus Theodore, Queen Victoria of Blessed Memory. A Voice from her People over the Seas (London: Longmans, Green, 1901). Wiseman, Nicholas, An Appeal to the Reason and Good Feeling of the English People on the Subject of the Catholic Hierarchy (London: Thomas Richardson and Son, 1850). Wood, John Ryle, Some Recollections of the Last Days of His Late Majesty King William the Fourth (London: J. Hatchard and Son, 1837). Wordsworth, Charles, A United Church of Scotland, England and Ireland Advocated: A Discourse on the Scottish Reformation (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1861). Wordsworth, Charles, Euodias and Syntyche: The Scottish Church in its Relations, Past and Present, to the Church of England (Perth: Robert Whittet, 1869). Wordsworth, Charles, Discourse on Scottish Church History from the Reformation to the Present Time (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1881). Wordsworth, Charles, Prospects of Reconciliation between Presbytery and Episcopacy (Edinburgh: St Giles Printing Co., 1882). Wordsworth, Charles, Annals of my Early Life (London: Longman, Green and Co., 1891). Wordsworth, John, The Episcopate of Charles Wordsworth: A Memoir (London: Longmans and Co., 1899). Wright, G. N. and J. Watkins, The Life and Reign of William IV (London: Fisher, Son & Co., 1837). W. S. B., A Hint to the Clergy! A Sermon on our Late Beloved Queen Caroline (London: J. Burrowes, 1821).

Secondary sources Anderson, Olive, ‘The Growth of Christian Militarism in Mid-Victorian Britain’, English Historical Review, 86 (1971), pp. 46–72. Arnstein, Walter, ‘Queen Victoria and Religion’, in Gail Malmgreen, ed., Religion in the Lives of English Women (London: Croom Helm, 1986), pp. 88–128. Arnstein, Walter, ‘Queen Victoria Opens Parliament: the Disinvention of Tradition’, Historical Research, 63 (1990), pp. 178–94. Arnstein, Walter, ‘Queen Victoria and the Challenge of Roman Catholicism’, The Historian, 58 (1996), pp. 295–314. Arnstein, Walter, ‘The Warrior Queen: Reflections on Victoria and Her World’, Albion, 30 (1998), pp. 1–28.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

318

Selected Bibliography

Arnstein, Walter, Queen Victoria (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2003). Bachmann, Gertraude, ‘Aus dem Leben Herzogin Alexandrine von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, geborene Prinzessin von Baden (1820–1904)’, Jahrbuch der Coburger Landesstiftung, 39 (1994), pp. 1–43. Baldwin, David, The Chapel Royal Ancient and Modern (London: Duckworth, 1990). Barclay, David, Frederick William IV and the Prussian Monarchy 1840–1861 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995). Barclay, David, ‘Das “monarchische Projekt” Friedrich Wilhelms IV von Preussen’, in Frank-Lothar Kroll and Dieter Weiss, eds, Inszenierung oder Legitimation? Die Monarchie in Europa im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: ein deutschenglischer Vergleich (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2015), pp. 35–46. Barczewski, Stephanie, Heroic Failure and the British (Yale: Yale UP, 2016). Barker, Hannah, ‘Soul, Purse and Family: Middling and Lower-Class Masculinity in Eighteenth-Century Manchester’, Social History, 33 (2008), pp. 12–35. Barr, Colin, ‘ “Imperium in Imperio”: Irish Episcopal Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century’, English Historical Review, 123 (2008), pp. 611–50. Barr, Colin and Hilary Carey, eds, Religion and Greater Ireland: Christianity and Greater Ireland, 1759–1950 (Montreal, Kingston, and London: McGill UP, 2015). Bates, Rachel, ‘ “All Touched my Hand”: Queenly Sentiment and Royal Prerogative’, 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century, 20 (2015), https://19.bbk.ac.uk/ Behrendt, Stephen, Royal Mourning and Regency Culture: Elegies and Memorials of Princess Charlotte (London: Macmillan, 1997). Bell, Duncan, ‘The Idea of a Patriot Queen? The Monarchy, the Constitution, and the Iconographic Order of Greater Britain, 1860–1900’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 34 (2006), pp. 3–22. Bennett, Joshua, God and Progress: Religion and History in British Intellectual Culture, 1845–1914 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2019). Bennett, Joshua, ‘August Neander and the Religion of History in the Nineteenth-Century “Priesthood of Letters” ’, Historical Journal, 63 (2020), pp. 633–59. Bentley, James, The Politics of Ritualism in Victorian Britain: The Attempt to Legislate for Belief (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978). Bentley, Michael, Lord Salisbury’s World: Conservative Environments in Late Victorian Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

319

Beuschel, Hubertus, Untertanenliebe—Der Kult um deutsche Monarchen, 1770–1830 (Goettingen: Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, 2006). Bickford-Smith, Vivian, ‘African Nationalist or British Loyalist? The Complicated Case of Tiyo Soga’, History Workshop Journal, 71 (2011), pp. 74–97. Blackburn, Anne M., Locations of Buddhism: Colonialism and Modernity in Sri Lanka (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2010). Blackstock, Allan and Frank O’Gorman, eds, Loyalism and the Formation of the British World (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014). Bland, Olivia, The Royal Way of Death (London: Constable, 1986). Bobotis, Andrea, ‘Rival Maternities: Maud Gonne, Queen Victoria, and the Reign of the Political Mother’, Victorian Studies, 49 (2006), pp. 63–83. Bosbach, Franz R. and John Davis, eds, Windsor-Coburg: Geteilter NachlassGemeinsames Erbe (Munich: DeGruyter Saur, 2007). Bremner, G. Alex, Imperial Gothic: Religious Architecture and High Anglican Culture in the British Empire, 1840–1870 (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2013). Brent, Richard, Liberal Anglican Politics: Whiggery, Religion and Reform (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). Brock, Peggy, The Many Voyages of Arthur Wellington Clah: A Tsmishian Man on the Pacific (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2011). Brown, David, Palmerston: A Biography (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2010). Brown, Stewart J., ‘The Controversy over Dean Stanley’s Lectures on the Scottish National Church, 1872’, Records of the Scottish Church History Society, 31 (2001), pp. 145–72. Brown, Stewart J., ‘The Broad Church Movement: National Culture, and the Established Churches of Great Britain, c.1850–1900’, in Hilary M. Carey and John Gascoigne, eds, Church and State in Old and New Worlds (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 99–128. Cannadine, David, ‘War and Death, Grief and Mourning in Modern Britain’, in Joachim Whaley, ed., Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the Social History of Death (London: Europa, 1981), pp. 187–242. Cannadine, David, ‘The Last Hanoverian Sovereign?: The Victorian Monarchy in Historical Perspective 1688–1988’, in A. L. Beier, David Cannadine, and James M. Rosenheim, eds, The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989), pp. 127–66.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

320

Selected Bibliography

Cannadine, David, ‘Kaiser Wilhelm II and the British Monarchy’, in Tim Blanning and David Cannadine, eds, History and Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996), pp. 188–202. Cannadine, David, Ornamentalism: How the British Saw their Empire (London: Allen Lane, 2000). Cannadine, David and Elizabeth Hammerton, ‘Conflict and Consensus on a Ceremonial Occasion: The Diamond Jubilee in Cambridge in 1897’, Historical Journal, 24 (1981), pp. 111–46. Cantor, Geoffrey, Religion and the Great Exhibition of 1851 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011). Carté, Katherine, ‘Royal Religion: King George III and the American Revolution’, Sons of the American Revolution Georgian Papers Project Lecture, King’s College London, 21 March 2019. Carter, Sarah and Maria Nugent, eds, Mistress of Everything: Queen Victoria in Indigenous Worlds (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016). Chadwick, Owen, The Victorian Church (2 vols, London: A. and C. Black, 1966–70). Chapman, Mark D., Theology at War and Peace: English Theology and Germany in the First World War (London: Routledge, 2017). Chase, Karen and Michael Levenson, The Spectacle of Intimacy: A Public Life for the Victorian Family (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2000). Chernock, Arianne, The Right to Rule and the Rights of Women: Queen Victoria and the Women’s Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2019). Cheshire, Jim, ‘Remediation, Medievalism, and Empire in T. W. Camm’s “Jubilee of Nations” Window at Great Malvern Priory’, 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century, 30 (2020), https://19.bbk.ac.uk/ Clark, Anna, ‘The Rhetoric of Chartist Domesticity: Gender, Language, and Class in the 1830s and 1840s’, Journal of British Studies, 31 (1992), pp. 62–88. Clark, Christopher, Time and Power (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2019). Clark, J. C. D., ‘The Re-Enchantment of the World? Religion and Monarchy in Eighteenth-Century Europe’, in Michael Schaich, ed., Monarchy and Religion: The Transformation of Royal Culture in EighteenthCentury Europe (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007), pp. 47–75. Coates, Colin, ed., Majesty in Canada: Essays on the Role of Royalty (Toronto: Dundurin Group, 2006). Coffey, John, ‘ “Tremble, Britannia!”: Fear, Providence and the Abolition of the Slave Trade, 1756–1807’, English Historical Review, 127 (2012), pp. 844–81.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

