Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: Zanthia on September 07, 2006, 01:28:43 AM

Title: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Zanthia on September 07, 2006, 01:28:43 AM
20 pages on the last one, starting a new one. :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 07, 2006, 09:22:10 AM
That is indeed a challenge. :D
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/81894_128803.jpg)
I think this one isn't posted before.
Queen alexandra and her sister the Dowager Empress playing billiards in their villa near Copenhagen.(Hvidore)

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 07, 2006, 09:56:30 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/queenalexandrasitting.jpg)
Not shore if this one is posted before :-\,but its Queen Alexandra in the Gardens of BuckingHam Palace.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 07, 2006, 10:33:09 AM
 This is a small picture, but it is a beaty.

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/queenalexandrapose.jpg)

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 07, 2006, 03:24:22 PM
Thanks for those Royal Netherlands, some real treats from you as usual. I don't think it matters if you do post pictures that have been posted before, you never know when we may lose previous threads ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Keith on September 07, 2006, 08:25:47 PM
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c256/fajack/Windsor1862.jpg)

Alexandra with QV and Lady-in-Waiting during pre-marriage trip to England, November 1862.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on September 07, 2006, 09:45:59 PM
I always loved that Alexandra wore black during that pre-marriage visit out of respect for Queen Victoria. It was a classy move that definitely put QV more in favor of the marriage.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on September 18, 2006, 03:24:44 AM
She appears to be wearing her favourite serpent bracelet? Wish that was on display somewhere rather than just in the vault, never seeing the light of day :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 18, 2006, 03:28:56 AM
I do love that bracelet, maybe it will be given to QE II's granddaughters.  ;D
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: TampaBay on September 18, 2006, 05:38:42 AM
Has anyone one notice the following or is it just me; 

Photos of Alexandra though old have mordern look as if she was modeling for a "fashion spread" in Vogue whereas all photos of Queen Mary look old as they should!  ??? ??? ???  I think it is the cut of Alexandra's clothes!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on September 18, 2006, 12:40:13 PM
She was always very fashionable, beautiful, and social. Like her sister, she built her life on this, very much. She seems to have been very young, both in looks and in thought throughout her life. She was deaf, and her husband was quite a ladies man, but she was a typical lady of Edwardian society. It really was her era, she was born in the right era.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 19, 2006, 01:47:15 AM
She knew how to dress (like the jackets and later dog-collars) and set up trends. Queens after her like May and Cookie are more indivual and pay less attention to fashion. In this her niece Marina, Duchess of Kent, Princess Margaret and Princess Di were her true heirs.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: alixaannencova on September 19, 2006, 02:11:01 AM
And Queen Maud too, ooh and what about Alix Connaught, she was an absolute glamour puss!! Really could carry off her clothes beautifully and she was beautiful too!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 19, 2006, 03:42:53 AM
And Queen Maud too, ooh and what about Alix Connaught, she was an absolute glamour puss!! Really could carry off her clothes beautifully and she was beautiful too!

Do you mean Louise Fife's daughter Alexandra? Yes she was very beautiful like her grandmother.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 19, 2006, 03:44:02 AM
She was always very fashionable, beautiful, and social. Like her sister, she built her life on this, very much. She seems to have been very young, both in looks and in thought throughout her life. She was deaf, and her husband was quite a ladies man, but she was a typical lady of Edwardian society. It really was her era, she was born in the right era.

Queen Alexandra wasn't totally deaf was she? I mean she could speak fine and she didn't use sign language!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 19, 2006, 03:45:52 AM
Has anyone one notice the following or is it just me; 

Photos of Alexandra though old have mordern look as if she was modeling for a "fashion spread" in Vogue whereas all photos of Queen Mary look old as they should!  ??? ??? ???  I think it is the cut of Alexandra's clothes!

TampaBay

I think Queen Alexandra and her clothes are far too beautiful to be found in a modern day issue of Vogue, that's for sure. But I love everything about her style. It's a pity women don't have the opportunity to dress like this today, unless they are starring in a period film.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 19, 2006, 03:47:22 AM
She appears to be wearing her favourite serpent bracelet? Wish that was on display somewhere rather than just in the vault, never seeing the light of day :)

Where is this serpent bracelet now? Who did Alix leave it to? Maybe QEII doesn't have it. ??? I wish to see it again very much as well.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 19, 2006, 04:31:23 AM
In a bank vault I think.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: alixaannencova on September 19, 2006, 06:10:54 AM
I believe Prince William wears one of EVII's bangles, I think it may be made of copper. Perhaps Alix's sepent bracelet is waiting for some one to pick out.

On the other hand after Alix died, GV, QM, Toria and Maud got together at Sandingham, and divided QA's personal hoard between them. I wonder if any pieces were put aside for Louise and her girls? Perhaps the long unseen bracelet is sitting in the Fife/Southesk deposit box. Just a thought!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on September 19, 2006, 06:35:53 AM
She was always very fashionable, beautiful, and social. Like her sister, she built her life on this, very much. She seems to have been very young, both in looks and in thought throughout her life. She was deaf, and her husband was quite a ladies man, but she was a typical lady of Edwardian society. It really was her era, she was born in the right era.

Queen Alexandra wasn't totally deaf was she? I mean she could speak fine and she didn't use sign language!

In her very old age, she was said to be "stone deaf".  Her hearing deteriorated after her rheumatic fever illness in 1867, when she was only 22 and got progressively worse.  As time went on, it necessitated her withdrawal from the Marlborough House socialising which she had previously enjoyed with Bertie.  Her speech was not affected as she was not deaf in her earliest years.  She wouldn't have wanted to use sign language, as she was sensitive about her handicap and tried to hide it, or at least downplay it, where possible.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 19, 2006, 06:58:21 AM
I believe Prince William wears one of EVII's bangles, I think it may be made of copper. Perhaps Alix's sepent bracelet is waiting for some one to pick out.

On the other hand after Alix died, GV, QM, Toria and Maud got together at Sandingham, and divided QA's personal hoard between them. I wonder if any pieces were put aside for Louise and her girls? Perhaps the long unseen bracelet is sitting in the Fife/Southesk deposit box. Just a thought!

I have seen that bangle thing that William wears, I thought it looked too modern to be an inherited thing. That's great if he does where Edward VII's bangle. I sometimes wonder which of their ancestors/relatives the young royals are particularly interested in. I wonder, for instance, if Lord Frederick is interested or is even aware of his strong resemblance to his great-great-uncle Prince Eddy?!

I was thinking the same thing, that maybe the serpent bracelet was left to Louise and is currently with her descendents. I see no reason to assume it was left to George, who gave it to George VI who gave it to EII. It could have gone to several other branches, who knows? ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 19, 2006, 09:53:04 AM
Here are some pictures of Alexandra in later life from some old magazines.
I really like those snap shots of Queen Alexandra,she always looks so nice and spontaneous.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/AlixandToriaonavisit.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/alixtoriaolder.jpg)
Queen Alexandra and her daughter Princess Victoria (''Toria'') visiting Farnborough England.(1915)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/alexandra.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/MayAlixandothersroyalsattheaparty.jpg)
Three Queens attend the Royal Garden Party at Montague House,The London Mansion of the Duke of Buccleuch in honor of the France's day.(1915)
In this unnusual assembled on the balcony of the Montague House, where the principell adress of the ''France day'' was delivered by Lord Curzon are
Queen Mary with the former Queen Amelie of Portugal and on her right Queen Alexandra in conversation with Princess Christian,M,Paul Cambon
The French inbassador in the centre Princess Mary the Princess Royal and Princess Arthur of Connaught, in the background and on the left The Duke of Somerset and the Duchess of Somerset, The Duchess of Devonshire and facing them Lord Curzon.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 19, 2006, 09:57:22 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/alexandrastanding.jpg)
Queen Alexandra saluted by little Inmates of Sir William Treloar's Home fore cripples at Alton England.(1914)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/Alexandrawestminsterabbey.jpg)
Queen Alexandra leaving Westmister Abbey.(1915)

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 19, 2006, 09:57:57 AM

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/AlixandToriaonavisit.jpg)

And you can see good, loyal Sir Dighton Probyn right by her side as ever.

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/alexandra.jpg)

In the back, it looks like that could be Pss Louise (profile, black hat) with her daughter Alexandra (in white) next to her.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 19, 2006, 10:04:01 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/alexandrainspecting.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/alexandra23.jpg)
If Im right gdella posted this image in a earlier thread.
Queen Alexandra inspecting one of a fleet of sixteen ambulance's.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/Alexandrainspectingtheguard.jpg)
King George V and his mother watching the young soldiers of America as they marched past Buckinham Palace.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 19, 2006, 10:08:28 AM
 
 

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/alexandra.jpg)

In the back, it looks like that could be Pss Louise (profile, black hat) with her daughter Alexandra (in white) next to her.
 
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/np_zoomView.jpg)
Yes I was thinking the same thing actually, and Im almost shore they are Princess Louise and her daughter Alexandra. At first I was thinking is could be Maud but it is Alexandra. :)

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: alixaannencova on September 19, 2006, 10:42:23 AM
Louise in profile!

Thank you Royal Netherlands! Super to see another later piccie of her! Who is the woman on Alix Connaught's other side?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 20, 2006, 02:13:49 PM
(From a King's Story)


The Duke of Windsor about his Grandmother Queen Alexandra.

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/82287_129203.jpg)
Prince Edward of York  ,( later Prince of Wales, King Edward VIII and Duke of Windsor), pictured with his grandmother, Queen Alexandra   around 1900. 

"My Grandmother, Queen Alexandra, lived in the ''Big House'' as usual.
I almost visited her every evening just to have a talk with her, play patience or we spend time making a jigsaw.
 Back then she already was a older lady, but she still owned a lot of her beauty she had when she came to England fifty years ago, as a charming young woman who was about to get married to my grandfather.
With her elegant physiognomy, her high hairstyle and graceful gesture she still was the object of common admiration.
The allure she projected was irresistible, and that charm made her handicap's come on the second place, her limp and deafness.
And her revolt against the accuracy in a family where every thing depends on time.
She always came to late, fore dinners, church, trains and what was the worst at  ceremony's.
The story goes that she even was to late at her own coronation, and that my grandfather came in to her dressing room (with his watch in his hand) blaming "Dear Alix, if you’re not coming right now you’re not going to be crowned as a Queen".


RN



 
 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 22, 2006, 01:58:29 PM
It's a bit of topic, but its still about Alexandra and her bracelet.
Found this picture of Queen Emma and her two year old daughter in 1882, she is also wearing some kind of Snake Bracelet.
Isn't she?
I know it isn't the same as Alexandra but is it a Snake bracelet?
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/emmaandsnakebraceletcorrectie.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/emmaandsnakebracelet2.jpg)


RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 22, 2006, 05:45:18 PM
It could very well be--snake bracelets were popular at the time, perhaps due to QA.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 22, 2006, 10:53:28 PM
Queen Victoria had a snake engagement ring. I don't think any pictures are available of it because it was buried with her.

Has anyone got a picture where her snake ring is visible? :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 23, 2006, 09:44:44 AM
Well maybe you all start a thread about this subject. ;)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/dagmar4.jpg)
Alix and Minny in Hvidore (picture from the GREM).
On the desk their is a picture of Alix and Bertie, and if you watch very carefully you can see a picture of Alix ,Minny and their father standing in the middle.
The picture was made during a visited to Denmark probally,their have been made quit some shot of this pose.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 23, 2006, 09:49:06 AM
There were quite a few shots taken at that sitting if memory serves. I'm not sure if it was to commemorate a particular occasion or 'just because'. Alexandra is wearing black so perhaps on a visit while she was mourning EVII (I think she took a long trip to Denmark soon after her widowhood) or perhaps when the sisters were in Denmark following their brother Frederick's death?

Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: TampaBay on September 23, 2006, 10:03:08 AM
I think Alix was probably the best Princess of Wales to date for all the reasons I discussed above.  The fact she was Royal helped but she completely adapted to the Windsor clan without losing a sense of herself.  This was no easy task on her part.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 23, 2006, 10:05:22 AM
Alix cerainly did not shrank from helping others and giving her heart at the same time. In comparison May wasn't as daring as her mother-in-law.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: TampaBay on September 23, 2006, 10:13:48 AM
I find it difficult to view "Old Emerald & Diamond Drawers" as a consort. 

For all practical purposes she was a co-soverign ( V&A, William & Mary) and Edward VII treated her as such.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 23, 2006, 10:21:18 AM
Really...Then why did he allow May to see documents that denied Alix ? Was it Bertie was afraid of her influrence on the part of her extended family ?  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: TampaBay on September 23, 2006, 10:55:20 AM
Eric,

Old Diamond and Emerald Drawers IS Quenn Mary!!!

I forget you were not around when all the Royals had nicknames, some of which were not very nice. 

GD Ella put a stop to all the non-nice royal nicknames with the exception of "Stavros Glucksburg" and "Cookie".

I view Queen Mary as a co-soverign not Alix.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 23, 2006, 11:19:09 AM
Hmmm...Although Alix was more of a Royal in terms of blood than "poor May".  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 23, 2006, 11:28:24 AM
Here are some more pose's of the picture, I sen earlier.
 http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/minniealixcorrectie.jpg
I think this is (agian ;D) one of my favorit shots of the Royal sisters.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 23, 2006, 11:44:03 AM
 http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/samedresssisterscorrectie.jpg
The two sisters Minny and Alix wearing the same dresses.(In the firat picture also standing Queen Olga of Greece their sister in law picture from GREM)

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: TampaBay on September 23, 2006, 01:50:44 PM
I believe there was vey little George V did without first discussing indepth with May.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 23, 2006, 07:22:21 PM
Eric,

Old Diamond and Emerald Drawers IS Quenn Mary!!!

I forget you were not around when all the Royals had nicknames, some of which were not very nice. 

GD Ella put a stop to all the non-nice royal nicknames with the exception of "Stavros Glucksburg" and "Cookie".

I view Queen Mary as a co-soverign not Alix.

TampaBay

Well Queen Mary just wasn't a co-sovereign. She was a Queen Consort as of course you know, even if George V did consult her on everything.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 23, 2006, 07:29:49 PM
Not sure he consult her on everything. If so Toria would not be on the cruise to Italy with them. The one that both brother and sister gang up and made fun of her... ;D
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 23, 2006, 08:05:51 PM
Not sure he consult her on everything. If so Toria would not be on the cruise to Italy with them. The one that both brother and sister gang up and made fun of her... ;D

I think that's cute. I'm glad that Toria and George were so close. With Eddy and John dead, Maud in Norway and Louise in Scotland with her husband and children, it is so sweet that Toria and George were close companions.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: TampaBay on September 24, 2006, 07:19:47 AM
Eric,

Old Diamond and Emerald Drawers IS Quenn Mary!!!

I forget you were not around when all the Royals had nicknames, some of which were not very nice. 

GD Ella put a stop to all the non-nice royal nicknames with the exception of "Stavros Glucksburg" and "Cookie".

I view Queen Mary as a co-soverign not Alix.

TampaBay

Well Queen Mary just wasn't a co-sovereign. She was a Queen Consort as of course you know, even if George V did consult her on everything.


basilforever,

I agree and I know.  I was stating that my mind never thinks of May as a of Princess of Wales.  I think of her as Queen Mary!  When on says ore reads "Princess on Wales", immediately I think Alix & Diana. Which one!



TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 24, 2006, 11:14:20 AM
basilforever,
I agree and I know.  I was stating that my mind never thinks of May as a of Princess of Wales.  I think of her as Queen Mary!  When on says ore reads "Princess on Wales", immediately I think Alix & Diana. Which one!
TampaBay

Queen Alexandra was Pss of Wales for almost 50 years. The title, and that of POW for her husband, was so identified with them, that EVII didn't annoint his son with the title until George and May had returned from their cruise on the Orphir after about 8 mos. It was figured by then that the public may be able to distinguish them. So for those few months, George and May were Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 24, 2006, 09:11:36 PM
Indeed...Even May had trouble responding to her new title... ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 25, 2006, 09:11:32 AM
You'd think that May would have been prepared to have her Princess of Wales title. When she was engaged to Eddy she thought that would be hers eventually. In fact, May was preparing to be Queen, even before George knew he ever would be King.
Poor Eddy. :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ilyala on September 25, 2006, 09:27:18 AM
i know this is the wrong thread, but since you brought it up, i can't help wondering about may... i mean i know she and george got to love each other in the end, but was that because may *tried* to love george or did it just come naturally? i can't help wondering how she felt about eddy, i mean i don't think for example that he was in love with her... he got engaged because he had to, as heir to the throne, but she was not his first choice, actually she was simply not his choice. was he hers?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 25, 2006, 10:06:06 AM
I don't think I know enough about George and May's feelings for each other to comment properly with total accuracy.

