The Letters of Queen Victoria Volume Iii Part 46

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Palmerston._

OSBORNE, _21st May 1856_.

The Queen is very anxious about the fixing of our Peace establishment both for the Army and Navy. Although Lord Hardinge's proposals are before the Government already for some time, no proposal has yet been submitted to the Queen; and on enquiry from Sir C. Wood, he stated but two days ago that no reduction of the Navy was yet settled. On the other hand, the Queen sees from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech that he specifies the sums by which both Army and Navy estimates are to be reduced. This _prejudges_ the whole question, and will deprive the Government of all power freely to consider these important questions. The Queen was, moreover, sorry to find Mr Disraeli, Mr Gladstone, and Sir Francis Baring agreeing with the doctrine of the _Times_ and Lord Grey that we ought _not_ to improve our state of preparation for war; and if we had been better prepared for the late war, we should have been still more disappointed.[29]

[Footnote 29: In the course of an elaborate reply, Lord Palmerston stated that the country had never been in a better condition of defence than at the present time, but he insisted that the Militia, which from 1815 to 1832 had been allowed to become extinct, must be maintained in an efficient state--120,000 strong.]

[Pageheading: t.i.tLE OF PRINCE CONSORT]

[Pageheading: PRECEDENCE OF PRINCE ALBERT]

_Memorandum by Queen Victoria._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _May 1856_.

It is a strange omission in our Const.i.tution that while _the wife_ of a _King_ has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband a.s.signed to her by law, the _husband_ of a _Queen regnant_ is entirely ignored by the law. This is the more extraordinary, as a husband has in this country such particular rights and such great power over his wife, and as the Queen is married just as any other woman is, and swears to obey her lord and master, as such, while by law he has no rank or defined position. This is a strange anomaly.

No doubt, as is the case _now_--the Queen _can_ give her husband the highest _place_ by _placing_ him _always near her person_, and the Nation would give it him as a _matter of course_. Still, when I first married, we had much difficulty on this subject; much bad feeling was shown, and several members of the Royal Family showed bad grace in giving precedence to the Prince, and the late King of Hanover positively resisted doing so. I gave the Prince precedence by issuing Letters Patent, but these give no rank in Parliament--or at the Council Board--and it would be far better to put this question beyond all doubt, and to secure its settlement for _all future Consorts of Queens_, and thus have this omission in the Const.i.tution rectified.

Naturally my own feeling would be to give the Prince the same t.i.tle and rank as I have, but a t.i.tular King is a complete novelty in this country, and might be productive of more inconveniences than advantages to the individual who bears it. Therefore, upon mature reflection, and after considering the question for nearly _sixteen years_, I have come to the conclusion that the t.i.tle which is now by universal consent given him of "Prince Consort," with the highest rank in and out of Parliament immediately after the Queen, and before every other Prince of the Royal Family, should be the one a.s.signed to the husband of the Queen regnant _once and for all_. This ought to be done before our children grow up, and it seems peculiarly easy to do so _now_ that none of the old branches of the Royal Family are still alive.

The present position is this: that while every British subject, down to the Knight, Bachelor, Doctor, and Esquire, has a rank and position by _Law_, the Queen's husband alone has one by _favour_--and by his wife's favour, who may grant it or not! When granted as in the present case, it does not extend to Parliament and the Council, and the children may deny the position which their mother has given to their father as a usurpation over them, having the law on their side; or if they waive their rights in his favour, he will hold a position granted by the forbearance of his children. In both cases this is a position most derogatory to the Queen as well as to her husband, and most dangerous to the peace and well-being of her family. If the children resist, the Queen will have her husband pushed away from her side by her children, and they will take precedence over the man whom she is bound to obey; if they are dutiful, she will owe her peace of mind to their continued generosity.

With relation to Foreign Courts, the Queen's position is equally humiliating in this respect. _Some_ Sovereigns (crowned heads) address her husband as "Brother," some as "Brother and Cousin," some merely as "Cousin." When the Queen has been abroad, her husband's position has always been a subject of negotiation and vexation; the position which has been accorded to him the Queen has always had to acknowledge as a grace and favour bestowed on her by the Sovereign whom she visited.

While last year the Emperor of the French treated the Prince as a Royal personage, his uncle declined to come to Paris avowedly because he would not give precedence to the Prince; and on the Rhine in 1845 the King of Prussia could not give the place to the Queen's husband which common civility required, because of the presence of an Archduke, the third son of an uncle of the then reigning Emperor of Austria, who would not give the _pas_, and whom the King would not offend.

The only legal position in Europe, according to international law, which the husband of the Queen of England enjoys, is that of a younger brother of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, and this merely because the English law does not know of him. This is derogatory to the dignity of the Crown of England.

But _nationally_ also it is an injury to the position of the Crown that the Queen's husband should have no other t.i.tle than that of Prince of Saxe-Coburg, and thus be perpetually represented to the country as a foreigner. "The Queen and her foreign husband, the Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha!"