321

Coffey, John, ed., Heart Religion: Evangelical Piety in England & Ireland, 1690–1850 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2016). Coleman, James, ‘The Scottish Covenanters’, in Gareth Atkins, ed., Making and Remaking Saints in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016), pp. 177–92. Colley, Linda, ‘The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty, and the British Nation, 1760–1820’, Past and Present, 102 (1984), pp. 94–129. Corrigan, John, Business of the Heart: Religion and Emotion in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002). Corrigan, John, ed., Religion and Emotion: Approaches and Interpretations (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004). Corrigan, John, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008). Corrigan, John, Emptiness: Feeling Christian in America (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2015). Craig, David, ‘The Crowned Republic? Monarchy and Anti-Monarchy in Britain, 1760–1901’, Historical Journal, 46 (2003), 167–85. Curl, James Stevens, The Victorian Celebration of Death (Stroud: Sutton, 2000). Curran, Kathleen, The Romanesque Revival: Religion, Politics, and Transnational Exchange (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 2003). Darby, Elizabeth and Nicola Smith, The Cult of the Prince Consort (London: Yale UP, 1983). Davies, John, ‘Victoria and Victorian Wales’, in G. H. Jenkins and J. B. Smith, eds, Politics and Society in Wales 1840–1922: Essays in Honour of Ieuan Gwynedd (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1988). Davis, John, et al, eds, Common Heritage: Documents and Sources Relating to German–British Relations in the Archives and Collections of Windsor and Coburg, Volume 2: The Photograph Collections and Private Libraries (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2018). Dawson, Graham, Soldier Heroes: British Adventure, Empire, and the Imagining of Masculinities (London: Routledge, 1994). Demandt, Philipp, Luisenkult: Die Unsterblichkeit der Königin von Preußen (Cologne: Böhlau, 2003). Denniston, Matthew, The Last Princess: The Devoted Life of Queen Victoria’s Youngest Daughter (London: Orion, 2007). Ditchfield, G. M., George III: An Essay in Monarchy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

322

Selected Bibliography

Dixon, Nicholas, ‘George IV and William IV in their Relations with the Church of England’, English Historical Review, 134 (2019), pp. 1440–70. Donald, Diana, Picturing Animals in Britain, 1750–1850 (Yale and London: Yale UP, 2007). Donaldson, Peter, Remembering the South African War: Britain and the Memory of the Anglo-Boer War, from 1899 to the Present (Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2013). Dorment, Richard, Alfred Gilbert (London: Yale UP, 1985). Droth, Martina, Jason Edwards, and Michael Hatt, eds, Sculpture Victorious: Art in an Age of Invention, 1837–1901 (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2015). Edwards, Jason, Alfred Gilbert’s Aestheticism: Gilbert amongst Whistler, Wilde, Leighton, Pater and Burne-Jones (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006). Feldman, David, Englishmen and Jews: Social Relations and Political Culture, 1840–1914 (New Haven: Yale UP, 1994). Fewster, Joseph, ‘The Royal Declaration Against Transubstantiation and the Struggle Against Religious Discrimination in the Early Twentieth Century’, British Catholic History, 30 (2011), pp. 555–72. Francis, Keith A. and William Gibson, eds, The Oxford Handbook of the British Sermon 1689–1901 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012). Fries, Günter, Nikolaus Heiss, Wolfgang Langner, Irmgard Lehn, and Eva Reinhold-Postina, eds, Kulturdenkmaeler in Hessen Stadt Darmstadt (Braunschweig: Vieweg, c.1994). Frogmore and the Royal Mausoleum (London: Royal Collection, 1997). Funnell, Peter, ‘The Iconography of Prince Albert’, in Franz Bosbach et al, eds, Künstlerische Beziehungen zwischen England und Deutschland in der viktorianischen Epoche (Munich: K. G. Saur, 2011), pp. 109–20. Gere, Charlotte, Jewellery in the Age of Victoria: A Mirror to the World (London: British Museum Press, 2010). Gestrich, Andreas and Michael Schaich, eds, The Hanoverian Succession: Dynastic Political and Monarchical Culture (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015). Giloi, Eva, ‘ “So Writes the Hand that Swings the Sword”: Autograph Hunting and Royal Charisma in the German Empire, 1861–1888’, in Edward Berenson and Eva Giloi, eds, Constructing Charisma: Celebrity, Fame, and Power in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Oxford: Berghahn, 2010), pp. 41–51. Giloi, Eva, Monarchy, Myth, and Material Culture in Germany 1750–1950 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

323

Ginidza, Thoko, ‘Labotsibeni/Gwamile Mdludi: The Power Behind the Swazi Throne, 1875–1925’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 810 (1997), pp. 135–58. Goldhill, Simon, ‘A Mother’s Joy at Her Child’s Death: Conversion, Cognitive Dissonance, and Grief ’, Victorian Studies, 59 (2017), 636–57. Greaves, R. W., ‘The Jerusalem Bishopric, 1841’, English Historical Review, 64 (1949), pp. 328–52. Hackler, Rhoda, ‘ “My Dear Friend”: Letters of Queen Victoria and Queen Emma’, Hawaiian Journal of History, 22 (1988), 101–30. Hall, David, Lived Religion in America: Toward a History of Practice (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1997). Hardie, Frank, The Political Influence of Queen Victoria (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1935). Hardwick, Joseph and Philip Williamson, ‘Special Worship in the British Empire: From the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Centuries’, Studies in Church History: The Church and the Empire, 54 (2018), pp. 260–80. Harris, Elizabeth, Theravāda Buddhism and the British Encounter: Religious, Missionary and Colonial Experience in Nineteenth-Century Sri Lanka (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2006). Harrison, Brian, ‘The Sunday Trading Riots of 1855’, Historical Journal, 8 (1965), 219–45. Hawkins, Angus, The Forgotten Prime Minister: The 14th Earl of Derby: Volume II: Achievement, 1851–1869 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008). Heath, Gordon, A War with a Silver Lining: Canadian Protestant Churches and the South African War, 1899–1902 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens UP, 2009). Henry, Andrew Wade, ‘Royal Representation, Ceremony, and Cultural Identity in the Building of the Canadian Nation, 1860–1911’, University of British Columbia PhD thesis, 2001. Hessen, Rainer von, ed., Victoria Kaiserin Friedrich: Mission und Schicksal einer englischen Prinzessin in Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2002). Hochschild, Arlie, ‘Emotion Work and Feeling Rules’, in John Corrigan, ed., Religion and Emotion: Approaches and Interpretations (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004). Homans, Margaret, Royal Representations: Queen Victoria and British Culture, 1837–76 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). Homans, Margaret and Adrienne Munich, eds, Remaking Queen Victoria (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

324

Selected Bibliography

Hotz, Mary Elisabeth, Literary Remains: Representations of Death and Burial in Victorian England (New York: SUNY Press, 2009). Hubbard, Kate, Serving Victoria: Life in the Royal Household (London: Vintage, 2012). Jackson, Alvin, The Two Unions: Ireland, Scotland, and the Survival of the United Kingdom, 1707–2007 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012). Jalland, Patricia, Death in the Victorian Family (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996). Jones, Heather, ‘The Nature of Kingship in First World War Britain’, in Matthew Glencross, Judith Rowbotham, and Michael Kandiah, eds, The Windsor Dynasty 1910 to the Present: ‘Long to Reign Over Us’? (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 195–216. Kearney, Meghan, ‘Disraeli and Religion’, Oxford University unpublished DPhil thesis, 2016. Kelly, Matthew, ‘Providence, Revolution and the Conditional Defence of the Union: Paul Cullen and the Fenians’, in Dáire Keogh and Albert McDonnell, eds, Cardinal Paul Cullen and his World (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2011), pp. 308–28. Kemper, Steven, Rescued from the Nation: Anagarika Dharmapala and the Buddhist World (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2015). Kennedy, Paul, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1980). Kent, Susan Kingsley, Queen Victoria: Gender and Empire (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2015). Keogh, Richard A., ‘ “From Education, from Duty, and from Principle”: Irish Catholic Loyalty in Context, 1829–1874’, British Catholic History, 33 (2017), pp. 421–50. Kerr, Donal, Peel, Priests and Politics: Sir Robert Peel’s Administration and the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, 1841–1846 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). Kidd, Colin, Union and Unionisms: Political Thought in Scotland, 1500–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008). King, Joshua, Imagined Spiritual Communities in Britain’s Age of Print (Columbus, OH: Ohio State UP, 2015). Kirby, James, Historians and the Church of England: Religion and Historical Scholarship, 1870–1920 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2017). Korn, Alfons L., The Victorian Visitors: An Account of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1861–1866 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1958). Kuhn, William, Democratic Royalism: The Transformation of the British Monarchy, 1861–1914 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

325

Kuhn, William, Henry and Mary Ponsonby: Life at the Court of Queen Victoria (London: Duckworth, 2002). Laking, Guy, An Illustrated Guide to Osborne House (London: Stationery Office, 1919). Langewiesche, Dieter, Die Monarchie im Jahrhundert Europas: Selbstbehauptung Durch Wandel im 19. Jahrhundert (Heidelberg: Universitaetsverlag Winter, 2013). Langston, Earle Legh, Bishop Taylor Smith: A Biography of Jn. T. Smith, Bishop of Sierra Leone, 1897–1901 (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1938). Lant, Jeffrey, Insubstantial Pageant: Ceremony and Confusion at Queen Victoria’s Court (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1979). Laqueur, Thomas, The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2015). Larkin, Emmet J., The Roman Catholic Church and the Creation of the Modern Irish State, 1876–1886 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1975). Larkin, Emmet J., The Roman Catholic Church and the Plan of Campaign in Ireland, 1886–1888 (Cork: Cork UP, 1978). Larkin, Emmet J., The Making of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, 1850–1860 (Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP, 1980). Larkin, Emmet J., The Consolidation of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, 1860–1870 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1987). Larkin, Emmet J., The Roman Catholic Church and the Emergence of the Modern Irish Political System, 1874–1878 (Blackrock, Co. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1996). Larsen, Timothy, Friends of Equality: Nonconformist Politics in Mid-Victorian Britain (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1999). Ledger-Lomas, Michael, ‘The Idea of Germany in Religious, Educational and Cultural Thought in England, c.1830–1865’, University of Cambridge unpublished PhD thesis, 2005. Ledger-Lomas, Michael, ‘Lyra Germanica: Sacred Music in Mid-Victorian England’, Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, London Bulletin, 29 (2007), 8–42. Ledger-Lomas, Michael, ‘Rereading Queen Victoria’s Religion’, in Josh King and Winter Jade Werner, eds, Constructing Nineteenth-Century Religion: Literary, Historical, and Religious Studies in Dialogue (Ohio: Ohio State UP, 2019), pp. 139–54. Ledger-Lomas, Michael, ‘Daylight upon Magic: Stained Glass and the Victorian Monarchy’, 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century, 30 (2020), https://19.bbk.ac.uk/article/id/2896/