As for Eddy and May. They were both very happy to get engaged to one another and were looking forward to their wedding. I'm sure if Eddy had been able to, he would rather have married Helene, but he like May and was pleased to marry her. Certainly they could have grown to love each other very much. Eddy wasn't forced into it, he wanted to marry May, but some pressure was put on him. Margaret of Prussia was suggested to Eddy and he totally dismissed it, so if he wasn't at least attracted to May he wouldn't have agreed to marry her. He knew that she was right for the ''job'' and she was beautiful and pleasant to him.

May would have felt much the same, fond of Eddy but not really in love I don't think. I read that she was so happy the night they became engaged she lifted up her skirts and did a dance. Not her usual behaviour! She did this in front of others too. :) I'm sure she was sad when Eddy died, because it was just such an extremely tragic and sad event for so many people and in so many ways. I'm sure her number one thought when it happened wouldn't have been ''Oh, no I won't get to be Queen now.'' She was devastated I'm sure because (and for the same reasons) George and the rest of the family and many others were devastated, poor dear Eddy died so young and so suddenly with so much unfulfilled destiny and potential. :'(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 25, 2006, 10:46:38 AM
I think May never really sort out her feelings for Eddy...It is why she never talked about him to others (the only exception being GV).  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 25, 2006, 11:56:41 AM
I don't think she had much to 'sort out' because I don't think she was really 'in love' with Eddy. There's the difference between loving someone (which I think she did Eddy) and being in love. I think it was more like basilforever said--they liked each other, probably would've suited (though I think GV and May suited each other better) and would've in all likelihood had a contented, successful relationship. It may not have been a grand love but it probably would've been a lot better than many royal marriages since they had an underlying relationship having known each other since childhood. May doesn't seem like she talked about many people who died--I don't think she was comfortable with feelings of grief and sadness. Emotional displays seem to have made her ill-at-ease and even in the case of her greatest losses--her husband, her sons--she didn't wear mourning longer than she had to, not because she didn't care but because, based on what Pope-Hennessey wrote of her, was uncomfortable with issues of illness and death.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 25, 2006, 11:57:25 AM
I think she wrote about Eddy in her diary - ''Eddy gave me this when we were engaged'' or something like that. :-\

Eddy and May's relationship could've turned into a grand love, we don't know. I think they were well suited because maybe they were kind of like a ''opposites attract'' type thing. They both would have improved each other in some way perhaps. I think May would've had a good influence on Eddy and she would have made his image and reputation more respectable and relatable when he was a married man with children. :-\

It's funny how this Queen Alexandra thread keeps going away from Queen Alexandra.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 25, 2006, 11:59:11 AM
She was married in the diamond necklace that Alexandra and Bertie had intended to give her upon her marriage to Eddy.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 25, 2006, 12:05:31 PM
Is there a picture to see of said necklace? :)

By the way, what happened to May's engagement ring that Eddy gave her?

Does anyone know what it looked like?

I suppose there is no picture of it, ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 25, 2006, 08:55:58 PM
i think Eddy later became a bond between George & May. Both understood the loss and it kept them togather especially during the early years of marriage.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 25, 2006, 09:32:53 PM
I never sensed that it 'kept them together' during the early days. My impression was more that it was a sense of mutual understanding in the months after Eddy's death. George was surrounded by distraught women, especially his mother, and May was a comforting, sympathetic figure. She shared in the loss but certainly not to the extent of his mother and sisters. I think it helped form the bond that would lead to their marriage.


I think it was a nice gesture of Alexandra and Bertie to give it to her anyway and for her to wear it.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 25, 2006, 10:26:35 PM
I hope that isn't the necklace that QM gave to Princess Margaret that was sold recently!

Please tell me it wasn't.  :o

Grandduchessella, do you know what happened to the engagement ring that Eddy gave May? What did it look like?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 25, 2006, 10:47:19 PM
It could well be the one that was sold... :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 25, 2006, 10:48:54 PM
I'm sorry--I don't know anything about the engagement ring.   :( I don't think the necklace is the same. I looked over the old thread on Margaret's jewelry auction and it didn't indicate anything past that it was Queen Mary's and that she wore it to the 1937 coronation.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 25, 2006, 11:09:32 PM
Welll does the Queen still wear this necklace at all?

It would be SO fascinating to know what the Queen's private thoughts and information about Eddy and associated matters are.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 26, 2006, 02:03:30 AM
No...in the auction catalogue it clearly states it came from Queen Mary...Sorry... :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 26, 2006, 06:32:30 AM
Well it could be another one that came from Queen Mary.

How could they be so stupid to sell a necklace that came from Bertie and Alix and was connected to Eddy too!?

No, it must be a different one. I think Margaret's was smaller.

Who, exactly is responsible for selling Queen Victoria's emerald tiara? ??? >:(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 26, 2006, 09:04:28 AM
No it wasn't sold. Her great grandson inheited it--Lord Harewood. It came from the dowery of his mother, Princess Mary.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 26, 2006, 09:30:48 AM
No...in the auction catalogue it clearly states it came from Queen Mary...Sorry... :(

That's what I stated--it was from QM who wore it at the '37 coronation. It just doesn't seem to be the one given by Alexandra and Bertie. She had many diamond rivieres.

I thought Pss Mary just received QV's sapphire tiara--which the Harewood family still owns. Geoffrey Munn's book Tiaras states that 'a descendant' of QV owns the emerald one and the photo says 'from a private collection'. They list other of Pss Mary's jewels and their provenance but no mention of the emerald tiara.

Since this discussion is veering away from a discussion of QA it may be best to post any further replies on the Windsor Jewels thread.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 26, 2006, 09:40:07 AM
I wonder which decendent got it...it could be the Connaughts or the Fifes... ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 27, 2006, 09:03:27 AM
No it wasn't sold. Her great grandson inheited it--Lord Harewood. It came from the dowery of his mother, Princess Mary.  ;)

No it was sold. You are thinking of her sapphire tiara, I asked about Queen Victoria's emerald tiara.

The one on the cover of ''Tiaras: A History of Splendour".

And Lord Harewood isn't QV's great-grandson.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 27, 2006, 09:08:38 AM
I wonder which decendent got it...it could be the Connaughts or the Fifes... ???

I'm pretty sure the emerald tiara didn't go to any descendents of Edward VII's, or else we would have heard about it probably. :-X
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 27, 2006, 10:25:57 AM
No it wasn't sold. Her great grandson inheited it--Lord Harewood. It came from the dowery of his mother, Princess Mary.  ;)

No it was sold. You are thinking of her sapphire tiara, I asked about Queen Victoria's emerald tiara.

The one on the cover of ''Tiaras: A History of Splendour".

And Lord Harewood isn't QV's great-grandson.

The one on the cover of Tiara's is a different emerald one--the Angouleme maybe? I thought it was the QV one until I got the book down yesterday to look up something.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 27, 2006, 10:50:10 AM
No that was the QV one...they even have a photo of VMH borrowing it to wear...
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: emeraldeyes on September 27, 2006, 11:53:32 AM

I think there's a communication gap going on here - IIRC the first edition of Munn's book has the QV emerald tiara on the cover, later editions (including mine) have the emerald tiara made for the Duchesse d'Angoulême.
For some reason I also thought that QV's emerald tiara ended up with Princess Mary, but I have no idea where I may have read it.  I will try to do some research later.  Could it be in 'Famous Jewelry Collectors'?    ???  ???  ???
As GDella suggested, I will post any info on the Windsor Jewels thread.   :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 27, 2006, 10:43:42 PM
Yes...That's what I thought too.. The emerald tiara is definitely still in the decendents of QV's hands... ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 29, 2006, 09:52:39 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/ThreesistersThyraDagmarAlexandra.jpg)
In memory of the three sisters.
Alexandra (in the middle) 1844-1925
Dagmar (at the left) 1847-1928
Thyra (at the right) 1853-1933

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Prince_Lieven on September 29, 2006, 09:56:11 AM
Isn't it odd that they all died around the same age?  :o
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on September 29, 2006, 10:34:00 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/Alixminnyolderage.jpg)
Mmm..They all died around 80, I think it just was a strong family.
King Christian IX (April 8, 1818- January 26, 1906) Died age 87.
Queen Louise (September 7, 1817- September 29, 1898) Died age 81.
 Frederick VIII of Denmark (June 3, 1843 - May 14, 1912) Died age 68.
Queen Alexandra  (December 1, 1844 - November 20, 1925). Died age 80.
Prince Vilhelm (December 24, 1845 - March 18, 1913) Died age 67. (and not even on a natural way)
Empress Dagmar (November 26, 1847 - October 13, 1928) Died age 80.
Duchess Thyra  (September 29, 1853 - February 26, 1933) Died age 79
Prince Valdemar of Denmark, (October 27, 1858 - January 14, 1939) Died age 80.
The all received a high age especially fore that time, their Father became the oldest with an age of 87. :o
Strong genes I think... ;)

RN

Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 29, 2006, 01:01:38 PM
Pity Eddy didn't live to a similiar age like his mother's family. :'(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Prince_Lieven on September 29, 2006, 01:02:56 PM
None of Alix's children did.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 29, 2006, 08:40:55 PM
The Wales children weren't a particularly healthy bunch--there were numerous health complaints and reports of frail health, especially respiratory--not helped, in at least GV's case, by smoking.

EVII (Nov 1841-May 1910); age 68

Eddy (Jan 1864-1892) ; age 28
GV (June 1865-Jan 1936); age 70
Louise (1867-1931); age 63
Toria (Jul 1868-1935); age 67
Maud (Nov 1869-Nov 1938); died a week shy of age 69

So GV was the only one to get past his 60s, all the children (except for Eddy and Alexander John) died around the same ages.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 29, 2006, 09:04:58 PM
Yes QV said they were puny as children and cannot fancy them much...
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on September 30, 2006, 01:07:35 PM
God that's a pretty harsh thing to say. They weren't puny, and I'm sure QV loved them very much, let alone ''can't fancy them much'', she must have been in a bad mood or something if she wrote that. The poor six Wales kids are not admired enough. :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on September 30, 2006, 02:38:15 PM
They did seem to be rather smallish as children--not surprising since some of them were preemies. QV could be pretty blunt in her descriptions of babies and small children--it doesn't mean she didn't love them. There were few babies, including her own, that received glowing remarks from her.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 30, 2006, 08:19:45 PM
Yes she did not minced words. That was a direct quote from her letters. They did not like her much too in those days. Maud once stomp her feet and cried when force to go to Windsor " I won't go...I won't !"  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on September 30, 2006, 08:54:55 PM
They weren't just lacking in physical health, but apparently at least the girls were lacking in emotional maturity as well. "The Whispering Wales Girls" and all that. Queen Alexandra of course encouraged the immaturity, but I'm not sure if either Eddy or George was ever regarded as particularly immature by any of their contemporaries.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 01, 2006, 01:55:09 AM
No Eddy and George were not regarded as immature. I'm pretty sure they would have had some mature expereinces whilst sailing around the world. But we were talking about them as babies. If you look at baby pictures of them, they look pretty chubby. If I heard my grandparent wrote ''I can't fancy her much, she is puny'' about me, I would be pretty hurt!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on October 01, 2006, 03:27:40 AM
It's not like Queen Victoria ever said she liked any babies though. She said that her own children, who were not puny, looked like frogs. Basically she'd find any excuse to comment on a baby's unattractiveness. If I were Maud, Louise, or Toria and knew that, I wouldn't take it personally.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 01, 2006, 03:45:07 AM
I've found that a lot of Queen Victoria's opinions and viewpoints correspond with my own. But on this we think very differently.
The Wales kids were beautiful babies. They weren't puny as far as I can tell, maybe when they were first born. I love babies, I find any excuse to comment on the cuteness of them. Eddy in particular had the cutest face when he was baby, actually he always had the cutest face, Alix called him her ''sunbeam''. I guess one would not take it personally if QV found you an unnatractive baby, since she found all babies unattractive. But I wonder how she described her own looks. ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Keith on October 01, 2006, 06:24:47 AM
She was pretty much just as candid about her own looks. When the Schleswig-Holstein children were staying with her when Marie Louise was about 2, she sent Helena and Christian a telegram: Children very well, but poor little Louse very ugly! Years later ML asked QV how she could send such an unkind telegram. The reply, My dear child, it was only the truth. Sorry, for getting slightly off-topic. QV pretty much called it as she saw it with looks.   
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 01, 2006, 10:05:28 AM
Indeed ! In this she was very like Sisi, who told someone when her daughter Gisela just bought her first grandaughter over to see her. Sisi told the person. " The baby was strong and ugly...just like Gisela !"
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 01, 2006, 10:08:34 AM
It is mean to talk like that about a baby, especially so openly. But I suppose the culture was different then. :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 01, 2006, 10:15:46 AM
Yes to some people babies are tiresome especially grandchildren. Sisi and QV do think that and so does QM. She once spoke to Princess Margaret saying "Why are you so small !" Talking about a fond granny... ;D
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 01, 2006, 10:18:23 AM
I just don't get that attitude, but I suppose everyone is different. :( It is sad they couldn't enjoy their grandchildren as babies.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 01, 2006, 10:21:55 AM
I think Queen Alexandra did enjoy her grandchildren. David remembered the fun they had when they visited the Big House.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 01, 2006, 10:28:17 AM
Yes, this is the Q Alix thread.  :P

But yes she did enjoy her grandchildren, at least we know one Queen did! I wonder what she thought about Clarence Guy Gordon Haddon making such strident and bold claims to be her grandson? In a certain book it says Alix came to see Alice Margaret Crook and gave her an emerald brooch or something like that. Alix seems like the type who would even be kind to illegitimate grandchildren.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 01, 2006, 10:34:28 AM
I don't give that much credence...although in her later days Alix did chase her guest to accept a souvenier if they visited the House. Items ranging from rubbish to expensive jewelry were offered. If Alice Margaret Cook was smart, she just need to stand outside Sandrigham to let the old queen spot her to win a piece of history... ;D
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 01, 2006, 10:40:57 AM
Alix gave rubbish? I don't think so.  ;) It's Crook, Eric, not Cook. Maybe the stories are true, maybe not. This author also claimed David came to visit Alice Margaret in secret and called her ''his dear cousin'' or something like that. ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 01, 2006, 11:12:05 AM
Speculation and gossip without a thread of evidence. Yes she did gave rubbish, read the bios on Alix and you'll find out.  8)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: jyrkiboy on October 01, 2006, 01:37:43 PM
But surely unintentionally? She did hoard rubbish, as she really hadn't any idea of the value of her possessions. Didn't she have Faberge objects side by side with some childish knick-knacks of only sentimental value? Rather endearing...dusting them all must have kept you busy.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Alicky1872 on October 01, 2006, 02:34:59 PM
Speculation and gossip without a thread of evidence.

Yes...like Helena Victoria being a BORING LESBIAN!  ::)


Yes she did gave rubbish, read the bios on Alix and you'll find out.  8)

One Queen's trash is another commoner's treasure!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 02, 2006, 12:36:14 AM
No...nobody said she was a boring lesbian. But must admit the sexual aspect of Thora was never discussed. That is very different from the Ripper thing that had been proven beyond doubt that he was involved. Yes some people are desperate for defaulted plasters and broken safety pins used by Royalty... ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 02, 2006, 05:14:28 AM
It has been proved beyond doubt that Eddy was not Jack the Ripper. It has not been proved beyond doubt that he had no illegitimate children. A DNA test would do that, or some other firm piece of evidence. The claims I wrote that have been made that were reffered to by others as ''speculation and gossip without a thread of evidence'' would be much more accurately described as a not fully substantiated claim/s. If Alix gave away broken safety pins, then yes that is rubbish, but who wouldn't want it if it had belonged to the Fairy Queen? 8) At least she was generous.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 02, 2006, 10:12:06 PM
Indeed...She did gave away stuff like safety pins togather with something like her Faberage collection. The staff in Sandringham had to watch what her moods take when encountering guests there or even stangers roaming the estate. Nobody was allowed to leave empty-handed...Yes that is generosity, but some call it crazy.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 02, 2006, 10:14:57 PM
Also there is no evidence that Eddy wasn't gay or bisexual, so that should be allowed to stand with the claims of illegitmate children. You cannot have double-standards here.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 12:29:06 AM
Indeed...She did gave away stuff like safety pins togather with something like her Faberage collection. The staff in Sandringham had to watch what her moods take when encountering guests there or even stangers roaming the estate. Nobody was allowed to leave empty-handed...Yes that is generosity, but some call it crazy.  ;)

I wouldn't call it crazy. It's wonderful. :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 12:39:57 AM
Also there is no evidence that Eddy wasn't gay or bisexual, so that should be allowed to stand with the claims of illegitmate children. You cannot have double-standards here.  ;)

Oh boy Eric, there is tonnes of evidence that Eddy wasn't gay or bisexual. All his letters and interest in women!!!!!!!! Bisexual, maybe, but once again there is NO evidence to confirm it. So saying maybe he had illegitimate children should not be allowed to stand with rubbish about him being gay or bisexual. Would he have wanted to marry a Catholic princess if he was gay!!!!!!! No!!!!! He would have been happy to marry anyone he was matched with who was suitable. He was straight. There's no doubts about that. I will post a photo of Eddy's supposed son in the Eddy thread, once I find the picture. I am quite sure I do not have any double standards here. The royal family and the police force gave money to shut Margery Haddon up and sent her off to India. The book ''My Uncle George V'' explains it.