The Queen has a right to claim that her husband should be an Englishman, bearing an English t.i.tle, and enjoying a legal position which she has not to defend with a wife's anxiety as a usurpation against her own children, her subjects, and Foreign Courts.

The question has often been discussed by me with different Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors, who have invariably entirely agreed with me; but the wish to wait for a good moment to bring the matter before Parliament has caused one year after another to elapse without anything being done. If I become _now_ more anxious to have it settled, it is in order that it should be so before our children are grown up, that it might not appear to be done in order to guard their father's position against them personally, which could not fail to produce a painful impression upon their minds.

If properly explained to Parliament and the country, I cannot foresee the slightest difficulty in getting such a necessary measure pa.s.sed, particularly if it be made quite clear to the House of Commons that it is in no way connected with a desire to obtain an increased grant for the Prince.[30]

VICTORIA R.

[Footnote 30: See _post_, 28th June, 1856, note 33.]

[Pageheading: SABBATARIANISM]

_Queen Victoria to Viscount Hardinge._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _1st June 1856_.

The Queen understands that there is an attempt to be made to prevent the military bands from playing when the Troops march to church on a Sunday.

She is anxious to express to Lord Hardinge her very strong feeling on this subject, and her wish that he should on _no_ account give way to such a proposal. _Whatever_ has been the custom should be firmly adhered to, and Lord Hardinge is perfectly at liberty to make use of the Queen's name, and say he could not bring such a proposal before her, as he knew she would not consent to it.[31]

[Footnote 31: The custom of bands playing in the public parks on Sundays had been objected to by various religious bodies, and in April a letter on the subject was written to Lord Palmerston by the Archbishop of Canterbury, after which the performances were discontinued, the Government giving way before the threat of a vote of censure. A similar movement was made in opposition to the playing of regimental bands. See _ante_, 7th August, 1855, note 71.]

[Pageheading: WELLINGTON COLLEGE]

_Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians._

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, _3rd June 1856_.

MY DEAREST UNCLE,--I hasten to thank you for your very kind letter of yesterday, just received. Your kind _question_ puts me into considerable perplexity, and I think I cannot do better than by putting you in full possession of the state of the case.

Our house is very full--and it is _possible_ that we may have very shortly the visit of Prince Oscar of Sweden. These Princes have very large _suites_, and I should therefore in such a case be totally unable to lodge you and _them_. But there is another reason. While Fritz Wilhelm is here, _every_ spare moment Vicky has (and _I_ have, for I must chaperon this loving couple--which takes away so much of my precious time) is devoted to her bridegroom, who is _so_ much in love, that, even if he is out driving and walking with her, he is not satisfied, and says he has not seen her, unless he can have her for an hour to himself, when I am naturally bound to be acting as chaperon.

Under these circ.u.mstances I may truly say that dear Charlotte would have very little enjoyment; she would see very little of Vicky, _I could not_ take care of her, and I fear it would be anything but agreeable for her. Fritz Wilhelm would besides be miserable if I took Vicky more away from him than I already do, and therefore _while he_ is here, it would _not_, I think, be advisable that _Charlotte_ should come. Could you _not_ come a little in August when the Prince and Princess of Prussia have left us? Or would you prefer coming in October, when we return from Scotland? You will easily believe, dearest Uncle, _what_ pleasure it gives me to see you; but I know you will understand the reasons I here give for begging you to delay this dear visit either to August or October....

I had a little hope that the Archduke and Charlotte _might_ take a mutual liking; it would be such a good _parti_.

We had an interesting ceremony yesterday, the laying of the first stone of the Wellington College--which is the monument to the memory of the dear old Duke. Dear little Arthur appeared for the first time in public, and I hope you will approve my answer.[32]

Now, dearest Uncle, ever your truly devoted Niece,

VICTORIA R.

[Footnote 32: The Queen's reply to an address presented to her, on behalf of the College, by Lord Derby.]

[Pageheading: THE NATIONAL GALLERY]

_Queen Victoria to Lord Panmure._

WINDSOR CASTLE, _12th June 1856_.

The Queen and Prince had intended to take their visitors down to the Camp on Monday next--the _only day_ which we shall have for a fortnight free from other engagements--and hears, to her _utter astonishment_, that _all_ the troops are gone--not only the Militia, but the 3rd Battalion of the Rifles!--and this without the Queen's hearing _one_ word of it! The Queen is the more astonished and annoyed, as Lord Panmure had promised that the Militia regiments should _not_ be disembodied until there were other troops to replace them, which will not be the case for some little time. _What_ is the cause of this, sudden determination? The Queen is much vexed, as her visitors will not stay long, and are very anxious to visit the Camp; and it is of much importance that Foreign Princes should see what we have, and in what state of efficiency our troops are.