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

326

Selected Bibliography

Ledger-Lomas, Michael, ‘ “Die Vereinbarkeit von Vernunft und Glauben”: Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider and the Victorian Monarchy’, in Friedegund Freitag, ed., Dynastie-Wissenschaft-Kunst: Die Verbindungen der Dynastien Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg und Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha zum Britischen Empire (Gotha: Stiftung Schloss Friedenstein, forthcoming). Leonoff, Cyril Edel, Pioneers, Pedlars, and Prayer Shawls: The Jewish Communities in British Columbia and the Yukon (Victoria, BC: Sono Nis Press, 1978). Leroy-Jay Lemaistre, Isabelle, Véronique Galliot-Rateau, and Richard Dagorne, eds, Henri de Triqueti, 1803–1874: Sculpteur des Princes (Paris: Hazan, 2007). Levine, Mark, ‘Authority and Legitimacy in Jewish Leadership: the Case of Lucien Wolf (1857–1930)’, Jewish Political Studies Review, 4 (1992), pp. 85–110. Lewis, Joanne, Empire of Sentiment: The Death of Livingstone and the Myth of Victorian Imperialism (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018). Lewis, Joanne, ‘Empires of Sentiment; Intimacies from Death: David Livingstone and African Slavery and the “Heart of the Nation” in 1874’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 43 (2015), pp. 210–37. Longford, Elizabeth, Victoria R.I. (1964; London: Pan Books, 1966). Looker, Mark, ‘ “God Save the Queen”: Victoria’s Jubilees and the Religious Press’, Victorian Periodicals Review, 21 (1988), pp. 115–19. Loss, Daniel, ‘Missionaries, the Monarchy, and the Emergence of Anglican Pluralism in the 1960s and 1970s’, Journal of British Studies, 57 (2018), pp. 543–63. Loughlin, James, ‘Allegiance and Illusion: Queen Victoria’s Irish visit of 1849’, History, 87 (2002), pp. 491–513. Loughlin, James, The British Monarchy and Ireland: 1800 to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007). Lückhoff, Martin, Anglikaner und Protestanten im Heiligen Land: Das gemeinsame Bistum Jerusalem (1841–1886) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1998). Lutz, Deborah, Relics of Death in Victorian Literature and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015). Lyden, Anne M., A Royal Passion: Queen Victoria and Photography (Los Angeles: John Paul Getty Museum, 2014). Mac Suibhne, Peadar, ed., Paul Cullen and his Contemporaries: With their Letters from 1820–1902 (5 vols, Nass: Carlow College, 1961–77). McGowan, Mark, The Waning of the Green: Catholics, the Irish, and Identity in Toronto, 1887–1922 (Toronto: McGill UP, 1992).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

327

Mander, W. J., ‘John Caird—Theologian and Philosopher’, New Blackfriars, 80 (1999), pp. 104–27. Marschner, Joanna, David Bindman, and Lisa L. Ford, eds, Enlightened Princesses: Caroline, Augusta, Charlotte, and the Shaping of the Modern World (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2017). Marsden, Jonathan, ed., Victoria and Albert: Art & Love (London: Royal Collection, 2000). Marsh, P. T., The Victorian Church in Decline: Archbishop Tait and the Church of England, 1868–1882 (London: Routledge, 1969). Masuzawa, Tomoko, The Invention of World Religions (Chicago: Chicago UP, 2005). Matsumoto-Best, Saho, Britain and the Papacy in the Age of Revolution, 1846–1851 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003). Miller, Carman, Painting the Map Red: Canada and the South African War, 1899–1902 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill UP, 1993). Miller, Daniel, Stuff (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010). Möckl, Karl, ed., Hof und Hofgesellschaft in den deutschen Staaten im 19. und beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990). Morgan, Douglas, Windows on Crathie: Notes on the Stained Glass Windows in Crathie Parish Church, Aberdeenshire, Scotland (London: Arabesque, 1995). Morgan, Kenneth O., ‘Gladstone, Wales, and the New Radicalism’, in Peter Jagger, ed., Gladstone (London: Bloomsbury, 1996), pp. 123–36. Morley, John, Death, Heaven and the Victorians (London: Studio Vista, 1971). Morris, Jeremy, ‘British High Churchmen, Continental Church Tourism and the Roman Connection in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 66 (2015), pp. 772–91. Morris, Marilyn, George III and the French Revolution (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1998). Morrissey, Thomas J., The Life and Times of Daniel Murray: Archbishop of Dublin 1823–1852 (Dublin: Messenger Publications, 2018). Müller, Frank Lorenz, Britain and the German Question: Perceptions of Nationalism and Political Reform (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001). Müller, Frank Lorenz, Our Fritz: Emperor Frederick III and the Political Culture of Imperial Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011). Müller, Frank Lorenz and Heidi Mehrkens, eds, Royal Heirs and the Uses of Soft Power in Nineteenth-Century Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). Munich, Adrienne, Queen Victoria’s Secrets (New York: Columbia UP, 1996).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

328

Selected Bibliography

Munich, Adrienne and Margaret Homans, eds, Remaking Queen Victoria (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997). Murphy, Deirdre, The Young Victoria (London: Yale UP, 2019). Murphy, James H., Abject Loyalty: Nationalism and Monarchy in Ireland during the Reign of Queen Victoria (Cork: Cork UP, 2001). Murphy, Paul, Shooting Victoria: Madness, Mayhem and the Modernization of the Monarchy (London: Head of Zeus, 2013). Murray, Brian, ‘Saxon Shore to Celtic Coast: Diasporic Telegraphy in the Atlantic World’, in Matthew Ingleby and Matthew P. M. Kerr, eds, Coastal Cultures of the Long Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2018), pp. 149–68. Murray, Peter, The Devil and Mr Duncan (Victoria, BC: Sono Nis Press, 1985). Murray, Scott, Liberal Diplomacy and German Unification: The Early Career of Robert Morier (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000). Neuheiser, Jörg, Krone, Kirche und Verfassung: Konservatismus in den englischen Unterschichten 1815–1867 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Newsome, David, A History of Wellington College, 1859–1959 (London: John Murray, 1959). Nockles, Peter, ‘Church and King: Tractarian Politics Reappraised’, in Peter Vaiss, ed., From Oxford to the People: Reconsidering Newman & the Oxford Movement (Leominister: Gracewing, 1996), pp. 93–126. Noel, Gerard, Princess Alice: Queen Victoria’s Forgotten Daughter (London: Constable, 1974). Noel Paton, Margaret, Tales of a Granddaughter (Elgin: The Author, 1970). Obelkevich, James, ‘Music and Religion in the Nineteenth Century’, in Jim Obelkevich, Lyndal Roper, and Raphael Samuel, eds, Disciplines of Faith: Studies in Religion, Politics and Patriarchy (London: Routledge, 1987), pp. 550–65. Olechnowicz, Andrzej, ed., The Monarchy and the British Nation, 1780 to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007). Omissi, David and Andrew Thompson, eds, The Impact of the South African War (London: Palgrave, 2002). Ormond, Richard, Sir Edwin Landseer (London: Thames and Hudson, 1981). Pakula, Hannah, An Uncommon Woman: Empress Frederick, Daughter of Queen Victoria, Wife of the Crown Prince of Prussia, Mother of Kaiser Wilhelm (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1995).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

329

Parissien, Steve, George IV: The Grand Entertainment (London: John Murray, 2001). Parry, Jon, ‘Disraeli and England’, Historical Journal, 43 (2000), pp. 699–728. Parsons, Neil, King Khama, Emperor Joe, and the Great White Queen: Victorian Britain through African Eyes (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1996). Patel, Simin, ‘Commemorating the Consort in Colonial Bombay’, in Charles Beem and Miles Taylor, eds, The Man Behind the Queen: Male Consorts in History (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), pp. 157–62. Paulmann, Johannes, ‘Searching for a “Royal International”: The Mechanics of Monarchical Relations in Nineteenth-Century Europe’, in Martin H. Geyer and Johannes Paulmann, eds, The Mechanics of Internationalism: Culture, Society, and Politics from the 1840s to the First World War (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001), pp. 145–76. Paxton, Amanda, Willful Submission: Sado-Erotics and Heavenly Marriage in Victorian Religious Poetry (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2018). Penny, Nicholas, Church Monuments in Romantic England (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1977). Pentland, Gordon, ‘The Indignant Nation: Australian Responses to the Attempted Assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1868’, English Historical Review, 130 (2015), pp. 57–88. Pickering, Paul, ‘ “The Hearts of the Millions”: Chartism and Popular Monarchism in the 1840s’, History, 88 (2003), pp. 227–48. Pinnau, Peter, Gruft, Mausoleum, Grabkapelle: Studien zur Sepulkralarchitektur des 19. und des 20. Jahrhunderts mit besonderer Hinsicht auf Adolf von Hildebrand (München: Mäander, 1992). Plunkett, John, Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003). Porter, Bernard, The Refugee Question in Mid-Victorian Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979). Potter, Simon, News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial Press System, 1876–1922 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003). Powell, Jennifer, ‘The Dissemination of Commemorative Statues of Queen Victoria’, in Penelope Curtis and Keith Wilson, eds, Modern British Sculpture (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2011), pp. 282–8. Prochaska, Frank, Royal Bounty: The Making of a Welfare Monarchy (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1995).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