Also, Eddy's lawyers, acting on his and the royal family's behalf in the 1929s, admitted in the case that Eddy had had a intimate relationship with Mrs. Margery Haddon. But they would not admit that Eddy was the father. Would he have bothered seducing Margery if he was gay? NO!!!!

Also, see this article:

Royal cover-up of illegitimate son revealed

By Peter Day and Jon Ungoed-Thomas

SENIOR royal courtiers tried to cover up allegations that the great uncle of the Queen fathered an illegitimate son, newly released documents show.

They reveal that police conducted an extensive investigation into an affair between Margery Haddon, a married woman, and the Duke of Clarence, eldest son of the future Edward VII.

The liaison was said to have occurred during a royal tour of India in the 1880s, but when Haddon turned up in London to claim she had conceived the duke’s child, senior officials quietly arranged her passage back to India, where she had been born and raised.

Clothes were provided for her through a secret account and a “go-between” for the duke provided maintenance payments for the boy, Clarence Haddon. Embarrassing letters in the woman’s possession were believed to have been purchased by lawyers acting for the duke.

The allegations remained out of the public eye for years until Clarence Haddon turned up in London in the 1920s to stake publicly his claim to be an illegitimate member of the royal family. His claims were dismissed and, because he lacked documentary proof, he was seen as a crank.

However, his and his mother’s full story has come to light in documents made public by the National Archives in Kew, southwest London, after more than 70 years.

They show Margery Haddon’s claims were taken seriously enough for the Metropolitan police commissioner, head of Special Branch and one of most senior of the monarch’s officials — the keeper of the privy purse — to investigate.

The files, comprising hundreds of pages of police reports, royal correspondence and photographs, start with Margery Haddon’s claim that her affair with the Duke of Clarence began at a ball in India in 1889.

The daughter of a civil servant, she was a vivacious woman brought up in Calcutta, then the seat of colonial power in India. By the time she met the duke, she was married to a civil engineer, Henry Haddon.

The Duke of Clarence, nicknamed “Eddy”, was known as a womaniser and heavy drinker. Robert Lacey, the royal biographer, said: “He had a reputation as a somewhat debauched character and it’s interesting if there is evidence of a royal cover-up. There was always great anxiety among the royal family about protecting his reputation.”

After the ball, one of a number during the tour of India by the duke and his younger brother, the future King George V, Haddon claimed she and the duke became lovers. The following year she is said to have given birth to her son, Clarence Guy Gordon Haddon.

Two years later, in 1892, the Duke of Clarence died at the age of 28 during a flu epidemic, leaving the way clear for his younger brother to become king. By now, Margery Haddon had come to Britain but her life was starting to fall apart. She was divorcing her husband and had begun to drink heavily.

By 1914, after a number of failed marriages, she had descended into alcoholism and seemed almost deranged. That year she was arrested outside the gates of Buckingham Palace after shouting she was the mother of the Duke of Clarence’s illegitimate son.

Her claims were quickly reported to the royal family and prompted an inquiry by Patrick Quinn, the head of Special Branch. In July 1914, Quinn met Sir William Carington, keeper of the privy purse, to discuss the case.

The meeting at Buckingham Palace was a sombre one. Quinn’s written record of the discussions states: “(Carington) invited my opinion on the question of making a payment . . . He was afraid she might have some proof.”

Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 12:40:54 AM
Continued:

There seems to have been some cause for alarm. The military aide said to have arranged the Duke of Clarence’s relationship with Margery Haddon in India, Lieutenant George Rogers, had been named in Haddon’s divorce proceedings.
The implication was that it was he who had fathered the illegitimate child. However, the files show his family told police a different story. In fact they said Rogers had acted as a “scapegoat” for the illicit royal relationship and his family provided maintenance payments for Clarence even though he was not his true father.

In a statement to police, a representative from Lewis and Lewis, a legal firm which had acted on behalf of the Duke of Clarence during the divorce proceedings, said: “Certainly there were some relations (between Haddon and the duke).” The unnamed representative denied, however, that there was any child from the union.

The documents reveal that the duke wrote a number of letters to Haddon. A Special Branch report in July 1914 stated: “There were grounds for thinking Lewis and Lewis obtained those letters from her upon payment.”

It was agreed by Scotland Yard and senior courtiers that Haddon should be removed from the country. A ticket was bought for her by the political adviser to the secretary of state for India, clothes were purchased for her through a Scotland Yard account and she was given £5 spending money.

On February 20, 1915, she departed for India. There is no record of her returning to England and she was never heard of again.

It was, however, not the end of the affair. Clarence Haddon, who had spent most of his early adult life working abroad, started a campaign in the 1920s to be recognised as the son of the Duke of Clarence.

He wrote a book, My Uncle King George V, which was published in America. In the early 1930s his campaign intensified and he wrote to George V to complain of the “underhand”, “dirty” and “unjust” treatment he had received.

“I will not rest until the whole world will see these royal methods in their true colours,” he wrote.

It was hoped he might be dealt with in a similar fashion to his mother. A trip to America was paid for him out of police funds but he returned to England to pursue his claims.

In January 1934 he was bound over for three years by Mr Justice Charles at a hearing at the Old Bailey, on the condition that he made no claim that he was the Duke of Clarence’s son. He breached the conditions and was jailed the following year for 12 months.

Haddon became an increasingly sad character because any evidence of his mother’s relationship with the duke had long disappeared. He died a broken man, his repeated claims dismissed by the authorities as “ridiculous”.

Lacey said that even if Haddon’s claim had been proved, it would have made no difference to the royal line. He said the royals had had a number of illegitimate children over the centuries, but although many had been given money it was never argued they had any right to the throne.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: “This is not something we would comment on.”




Also, please note: I do not believe that Gordon Haddon was Eddy's son. But I cannot dismiss it entirely. His claim may be true.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 03, 2006, 01:35:01 AM
Also there is no evidence that Eddy wasn't gay or bisexual, so that should be allowed to stand with the claims of illegitmate children. You cannot have double-standards here.  ;)

I think we've had this conversation before, Eric, you stirrer!   ;D    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think that heterosexuals still well outnumber homosexuals in this world, therefore, surely there has to be some evidence that someone is gay, not that they're straight!  I can't prove that the Duke never in his life had a homosexual experience, given the number of older and more experienced gay men he came into contact with at Cambridge and, to a lesser extent, the army later but there is a fair bit of evidence still in existence that he actively pursued women, but nothing concrete otherwise.

Anyway, back to Queen Alexandra -- it's her thread, after all!  Eddy devotees do go off track from time to time... ::) :-[
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 03:26:12 AM
Indeed...I think there is lot of misguided effort in the situation of the "so called" illigetimate children in many cases. Quite a lot of them did exist, but none was reconized. In this day of DNA, it is easy to prove and disprove a claim. I don't think Eddy was the father and she may be hoping to get some money out of the relationship. Queen Mary was reputed to have to buy back the letters Georgie Kent wrote to his male lover in France. That does not prevent George having female lovers (a few illigitmate children attributed to him as well) and got married with children as well. At George 's furneral, Noel Coward was inconsolable and sobbed uncontrollably. When Marina (the widow) tried to comfort him, he cried "But you don't understand..I got him first !" I think what I am saying that it is possible for Eddy to love men & woman (like Grand Duke Komstantine & Ernie, Grand Duke of Hesse both haapily married and have boys on the side). The latest Eddy book proved that The Cleveland case was not strong enough to be set in stone, but it did not abolish the case entirely. The fact that Eddy changed from Alicky to Helene to May without a serious heartache proved he wasn't that concerned about which girl he end up with. And back to Alix, who was sure that in Eddy's mind, she will still be number one whoever he marries.  ::)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 03:38:58 AM
In a statement to police, a representative from Lewis and Lewis, a legal firm which had acted on behalf of the Duke of Clarence during the divorce proceedings, said: “Certainly there were some relations (between Haddon and the duke).” The unnamed representative denied, however, that there was any child from the union.


The above quote from the article I posted shows that Eddy's lawyers admitted that he had ''relations'' with Margery. He could well have been Clarence Haddon's father. In fact, I am leaning towards thinking he was.

We could still have a DNA test perhaps if Haddon had any children. I don't know if he did. But of course the Royal Family would rather forget about it. It's hardly a pressing issue any more. And no one has suggested that Haddon was legitimately Eddy's son, that was impossible.

There never have been any letters even suggested betweeen Eddy and a ''male lover''. Unlike George Kent, Eddy WAS NOT gay or bisexual. Yes there were some bisexual royals no doubt, and there is much evidence to show that, but how can Eddy be included in this group when there is no one like Noel Coward saying, I loved him?!! There just were no male lovers, perhaps, at a long shot, there were some homosexual encounters for Eddy, but certainly no long-term lovers or relationships. The idea is impossible as some clue would have come up about it. Even JK Stephen, who starved himself to death commencing the day Eddy died never claimed to have been Eddy's lover, as far as I know.

Eddy was very concerned about which girl he ended up with. He was heartbroken by Alicky's rejection, but he had to move on. All these relationships occured over a couple of years as well. And Helene was Catholic and not able to renounce that, so he had to move on. Eddy's letters and other documents and stories PROVE he loved Helene and was happy to marry May. He did suffer heartache but his marriage was not just about falling in love. He  had to find someone who wanted him and who was suitable. I really think, and I'm sure the other Eddy devotees will agree, that Eddy was straight.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 03:42:48 AM
Gay, straight, bisexual...It is a matter of history now. As we are not close to Eddy, we may never know the "Whole" truth.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 03:47:14 AM
I know from experience, the more one learns about Eddy, the more one sees, despite how much he loved fashion, etc., he was straight. Perhaps not as voraciously straight as his father, but that's a good thing. :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 03:49:22 AM
Great you are convinced. Good for you, but a lot of us remained critical.  :P
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 03:51:55 AM
Hmmm, not many Eddy experts would be thinking he was anything but straight. There is just NO evidence to think otherwise.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 03:54:36 AM
I know a lot of experts who thinks he did boys on the side...The late Theo Aronson was one of them.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 03:59:16 AM
Not A LOT would think that. But you are right Aronson does. I was shocked when I read ''Grandmamma of Europe'' how Aronson just rehashed all those old allegations - slow, dim, etc. It seems to me as if Aronson was not an Eddy admirer at ALL. I would be more inclined to trust Cook on Eddy's sexuality. I must admit I haven't read ''Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld'', I can't find a copy of it that ships to Australia and is not expensive. And it's not in any bookshops or libraries that I can find. :( Still, since I know Aronson to be a bit anti-Eddy, I don't want to have it desperately.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on October 03, 2006, 04:16:08 AM
I have a question about Alexandra. What relationship, if any, did she have with her great-grandchildren? I think the only ones she would have known were Alastair Connaught and the Lascelles boys. Would she have been too "out of it" to see much of them before she died?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 05:09:41 AM
I think you must also read the opposition (anti-Eddy books) before you can convinced others you know what you are talking about. Otherwise you are just feeling without substance !

Back to Alix, I thought her favourites were Olaf and David. I also heard that the Princess Royal was very devoted to her too... ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 06:14:12 AM
I think you must also read the opposition (anti-Eddy books) before you can convinced others you know what you are talking about. Otherwise you are just feeling without substance !

Back to Alix, I thought her favourites were Olaf and David. I also heard that the Princess Royal was very devoted to her too... ???

Eric, that is a bit rude. >:( Obviously I DO know what I am talking about, or else I would not be able to say everything I have said. Those who say Eddy was gay, are usually just biased against him and DO NOT know what they are talking about. I am NOT feeling without substance, my observations concerned with Eddy are made up of Substance AND Feeling. I have tried to read the Eddy book by Aronson, but have been unable to. I have read everything else about Eddy that is available to me.

And Taren asked about Alix's relationship with her great-grandchildren. Olav, David and the Princess Royal Mary were her grandchildren.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 03, 2006, 06:39:04 AM
I know a lot of experts who thinks he did boys on the side...The late Theo Aronson was one of them.

Bzzzzzt!  Wrong!  ;D  Throughout Aronson's book is the continual suggestion of possibility only -- nowhere in his book does he state that there is definite evidence of Eddy's sexual involvement with men/boys.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 03, 2006, 08:54:41 AM
The above quote from the article I posted shows that Eddy's lawyers admitted that he had ''relations'' with Margery. He could well have been Clarence Haddon's father. In fact, I am leaning towards thinking he was.


But you said in a post 3 hours prior to this that you didn't believe Haddon was Eddy's son.  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 03, 2006, 09:01:20 AM
I have a question about Alexandra. What relationship, if any, did she have with her great-grandchildren? I think the only ones she would have known were Alastair Connaught and the Lascelles boys. Would she have been too "out of it" to see much of them before she died?

Good of you Taren to try to gently steer the discussion back to QA.  :)

Princess Mary married in 1922 and I think her first child was born in 1923. There's a photo taken of the 4 generations--QA, GV, Pss Mary and her son--but I don't know how much QA's health permitted her to see him. The 2nd son was born just about a year before QA died.

Alastair Connaught was born in 1914 so he would've been 11 when QA and old enough to have had memories of her depending on how much he was able to see her. I think that during this period Arthur & Alexandra primarily lived in England--though Arthur did become Govenor General of South Africa in 1920--but am not sure how much QA saw her great-grandson.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 10:05:33 AM
The above quote from the article I posted shows that Eddy's lawyers admitted that he had ''relations'' with Margery. He could well have been Clarence Haddon's father. In fact, I am leaning towards thinking he was.


But you said in a post 3 hours prior to this that you didn't believe Haddon was Eddy's son.  ???

Basically, I have no firm idea whether he was or wasn't! When I said I didn't believe he was Eddy's son, I meant I did not believe without any doubt. But I just feel sorry for Haddon if he and his mother knew for sure that he was, and they just couldn't get people to believe them. It's pretty sad.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 10:19:07 AM
My dear, you are conflicting with yourself again. Either you believe or you don't. I have to say that there is no evidence to say that he HAD illegitmate children nor say without doubt that he was involved in the Cleveland case. It is likely or unlikely that he did, whatever you chose to believe. I met Theo Aronson at the Royalty Weekends in Ticehurst before he died, he said he personally believe Eddy was involved.  :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 03, 2006, 10:32:02 AM
Aronson was not an Eddy fan, I can tell. I am not conflicting with myself, nor have I in the past.

Well sometimes I am contradictory yes, but here no.

DNA evidence or Eddy admitting it himself is about all that we could say is EVIDENCE, by our strict standards.

My view on the illegitimate children thing is unchanged throughout and quite clear - it is a possibility.

However, I do believe that it is more likely for Haddon to be his son than Alice M. Crook to be his daughter.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 10:37:04 AM
So is Eddy being gay or bisexual a possibility !  :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 03, 2006, 10:38:43 AM
Can this discussion please be continued on the Prince Eddy thread not the Queen Alexandra one.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 10:41:37 AM
Agreed...Although I think Queen Alexandra will understanding even if he was bi or gay or have illegitmate children. There are enough examples of both in her own family... ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 03, 2006, 11:47:23 AM
I think so as well. Although very susbcribing to the mores of the age, Alexandra was understanding and acepting as well. As long as things were not openly spoken of, her husband could go on having mistresses, and she would put up with that. So as long as this stuff about her son( I don't know how true any of it is, I am not a fan of Eddy), wasn't public, she would go along with that. She loved her children, and was always very close to them, no matter what. She was a gentle woman, who seemed to accept things in those around her as long as social mores were kept.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on October 03, 2006, 01:04:16 PM
I have a question about Alexandra. What relationship, if any, did she have with her great-grandchildren? I think the only ones she would have known were Alastair Connaught and the Lascelles boys. Would she have been too "out of it" to see much of them before she died?