330

Selected Bibliography

Raffe, Alasdair, ‘Nature’s Scourges: The Natural World and Special Prayers, Feasts and Thanksgivings, 1541–1866’, in Studies in Church History, 46 (2010), pp. 237–48. Range, Matthias, British Royal and State Funerals: Music and Ceremonial since Elizabeth I (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2016). Rappaport, Helen, Magnificent Obsession: Victoria, Albert and the Death that Changed the Monarchy (London: Hutchinson, 2012). Reed, James Sheldon, Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian AngloCatholicism (Nashville and London: Vanderbilt UP, 2000). Reid, Michaela, Ask Sir James: The Life of Sir James Reid, Personal Physician to Queen Victoria (1989; London: Eland, 1996). Reinermann, Lothar, Der Kaiser in England: Wilhelm II in sein Bild in der britischen Offentlichkeit (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 2001). Reynolds, Julian, ‘Politics vs. Persuasion: The Attempt to Establish AngloRoman Diplomatic Relations in 1848’, Catholic Historical Review, 71 (1985), pp. 372–93. Reynolds, K. D., Aristocratic Women and Political Society in Victorian Britain (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). Richards, Jeffrey, Imperialism and Music: Britain, 1876–1953 (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2001). Richards, Thomas, The Commodity Culture of Victorian England: Advertising and Spectacle, 1851–1914 (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990). Robinson, John Martin, Buckingham Palace: The Official Illustrated History (London: Royal Collection, 2000). Rosenwein, Barbara, Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2006). Rosenwein, Barbara, Generations of Feeling: A History of Emotions, 600–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2015). Rosenwein, Barbara, ‘Worrying about Emotions in History’, American Historical Review, 107 (2002), pp. 821–45. Ross, Anna, Beyond the Barricades: Government and State-Building in PostRevolutionary Prussia, 1848–58 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2019). Ross, Ellen, ‘St Francis in Soho: Emmeline Pethick, Mary Neal, the West London Wesleyan Mission, and the Allure of “Simple Living” in the 1890s’, Church History, 83 (2014), pp. 843–83. Rüger, Jan, ‘Revisiting the Anglo-German Antagonism’, Journal of Modern History, 83 (2011), pp. 579–617. St Aubyn, Giles, The Royal George, 1819–1904: The Life of H.R.H. Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (London: Constable, 1963).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

331

Salmond, Noel, ‘Queen Victoria Beneath the Bodhi Tree: Anagarika Dharmapala as Anti-Imperialist and Victorian’, in David Geary, Matthew R. Sayers, and Abhishek Singh Amar, eds, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on a Contested Buddhist Site (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 94–109. Samerski, Stefan, ed., Wilhelm II und die Religion: Facetten einer Persönlichkeit und ihres Umfelds (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2001), pp. 59–90. Saunders, Robert, ‘ “A Great and Holy War”: Religious Routes to Women’s Suffrage, 1909–1914’, English Historical Review, 134 (2019), pp. 1471–502. Schaich, Michael, ed., Monarchy and Religion: The Transformation of Royal Culture in Eighteenth-Century Europe (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007). Scheeben, Elisabeth, Ernst II, Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha: Studien zu Biographie und Weltbild eines liberalen deutschen Bundesfürsten in der Reichsgründungszeit (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987). Schönfplg, Daniel, Die Heiraten der Hohenzollern: Verwandtschaft, Politik Und Ritual in Europa, 1640–1918 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). Schor, Esther, Bearing the Dead: The British Culture of Mourning from the Enlightenment to Victoria (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994). Schultheiss, Petra, Like an Ancient Shrine: Mid-Nineteenth Century Architectural Theory, the Memorial Mosaics for Prince Albert and Queen Victoria’s Position as Female Sovereign (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2018). Shedel, James, ‘Emperor, Church, and People: Religion and Dynastic Loyalty during the Golden Jubilee of Franz Josef ’, Catholic Historical Review, 76 (1990), pp. 71–92. Sheer, Monique, ‘Feeling Faith: The Cultural Practice of Religious Emotions in Nineteenth-Century German Methodism’, in Scheer et al, eds, Out of the Tower: Essays on Culture and Everyday Life (Tübingen: TVV, 2013), pp. 217–47. Simms, Brendan and Torsten Riotte, eds, The Hanoverian Dimension in British History, 1714–1837 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007). Skinner, Simon, ‘ “The Duty of the State”: Keble, the Tractarians and Establishment’, in Kirstie Blair, ed., John Keble in Context (London: Anthem Press, 2004), pp. 33–46. Skinner, Simon, ‘Religion’, in David Craig and James Thompson, eds, Languages of Politics in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 93–117. Smith, E. A., George IV (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1999).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

332

Selected Bibliography

Smith, Hannah, Georgian Monarchy: Politics and Culture, 1714–1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006). Smith, Stephen, Puckstruck: Distracted, Delighted and Distressed by Canada’s Hockey Obsession (Vancouver, BC: Greystone Books, 2014). Smith, Tori, ‘ “Almost Pathetic . . . But Also Very Glorious”: The Consumer Spectacle of the Diamond Jubilee’, Histoire Sociale/Social History, 24 (1997), pp. 333–56. Snape, Michael, The Royal Army Chaplains’ Department, 1796–1953: Clergy under Fire (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2008). Stack, David, Queen Victoria’s Skull (London: Hambledon Continuum, 2008). Stamp, Gavin, ‘George Gilbert Scott, the Memorial Competition, and the Critics’, in Chris Brooks, ed., The Albert Memorial: The Prince Consort National Memorial: Its History, Contexts, and Conservation (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2000), pp. 98–133. Stanworth, Karen, Visibly Canadian: Imaging Collective Identities in the Canadas, 1820–1910 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill UP, 2014). Stocker, Mark, ‘ “A Token of their Love”: Queen Victoria Memorials in New Zealand’, 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century, 22 (2016), https://19.bbk.ac.uk/article/id/1698/ Strachey, Lytton, Queen Victoria (1921; London: Chatto and Windus, 1924). Strange, Julie Marie, Death, Grief and Poverty in Britain, 1870–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005). Strong, John, Relics of the Buddha (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2004). Strong, Rowan, Episcopalianism in Nineteenth-Century Scotland: Religious Responses to a Modernizing Society (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002). Strong, Rowan and Peter Nockles, eds, The Oxford Movement: Europe and the Wider World, 1830–1930 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012), pp. 78–98. Stubenrauch, Joseph, The Evangelical Age of Ingenuity in Industrial Britain (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2016). Taylor, Antony, ‘Down with the Crown’: British Anti-Monarchism and Debates about Royalty Since 1790 (London: Reaktion Books, 1997). Taylor, Miles, ‘The British Royal Family and the Colonial Empire from the Georgians to Prince George’, in Cindy McCreery and Robert Aldrich, eds, Crowns and Colonies: European Monarchies and Overseas Empires (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2016), pp. 27–50. Taylor, Miles, Empress: Queen Victoria and India (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2018).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

333

Taylor, Miles, ‘The Bicentenary of Queen Victoria’, Journal of British Studies, 59 (2020), pp. 121–35. Thompson, Andrew C., ‘The Confessional Dimension’, in Brendan Simms and Torsten Riotte, eds, The Hanoverian Dimension in British History, 1714–1837 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007), pp. 161–82. Thompson, Dorothy, Queen Victoria: Gender and Power (London: Virago, 1990). Toews, John Edward, Becoming Historical: Cultural Reformation and Public Memory in Early Nineteenth-Century Berlin (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004). Trompeteler, Helen, ‘Afterlives: Photography and Mourning’, Victoria’s Self-Fashioning: Curating Royal Image for Dynasty, Nation and Empire conference, Kensington Palace, May 2019. Tücks, Petra, Das Darmstädter Neue Palais: ein fürstlicher Wohnsitz zwischen Historismus und Jugendstil (Darmstadt: Selbstverlag der Hessischen Historischen Kommission, 2005). Turner, Frank, ‘Cultural Apostasy and the Foundations of Victorian Intellectual Life’, in Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993), pp. 38–72. Turner, Michael, Osborne (London: English Heritage, 2007). Tyrell, Alex, ‘The Queen’s “Little Trip”: The Royal Visit to Scotland in 1842’, Scottish Historical Review, 82 (2003), pp. 47–73. Urbach, Karina, Bismarck’s Favourite Englishman: Lord Odo Russell’s Mission to Berlin (London: I. B. Tauris, 1999). Urbach, Karina, ed., Royal Kinship: Anglo-German Family Networks 1815–1918 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008). Urbach, Karina, Queen Victoria: Eine Biographie (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2011). Urbach, Karina, ‘In Defence of Prince Albert: An Introduction’, in Karina Urbach, ed., The Life of the Prince Consort: Prince Albert and His Times (London: I. B. Tauris, 2012), pp. i–xii. Urbach, Karina, ‘Die inszenierte Idylle: Legitimationsstrategien Queen Victorias und Prinz Alberts’, in Frank Lothar Kroll and Dieter J. Weiss, eds, Inszenierung oder Legitimation? Die Monarchie in Europa im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: ein deutsch-englischer Vergleich (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2015), pp. 23–35. Vallone, Deborah, Becoming Victoria (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2003). Van Toorn, Penelope, Writing Never Arrives Naked: Early Aboriginal Cultures of Writing in Australia (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 2000).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