Good of you Taren to try to gently steer the discussion back to QA.  :)

Princess Mary married in 1922 and I think her first child was born in 1923. There's a photo taken of the 4 generations--QA, GV, Pss Mary and her son--but I don't know how much QA's health permitted her to see him. The 2nd son was born just about a year before QA died.

Alastair Connaught was born in 1914 so he would've been 11 when QA and old enough to have had memories of her depending on how much he was able to see her. I think that during this period Arthur & Alexandra primarily lived in England--though Arthur did become Govenor General of South Africa in 1920--but am not sure how much QA saw her great-grandson.

Thank you -tried being the operative word! I know QA was completely deaf in her later years and possibly had a touch of dementia, but I wasn't exactly sure just what counted as the later years and how her relationship with the next generation was affected.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 08:19:08 PM
I read in another thread that King Olav had written his memoirs and quite a bit about QA. I get the feeling that he has a special place in her heart (unlike heartless David...who sort of dismiss her as an "old dear").  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: aussiechick12 on October 03, 2006, 09:04:34 PM
Can anyone tell me what event this was?

(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e182/aussiechick12/Windsors/Queen%20Alexandra/th_QueenAlexandra2-4.jpg) (http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e182/aussiechick12/Windsors/Queen%20Alexandra/QueenAlexandra2-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 03, 2006, 10:00:27 PM
Maybe the Devonshire ball ? She was dressed here as Queen Margot, wife of King Henry IV of France.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 04, 2006, 08:34:52 AM
It's the Devonshire House ball in 1897.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 04, 2006, 08:49:29 AM
Alexandra was certainly quite a fashion plate, was she not? I think she was beautiful, but perhaps her taste in clothes was better than even her looks. Like her sister Dowager Empress Marie,she looked lovely late into life, and very young.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 04, 2006, 10:37:40 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Alexandraatball.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/prince-costume.jpg)
The Prince and Princess of Wales at the Devonshire House ball in 1897.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 04, 2006, 11:08:04 AM
You got both cards ?  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 04, 2006, 11:25:13 AM
No I coped them from Ebay,but did not buy them. ;)
Wish I did :D

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 04, 2006, 05:31:01 PM
Alexandra looked very regal dressed up like that. As well, and perhaps unsually, she actually looked like she was from the era she was dressed in the clothes of, and she looked great in them. Despite the fact these clothes were copies of those from another era, she looks very authentic in them. Most royalty back then who dressed up like that didn't look like they were from the era they were dressed up to be, and they didn't look very nice-but she did!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 04, 2006, 08:32:22 PM
Not really...Beatrice, Helena and Mary Teck are from the same era, yet none of them was that elegant. Louse was another who dressed well.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 04, 2006, 10:31:56 PM
I think that Mary Adelaide, Duchess of Teck, dressed fairly well. It was just that her size wasn't exactly conducive to looking elegant. The cut, style, etc... of her clothing seemed nice though. Helena and Beatrice could've taken a style lesson from Alix--especially Helena. There wasn't much that Beatrice may have been able to do, shackled to QV, but Helena was a different story.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 05, 2006, 03:17:19 AM
Yes...I think Alix's style was inborn and being trained by the equally elegant Queen Louise.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 05, 2006, 08:48:24 AM
Could be..but youre absolutly right about Queen Louise she was  elegant. ;)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/QueenLouiseMotheroffAlix.jpg)
I think Alexandra looked very much like her mother, and the shared the same sort expression in their eyes.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 05, 2006, 10:23:08 AM
Yes...Alix learned to make her clothes by her mother. She wore jackets to compliment her limited number of skirts in the early days at the Yule Palace.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 05, 2006, 11:18:01 AM
What I meant was, that Alexandra looked authentic like she was from whatever era's clothing she was dressed up in.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 05, 2006, 09:39:53 PM
She looked a bit too fussy for the 20's, but her simplistic sytle work in the Victorian period and dominated the Edwardian one.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 06, 2006, 09:24:21 AM
It did.. but would not she have looked nice in Rennaissance clothing, or clothing of the era of Charles II, I think? Just my opinion. ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 06, 2006, 09:46:52 AM
No...She wouldn't. Alix was rather flat-chested (QV did mention her lack of a bosom) and would not look sexy in the Stuart style. Renassiance maybe... ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 06, 2006, 12:35:20 PM
Wel maybe not the Stuart, but defintely the Rennaissance. Is not that the period whose clothing she is dressed up in those pictures? You were supposed to be flat chested then, they even had corsets that had that effect on you in Elizabethean days. Just look at the old portraits.. ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 06, 2006, 10:19:47 PM
Indeed ! That was why Alix was dressed as Queen Margot (a renassiance queen). She will have to bear her breast for a Stuart costume (look at the ones of Lady Castlemaine, and even one of Queen Catherine of Braganza !)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 08, 2006, 05:41:57 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/Threesisters.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/AlixBertieandMinny.jpg)

This two images were posted at a other thread on this forum, showing the three sisters together (Danmark?) and Alix,Bertie with Minny together in Danmark I suppose. (Date?? ???)
The second picture I think is really funny, with Dagmar hidding behind the sofa ;D

RN


Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 08, 2006, 06:04:06 AM
That second picture is really cute. I like it a lot.  ;D

I like to see Bertie and Alix together like that in later years. Such a loving couple.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 08, 2006, 10:28:37 AM
Yes the looked nice in later life, together. :)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/alexsmiling-1.jpg)
This one is a good example, smilling Alix it looks so good on her :D.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 09, 2006, 11:57:04 AM
Indeed ! That was why Alix was dressed as Queen Margot (a renassiance queen). She will have to bear her breast for a Stuart costume (look at the ones of Lady Castlemaine, and even one of Queen Catherine of Braganza !)

Glad you agree! Alix and Bertie always stayed together in their marriage although his unfidelities divided them, she stuck by him. She was forgiving, and accepting of the mores of the day, and he was amiable enough. In the end, in pictures they look happy, or at least at peace with one another. I am not sure their marriage was always the happiest, but it worked in a practical sense anyway.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 09, 2006, 04:20:52 PM
At some points it did--I wonder what was contained in their letters and other papers they ordered burned though. QA did leave him for stretches at a time and the marriage seemed to have reached some low points in the 1880s. She had gone to Russia for her sister's wedding anniversary in November 1891, very publicly not being at Sandringham for Bertie's 50th birthday celebrations. She only returned when George went down with typhoid and almost died. Shortly after that was when Eddy died and I think the shared grief may have brought them together and helped ease the tensions in the marriage.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 09, 2006, 09:17:35 PM
The worst tiff between them was over Daisy Warrick, whom QA could not stand and Bertie called her his "Daisy Wife".... :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 10, 2006, 01:32:23 AM
At some points it did--I wonder what was contained in their letters and other papers they ordered burned though. QA did leave him for stretches at a time and the marriage seemed to have reached some low points in the 1880s. She had gone to Russia for her sister's wedding anniversary in November 1891, very publicly not being at Sandringham for Bertie's 50th birthday celebrations. She only returned when George went down with typhoid and almost died. Shortly after that was when Eddy died and I think the shared grief may have brought them together and helped ease the tensions in the marriage.

Queen Alexandra said he could celebrate his birthday by himself and she refused to come back. It seems that that was definitely a low point when she was just sick of him and the court case mess he had recently got himself into earlier that year. But as you say they were then united in their mutual grief and worry over George's illness and then Eddy's death. The kind of grief each one experienced would have brought them together because they were the parents and no one felt the death of their eldest child like they did. :'( And Bertie was protective of Alix's feelings at the funeral, he wrote a kind of rude message to his sister Beatrice when she complained so much about getting stuck in the pew, saying - you weren't invited anyway!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 10, 2006, 02:24:53 AM
Bertie could be charming if he chose, but could be rude too if he felt like it !  :o
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 10, 2006, 02:39:10 AM
For the standards of the day the message Bertie sent Beatrice was rude. I don't think I have a copy of it with me now. But I support his action of rudeness because he and Alix were distraught, they were not in the mood to host Bertie's sisters and their families, they requested privacy, but then Beatrice and co. just turn up anyway and make a huge fuss about their pew gate getting stuck, at a time like this! I can only imagine what Alix was going through at this time. :'( She didn't need any extra stress.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on October 10, 2006, 04:04:01 AM
Were those his exact words or is this just paraphrasing? Either way, it's incredibly rude by anyone's standards, but different people grieve in different ways. Some need support from a lot of people (maybe Beatrice thought she was being supportive to the parents of a beloved nephew) and others like Bertie and Alix prefer to make it more of a private thing. Perhaps Beatrice, long used to Queen Victoria's very public grieving for Prince Albert, made her think that everyone would need the same sort of attention.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 10, 2006, 04:15:33 AM
Yes Taren you could be right with your last point there. Bertie and Alix did not interpret it as offering support, they interpreted it as unwanted intrusion and disobeying instructions for strict privacy at the funeral. If I remember correctly, even the Queen did not attend. Alix sat by herself in the Queen Catherine of Aragon closet, the same place QV sat at Bertie and Alix's wedding. I think it may have been the case that Alix was slightly hysterical with grief and Bertie wrote that she could not stop crying. :'(

I was just paraphrasing Bertie's words, but that was his general message. I don't think he liked Beatrice much.

Here is the exact message Bertie sent to Beatrice:

The Prince of Wales desires me to say that the harem of Princesses was not locked into the further Zenana pew closet but the door got jammed; and [he] adds that they were none of them wanted at all. No ladies were to attend and the Princess of Wales especially requested privacy - and to avoid meeting her Osborne relations.

So they all came.

If Princess Beatrice was annoyed she must get over it - as she likes!


I find it touching in a way because it shows how much Bertie cared about Alix's feelings.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 10, 2006, 04:19:26 AM
I just read on the same page (Cook's book pg. 276) that at the funeral "Princess May wore a black dress with white collar and cuffs."

She did that in tribute to Eddy. That is sooo touching and sweet a gesture. :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 10, 2006, 04:23:38 AM
As I said before, I love to see pictures of Alix and Bertie later in life, together as King and Queen.

Like this:

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/Some%20More%20Royalty/img007.gif)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 10, 2006, 11:40:07 AM
For the standards of the day the message Bertie sent Beatrice was rude. I don't think I have a copy of it with me now. But I support his action of rudeness because he and Alix were distraught, they were not in the mood to host Bertie's sisters and their families, they requested privacy, but then Beatrice and co. just turn up anyway and make a huge fuss about their pew gate getting stuck, at a time like this! I can only imagine what Alix was going through at this time. :'( She didn't need any extra stress.

But didn't QV ask them to attend? I respect Alixs choice but it was nice of them to attend and pay their respects. Would love to see the pew if it's still there!! :)
:)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 10, 2006, 11:57:09 AM
Well, they had their tough times. Given the reality of their marriage, it would have been surprising if they had not. Alexandra was understanding, Bertie could be charming, but they certainly had other sides as well. He could be rude, you are correct. But disturbing their private grieving like that was wrong.Of course, Beatrice most likely did view it as being supportive, but she should have thought more of it. I can see that these tragedies made their marriage closer, it would have been surprising if they had not.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 10, 2006, 12:14:04 PM
For the standards of the day the message Bertie sent Beatrice was rude. I don't think I have a copy of it with me now. But I support his action of rudeness because he and Alix were distraught, they were not in the mood to host Bertie's sisters and their families, they requested privacy, but then Beatrice and co. just turn up anyway and make a huge fuss about their pew gate getting stuck, at a time like this! I can only imagine what Alix was going through at this time. :'( She didn't need any extra stress.

But didn't QV ask them to attend? I respect Alixs choice but it was nice of them to attend and pay their respects. Would love to see the pew if it's still there!! :)
:)

Yes QV told Beatrice and co. to attend, but still that isn't good enough an excuse, because they still could have declined knowing Alix's wishes. I think that Alix was just feeling too shattered and fragile to see any ladies there. She still managed to greet them but she had a catch in her throat from the constant crying. I read a letter describing this. :(

QV took over Eddy's christening, now she tried to take over the funeral from a distance. But Alix was too gracious to show any anger at all. Bertie did it for her. :-\

I'd like to see the pew as well and try the gate out!  ;) Can the public still even tour through the Windsor Cathedral where Eddy is buried?  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 10, 2006, 02:41:58 PM
Yes i've seen that chapel where Eddie is buried, is beautiful!! As is the Charlotte memorial, my mum was amazed by that and it is very impressive!!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ChristineM on October 11, 2006, 05:39:22 AM
He is buried in St George's Chapel Windsor.   A marble effigy of Eddie, dressed in his Hussar's uniform, lies on top of the tomb.   An angel, carrying a crown, kneels beside him.

tsaria

(I believe St George's Chapel's vault is virtually full.   This is why Princess Margaret requested to be cremated.   There was insufficient room to bury her alongside her parents.   Instead, her ashes have been laid to rest with them)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ChristineM on October 11, 2006, 05:42:15 AM
I cannot recall if this has been discussed before - Grandduchessella, keep me right, please.

I would be interested in posters views as to the outcome had Alexandra who married Alexander III and Dagmar married Bertie.   Would the outcome have been very different?

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 11, 2006, 07:02:12 AM
Yes i've seen that chapel where Eddie is buried, is beautiful!! As is the Charlotte memorial, my mum was amazed by that and it is very impressive!!

I've seen some good big pictures of both, and they are both really amazing. I think that is because they were both to be in the future Monarchs but were robbed of this position by an early death.

It is really touching how in Charlotte's memorial there is a marble effigy of her baby son. It is important to acknowledge that Britain lost two future heirs, not just one when Charlotte died. :'(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 11, 2006, 07:08:42 AM
He is buried in St George's Chapel Windsor.   A marble effigy of Eddie, dressed in his Hussar's uniform, lies on top of the tomb.   An angel, carrying a crown, kneels beside him.

tsaria

(I believe St George's Chapel's vault is virtually full.   This is why Princess Margaret requested to be cremated.   There was insufficient room to bury her alongside her parents.   Instead, her ashes have been laid to rest with them)

The Angel holding the Crown is positioned OVER Eddy, symbolising that he is crowned as a King in heaven, as he would have been on earth.

I'll post some pictures in the Eddy thread.

Isn't there a separate George VI chapel, containing the remains of George VI, QElizabethQM and Pr. Margaret? I don't think Margaret requested to be cremated because of spatial issues, I think that is just what she wanted just as some people would rather be cremated instead of buried because it appeals to them more.

Eddy is in the Prince Albert Memorial Chapel division of St. George's Chapel. I don't know if this chapel  is full. His grave is directly in front of Prince Albert the Prince Consort's grave and near Princess Charlotte's too I think.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 11, 2006, 07:12:33 AM
I cannot recall if this has been discussed before - Grandduchessella, keep me right, please.

I would be interested in posters views as to the outcome had Alexandra who married Alexander III and Dagmar married Bertie.   Would the outcome have been very different?

tsaria

It is certainly interesting to ponder in the extreme!

History would have been different because Nicholas II would not have existed. Neither would Eddy and George V.

So therefore, I am very glad that Alix married Bertie. I interpreted it as the position of Queen of England was more desirable and prestigious than Empress of Russia, so Alix as the older and more beautiful daughter got the more better position. That's just my interpretation though, maybe Dagmar didn't want Bertie. But of course Bertie showed an interest in Alix for a wife - saying ''Who's that girl?", but I don't think he showed an interest in Dagmar. :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 11, 2006, 11:16:11 AM

(I believe St George's Chapel's vault is virtually full.   This is why Princess Margaret requested to be cremated.   There was insufficient room to bury her alongside her parents.   Instead, her ashes have been laid to rest with them)

I thought George V and Queen Elizabeth are buried in their own little vault, so it's not one huge one. Margaret wished to be buried near her father so she had to be cremated as there was no room for her coffin.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 11, 2006, 11:35:49 AM

(I believe St George's Chapel's vault is virtually full.   This is why Princess Margaret requested to be cremated.   There was insufficient room to bury her alongside her parents.   Instead, her ashes have been laid to rest with them)

I thought George V and Queen Elizabeth are buried in their own little vault, so it's not one huge one. Margaret wished to be buried near her father so she had to be cremated as there was no room for her coffin.

It seems to me a little odd that someone would be cremated just because they don't fit somewhere. She must have wanted to be cremated anyway. :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 11, 2006, 12:00:48 PM
Who knows? I had never even heard of this before. As for Bertie and Alux, it is a great thing that they married. They certainly had their differences at times, but theirs was a true, old fashioned royal marriage based on dynastic things, and their children. Of course, to begin with Bertie was entranced with her beauty. She was always lovely, and they also had personalities that were rather alike if you look closely. Perhaps a marriage like theirs would not work today, but it did work for them.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 11, 2006, 02:22:45 PM
They did have personalities that fitted each other well, if you look closely. It was not like one was an intellectual and one was a brainless airhead. They were not terribly ill-suited at all.

And I think they had a good marriage. Yes Bertie was unfaithfull, but he would have been like that no matter who he was married to, that's just the kind of man he was.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 11, 2006, 05:27:27 PM
Yes, he was simply a ladies man. ;) Alexandra lived with it, as women in that age did. She was also not of the temprament that Ducky had, or later Princess Diana. She accepted a royal marriage for what it was. Both Bertie and Alix liked entertaining and fashion and things of that sort. Later, she was deaf and it was hard to hear people, but the Wales set was always rather wild when they were younger.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ilyala on October 12, 2006, 02:28:17 AM
i don't think that had the sisters switched partners, the world would have been much different.

first of all i see much resemblance between george 5th and nicholas the 2nd, and i'm not talking about phyisical appearance. both dagmar and alix were quite suffocating mothers and that reflected in their children.

dagmar and alix were educated to be good wives according to the 19th century standards. you can see that in the way they behaved: they both kept very dignified images despite their husbands' faults. while bertie was cheating on alix, alexander 3rd had quite a bad reputation (that of a drunkard and not a very educated man). in both cases the sisters kept their chins up and went through the business of being princesses/queens/empresses the way people thought it should have been done and did a great job at it.

i think that they were educated to take it all as it comes and make the most of it (remember they weren't raised in glamour and luxury, the courts of england and russia must have been quite an elevation for them). and they did. and had they swapped partners they would have probably done the same.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 12, 2006, 03:56:42 AM
True...Although Minny was more acute and smartier and tougher than Alix (who suffered from sickness and being deaf). She would be more interesting to Bertie than her sister.  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 12, 2006, 04:47:08 AM
No I don't think so, not at all. What great interest in did Bertie ever show in Dagmar? I think he was entranced by Alix's grace and beauty and he could see she was a good mother to his children (well I think she was a good mother, I like the suffocating sort) :-[ and Alix was the right one for him.

History and the world today would undoubtedly be different if the sisters had married each other's husbands', even though George V and Nicholas II may have been similiar, because neither of them Would even have EXISTED. A person needs both their parents in order to exist of course. So maybe if Alix had married Alexander III they would not have produced a son, and vice versa with Dagmar and Bertie. There would have been all different sets of children and the whole Nicholas II and his problems with his heir thing probably would not have existed.  :-\

Also, Minny may have been more acute, smarter and tougher (though that is just your opinion) but Alix was far more beautiful and likeable (in my opinion) and Britain was lucky to have her as Princess of Wales, Queen, and Dowager Queen.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ilyala on October 12, 2006, 05:50:56 AM
No I don't think so, not at all. What great interest in did Bertie ever show in Dagmar? I think he was entranced by Alix's grace and beauty and he could see she was a good mother to his children (well I think she was a good mother, I like the suffocating sort) :-[ and Alix was the right one for him.

History and the world today would undoubtedly be different if the sisters had married each other's husbands', even though George V and Nicholas II may have been similiar, because neither of them Would even have EXISTED. A person needs both their parents in order to exist of course. So maybe if Alix had married Alexander III they would not have produced a son, and vice versa with Dagmar and Bertie. There would have been all different sets of children and the whole Nicholas II and his problems with his heir thing probably would not have existed.  :-\

Also, Minny may have been more acute, smarter and tougher (though that is just your opinion) but Alix was far more beautiful and likeable (in my opinion) and Britain was lucky to have her as Princess of Wales, Queen, and Dowager Queen.

i think that after a while, in a marriage, the whole grace and beauty thing is less and less important... bertie might have been entranced by alix at the beginning but it certainly wasn't enough to keep him faithful. maybe a smarter wife would have. remember that minnie and alexander started off as an arranged marriage but they ended up as a true love match and i think minnie is the key factor in that. on the other hand you have alexandra whose marriage started off quite well (bertie was genuinely attracted to her) and ended up being quite a fluke and there was nothing to do other than keeping her chin up.

you might argue that bertie was quite libertine and alexander probably wasn't, but we don't know that for sure because we mostly judge them for what they were as married... and then they already had minnie and alix...

...but indeed we shall never know.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 12, 2006, 07:03:35 AM
I can't really imagine Bertie being faithfull to any woman. But of course we can never know if he was capable of that. At least Bertie always respected Alexandra in a way and never hated her. :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 12, 2006, 11:16:54 AM
That is true. I don't think much could have kept Bertie faithful. He married someone suitable to his position, someone who could give him heirs, and she was lovely, and he was entranced by that. As well, both of them were quite alike in their lifestyle, and personalities. And that was the best you could expect of many royal marriages then. Both Minnie And Alix did their best, and held their heads high, that is true. They were royalty, and behaved like that. I don't think Alix would have worked as well in Russia as she did in England, or Minnie in England as well as in Russia. As for Bertie marrying someone smarter than Alexandra, well he was no intellectual himself. I think he liked beauty and wit in women..
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 13, 2006, 02:50:53 AM
I think Dagmar was much more witter than Alix, although less pretty.  A beauty may attract a man like Bertie, but a woman with wit would keep him. :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ChristineM on October 13, 2006, 05:29:13 AM
I'm going to be very controversial here, but to sum up - using the title of a thread on he 'Friends and Servants' thread -

Dagmar was shrewd.
Alexandra was silly.   (This is probably unkind.   It was her deafness which probably contributed to a certain lack of awareness).

I don't for a moment think Dagmar would have been nearly so supine as her sister over Bertie's infidelities.   Irrespective of her royal roots, and the period, she would have found some way to assert herself.   Evidence to support this can be found in the very active life she created for herself in St Petersburg's social whirl.   She carved out her own glittering life and style while her husband glowered on the sidelines.   

Also, I cannot imagine Alexandra had the type of personality which would have allowed her to actively ridicule, even sabotage, her daughter-in-law (even to the extent of potentially destabilizing the monarchy) when she found her own position usurped as a result of her husband's premature death.   Alexandra was not nearly so self-obsessed and conniving.

Both sisters were fairly short-lived as reigning consorts  - Alexandra 9 years and Dagmar 13 years - but each left her own, very individualistic, imprint on their adopted countries.

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: CountessKate on October 13, 2006, 07:07:26 AM
Quote
Also, I cannot imagine Alexandra had the type of personality which would have allowed her to actively ridicule, even sabotage, her daughter-in-law (even to the extent of potentially destabilizing the monarchy) when she found her own position usurped as a result of her husband's premature death.   Alexandra was not nearly so self-obsessed and conniving.

Actually, Alexandra did precisely this to Princess Mary, but as she was not actually Queen when Mary married George and court etiquette gave her no precedence when she was widowed, so she did not have the power to put Mary down as much as Minnie tried to do to Alix.  She did a fair amount of minor sniping and encouraged her daughters to do the same, along the lines of "how boring and tiresome Mary is".  Both sisters were fairly hellish mothers-in-law, especially when focusing on their sons.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 13, 2006, 09:27:24 AM
Tsaria's post is quite true. Alexandra was less intellectual and was kinder than her sister. Her role as a royal wife of that era was to ignore her husband's infidelities, and was to bear healthy heirs, and entertain. A century later, Princess Diana was given much the same role, and she could not handle it. She wanted more than just that. Obviously, part of what Alexandra's role was, was indeed her personality.

Empress Marie F. was sharper and not as kind as her sister. She did not have to deal with infidelities on the part of her husband, but as noted by earlier posters, he was seen as something of a bore at times. Their marriage was happy, most likely happier than Alexandra's. She did have a great chance handed to her with Russia, and she took it.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 13, 2006, 09:47:01 AM
Quote
Also, I cannot imagine Alexandra had the type of personality which would have allowed her to actively ridicule, even sabotage, her daughter-in-law (even to the extent of potentially destabilizing the monarchy) when she found her own position usurped as a result of her husband's premature death.   Alexandra was not nearly so self-obsessed and conniving.

Actually, Alexandra did precisely this to Princess Mary, but as she was not actually Queen when Mary married George and court etiquette gave her no precedence when she was widowed, so she did not have the power to put Mary down as much as Minnie tried to do to Alix.  She did a fair amount of minor sniping and encouraged her daughters to do the same, along the lines of "how boring and tiresome Mary is".  Both sisters were fairly hellish mothers-in-law, especially when focusing on their sons.

She wasn't nearly so bad as Minny though. Even Queen Louise had to warn MF about her actions towards AF. Alexandra's behavior came about more as a result of being a very possessive mother who only had one remaining son. As a result, she could often be quite catty towards her daughter-in-law and her daughter's sometimes followed suit. I've seen this even today with mothers of only sons who get along fine with a potential daughter-in-law until she actually becomes one.  :P QA did give way quickly (though not immediately) when she became Dowager, unlike MF. QA was relatively happy to retreat from the glittering life while MF was still in her prime and enjoyed it--which her daughter-in-law did not. QA could also be assured that the monarchy was in good hands while MF had to deal with trouble and doubt almost from the start. QM also had time to prepare to be a consort, while AF was thrust right into the position. QM also was much more deferential towards her mother-in-law and accepted her position with the public and within the family--you'll notice that through QA's time as Dowager, when together, she is the one GV leads rather than his wife. QM might not have always liked it but she was too dutiful a daughter-in-law and royal to kick up a fuss. The relationship, while occasionally strained, between QA and QM was on whole a good one (which made George's life easier and didn't place him in a position to have to 'choose') while the opposite seems to have been the case with MF and AF.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 13, 2006, 11:02:00 AM
I definitely would rather have had Alix as my mother in law that's for sure! She was so much better suited to being Queen of Engalnd than Empress of Russia. I think each man married the right sister for him... :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 13, 2006, 11:50:10 AM
I agree basil! MF was able to twist Alexander III round her little finger!! doubt she would have been able to do that with Bertie!!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ChristineM on October 13, 2006, 12:36:53 PM
Unlike her sister, Marie Feodorovna took the mother-in-law v daughter-in-law relationship far beyond her immediate family.   She encouraged gossip and ridicule of the new Empress, Alexandra Feodorovna, within the Imperial Court as a whole.   I don't think it mattered a whit to Marie Feodorovna that Alix was a serious, shy individual.   She had no wish to see these as attributes to prize.   Instead of supporting and encouraging the young woman to overcome her crippling shyness and help her build some self-confidence, Marie Fedorovna regarded these as characteristics to mock.   Equally had Alix been flighty and populist, Marie Feodorovna would have perceived her as a greater rival and would probablyh have been even more cruel.    Alix, who had hoped to find in her mother-in-law, not altogether a replacement for the mother she lost as a child, but as someone older, wiser and experienced in the role she had only just inherited, as a caring adviser and ally.   She could not have been more wrong.   No, I don't think you can compare Marie Feodorovna's attitude towards and treatment of Alix with Alexandra's attitude to her daughter-in-law, Mary.   
   

To be frank, I am of the opinion that Marie Feodorovna's ego was so great, she was prepared, perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not, to risk the reputation of not just her daughter-in-law, but also her son, whom she, like her husband, had already condemned as weak and unsuitable to rule, within the nation of Russia, a much less stable country and monarchy at that time, than Britain.

She was a gossiping little social butterfly, who was more concerned about diamonds than danger to the dynasty.   Alexandra was an altogether more sound human being.   Britain was infinitely more fortunate in their Danish princess - in every single aspect.

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 14, 2006, 02:04:30 AM
Hmmm, I totally agree.

When I read such bad things about MF it makes me feel sorry that she just received such a GRAND reburial with such endless praise and respect - like she was some kind of saintly empress, it doesn't really seem fair. :-\ I think MF is a bit over-rated
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 14, 2006, 06:45:02 AM
Hmmm, I totally agree.

When I read such bad things about MF it makes me feel sorry that she just received such a GRAND reburial with such endless praise and respect - like she was some kind of saintly empress, it doesn't really seem fair. :-\ I think MF is a bit over-rated

I don't think that's fair >:(. No one is perfect, Marie had her faults like everyone else. She fully deserved to have her wishes fulfilled and it's the least Russia could have done for her. Especially after butchering her family and forcing her out of a country which, for 50 years, she had faithfully served.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ChristineM on October 14, 2006, 04:04:44 PM
I agree with both Basilforever and Eddieboy UK.

Basilforever is the first person I've read vocalise the phenomenal effort, grandeur and cost put into the re-burial of Marie Feodorovna.   To be honest, watching this made me very angry when compared with the burial of Nicholas, Alexandra, their children and servants which was little more than a very rushed, hole in the wall affair.   All political, but, nonetheless, maddening 

Nicholas, Alexandra, Alexei, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia - they are saints - who suffered and died, in and for the faith.   Dagmar..... never.

However, I am glad her earthly remains now rest alongside those of her husband.   Exactly how it should be.   

Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on October 14, 2006, 04:20:44 PM
I agree with both Basilforever and Eddieboy UK.

Basilforever is the first person I've read vocalise the phenomenal effort, grandeur and cost put into the re-burial of Marie Feodorovna.   To be honest, watching this made me very angry when compared with the burial of Nicholas, Alexandra, their children and servants which was little more than a very rushed, hole in the wall affair.   All political, but, nonetheless, maddening 

Nicholas, Alexandra, Alexei, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia - they are saints - who suffered and died, in and for the faith.   Dagmar..... never.

However, I am glad her earthly remains now rest alongside those of her husband.   Exactly how it should be.   

I certainly agree that it was unfair for Nicholas and Alexandra and their children to have gotten such a shoddy burial, while Empress Marie's was given so much time, money, and attention. Could this possibly be because of the Russian Presidents' opinions of the Romanovs? When Nicholas and Alexandra were buried, Yeltsin was in power. This was the man that ordered that the house of special purpose be torn down. Perhaps Putin views the Romanovs in a more sympathetic light? Or at least views this as good P.R.

Either way, the last reigning Tsar and his wife and children, all canonized saints, deserved better treatment than a Dowager Empress, even though she had every right to be buried next to her husband.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 14, 2006, 04:21:43 PM

Basilforever is the first person I've read vocalise the phenomenal effort, grandeur and cost put into the re-burial of Marie Feodorovna.   To be honest, watching this made me very angry when compared with the burial of Nicholas, Alexandra, their children and servants which was little more than a very rushed, hole in the wall affair.   All political, but, nonetheless, maddening 

Nicholas, Alexandra, Alexei, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia - they are saints - who suffered and died, in and for the faith.   Dagmar..... never.



Tsaria, you raise a very good point. Though I think Dagmar suffered from the effects of exile and living with the awful knowledge that many of her family were dead.

Though I fully believe Dagmar deserved such a grand reburial, perhaps in the eight years since Nicholas and Alexandra et al were reburied the country is much more excepting of the Romanovs. I think the 1998 reburials were comparitvely low key due to not quite knowing how the general populance really felt about it all.

EDIT: Just an after thought, but we know how Dagmar liked superior rank over Alicky, how odd her reburial should be so much the grander.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: TampaBay on October 14, 2006, 07:04:56 PM

Yeltsin was in power. This was the man that ordered that the house of special purpose be torn down. Perhaps Putin views the Romanovs in a more sympathetic light? Or at least views this as good P.R.


Yeltsin was not in power and he did not ordered the the house of special purpose be torn down.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: kmerov on October 14, 2006, 07:23:55 PM
I think that some of the reason for MF's grand reburial (which she deserved), was that Margrethe II made it clear that she would only agree to the reburial if it was done with the greatest dignity and respect for MF, and also the fact that some of the cost for it was payed by wealthy Danes.


 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on October 14, 2006, 08:05:23 PM

Yeltsin was in power. This was the man that ordered that the house of special purpose be torn down. Perhaps Putin views the Romanovs in a more sympathetic light? Or at least views this as good P.R.


Yeltsin was not in power and he did not ordered the the house of special purpose be torn down.

TampaBay

The burial was in 1998. Yeltsin was in power from 1991-1999. As for him being responsible for tearing it down I've found a few sources that clarify my statement: http://www.basecamp.cnchost.com/yeltsin.htm (http://www.basecamp.cnchost.com/yeltsin.htm) in particular says "  Czar Nicholas II and his family were executed by Bolshevik revolutionaries on July 17, 1918, in the basement of a house that was just down the hill from the site of Thursday's church service. Their bodies were dumped in a mass grave in the forest outside Yekaterinburg and remained there until they were unearthed in 1991. The infamous house where they were shot was torn down in the 1980s under the supervision of the local Communist Party boss at the time -- Yeltsin. As president, Yeltsin originally sought a grandiose burial ceremony that would serve as an act of repentance for the sins of Communism. But it was scaled back as the disputes mounted." In addition, http://www.friends-partners.org/CCSI/travels/oct1997/yekatern.htm (http://www.friends-partners.org/CCSI/travels/oct1997/yekatern.htm) says "It was demolished by Boris Yeltsin (then governor of the region) who has since admitted that the buildings were torn down by his command, but claims it was under Soviet Politburo orders".
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 15, 2006, 12:55:52 AM
I think Taren is right here, I read in a few places that Yeltsin was responsible for giving the order for the buildings to be demolished.