334

Selected Bibliography

Vaughan, Geraldine, ‘ “Britishers and Protestants”: Protestantism and Imperial British Identities in Britain, Canada and Australia from the 1880s to the 1920s’, Studies in Church History, 54 (2018), pp. 359–73. Vaughan, Philippa et al, eds, The Victoria Memorial Hall, Calcutta: Conceptions, Collections, Conservation (Mumbai: Marg Publications, 1997). Vernon, James, Politics and the People: A Study in English Political Culture, c.1815–1867 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993). Vickers, Paul, ‘A Gift So Graciously Bestowed’: The History of the Prince Consort’s Library (Winchester: Hampshire County Council, 1993). Virgin, Peter, The Church in an Age of Negligence: Ecclesiastical Structure and Problems of Church Reform, 1700–1840 (London: James Clarke, 1989). Wagner, Kim, ‘ “Calculated to Strike Terror”: The Amritsar Massacre and the Spectacle of Colonial Violence’, Past and Present, 233 (2016), pp. 185–225. Wallace, Valerie, Scottish Presbyterianism and Settler Colonial Politics: Empires of Dissent (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). Ward, Yvonne, Censoring Queen Victoria: How Two Gentlemen Edited a Queen and Created an Icon (London: Oneworld, 2014). Warren, Allen, ‘Disraeli, the Conservatives and the National Church, 1837–1881’, Parliamentary History, 19 (2000), pp. 96–117. Weinfort, Monika, Monarchie in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft: Deutschland und England von 1640 bis 1848 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). Weinfort, Monika, ‘Dynastic Heritage and Bourgeois Morals: Monarchy and Family in the Nineteenth Century’, in Frank Lorenz Müller and Heidi Mehrkens, eds, Royal Heirs and the Uses of Soft Power in NineteenthCentury Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 163–79. Weisman, Karen, Singing in a Foreign Land: Anglo-Jewish Poetry, 1812–1847 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2018). Welch, P. J., ‘Anglican Churchmen and the Establishment of the Jerusalem Bishopric’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 8 (1957), pp. 193–204. Wendebourg, Dorothea, So viele Luthers: die Reformationsjubiläen des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Lepizig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017). Wheeler, Michael, Death and the Future Life in Victorian Literature and Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990). Whitlow, Maurice, J. Taylor Smith, K.C.B., C.V.O., D.D.: Everybody’s Bishop (London: Lutterworth Press, 1938). Whyte, William, Unlocking the Church: The Lost Secrets of Victorian Sacred Space (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2017).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

Selected Bibliography

335

Wiggins, Deborah, ‘The Burial Act of 1880, the Liberation Society and George Osborne Morgan’, Parliamentary History, 15 (1996), pp. 173–89. Wigley, John, The Rise and Fall of the Victorian Sunday (Manchester: Manchester UP, 1980). Williams, Richard, The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the Monarchy in the Age of Queen Victoria (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997). Williamson, Lori Anne, Power and Protest: Frances Power Cobbe and Victorian Society (London: Rivers Oram, 2005). Williamson, Philip, ‘State Prayers, Fasts and Thanksgivings: Public Worship in Britain, 1830–1897’, Past and Present, 200 (2008), pp. 121–74. Williamson, Philip, ‘National Days of Prayer: The Churches, The State and Public Worship in Britain 1899–1957’, English Historical Review, 128 (2013), pp. 324–66. Williamson, Philip, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 2, General Fasts, Thanksgivings and Special Prayers in the British Isles 1689–1870 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017). Williamson, Philip, Alasdair Raffe, Stephen Taylor, and Natalie Mears, eds, National Prayers: Special Worship since the Reformation: Volume 3: Worship for National and Royal Occasions in the United Kingdom, 1871–2016 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2020). Winfield, Jordan Carlyle, ‘Buddhism and Insurrection in Burma, 1888–1890’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 20 (2010), pp. 345–67. Winter, Emma, ‘German Fresco Painting and the New Houses of Parliament at Westminster, 1834–51’, Historical Journal, 47 (2004), pp. 291–329. Wolf, Lucien, Essays in Jewish History (London: Jewish Historical Society, 1934). Wolffe, John, Great Deaths: Grieving, Religion, and Nationhood in Victorian and Edwardian Britain (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001). Wolffe, John, ‘Lord Palmerston and Religion: A Reappraisal’, English Historical Review, 120 (2005), pp. 907–36. Wolffe, John, ‘Anti-Catholicism and the British Empire, 1815–1914’, in Hilary Carey, ed., Empires of Religion (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 43–63. Wolffe, John, ‘A Comparative Historical Categorisation of Anti-Catholicism’, Journal of Religious History, 39 (2015), pp. 182–202. Woodhead, Linda and Ole Riis, A Sociology of Religious Emotion (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/3/2021, SPi

336

Selected Bibliography

Woods, C. J., ‘The Politics of Cardinal McCabe, Archbishop of Dublin, 1879–85’, Dublin Historical Record, 26 (1973), pp. 101–10. Wortman, Richard, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in the Russian Monarchy from Peter the Great to the Abdication of Nicholas II (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2006). Zeepvat, Charlotte, Queen Victoria’s Youngest Son: The Untold Story of Prince Leopold (Sutton: Stroud, 1998). Ziegler, Philip, King William IV (London: Collins, 1971).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

Index Aberdeen, Lord 53, 94, 147 Afghanistan 207, 215 Agnew, Sir Andrew 91 Albany, Duke of see Leopold, Prince Albert, Prince 6–7, 10, 42–64, 78–97, 108–28, 142–7, 158, 170, 172–3, 176, 181, 184–6, 207, 214–15, 220, 242–3, 251, 267, 270, 277, 279, 283–4 Albert Edward, Prince of Wales 50–1, 53, 55, 57–8, 63, 81, 84, 86–9, 91–3, 118–19, 125, 149, 183, 187–9, 213–16, 233–5, 236, 245, 267–71, 275 Alexandra, Princess of Wales 57, 61, 87, 118–19, 214–16, 267 Alexandrine, Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 8, 49–51, 55, 60, 64 Alice, Princess 46, 49–50, 59–64, 81, 84, 96, 111–12, 114–15, 121, 127, 153, 206, 215 Daughter Alix 63 Husband Ludwig, Grand Duke of Hesse 59–60, 206 Son Frittie 61–2 Daughter Victoria 84, 96 Alfred, Prince 60, 63–4, 80, 87–8, 232–3, 245 Daughter Marie 63 Anderson, Archibald 173 Angels 61, 124, 214, 221, 276 Anti-Catholicism 27, 31–2, 63, 86, 118, 146–7, 170–1, 186–8, 244, 275 Archbishops of Canterbury Benson, Edward White 94–5, 111, 157–8, 190, 213, 216–18, 235–6 Howley, William 27–8, 84, 143–4 Longley, Charles 95 Sumner, John Bird 26, 83, 145, 147 Tait, Archibald Campbell 81, 151, 153–6, 178, 180, 188

Temple, Frederick 236–41, 269–73, 276 Argyll, Elizabeth Duchess of 174 Argyll, George Campbell, Eighth Duke of 96, 113, 174–6, 179–83 and Inveraray Castle 175, 179 Armagh, Archbishop of 184 Arnold, Edwin 281–2 Arnold, Frieda 44, 172 Arnold, Thomas 139–40 Arthur, Prince 62–3, 208 Asante, Kingdom of 205, 216–19 Athole, Dowager Duchess of 177, 189 Australia 31, 232–3, 245–6, 275, 278 Aboriginals 242 Adelaide 246 Melbourne 248 Perth 285–6 Awde, Robert 242 Bach, Johann Sebastian 50 Bagehot, Walter 4–5, 235 Balfour, Arthur 96, 148 Barker, Thomas 243 Battenberg, Prince Henry of 205–6, 208–9, 216–21, 266, 268 Beatrice, Princess 80, 84–6, 175, 216–19 Daughter Victoria Eugénie Julia Ena 179 Son Maurice Victor Donald 179, 219 Bechuanaland 243 Becker, Ernst 44, 60, 79–80, 93 Beethoven, Ludwig van 215–17 Bender, Ferdinand 60, 84 Bennett, William 147 Bible, the 22, 25–7, 29, 90, 125, 142, 144, 284 Bibles 49, 83–6, 121–2, 241–3 Biblical characters and references, Aaron 235 Acts, Book of 62 Amalekites 220