I didn't mean to make such a controversial (?) comment about MF not deserving her reburial. Of course I think it is right for her to be buried in Russia and next to her husband. But perhaps her reburial was a bit too grand, with SOO many different events, compared with the rebrurial of Nicholas, Alexandra, their children and servents. That isn't fair, as MF certainly doesn't deserve any more respect or grandeur than they do. And it also annoys me that in certain places, boards, etc. when this reburial is being covered, nothing but praise, reverance and devotion to MF is expressed, but look how mean and unfair she was to her daughter-in-law, etc.

But anyway, I put that picture of QA dressed as Mary Queen of Scots, to try to keep the thread on topic! :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ChristineM on October 15, 2006, 05:30:10 AM
The burial of the Imperial Family was considerably downscaled on the orders of Yeltsin.   Plans were afoot for something much grander, but Yeltsin thought the economic conditions in the country at the time - spiralling inflation and miners on strike - could lead to protests.   Yeltsin, after saying he would not attend, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as other church leaders refused to participate, on the day of the burial, Yeltsin suddenly, without public announcement, turned up.   

I completely agree with Basilforever.   I cannot think of one positive thing Marie Feodorovna did for Russia.   The evidence is there - and in abundance - to prove the ultimate harm caused by her selfish behaviour.

I am unaware of such selfish, mean, conniving and cruel characteristics in her sister, Queen Alexandra.

Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: TampaBay on October 15, 2006, 06:02:18 AM
"It was demolished by Boris Yeltsin (then governor of the region) who has since admitted that the buildings were torn down by his command, but claims it was under Soviet Politburo orders".

Per Greg KIng and Penny Wilson Yuri Andropov issued the order to tear down the house and Boris Yeltsin as the Provincial Governor only carried out the order.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 15, 2006, 07:02:36 AM
 I cannot think of one positive thing Marie Feodorovna did for Russia.   

She supplied them with an heir :)

A kindly misrepresented chap, who tried his best but was awfully treated.

:)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ChristineM on October 15, 2006, 09:00:41 AM
Yes, and her heir had the misfortune of inheriting, from her, a shortness in height which - for a Russian Tsar - was a huge impediment.

tsaria   
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 15, 2006, 08:39:48 PM
The height went to George, Nicky's younger brother !  :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ilyala on October 16, 2006, 01:30:17 PM
Quote
Also, I cannot imagine Alexandra had the type of personality which would have allowed her to actively ridicule, even sabotage, her daughter-in-law (even to the extent of potentially destabilizing the monarchy) when she found her own position usurped as a result of her husband's premature death.   Alexandra was not nearly so self-obsessed and conniving.

Actually, Alexandra did precisely this to Princess Mary, but as she was not actually Queen when Mary married George and court etiquette gave her no precedence when she was widowed, so she did not have the power to put Mary down as much as Minnie tried to do to Alix.  She did a fair amount of minor sniping and encouraged her daughters to do the same, along the lines of "how boring and tiresome Mary is".  Both sisters were fairly hellish mothers-in-law, especially when focusing on their sons.

She wasn't nearly so bad as Minny though. Even Queen Louise had to warn MF about her actions towards AF. Alexandra's behavior came about more as a result of being a very possessive mother who only had one remaining son. As a result, she could often be quite catty towards her daughter-in-law and her daughter's sometimes followed suit. I've seen this even today with mothers of only sons who get along fine with a potential daughter-in-law until she actually becomes one.  :P QA did give way quickly (though not immediately) when she became Dowager, unlike MF. QA was relatively happy to retreat from the glittering life while MF was still in her prime and enjoyed it--which her daughter-in-law did not. QA could also be assured that the monarchy was in good hands while MF had to deal with trouble and doubt almost from the start. QM also had time to prepare to be a consort, while AF was thrust right into the position. QM also was much more deferential towards her mother-in-law and accepted her position with the public and within the family--you'll notice that through QA's time as Dowager, when together, she is the one GV leads rather than his wife. QM might not have always liked it but she was too dutiful a daughter-in-law and royal to kick up a fuss. The relationship, while occasionally strained, between QA and QM was on whole a good one (which made George's life easier and didn't place him in a position to have to 'choose') while the opposite seems to have been the case with MF and AF.

i think that the difference of relationships between the sisters and their daughter-in-laws are mostly about the daughter-in-laws rather than the sisters. mary might have been boring but she was doing her duty as a queen and was aware of that. she was hard to put down because she always did the right thing and no matter how boring people say that is it does inspire respect. alix however gave everyone who had anything against her the guns to shoot her with.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: kmerov on October 16, 2006, 02:11:55 PM
I think thats very true, ilyala. Mary knew and played her role as Queen of a great empire, while Alix didn't, and I think that created an extra tension between MF and Alix, and that was not entirely MF's fault. And I still think that MF treated Alix quite fairly in generel.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 16, 2006, 08:56:09 PM
Another thing to think about was that Alix had long been the beloved Queen (& Princess), while May was a poor relation and a newcomer (I think Alix never let her forget that). It created tension between the in-laws. ML was a majestic Dowager Empress and expect Alix to be the same, much to May's dismay.  :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Taren on October 16, 2006, 09:23:37 PM
Another thing to think about was that Alix had long been the beloved Queen (& Princess), while May was a poor relation and a newcomer (I think Alix never let her forget that). It created tension between the in-laws. ML was a majestic Dowager Empress and expect Alix to be the same, much to May's dismay.  :(

That has always bothered me because you would think that if anyone understood how it felt to be the poor relation it would be Alexandra! After growing up in Denmark as the poor relation, making her own clothes, surely she could have had some sympathy for May.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 16, 2006, 10:19:29 PM
I never got the impression that Alix looked down on May for her birth--she was close friends with Mary Adelaide, who was her mother's first cousin and the families were together throughout their early lives at the Rumpenheim gatherings, and together often in England after Alix married.

It seemed to me that she was only catty when she was feeling particularly possessive of her son and periods when she turned to George and felt May was 'in the way'. Plus, they were very different personalities which would preclude any close mother/daughter-like relationship.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 17, 2006, 04:01:41 AM
Well...Alix was indeed friendly with Mary Adelaide (Fat Mary to the family), as they were related to the "old family" (meaning the Hannoverians ). However May's father was born Morganetic (his mother being only a countess) even though he was also decended from the Wurttenberg Royal Family. Hense the talk about "May with her Wurttemberg hands". As a girl, May was made to feel less since she was only a serene Highness. Once in a Bazzar, she was asked to signed an autograph, she said "Are you sure you want me and not my cousins ? I am so unimportant..." I don't think Alix made May feel less, even though within the family, it was there.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 17, 2006, 04:48:00 AM
Where is the evidence that QA looked down on Mary for her so-called ''poor'' status? Or that she had no sympathy for her?

I don't think so. It was agreed upon by pretty much everyone that May was the most suitable bride for Eddy, and then when he died, for George. Therefore, why would QA treat her as if she was not good enough when she was considered the ideal choice? ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 17, 2006, 05:03:05 AM
Where is the evidence that QA looked down on Mary for her so-called ''poor'' status? Or that she had no sympathy for her?

I don't think so. It was agreed upon by pretty much everyone that May was the most suitable bride for Eddy, and then when he died, for George. Therefore, why would QA treat her as if she was not good enough when she was considered the ideal choice? ???

I think Alix genuinely loved May, even though she and May were miles apart in character.  Alix didn't really want her boys to marry anyone who might usurp her position in their hearts.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 17, 2006, 08:57:48 AM
Well, it is true that Empress Marie Feodorovna did treat her daughter in law badly. She wanted her role, along with the jewels that went with it. She wanted to have a role that in the course of events, was supposed to pass onto to Alexandra. She was certainly young when her husband died. As well, she was certainly suited to the more social and public aspects of her role as Empress than Alexandra. But that wasn't really an excuse for not be more considerate of a shy young woman trying to find her place in an unfamiliar world. She did well with pleasing Russian society; in that aspect she was a great consort. She may well have been out of touch with reality beyond that, but she wasn't the first nor last Romanov to be so. But, Empress Marie was far from totally bad.

 As for Queen Alexandra, she was simply an overpossesive mother, as her letters to her sons indicate. She didn't dislike May in particular, it would have been any daughter in law. She knew her sons had to marry to produce heirs, but she sort of clung to them anyway. She did cling to her daughters as well, and one of them never married.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 17, 2006, 10:38:46 AM
Well...Alix was indeed friendly with Mary Adelaide (Fat Mary to the family), as they were related to the "old family" (meaning the Hannoverians ). However May's father was born Morganetic (his mother being only a countess) even though he was also decended from the Wurttenberg Royal Family. Hense the talk about "May with her Wurttemberg hands". As a girl, May was made to feel less since she was only a serene Highness. Once in a Bazzar, she was asked to signed an autograph, she said "Are you sure you want me and not my cousins ? I am so unimportant..." I don't think Alix made May feel less, even though within the family, it was there.

Exaactly my point. There's no doubt that May felt 'less than royal' in her early life but I haven't seen evidence (except for the snarky comment about the hands) that any of her Wales relations treated her so. All things considered, I think that it was a good choice for Alix to have her as a daughter-in-law. She was born English and while her father was German, he was commissioned in the Austrian military and spent his entire married life in England. Alix could've ended up with a German daughter-in-law which would've been an anathema to her or one that didn't give proper deference to her.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 17, 2006, 10:57:10 AM
Quote
As for Queen Alexandra, she was simply an overpossesive mother, as her letters to her sons indicate. She didn't dislike May in particular, it would have been any daughter in law. She knew her sons had to marry to produce heirs, but she sort of clung to them anyway. She did cling to her daughters as well, and one of them never married.

If Queen Alexandra was SO overpossessive of her sons, how on earth did she manage to cope when the two of them went off to sea for a couple of years, where any disaster could have occurred? If she was SOOOOOOOO overprotective as some made out she would have been simply unable to cope with not seeing them for so long and would have had a nervous breakdown!

It serioulsy must have been a difficult time for Alix when Eddy and Georgy were away at sea on the Britannia and the Bacchante.

Can anyone tell me, when Alix wrote to George and called him Georgie - did she spell it Georgy or Georgie? Of course no one ever used the ''ie'' with Eddy. :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 17, 2006, 10:59:46 AM
Yes, Queen Alexandra ended up with a pretty good daughter in law, all things considered. She was a possesive mother, and she could have ended up with a daughter in law who wasn't as understanding and full of good sense as Mary was. Mary was, from a personal and more dynastic standpoint, really the best daughter in law that she could could hope for. Alexandra was a bit smothering as a mother, doubtless we have all seen that type. Being the daughter in law of such a woman can be hard, but Mary managed it well.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 17, 2006, 11:04:08 AM
Well, Alexandra realized what her son's duties were. She never kept them from that. She has been criticized more as a mother to her daughters. This because they had less clearly defined roles, so she wasn't really keeping them from much at times. They could carve out roles for themselves, and did, except for Toria. ;) But, there were times when any role they could have had was cut out due to their mother. With her sons, she realized what their duties were, and let them go for that. I am not criticizing her, just stating she could be a bit over protective, which is historical fact.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 17, 2006, 11:09:36 AM
It is indeed well-recorded. She was against the boys being sent off but was overruled by Bertie and Queen Victoria. George was being groomed, as 2nd son, for a naval career like his uncle Alfred and it was decided to keep the boys together despite the risks of losing 2 heirs to the throne--as almost happened on at least one occasion. She wrote them almost daily apparently.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 17, 2006, 11:17:26 AM
That's what I meant. It isn't a judgement on Queen Alexandra to say that she was overprotective as a mother. Of course, your judgement can vary by degrees, on that one. I think she realized in the end that her sons had duties. Her daughters, not so much, as witness poor Toria.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 17, 2006, 11:28:21 AM
It is indeed well-recorded. She was against the boys being sent off but was overruled by Bertie and Queen Victoria. George was being groomed, as 2nd son, for a naval career like his uncle Alfred and it was decided to keep the boys together despite the risks of losing 2 heirs to the throne--as almost happened on at least one occasion. She wrote them almost daily apparently.

That's so sweet that she wrote them every day. She was a great mother, so full of love and care. And they loved her back accordingly.

It was a risk that was always there, that both of the boys could have died in a storm for instance or if the ship sank. I'm sure QA worried about it every day. It seems surprising that they put them both together like that for so long on a ship. Security would have been tighter I would have thought. Especially since there were no other surviving sons.

Does anyone know why, after the birth of Prince Alexander John, QA decided never to have another child? She was only like 26 at the time? Very young!

Did this mean she was going to make sure she never became pregnant again? I'm not sure how she could have known for sure that she would never have another baby. Or maybe the birth was so difficult it damaged her and she was physically incapable of getting pregnant again??? ??? ???

Also when QA wrote to them - did she write Georgy or Georgie? You must know, GD Ella?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: PrinceEddy1864 on October 17, 2006, 11:44:51 AM
It seems like it may have been as much Bertie's decision not to have another child as it was Alexandras. It is likely that certain aspects of their physical relationship simply stopped after Prince John's birth thus no possibility of furthur children.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: PrinceEddy1864 on October 17, 2006, 11:56:06 AM
Alix would have written Georgie.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 17, 2006, 12:12:04 PM
Of course she deeply cared about her sons. I am sure she partly wrote them out of this deep care, but on the other hand, there is evidence she could be over protective as well. But there is the evidence, and you can interpret it anyway if you wish... I just choose to interpret it the more conventional way, the way most see it. As for not having another child, well, I think her husband went his own way with the ladies after that. As well, they had more than enough children for the succession, and if they had needed more, no doubt they would have had them. But they didn't need to, so they did not. Whatever passion their marriage had originally no doubt cooled by this time as well, perhaps.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 17, 2006, 12:40:13 PM
The two ''ways'' of viewing Alix's mothering are not mutually exclusive. It is true both that she adored/loved/cared for her sons and daughters too, but yes she was also over-protective. Both are true and are not opposing viewpoints. It is better to be overprotective and adoring than to be cold and neglectful as some other royal parents have been accused of being. Alix was a wondeful mother, I'm sure her children would all say so, the only one who was held back by Alix's love was Toria. They had enough children for the succession, but they just barely had enough sons. It would have been considered a good move if they had one more healthy son, in case something happened to Eddy and/or George. Luckily George survived and we didn't have Louise Fife as Queen.  :) Also, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm sure Alix and Bertie must have had some relations after Prince Alexander John's birth, so yes her declaration that ''there will be no more children'' just seemed a little odd to me, and I thought maybe she knew it wasn't phyically possible.  :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 17, 2006, 02:37:58 PM
Of course she deeply cared about her sons. I am sure she partly wrote them out of this deep care, but on the other hand, there is evidence she could be over protective as well. But there is the evidence, and you can interpret it anyway if you wish... I just choose to interpret it the more conventional way, the way most see it. As for not having another child, well, I think her husband went his own way with the ladies after that. As well, they had more than enough children for the succession, and if they had needed more, no doubt they would have had them. But they didn't need to, so they did not. Whatever passion their marriage had originally no doubt cooled by this time as well, perhaps.

I think Bertie "went his own way with the ladies" well before 1871.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 17, 2006, 02:43:23 PM
The two ''ways'' of viewing Alix's mothering are not mutually exclusive. It is true both that she adored/loved/cared for her sons and daughters too, but yes she was also over-protective. Both are true and are not opposing viewpoints. It is better to be overprotective and adoring than to be cold and neglectful as some other royal parents have been accused of being. Alix was a wondeful mother, I'm sure her children would all say so, the only one who was held back by Alix's love was Toria. They had enough children for the succession, but they just barely had enough sons. It would have been considered a good move if they had one more healthy son, in case something happened to Eddy and/or George. Luckily George survived and we didn't have Louise Fife as Queen.  :) Also, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm sure Alix and Bertie must have had some relations after Prince Alexander John's birth, so yes her declaration that ''there will be no more children'' just seemed a little odd to me, and I thought maybe she knew it wasn't phyically possible.  :-\

When Bertie was delirious in his 1871 typhoid attack, he is said to have yelled at Alexandra "you have broken your vows!".  Some have interpreted this to mean that, perhaps, during an earlier row, his wife had actually accused him of this.  I'm inclined to believe the physical side of their marriage ended after the death of their youngest child but it's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: lori_c on October 17, 2006, 02:46:13 PM
It is indeed well-recorded. She was against the boys being sent off but was overruled by Bertie and Queen Victoria. George was being groomed, as 2nd son, for a naval career like his uncle Alfred and it was decided to keep the boys together despite the risks of losing 2 heirs to the throne--as almost happened on at least one occasion. She wrote them almost daily apparently.



Does anyone know why, after the birth of Prince Alexander John, QA decided never to have another child? She was only like 26 at the time? Very young!

Did this mean she was going to make sure she never became pregnant again? I'm not sure how she could have known for sure that she would never have another baby. Or maybe the birth was so difficult it damaged her and she was physically incapable of getting pregnant again??? ??? ???


Wasn't this after some sort of scandal with Bertie and his infidelities becoming public?  or perhaps a venereal disease?  In which case, Alix may well have refused any more relations with him ever again.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 17, 2006, 05:04:32 PM
Yes, Bertie had gotten involved in a couple of public scandals and his popularity was such that he was actually being booed in public. Since Queen Victoria was still in relative seclusion at this point (around 1870-1) it seemed a grave threat to the monarchy. Alix was, of course, still exceedingly popular. There were arguments in Parliament about the annuities and/or marriage settlements for Arthur and Louise (given the increasing unpopularity of the moanrchy) as well as serious calls for reform, or even a republic, but these were squashed almost overnight when Bertie contracted typhoid and his life was despaired of for weeks, including over the anniversary of the Prince Consort's death. When he recovered, there was a large Thanksgiving celebration attended by the whole of the royal family and it marked a period of Queen Victoria beginning to emerge from her seclusion a bit more. Almost dying was about the best thing that could've happened to Bertie at that low point.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 18, 2006, 04:19:50 AM
Yes that's so true and so strange, that Bertie almost dying increased his popularity and helped the Monarchy.

Bertie's typhoid attack came before Prince Alexander John was born didn't it?

QV was going to come to Sandringham when Bertie was sick, but Alix said come in happier times, but then she gave birth and the baby Prince died?

Or have I got it the other way around?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 18, 2006, 04:23:04 AM
Of course she deeply cared about her sons. I am sure she partly wrote them out of this deep care, but on the other hand, there is evidence she could be over protective as well. But there is the evidence, and you can interpret it anyway if you wish... I just choose to interpret it the more conventional way, the way most see it. As for not having another child, well, I think her husband went his own way with the ladies after that. As well, they had more than enough children for the succession, and if they had needed more, no doubt they would have had them. But they didn't need to, so they did not. Whatever passion their marriage had originally no doubt cooled by this time as well, perhaps.

I think Bertie "went his own way with the ladies" well before 1871.  ;)

But I'm sure he must still have had relations with his wife. Maybe that's why Alix became so obsessed with her children, because she got no love and intimacy from her husband? I mean really if people think that Alix and Bertie's physical relationship stopped after 1871, does that mean that Alix was celibate from the age of 26/7 until her death?? It seems a little unusual.  :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 18, 2006, 04:25:54 AM
The two ''ways'' of viewing Alix's mothering are not mutually exclusive. It is true both that she adored/loved/cared for her sons and daughters too, but yes she was also over-protective. Both are true and are not opposing viewpoints. It is better to be overprotective and adoring than to be cold and neglectful as some other royal parents have been accused of being. Alix was a wondeful mother, I'm sure her children would all say so, the only one who was held back by Alix's love was Toria. They had enough children for the succession, but they just barely had enough sons. It would have been considered a good move if they had one more healthy son, in case something happened to Eddy and/or George. Luckily George survived and we didn't have Louise Fife as Queen.  :) Also, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm sure Alix and Bertie must have had some relations after Prince Alexander John's birth, so yes her declaration that ''there will be no more children'' just seemed a little odd to me, and I thought maybe she knew it wasn't phyically possible.  :-\

When Bertie was delirious in his 1871 typhoid attack, he is said to have yelled at Alexandra "you have broken your vows!".  Some have interpreted this to mean that, perhaps, during an earlier row, his wife had actually accused him of this.  I'm inclined to believe the physical side of their marriage ended after the death of their youngest child but it's just my opinion.

Sorry, I don't quite get this. What vows was Bertie accusing Alix of breaking? Well of course people say very strange things when they are delirious and on the brink of death, just look at what Eddy said when he was dying.  :'(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 18, 2006, 04:30:23 AM
It is indeed well-recorded. She was against the boys being sent off but was overruled by Bertie and Queen Victoria. George was being groomed, as 2nd son, for a naval career like his uncle Alfred and it was decided to keep the boys together despite the risks of losing 2 heirs to the throne--as almost happened on at least one occasion. She wrote them almost daily apparently.



Does anyone know why, after the birth of Prince Alexander John, QA decided never to have another child? She was only like 26 at the time? Very young!

Did this mean she was going to make sure she never became pregnant again? I'm not sure how she could have known for sure that she would never have another baby. Or maybe the birth was so difficult it damaged her and she was physically incapable of getting pregnant again??? ??? ???


Wasn't this after some sort of scandal with Bertie and his infidelities becoming public?  or perhaps a venereal disease?  In which case, Alix may well have refused any more relations with him ever again.

Yes that is a good idea Loric. I was thinking the same myself. Someone wrote once that the reason Queen Anne gave birth to so many dead children or babies that only lived for one day is because of syphilis that James II had, or something like that?  ??? I'm not saying Bertie had syphilis, but maybe Alix and Bertie knew that the death of Prince AJ was not just because he was premature, but because Bertie had a venereal disease and that made the baby sick? And so QA decided that she would not allow herself to be made preganant again, because she couldn't bear to lose another baby and she viewed that as likely? I think because Alix made this declaration when she was still so young, that there must be some reason behind it like this. :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 18, 2006, 04:51:41 AM
Yes...It could be due to Bertie's exposure to veneral diesese. However I don't think Bertie's medical records still exists.  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 18, 2006, 06:03:49 AM
Of course she deeply cared about her sons. I am sure she partly wrote them out of this deep care, but on the other hand, there is evidence she could be over protective as well. But there is the evidence, and you can interpret it anyway if you wish... I just choose to interpret it the more conventional way, the way most see it. As for not having another child, well, I think her husband went his own way with the ladies after that. As well, they had more than enough children for the succession, and if they had needed more, no doubt they would have had them. But they didn't need to, so they did not. Whatever passion their marriage had originally no doubt cooled by this time as well, perhaps.

I think Bertie "went his own way with the ladies" well before 1871.  ;)

But I'm sure he must still have had relations with his wife. Maybe that's why Alix became so obsessed with her children, because she got no love and intimacy from her husband? I mean really if people think that Alix and Bertie's physical relationship stopped after 1871, does that mean that Alix was celibate from the age of 26/7 until her death?? It seems a little unusual.  :-\

Maybe she did become somewhat obsessed with the children because of Bertie's neglect, but her sister, Minny (MF), was also quite preoccupied with her children and she was happily married, with a faithful husband, so I don't know.  It's been said that Bertie handed the children over to Alix completely in return for his sexual freedom - perhaps Alix become over-controlling here because that was the only thing she could control?

It would not be unusual at all, in my opinion, for Alix to be content to be celibate after she had completed her family.  Most writers have opined that she did not care for the physical side of marriage.  Whether that was due to Bertie's behaviour, the dislike many women have for intimacy after having children or simply her own nature is difficult to know.  Perhaps a combination of all three?   
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 18, 2006, 06:14:16 AM
The two ''ways'' of viewing Alix's mothering are not mutually exclusive. It is true both that she adored/loved/cared for her sons and daughters too, but yes she was also over-protective. Both are true and are not opposing viewpoints. It is better to be overprotective and adoring than to be cold and neglectful as some other royal parents have been accused of being. Alix was a wondeful mother, I'm sure her children would all say so, the only one who was held back by Alix's love was Toria. They had enough children for the succession, but they just barely had enough sons. It would have been considered a good move if they had one more healthy son, in case something happened to Eddy and/or George. Luckily George survived and we didn't have Louise Fife as Queen.  :) Also, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm sure Alix and Bertie must have had some relations after Prince Alexander John's birth, so yes her declaration that ''there will be no more children'' just seemed a little odd to me, and I thought maybe she knew it wasn't phyically possible.  :-\

When Bertie was delirious in his 1871 typhoid attack, he is said to have yelled at Alexandra "you have broken your vows!".  Some have interpreted this to mean that, perhaps, during an earlier row, his wife had actually accused him of this.  I'm inclined to believe the physical side of their marriage ended after the death of their youngest child but it's just my opinion.

Sorry, I don't quite get this. What vows was Bertie accusing Alix of breaking? Well of course people say very strange things when they are delirious and on the brink of death, just look at what Eddy said when he was dying.  :'(

The marital vows.  People do say strange things when they are delirious but they can be far more forthright than usual also, I think - if Alix had accused Bertie of breaking his vows in the past, in his confused state, he could have repeated it back to her.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ilyala on October 18, 2006, 06:51:42 AM
Maybe she did become somewhat obsessed with the children because of Bertie's neglect, but her sister, Minny (MF), was also quite preoccupied with her children and she was happily married, with a faithful husband, so I don't know.  It's been said that Bertie handed the children over to Alix completely in return for his sexual freedom - perhaps Alix become over-controlling here because that was the only thing she could control?

It would not be unusual at all, in my opinion, for Alix to be content to be celibate after she had completed her family.  Most writers have opined that she did not care for the physical side of marriage.  Whether that was due to Bertie's behaviour, the dislike many women have for intimacy after having children or simply her own nature is difficult to know.  Perhaps a combination of all three?   

i don't think it was just about sexual frustration, especially since we don't know about the quality of the bertie-alix sexual relations. we must remember that in those times a woman was rarely sexually satisfied by her husband. the sexual act was for procreating and i think we can fairly say that only in love matches you could find sexual fulfillment in a woman. i think both minnie and alix (what about their sister? was she a posessive mother?) were either very simmilar in character, or raised in a way that encouraged them to be posessive mothers.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 18, 2006, 08:41:55 AM
I don't think there was any "frustration" on the part of Alix.  I simply think she had no interest in that side of marriage, for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 18, 2006, 08:42:35 AM
It is true that both could be over possessive mothers. I think you might be right, that the answer might well lie in the way they were raised. But it is hard to say. Both had different personalities, and different marriages, and lived in vastly different countries. So these factors cannot explain these two sister's style as mothers, but perhaps their upbringing could. I think they loved their children, but could be a bit stifling.

As for Alexandra, I think Bertie did go his way with the ladies fairly early. But his most well known mistresses date from his later years. Alexandra, indeed, may have well have controlled her children because that's the only thing she had. I am not sure about her attitude towards such things as mentioned. It is rather hard to say. I can't see that she and Bertie may not have relations after the birth and death of their last child, but they must not have been very frequent. I think they likely did at times, but who knows? Alexandra most likely would have been accepting if succh things ended for her early. That was the lot of royal women, to accept such things. Alexandra seems not have been very passionate..
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 18, 2006, 08:56:26 AM
The two ''ways'' of viewing Alix's mothering are not mutually exclusive. It is true both that she adored/loved/cared for her sons and daughters too, but yes she was also over-protective. Both are true and are not opposing viewpoints. It is better to be overprotective and adoring than to be cold and neglectful as some other royal parents have been accused of being. Alix was a wondeful mother, I'm sure her children would all say so, the only one who was held back by Alix's love was Toria. They had enough children for the succession, but they just barely had enough sons. It would have been considered a good move if they had one more healthy son, in case something happened to Eddy and/or George. Luckily George survived and we didn't have Louise Fife as Queen.  :) Also, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm sure Alix and Bertie must have had some relations after Prince Alexander John's birth, so yes her declaration that ''there will be no more children'' just seemed a little odd to me, and I thought maybe she knew it wasn't phyically possible.  :-\

When Bertie was delirious in his 1871 typhoid attack, he is said to have yelled at Alexandra "you have broken your vows!".  Some have interpreted this to mean that, perhaps, during an earlier row, his wife had actually accused him of this.  I'm inclined to believe the physical side of their marriage ended after the death of their youngest child but it's just my opinion.

Sorry, I don't quite get this. What vows was Bertie accusing Alix of breaking? Well of course people say very strange things when they are delirious and on the brink of death, just look at what Eddy said when he was dying.  :'(

The marital vows.  People do say strange things when they are delirious but they can be far more forthright than usual also, I think - if Alix had accused Bertie of breaking his vows in the past, in his confused state, he could have repeated it back to her.

The only time I have ever read any accusation of Alexandra being unfaithful was in one book where the author suggested that Alix had an afair with Tsar Alexander III's older brother Nicholas. They were apparently visiting him when Prince George was conceived and this author suggested that George was fathered by Nicholas and that is the reason GV looked so much like Nicholas II. Because they were double first cousins.

This suggestion is probably utter rubbish, at least I hope so. But it's the only suggestion I ever read that Alix broke her marriage vows so I thought I'd  add it to the discussion.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 18, 2006, 09:03:54 AM
Maybe she did become somewhat obsessed with the children because of Bertie's neglect, but her sister, Minny (MF), was also quite preoccupied with her children and she was happily married, with a faithful husband, so I don't know.  It's been said that Bertie handed the children over to Alix completely in return for his sexual freedom - perhaps Alix become over-controlling here because that was the only thing she could control?

It would not be unusual at all, in my opinion, for Alix to be content to be celibate after she had completed her family.  Most writers have opined that she did not care for the physical side of marriage.  Whether that was due to Bertie's behaviour, the dislike many women have for intimacy after having children or simply her own nature is difficult to know.  Perhaps a combination of all three?   

i don't think it was just about sexual frustration, especially since we don't know about the quality of the bertie-alix sexual relations. we must remember that in those times a woman was rarely sexually satisfied by her husband. the sexual act was for procreating and i think we can fairly say that only in love matches you could find sexual fulfillment in a woman. i think both minnie and alix (what about their sister? was she a posessive mother?) were either very simmilar in character, or raised in a way that encouraged them to be posessive mothers.

We can't really say whether Alix had any or much interest in the physical side of her marriage. It is just not known to us.

I'm sure even in those times many women were sexually satisfied by their husbands, Alix included. The sexual act was for procreating for some royals, but for the everday people it was as much for procreating as it is today. Even in some non-love matches in the royal families they became in love later and would have had sexual fulfillment for the woman.  :-X Surely Alix had more things she could control other than her children and she had other things - she just adored them because she was just a great mother primarily, and also maybe because she didn't get as much love and attention from her husband as maybe she needed.  :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ilyala on October 18, 2006, 09:09:36 AM
i don't think men took enough time with their wives to satisfy them. a woman's satisfaction takes much more time and care than a man's. since a man's satisfaction is the one producing the children and the woman's is not important in the matter - the men just did their 'duties' and produced their children without thinking much of whether the woman liked it or not. i'm sure most men didn't even think that the woman *should* like it. if she did she and if she manifested any desire she was probably considered easy. some of that mentality still lingers today.

with the obvious exception of the love matches where sex was more than a child-producing action.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: lori_c on October 18, 2006, 09:11:41 AM
But I'm sure he must still have had relations with his wife. Maybe that's why Alix became so obsessed with her children, because she got no love and intimacy from her husband? I mean really if people think that Alix and Bertie's physical relationship stopped after 1871, does that mean that Alix was celibate from the age of 26/7 until her death?? It seems a little unusual.  :-\
[/quote]

Bertie was well known for being unfaithful.  Not withstanding the possibility that he had be diagnosed with some sort of venereal disease, It also could be Alix's small way of rebellion.  Physical relationships for women followed the code of Victorian society where it wasn't necessary for Alix to enjoy what she was doing, only to produce an heir, which by then she had done. While men should enjoy it without feelings for the woman.  Royalty seems to be an especially good example, since real love matches like the Tsar's own were rare.   Since intimacy was absent from Alix's marriage she may have felt the physical side should be as well.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 18, 2006, 09:24:51 AM
Well, it's really all hypothetical and much will never be known because Charlotte Knollys, upon the instruction in Queen Alexandra's will, burned most of their letters. She was apparently quite as diligent as Beatrice with Queen Victoria's journals but without even edited versions being left.