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

338

Index

Biblical characters and references, (cont.) Apocrypha 181 Proverbs 29, 116 David 125 Esther, Book of 173, 186 Isaiah 122, 242 Jesus Christ 23, 25–7, 51, 83, 87, 91, 93, 112–13, 118, 124, 128, 139, 141, 176, 181, 212, 251, 253, 267, 277 Luke 113, 231 Matthew 220 Moses 235 Paul 1, 25, 62, 78, 86, 124, 221, 240, 280 Philippians 127 Epistle to the 127 1 Peter 240 Psalms 22, 219, 269 Revelation 87, 211 2 Samuel 181 Solomon, Book of 124 Biblical criticism 24, 43, 48, 149, 178, 283 Binney, Thomas 94–5 Bishops of London, Blomfield, Charles 2, 24–5, 44, 53, 81, 143–4 Creighton, Mandell 237, 240, 249 Temple, Frederick 216, 238–40, 269–72, 276 Winnington-Ingram, Arthur 278 Bismarck, Otto von 56–9, 62, 243 Blomfield, Sir Arthur 212 Boyd Carpenter, William 64, 156–7, 212–13, 216, 221 Bradlaugh, Charles 156 Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb 42–3, 48–9, 60 Brett, Reginald 268 Bright, John 157 Brighton Pavilion 18, 81 British Empire 1–3, 6, 9, 85, 122–3, 170–1, 207–9, 218–20, 222, 231–3, 239–43, 247–9, 253, 265–6, 271–2, 276–82 and Christian manliness 207 222, 278–9 Jubilee visions of 231–2, 235–6, 239–53

and telegraphic communication 240–1, 271–2 Brock, William 90 Bruce, Augusta 110, 112, 149–50, 177, 188 Buccleuch, Duke of 179 Buddhism in Burma 252 in Sri Lanka 252–3, 281–2 as world religion 281–2 Bullock, Charles 88 Bulteel, Mary 48, 82, 96 Burdett-Coutts, Angela 92 Burleigh, Lord Balfour of 182 Bunsen, Christian Carl Josias 51–5, 176 Caird, John 78–9, 113, 174, 177–8, 283 Canada Governors General 1–2, 92, 174, 245–6 Huron people 215 Metlakatla, British Columbia 2 Montreal 122, 246, 273–4 Ontario 173, 219, 245, 276 Ottawa 92, 215, 242, 265, 274, 278 Quebec 245–6 Quebec City 246 St John’s, New Brunswick 241 St John’s, Newfoundland 241, 246 Strathcona Horse 222 Toronto 241–2, 245 Tsimshian people 2 Vancouver, British Columbia 272–3 Victoria, British Columbia 1–2, 241, 274, 276–8 Candlish, Robert 181 Cannes St George’s Church 209–12, 215 Villa Nevada 209–10, 214–15 Canning, Charlotte 82 Capel, T.J. 190 Carlyle, Thomas 126, 150 Carnarvon, Lord 96–7, 172 Carr, Emily 1, 19–20 Charteris, Archibald 175, 182–3, 276 Chartism 29, 31, 82, 125, 145–6 Chief Rabbis Adler, Nathan 247–8 Adler, Hermann 215, 248–9

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

Index Chislehurst Camden Place 210–11 St Mary’s 210–11 Chopin, Frédéric 215–17, 269 Christian Victor, Prince 206, 209, 220–1 Church of England 10–11, 17 and the British Empire 231–2, 239–41 Broad Church party 86, 148–9, 151, 156 Convocation 145, 148, 158–9, 239 Ecclesiastical Commission 143 Established status 155–9 Essays and Reviews (1860) 148–51, 240 Gorham Case 145 High church party 10–11, 42–3, 48, 52–3, 82–3, 96, 110, 126, 139–41, 143–51, 153–7, 159, 178–9, 236–40, 251, 276–7 Jubilee memorials in churches 238–9 Liberal Protestantism 148–52 Low Church party 89, 140, 145, 150–1, 154 Memorialization of Victoria 273–4 Oxford Movement see Tractarianism Patronage 142–4, 147–53, 283 Public Worship Regulation Act (1874) 153–5 Puseyites see Tractarianism Ritualism and Ritualists 139–40, 151–5, 179, 188, 236 Royal Supremacy 53, 140–5, 147, 150, 154–5, 178, 186, 236, 279 and Thanksgivings 234–5 Tractarianism 10, 43, 53, 79, 82, 86, 140, 143–8, 150, 152–4, 174, 283 Universities Central Mission Society 240 in Wales 157–9, 231 Church of Ireland 181, 184, 187–8, 231 Church of Scotland 11, 19, 27, 30, 140, 169–70, 171–83, 234, 272 Deans of the Thistle 172 Disruption (1843) 169–70, 176 Established status 181–3 General Assembly 171, 182–3 History 176–9 Lord High Commissioners 171, 182–3 Patronage Act (1874) 181–2

339

Clarence, Albert Victor, Duke of 94, 125, 190–1, 206, 208, 212–19, 244 Clarendon, Lord 57–8, 110, 117–18, 186 Clark, Sir James 95, 112 Cobbe, Frances Power 96–7 Collyer, William Bengo’ 21 Combe, George 93 Corelli, Marie 276 Cornelius, Peter 51 Cornwallis, Mary 26 Cridge, Edward 1–2 Croke, Thomas 188–91 Crowther, Adajye 243 Cullen, Cardinal Paul 187 Cumming, John 29, 174 Curzon, George Nathaniel Lord 280–1 Darwin, Charles 96 Davidson, Randall 7, 91, 128–9, 155–6, 189, 216, 235–7, 266–8, 270–1 Davin, Nicholas Flood 222 Davys, George 25 Death Christian responses to 109–15, 205–6, 276–7 and materiality 115–20 Royal deaths 19–24, 108, 205–22, 265–86 Denbigh, Earl of 191 Derby, Lord 147–8 Dharmapala, Angarika 281–2 Disestablishment 157–9, 169–70, 181–3, 187–8, 231, 279, 283 Disraeli, Benjamin 97, 110, 148, 150–4, 171, 188 Dufferin, Earl of 2, 188, 250–2 Ecclesiastical Titles Act (1851) 186 Edward VII see Albert Edward, Prince of Wales Elgin, Victor Bruce, Ninth Earl of 251–2 Eliot, George 127 Ellicott, Charles 151 Elliott, Charlotte 113, 212 Emma, Queen of the Sandwich Islands 86

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

340

Index

Emotion and emotional communities 5–6, 8–12, 19–24, 109–15, 120–4, 174–5, 189–90, 209, 212–16, 218–19, 232–5, 240–1, 247–8, 266, 268, 271–2, 275–7, 284–5 Erastianism 10, 139–43, 154, 234, 236, 284 Ernst, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 47–8, 115 Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 45, 48–50, 56–8, 60, 64, 110 Erroll, Lady 177 Erskine, Thomas, of Linlathen 177 Esher Christ Church 211 Claremont House 21, 47, 114–15 Evangelicalism and evangelicals 2, 17, 20–2, 26–31, 52–3, 79, 83, 87, 90–4, 110, 122–3, 140–1, 145, 151, 157–8, 169–70, 175–6, 184, 207–8, 212, 219, 235, 242, 250, 253, 271, 283 Eyre and Spottiswoode 235 Eugénie, Empress 189, 210–11, 218 Farrar, Frederic William 152, 276 Ferguson, John 253 de la Ferronays, Pauline (Mrs Craven) 189–90 Fleming, James 214 Forbes, Sarah Bonetta 85 Free Church of Scotland 169–70, 174–6, 181–3, 234, 273, 283 Friedrich IV of Saxe-CoburgAltenburg 47 Frogmore Frogmore House 116 Royal Mausoleum 59, 62–3, 115–20, 124–5, 212, 215, 218, 221, 260–70 Fry, Elizabeth 52 Garibaldi, Giuseppe 187 Gathorne-Hardy, Gathorne 97, 235, 251 Genssler, Wilhelm August 48, 50, 64 Germany Anglo-German Association 62 Austro-Prussian War (1866) 58, 220 Berlin 55–6

Schloss Charlottenburg 116 St George’s, Monbijou Park 62, 217 British attitudes to 56–8, 62, 64 Coburg 46–50, 56–7, 60–2, 64, 90, 115, 172 Schloss Callenberg 49–50 Schloss Rosenau 50 Darmstadt Neues Palais 59–62 Rosenhöhe Mausoleum 50 1848 Revolutions 54–5, 145–6 Franco-Prussian War 58–9, 220 Göttingen 44 Gotha 42, 48 Hesse and by Rhine, Grand Duchy of 59 Jerusalem Bishopric 52–3, 140 Kulturkampf 58–9, 180 Liberalization of 42–3, 45–6, 63–4 Lichtfreunde 54 Music 50 Potsdam 243 Friedenskirche 52, 59, 218 Neues Palais 56 Protestantism 9–10, 42–3, 61 Prussia 51–9, 62–4 Rationalism 42–3, 48–9, 60–1, 144, 148, 177–8, 283 Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duchy of 42–3, 46–51, 60, 64 Second Schleswig Holstein War (1864) 57–8 Unification of 45–6, 50–1, 56–9 Gladstone, William Ewart 53, 121, 124, 148–9, 153–5, 158, 180–2, 188, 233–4, 248 Gonne, Maude 191 Gordon, General Charles 95, 207–8 Gorham, George 145 Gouramma, Shazader 85 Grand Duchess of Hesse, Alice see Alice, Princess Granville, Lord 58 Grey, General Charles 7, 57, 126–7, 152, 180–1, 187 The Early Years of his Royal Highness the Prince Consort (1867) 125–7 Griffiths, Thomas 31 Guizot, François 142 Guthrie, Thomas 183

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

Index Haffkine, Waldemar 249 Hall, Robert 20 Hallam, Henry 142 Hampden, Renn Dickson 144–5 Hanoverians 17–24, 32, 44–5, 58, 246, 282 Adelaide, Queen 23–4, 26 Cambridge, Adolphus Duke of 45 Cambridge, George Duke of 26, 54, 58, 84, 205 Caroline of Brunswick 22–3 Charlotte, Princess 19–21, 115, 215, 246 Cumberland, Ernest, Duke of 32, 44–5, 186 George III 18, 22, 206, 246, 267 George IV 18–19, 22, 30, 81, 171, 185, 187, 271 Kent, Edward Duke of 20–2, 26, 44 Kent, Marie Louise Victoire Duchess of 25–6, 44, 49–50, 116 Sussex, Augustus Frederick Duke of 24 William IV 17–19, 23–4, 32, 171, 271 York, George Frederick Duke of 23 Habsburgs 5, 206 Franz Josef, Kaiser 5 Harcourt, William 97 Hare, Julius Charles 53 Havelock, General Henry 207 Healy, Tim 275 Helena, Princess 20, 60, 119, 149, 220–1, 237 Helps, Arthur 7, 125–7 Herkomer, Herbert von 267 Herridge, W.T. 265–6 Hohenzollern dynasty Augusta, Kaiserin 55, 57–9, 62, 90 Friedrich, Crown Prince, see Friedrich III, Kaiser Friedrich III, Kaiser 45, 55–7, 59, 63–4, 206, 247 Friedrich Wilhelm III 51–2, 115–16 Friedrich Wilhelm IV 45–6, 51–6 Wilhelm I, Kaiser 4, 55–9, 61, 156 Wilhelm II, Kaiser 59, 63–4, 267, 269 Holland, Henry Scott 240, 273, 277 Holmes, Richard 25 Hook, Walter Farquhar 144 How, Walsham 237–8 Hurwitz, Hyman 246

341

India Bodh Gaya 281–2 Calcutta 241, 249–51, 281 Victoria Memorial Hall 280 1858 Proclamation 250, 280 Indian Rebellion 250 Viceroys 250–1, 280 Ireland 11, 31–2, 170–1, 184–91, 231, 234, 245 Belfast 96, 191, 245, 271 Catholic Emancipation 22–4 Cork 185, 189, 245 Dublin 31, 170, 185–7, 190–1, 239, 245, 275 Famine 170, 184–5 Fenianism 187–8, 245 Freemasons 188 Irish in London 158, 245 Killarney 186 Maynooth College 184–5 Orange Lodges 32, 186, 188, 245, 275 Royal visits 185–91 Tipperary 274–5 Ulster Protestants 186, 191, 245, 271 Viceroys 186–9 Islam 251–2, 272 Isle of Wight Carisbrooke Castle 18, 218 Newport Church 18 Osborne House 64, 80–1, 86, 92, 121, 123, 139, 214, 218, 220, 243, 266–8, 271, 276 St Mildred’s, Whippingham 80, 82–4, 205, 217–18, 266–8 Jews in Australia 246 in Britain 21, 31–2, 52–3, 232, 234, 246–9, 273, 277 in Canada 2 in India 249–50 Jocelyn, Lady 108 Jordan, Dorothea 24 Jubilees 231–52 Diamond 1–2, 5, 159, 191, 231–2, 237–8, 241, 246, 249–51, 253, 276, 285 Golden 12, 111, 235–6, 239, 241

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

342

Index

Kamehameha IV, King of the Sandwich Islands 85 Karim, Abdul 179, 251–2 Kingsley, Charles 86, 94, 149 Kirk see Church of Scotland Labotsibeni Mdluli, Queen of Swaziland 279 Laeken 47, 115 Lang, Cosmo Gordon 139–40, 156–7, 159, 220, 268–70 Lee, Robert 95, 175–6, 181 Leeds 286 Lees, James Cameron 175–7, 179, 183 Leiningen, Charles of 44, 109 Leiningen, Feodora of 44, 206 Leitner, G.W. 252 Leopold, King of Belgium 20, 30, 47, 109, 115, 119–20, 141, 145, 172, 208 Leopold, Prince 58, 82, 84, 114, 149, 155, 175, 178, 206, 208–17, 267 Widow Helena 175 Liberal Party 157–9, 170, 181–2 Liddell, Henry George 93, 149 Lightfoot, Joseph Barber 149 Lillie, Arthur 253 Lily Font 84 Liverpool 28, 122–23 Princes Road Synagogue 219 Livingstone, David 149, 207, 243 London 44, 52, 59, 94, 112, 146, 152, 157–8, 173, 186–7, 234, 240, 242–3, 245, 249–50, 253, 268–70, 273, 275, 281 Blackfriars 95 Brompton Oratory 244 Buckingham Palace 18, 44, 80–1, 84, 214 Camberwell 146 City of London, Bevis Marks Synagogue 31 Clerkenwell 187 Dalston Synagogue 277 Eaton Square 273–4 St James, Chapel Royal 23, 80, 82, 142, 144 St James, German Chapel 44, 84 St James, Great Synagogue, Duke’s Place 215, 247

Hyde Park 88, 90, 93, 124 Islington, Union Chapel 238 Kennington 88, 146 Kensington Gardens 91 Kensington Palace 27 Lambeth Palace 156 Limehouse, Asiatic Strangers House 85 Mile End Road 157 Peckham 21, 89, 146 Southwark, St Saviour’s Church 239–40 St Paul’s Cathedral 5, 17, 20, 53, 216, 233–41, 270–1, 276–9 Sydenham, Crystal Palace 93–4 Victoria Station 269 Westminster Abbey 22–3, 149–50, 152, 177, 207, 211, 217, 233, 235, 240, 245, 247 Whitechapel, Royal London Hospital 95 Woolwich 210 Lorne, John Campbell Marquis of 25, 174, 215, 267, 277 Louise, Princess 63, 119, 174–5 Louise, Queen of Belgium 30, 47, 112, 115, 145, 207 Luther and Lutheranism 9–10, 18, 24, 42–4, 46–9, 52–7, 60–2, 84, 140, 172, 178, 185, 268, 283 Lyell, Charles 96 Lynch, Joseph 245–6 Lyttelton, Lucy 80, 82, 87, 110, 112 Lyttelton, Sarah, Lady 82 Lytton, Mary 251 Macaulay, Thomas Babington 146 McGonagall, William 156 MacGregor, James 174–82, 209, 221 MacHale, John 185–6 Mackay, Donald Sage 277 Mackennal, Alexander 276 Macleod, Donald 173–4, 182 Macleod, Norman 91, 113, 119, 126, 174, 177, 180, 212 McNeile, Hugh 151 Magee, William 187–8 Mallet, Marie 80–1, 173, 220 Manchester 187 Manliness 205

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

Index Manning, Henry Cardinal 188, 210, 243–5 Marks, John Ebenezer 252 Marriage as diplomatic tool and spiritual vector 43–4, 59–60, 62–3 in Christian thought 78–9, 86–90 with a deceased wife’s sister 155 Martin, Theodore 7, 126–9, 158, 251 The Life of the Prince Consort (1875–1880) 127–8 Mary of Teck, Princess 209 Max Müller, Friedrich 149, 251 Melbourne, Lord 46, 52–4, 141–4, 184 Miley, John 30–2 Milman, Henry Hart 144 Minto, Lord 186 Molesworth, William 32 Monarchy 144–5 Historiography of 4–5, 10–11, 139–40 Opposition to 88, 219, 242, 285 and religion 4–5, 8–9, 18–24, 27–32, 88, 94, 126–7, 143–5, 206, 232, 234, 238–9, 284–5 and the United Kingdom 169–70 Montefiore, Moses 31 Moody and Sankey 157 Moran, Cardinal 245 Morier, Robert 56–9 Municipal Corporations Act (1835) 28 Murray, Daniel 185–6 Netley, Royal Victoria Hospital 219 Newcastle 29, 64 Newman, John Henry 144 New Zealand Auckland 285–6 Christ Church 241 Māori 85, 123, 242 Napoleon III 209–10 Nightingale, Florence 96, 219 Nihilism 156 Nonconformists see Protestant Dissenters Norfolk, Duke of 190, 268 Nottingham 272 O’Brien, William Smith 245 Oliphant, Margaret 18, 173 Orléans dynasty Chartres, Duc de 112, 116

343 Louis Philippe, King 30, 47, 112, 116 Marie Amélie, Queen 46, 116 Nemours, Victoire Duchesse de 46

Palmerston, Lord 44–5, 94–5, 150–1 Papacy 170–1 Pius IX 171, 186–7, 190 Leo XIII, Pope 171, 190–1, 244, 274 Paris 54, 116, 145, 234 Parliament 29–32, 46, 97, 109, 124, 139, 142–5, 147, 154, 156–8, 169, 175–6, 188, 211, 246, 275 Patten, George 46 Peel, Sir Robert 53, 81–2, 142–4, 170–2, 175, 184 Philpott, Henry 148–9 Phipps, Charles 152 Plymouth Hoe 221 Pomare, Hariata 85 Ponsonby, Henry 97, 152, 179, 183 Ponsonby, Mary see Bulteel, Mary Portsmouth 208, 210, 217, 268–9, 275 Preaching see sermons Presbyterianism 1, 6, 20, 63, 91, 113, 123, 147, 149, 153, 169–83, 241, 277, 283 Prince Imperial 209–11 Privy Council 23–4, 27, 30–1, 125, 145–6, 232–3, 235–8 Protestant Constitution 21 Protestant Dissenters 22–4, 28–9, 50, 55, 94–5, 122, 139–42, 144, 147, 150, 153, 157, 169–70, 176, 181, 184, 234, 238–9, 241, 266, 272, 283 Protestant Succession 18–19, 32, 154 Prothero, George 80, 94 Providence 9, 20–1, 27, 30–1, 94–5, 123, 151, 184, 216, 269, 280 Pusey, Edward Bouverie 144 Ramsden, Sir John 239 Redmond, John 191 Reid, George 179 Reid, James 97, 251–2 Renan, Ernest 61 Rhodes, Cecil 243 Robertson, Frederick William 91, 125 Roman Catholicism 31 In Australia 245 In Canada 245–6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

344

Index

Roman Catholicism (cont.) In England 234, 243–4, 275 In Ireland 184–91 Romanovs Alexander II, Tsar 63, 156 Nicholas, Cesarevitch 63 Rome, Church of 3, 11, 48–9, 146–7, 152–3, 159, 170–1, 186–7, 243–4 Rose, Hugh James 42–3, 48, 53 Rosebery, Earl of 158–9, 183 Rothschild, Lionel de 248 Rothschild, Nathan, 1st Baron 247 Routhier, Adolphe-Basile 246 Rowsell, Thomas James 156 Royal Navy HMY Alberta 268–9 HMS Blenheim 217 HMS Blonde 217 HMY Osborne 210 Ruffo-Scilla, Monsignor 190, 244 Russell, Lord John 57, 88, 90, 112, 143–5, 147, 157, 184, 186 Russell, Odo 58 Salisbury, Marquis of 91, 155–6, 217, 244 Salvation Army 157 Sandringham 88, 214 Savage-Armstrong, George Francis 231 Scotland Act of Union 169–70, 183 Ballater and Braemar 181 Balmoral Castle 18, 63, 78–9, 80, 91, 97, 119, 120, 140, 169–70, 172, 173, 175–7, 179, 181, 186, 218, 221 Blair Athole 80, 171 Covenanters 176, 181 Crathie Kirk 11, 80, 120, 169–74, 178, 181–2, 214, 241 Edinburgh, Old Greyfriars 175–6 St Giles’ Cathedral 177 Glasgow University 182 Highlands 7, 120, 172–3, 277 Iona 176, 180, 218 Inverness, St Andrew’s Cathedral 180 Sabbath observance in 91 Waverley novels 172 Scott, Francis 205, 208, 216

Scott, George Gilbert 124 Scottish Episcopal Church 176, 179–80, 283 Seaforth Highlanders 208, 210 Seddon, Richard 242, 272 Sedgwick, Adam 127 Sermons 8–9, 17, 19–24, 29–31, 48, 78, 82–3, 86–8, 92–3, 120, 122–3, 141–4, 148–9, 173–5, 177–8, 183, 206, 213–16, 218–21, 234–5, 239–41, 265–6, 268, 276–9, 284–5 Shaftesbury, Lord 28, 81, 86, 94–5, 110, 146, 150, 234 Singh, Duleep 85 Singh, Victor Albert 85 Smith, Sydney 17–18 Soga, Tiyo 123 South Africa Cape Town 248, 273–4 Port Elizabeth 279 Pretoria 209, 221 South African War 191, 219–22, 265–6, 278–9, 284 Southwark, Roman Catholic Bishop of 211 Spencer, Lord 188 Stanford, John Frederick 42 Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn 60, 85–6, 96, 112–13, 144, 149–50, 152–3, 155, 157, 176–7, 181, 187–8, 207, 213, 233–5, 283 Stanley, Edward, Bishop of Norwich 92, 142 Stanley, Lord 112, 128, 182, 213 Stead, W.T. 5, 55, 89, 139 Stockmar, Baron 54, 57, 115 Story, Robert Herbert 174, 176, 177, 182 Stowe, Harriet Beecher 243 Strachey, Lytton 3, 8, 11 Strauss, David Friedrich 7, 49, 60–1 Sullivan, Arthur 113, 212, 214, 217, 237 Sutherland, Anne Sutherland-LevesonGower, Duchess of 215 Sutherland, Harriet Sutherland-LevesonGower, Duchess of 117, 121, 173–4, 187 Swaziland 279

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

Index Tagore, Jotendra Mohun 250, 280 Talbot, Edward 239–40, 285 Taylor, Malcolm 174, 182 Taylor Smith, John 218–19 Teignmouth Shore, Thomas 61, 64 Thanksgivings and special prayers 30–1, 89, 94–5, 188, 232–5 Thom, John Hamilton 122–3 Tulloch, John 43, 95, 173–4, 177–8, 180, 182, 206 Tunuirangi, Hoani Paraone 242 Tyndall, John 96, 150 United States 22, 28, 87, 112, 122, 236, 243, 245, 273 Boston 245 New York 273, 277 Vatican see Papacy Vaughan, Cardinal Herbert 244, 249, 274 Vicars, Hedley 207 Victoria, Queen Accession 27 and Africa 242–3 Anti-clericalism 48, 147, 159 Artists, musicians and photographers patronised by: Albani, Madame 270 Bambridge, William 83 Boehm, Joseph Edgar 62, 64, 211–12, 214 Corbould, Edward Henry 125, 220 Dalou, Jules 61 Fuchs, Emil 221 Gilbert, Alfred 214, 218 Gruner, Ludwig 118 Hayter, George 84 Jaeger, Gustav 267 Jubilee Singers 243 King. H.N. 120 Landseer, Edwin 92, 121, 172 Leslie, Charles 28, 84 Lind, Jenny 50 Macleay, Kenneth 172 Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Felix 50, 86, 247 Marochetti, Carlo 85, 117, 119–20, 128 Noel Paton, Joseph 181

345 Rauch, Christian Daniel 116 Rothbart, Ferdinand 115 Salviati, Antonio 124 Theed, William 117–19 Thomas, George Housman 84, 119 Thorburn, Robert 125 Triqueti, Henri de 116, 124, 211 Wilkie, David 27 Winterhalter, Franz Xaver 85 Assassination attempts on 30–1 Attitudes to Crimean War 55, 94–5, 219–20 Attitudes to days of fasting and humiliation 94–5 Attitudes to divorce courts 88–9 Attitudes to France 58–9 attitudes to India and Indian religion 251–52 Attitudes to natural science 92–7 Attitudes to Prussia and the Hohenzollerns 51–9, 62–4 Attitudes to 1848 Revolutions 54–5, 145–6 Attitudes to Roman Catholicism and the papacy 48–9, 147, 152–5, 159, 170–1, 184–91 Attitudes to Russia and Russian Orthodoxy 55–6, 63 Attitudes to Sunday and Sabbatarianism 78–9, 90–2 and baptism 84–5, 179 Biographies of 2–3, 25 and Buddhists 252–3 Children see Albert Edward, Prince of Wales; Alice, Princess; Alfred, Prince; Arthur, Prince; Beatrice, Princess; Helena, Princess; Leopold, Prince; Louise, Princess; Victoria, Crown Princess and the Church of Scotland 170–83 and Colonial Contagious Diseases Acts 89 Commemoration of Prince Albert 124–9 and communion 26, 82–4, 178–9 and confirmation 26, 83–4 Coronation 27–9 Correspondence 8 Criticism of 89, 128–9, 191, 236, 242 and crucifixes 47, 50, 125, 189, 267–8

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

346

Index

Victoria, Queen (cont.) Death and burial 12, 266–76 Diaries 7 and dogs 92, 97, 208, 217 Domesticity and domestic religion 76–89 Education 24–7 and the Eucharist, see Communion. Fear of Chartism 145–6 Funeral directions 268 Gendered spirituality 207–8 and the Great Exhibition 93–4 Grief and mourning 59, 61–4, 108–29, 205–22 Half brother and sister, Leiningen 44, 109, 206 and the Highlands 172–3, 277 and hospitals 95–6, 207–8, 219–20 and images of loved ones 118–19 and Ireland 184–91, 274–5 and Jack the Ripper 89 and John Brown 119, 121, 127–9, 173, 175, 206 and liberal Protestantism 7, 10, 79, 91, 126, 140–5, 147–52, 154–7, 170, 173–4, 250–1, 283–4 and lived religion 5, 11, 171, 189–90 Māori visitors to 85, 123 Marriage 46, 86–7 and music 50, 215–17 Opposition to animal vivisection 96–7 Opposition to disestablishment 157–9, 181–3, 187–8 Opposition to national thanksgivings 95–6, 233–4 Opposition to Ritualism 152–5 and photography 8, 79, 81, 83–4, 119–20, 125, 127, 189, 210, 219, 243, 267 Popular sympathy for 120–3, 213, 215–16, 219, 221, 233 Prayer Books 26, 82 Private chapels 63, 80–2, 84, 87, 112, 173, 214 and Protestant Dissenters 157–8, 234 Reading 25–6, 48–9, 82, 96, 121, 146, 172–3, 212, 243 and the Reformation 140–41, 148, 155, 159, 181 in retrospect 282–6

Sacramentalism 82–3 and the Sandwich Islands 85–6 and Socialists 158 and soldiers 207–8, 219–20 Statues and stained glass windows of 239, 273–4, 279 and the Stuarts 18 Supreme Governor of the Church 25, 139–40, 253 and Tennyson, Alfred Lord 86, 113–14, 116, 119, 174, 209, 212 Visits: Berlin 55–6, 115–16 Biarritz 189 Cannes 211–12 Coburg 47–8, 56–7, 60–1, 64 Darmstadt 60–2 Gotha 48 Grand Chartreuse 189 Guernsey 90 Ireland 185–6, 191 Milan 189 Wales 158 Widowhood 120–4 Writings 126–9, 172–3, 179, 208 Victoria, Crown Princess 55–9, 62, 96, 111, 124, 152, 172, 187, 220, 243, 247 Son Sigismund 59, 61 Son Waldemar 59 Walbaum, Dr 44, 84 Wales 142, 146, 157–8, 170, 183, 232, 234 Walsh, William 189 Waterpark, Lady 12, 111 Waugh, Evelyn 284 Wellesley, Gerald 7, 93, 116, 14–55, 178, 234 Wellington, Duke of 207 Wells, H.G. 282 Westcott, Brooke Foss 148 Whately, Richard 142 Wilberforce, Robert Isaac 147 Wilberforce, Samuel 53, 82–3, 87, 110, 113–14, 142 Wilberforce, William 26 Williamson, F.J. 211, 285 Windsor Castle 20, 50, 61, 64, 80, 92, 112, 117, 125, 128, 269–70

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/3/2021, SPi

Index Railway station 215 St George’s Chapel 18–19, 23–4, 64, 82, 84, 87, 117, 124, 149, 210–1, 213–15, 221, 237, 269–72 Winchilsea, Lord 184 Wirgman, Theodore 272

Wiseman, Nicholas 146–7 Worcester 272–3 Wordsworth, Charles 180 Wordsworth, Christopher 87 Zulu War 210–11

347