Nonetheless, I think there is more to the possessive relationship that QA had with her children than her just being a 'great mother' and also with her physical relationship with Bertie. As mentioned, it has been suggested that marital relations ceased with the birth of Prince Alexander John. If this is true, there could be a multitude of reasons (though I don't think Bertie had venereal disease, it at least has never been mentioned in any serious biography of him) for this. Perhaps Bertie (despite his number of affairs) wasn't an attentive lover, perhaps Alix just didn't enjoy the act (for emotional or physical reasons--this is common today even when women are more open about their sexual lives and there is treatment for physical impediments), perhaps she didn't want anymore children (understandable considering the early births of many of the children and the death of her last child) and, being a 'proper' Victorian woman didn't want to use birth control so abstinence was the only way, or a combination of factors or none of the above. The only thing known for sure is that there wasn't even a suggestion of pregnancy after the 6th child.

As for the 'breaking the vows' comment, Bertie couldn't have believed that Alix had broken them in the sense of having an affair. Either he was parroting back something she said or even that, if relations had ceased, that she had broken the vow of wifely duty and 'becoming one flesh'.

As for GV being Nixa's son--oh brother, that's a whopper on so many levels.  ::)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 18, 2006, 11:26:33 AM
In this same book, there was a theory that QA became pregnant again in around 1874 but the baby was forced out with a prescription given to her by Sir William Gull, and then she went on a holiday to Greece to recover.

My personal opinion (and none of us can really know) is that Bertie and Alix would still have had ''relations'' after Prince AJ died but that it was very infrequent and QA would have made sure that it didn't lead to pregnancy by looking at timing of the month and other natural ways.

Why she didn't want any more children I think is because of her pain at the death of Prince AJ and she didn't want any more pain/worries about such matters. She may also have suspected that Bertie had a venereal disease with all his promiscuity and she didn't want to catch it and/or pass it onto any future babies.

We cannot know whether all intimacy was missing from Alix and Bertie's marriage. I think sometimes they had moments when they were close and loving. They got along pretty well. There was no hatred or backstabbing or betrayals really.

Quote
i don't think men took enough time with their wives to satisfy them. a woman's satisfaction takes much more time and care than a man's. since a man's satisfaction is the one producing the children and the woman's is not important in the matter - the men just did their 'duties' and produced their children without thinking much of whether the woman liked it or not. i'm sure most men didn't even think that the woman *should* like it. if she did she and if she manifested any desire she was probably considered easy. some of that mentality still lingers today. with the obvious exception of the love matches where sex was more than a child-producing action.

Some of these points are true. But such generalisations about all people's marriages in the nineteenth century are not right. Everyone's sexual relationships and levels of satisfaction were different, and in many or most cases probably totally good!  ;) Not all men were so unenlightened in that age. True love existed of course and so did good communication about these things for many people I am sure!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 18, 2006, 11:58:35 AM
It is true that we cannot generalize about anyone's life in any era. That is hard to do. There is always the standard of an era, but ther is indeed, individual standards of behaviour that differ from the norm of behaviour. And we can't know which people did differ from the standards or not without examining it. In the Victorian era, one generalization that is true that these matters were not much spoken of in public consciousness. In private, perhaps they were to some extent, more than we would think. But, because it was not spoken of in public, it is hard to know about the private lives of the people involved.

I think Alexandra and he had occasional relations, it seems to me odd if they didn't. I think beyond that who is to say? She may not have wanted more children, and if their relations were infrequent, and at the right time, she was unlikely to have any more kids. The death of her youngest son did cause her sorrow, we know that. She may have realized she didn't want to go through that again, and perhaps she realized she didn't need more kids either. Alexandra and Bertie's marriage was typical; they had children, and it worked dynastically, she put up with his infidelities. They may have had more attraction at first than most, and also they may have had more in common than some other royals did in their marriages.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 18, 2006, 11:49:06 PM
I think one author wrote that Alix was probably sexually cold and frigid.  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 19, 2006, 02:13:07 AM
I think one author wrote that Alix was probably sexually cold and frigid.  ???

That is totally unfair! How would he know?!  >:(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 19, 2006, 02:17:11 AM
Because Alix adored her children so much and loved being with them all the time, I think that she did want more children and certainly wished that Prince Alexander John had survived. But probably she did not want to go through the process of having them with Bertie - him going out all the time, maybe he had a venereal disease, and probably maybe Alix thought that because this child had died, it was a sign that this should be her last child. I wish we had a picture of Prince Alexander John to complete the family. Poor little baby.  :'( He might have looked like Eddy, or George V.  :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 19, 2006, 02:26:57 AM
I think Alix had about up to here with the court case hearings and the private humilations with Daisy Warrick and Alice Keppel. She told someone that she was very near divorce court, but opted to leave things as they were.  :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 19, 2006, 04:11:50 AM
But we are talking about the situation in 1871 after Prince AJ died and QA declared there would be no more children. Wasn't the Daisy Warwick and Alice Keppel stuff and court cases way after that period? I'm pretty sure it was.  If Alix had divorced him, then she wouldn't have been Queen, so I'm sure she never came that close to it. I think Alix did love Bertie in a way, anyway.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 19, 2006, 04:47:19 AM
I think Daisy Warrick "was" into that period. Alix never accepted her unlike Bertie's first offical mistress Lily Langtry.  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Keith on October 19, 2006, 06:45:42 AM
Daisy Warwick was born in 1861, so she would only have been 10years old in 1871. I'd have to check my books, but I don't think she became his mistress till late 1880s/early 1890's.

I've heard to about Alix not being that interested in sex, not sure about the cold and frigid part. But not sure why that is offensive, but guessing Bertie may have had syphillis is not. Like gdella, I've never read in any book about Bertie anything about the possibility of him having syphillis. I have no problem believing their sex life ended after the death of their last child. Wasn't many a bride told to close her eyes and think of England! But unless any type of personal letter should pop up sometime, we'll never know.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 19, 2006, 06:51:24 AM
My thoughts exactly, Keith.

I don't suppose a letter will pop up thanks to Charlotte Knolly's bonfire.  :P There could be something in the Danish archives, I suppose. Perhaps as more Danish-language books come out, there will be something revealed there. It's probably awful to be so nosy about things so personal but I can't help but wish we could read what was in some of the letters that Bertie & Alix wrote to each other.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 19, 2006, 07:18:38 AM
Damn that bonfire!  :P Why did staff have to be so loyal? They could have just said they burnt it all, but secretly kept some somewhere. I would like to read those letters too.

So Daisy, and Alice Keppel and the court cases had nothing to do with the 1871 declaration of no more children. They came way later.

It is offensive to label someone cold and frigid if they are not, no one likes that. I didn't say Bertie had syphilis, but really what with his 10 000 conquests or however many it was, doesn't it seem likely he got the occassional treatable disease?

I'm sure he did.

Even Eddy who wasn't nearly so promiscuous (he didn't have time for a start) had gonorrhea at one stage.

Their sex life, I believe did not end Full Stop after Prince AJ died, but Alix must have made sure it was not going to lead to pregnancy. "Lying back and thinking of England" has nothing to do with it, everyone has some desires, unless they are asexual.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 19, 2006, 07:46:00 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/37_1.jpg)
Sorry fore interrupting you're interesting disscusion.But....
This one I found on Ebay, but it's not really a good version does some one have a better version. (maybe Bigger) ;)
It are Princess Dagmar of Denmark (Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia) her two sisters Princess Alexandra of Denmark (Queen Alexandra of Great-Britian) Princess Thyra of Denmark ( Duchess Thyra of Cumberland (Hannover)
And thier Mother Queen Louise of Denmark playing at the paino.
It's a great picture I saw this picture before on televison at the Documentry ''A Royal Family'' which was a magnificent programm ; ;D
Thanking you in advance

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Keith on October 19, 2006, 07:52:59 AM
It is offensive to label someone cold and frigid if they are not, no one likes that. I didn't say Bertie had syphilis, but really what with his 10 000 conquests or however many it was, doesn't it seem likely he got the occassional treatable disease?

I'm sure he did.

Even Eddy who wasn't nearly so promiscuous (he didn't have time for a start) had gonorrhea at one stage.

Their sex life, I believe did not end Full Stop after Prince AJ died, but Alix must have made sure it was not going to lead to pregnancy. "Lying back and thinking of England" has nothing to do with it, everyone has some desires, unless they are asexual.

But there's the rub, we don't know if she was not. It's merely speculation, just as it is speculation about Bertie having syphilis.

Again, we don't know for sure what her desires were. Maybe sex wasn't important to her, but she knew as a wife, and wife to an heir, it was her duty to produce children, as long as she was capable of bearing them. Many women of that time went to the marriage be in complete ignorance of what was going to happen. It's nothing but speculation on both our parts on how we view their sex life after 1871. Highly unlikely we'll ever know for sure.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: ilyala on October 19, 2006, 07:55:02 AM
i don't think alix would have maintained relations with bertie had she thought he had a desease... that desease would have gone to her after one relation.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Keith on October 19, 2006, 08:00:57 AM
I think Ilyala makes a very good point, especially if Alix thought her son's death was brought about by Bertie having syphilis.

I don't know much about syphilis, but if he had it, wouldn't all his other conquests have run the risk of being infected also?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 19, 2006, 08:31:21 AM
Despite his number of conquests, Bertie may have avoided venereal disease. He tended to have affairs with women of his own class--who, while adulterous, probably didn't sleep out of their class either--and, while no guarantee, this have helped him avoid any illnesses as opposed to if he frequented brothels. Eddy didn't necessarily follow this--I don't know about the women he had relations with except for the woman who claimed to have his child but also about a woman that he and George shared--though not simultaneously before any more rumors start! (GV wrote about this in his diary entry)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 19, 2006, 10:45:54 AM
I'd like to know who this woman is who E and G shared?! I know it is true though.

Maybe Eddy got Gonorrhea from Margery in India? I have seen a two page letter written by Eddy to his doctor listing his symptoms and he had it. But it was treatable.

I really don't think Bertie had syphilis, as it wasn't treatable back then I don't think and he didn't go insane or waste away as it does make you do I think.  :-\ But maybe he had a less serious venereal disease. I only mentioned syphilis because it can lead to babies dying apparently. I don't know much about it.

You know, it is possible that after Prince Alexander John died Alix simply banned sex because she couldn't bear to have another baby and maybe lose it. I think the loss of this last child affected her more deeply than maybe we can imagine. She never forgot him did she? and always counted him as one of her babies.

In this picture of the Sandringham Church, am I right in saying that the grave on the left (at the front of the church) is the grave of Prince John and the grave on the right is Prince Alexander John's grave?

(http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images/Insight_jan03_focus_church_large.jpg)

Has anyone here seen them? What does it say?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 19, 2006, 02:17:21 PM
Hi Basilforever,

You are correct. The marble grave on the left is Prince Johns. The stone one on the right is Prince Alexander Johns. As you can see the graves are cordoned off (and rightly so) but the sign you can see in the centre has the inscriptions. Not to be morbid but it's amazing to think of the funerals and all royal family standing round. It seems a strange location to be buried but the graves are actually facing the house so maybe thats why they chose that location.

The thought of brothers sharing the same women is just disgusting!! Like the Kennedys and Marilyn Monroe, can't think of anything worse!!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 20, 2006, 12:22:08 PM
It is so wonderful and so appropriate that the two Prince Johnnies were laid to rest side by side facing Sandringham where they both died. Well Prince John died nearby in his cottage. I'm sure Queen Alexandra made regular pilgrimages to both her son's graves. However, it was the appropriate and right thing to do to bury Eddy at Windsor.

Does anyone know what the incscription says?

The thought of brothers sharing the same women doesn't appeal to me much, but evidently Eddy and George did not find it disgusting! Perhaps it made them even closer to be able to talk of the same woman. It's so funny how George called her a ripper!  :D Wonder if Eddy concurred? Well she was a lucky lady, whoever she was.  :P
There are worse things one could think of than that, but it is kind of interesting that Eddy and George did that.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 20, 2006, 02:31:26 PM
Hi Basilforever,

You are correct. The marble grave on the left is Prince Johns. The stone one on the right is Prince Alexander Johns. As you can see the graves are cordoned off (and rightly so) but the sign you can see in the centre has the inscriptions. Not to be morbid but it's amazing to think of the funerals and all royal family standing round. It seems a strange location to be buried but the graves are actually facing the house so maybe thats why they chose that location.

The thought of brothers sharing the same women is just disgusting!! Like the Kennedys and Marilyn Monroe, can't think of anything worse!!

From the British Pathe website
Royalty; funerals. (probably during WWI)

Entire Royal Family in mourning - coming out of St. George's Chapel; Windsor; women dressed in black veils; men wearing black armbands.

King George V; Queen Mary; Queen Alexandra all walk out together. Brief shot Duke of Connaught; family (?) two men carrying pillows. Prince of Wales & brothers in their various military uniforms; all holding salute.

More ladies in black; more Army uniforms at end some Indian officers with turbans. No information given on whose funeral.

Possibly Prince John; youngest child of the King & Queen; who died in 1919; aged 14.

 And a few pictures from the (possible) funeral of Prince John. (from the website)
Their are more picture of his funeral at the British pathe website.
This one's shows the Mourning Royal Family coming out of the Church but their is also a version wenn the go into the Church 
 and walk behind the coffin.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/3473_15_05.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/3473_15_25.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/3473_15_30.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/3473_15_35.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/3473_15_40.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/3473_15_45.jpg

RN

Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 20, 2006, 02:36:56 PM
Thank you for posting those photos RN. May looks great in the first one, ever regal and well dressed, the fur muff is lovely. I thought Prince Johns funeral would have taken place at Sandringham Church...
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 20, 2006, 02:42:45 PM
Thank you Eddieboy_uk you're right about May she looks so regal. :-[
And I made some close-ups of the pictures, I stared quesing how the Mourning Royals are.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Maybehindcoffin.jpg)
From the Mourning Royals going in to the church walking behind the coffin, probaly Queen Mary and King George.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/theMourningParents.jpg)(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/MaudandAlix.jpg)
The Royal Parents (Queen Mary and King George V) in Mourning fore the son. (Poor May :'()
The other two might be Queen Alexandra and her daughter Queen Maud. 
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/Familymourning2.jpg)
Not shore Maud Fife, her mother Louise Fife other Daugther Alexandra Fife and ''Toria''.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/Familymourning.jpg)
And maybe this Are Princess Maud of Fife and her mother Princess Louise Duchess of Fife and Princess ''Toria''
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/brothersmourning.jpg)
And this are the Wales brothers in mourning of their youngest brother John.

RN



 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Keith on October 20, 2006, 05:38:33 PM
According to George V's children by John Van Der Kiste, Prince John's funeral was held at Sandringham. I believe this may be footage from the Duchess of Connaught's funeral in 1917. I did see a listing of this when about 1-2 years ago. They may have added more funeral footage since.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 20, 2006, 06:14:15 PM
I have some photos of the Duchess of Connaught's funeral (they're buried so I can't double-check) but I think Keith could be right here. John's funeral didn't even have any photos in the magazines (such as the Illustrated London News, though they did cover his death) since it was so private--I doubt that Pathe would've been allowed to film it. It could also possibly be Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein's funeral. He died in the WW1 period though I don't know what the funeral services were like or were they were held.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 21, 2006, 03:10:12 AM
Royal ladies always look impressive in mourning. Reminds of that famous photo of the 3 Queens following George VIs death. Oh and the other one I like is the one of Queen Victorias five daughters surrounding the bust of Prince Albert, very impressive IMHO :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 21, 2006, 03:43:01 AM
I have some photos of the Duchess of Connaught's funeral (they're buried so I can't double-check) but I think Keith could be right here. John's funeral didn't even have any photos in the magazines (such as the Illustrated London News, though they did cover his death) since it was so private--I doubt that Pathe would've been allowed to film it. It could also possibly be Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein's funeral. He died in the WW1 period though I don't know what the funeral services were like or were they were held.

From Wikipedia
Prince Christian died at Schomberg House, Pall Mall, in October 1917, in his eighty-seventh year. He was buried at Frogmore Royal Burial Ground in Windsor Great Park.
So it could be Christian of Schleswig-Holstein's funeral.


I don''t think (but not shore ;D) it was the Duchess of Connaught's funeral because British Pathe has a few pictures of that funeral to.
Aldo the pictures really look-alike ???
Windsor, Berkshire

Funerals; ceremony; royalty. Funeral of the Duchess of Connaught; formerly Princess Louise Marguerite of Prussia; at Windsor Castle; 1917. Shot (side view) of mourners; funeral guests; coming down the steps outside. Many men in uniform; old ladies in ; dark veils. Then; DS of procession. Shot outside St. George's Chapel with Royal Family and other mourners. The widower Duke of Connaught (Prince Arthur; 7th and favourite child of Queen Victoria). King George V; Queen Mary. Ceremonies.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/1864_09_05.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/1864_09_40.jpg

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Teddy on October 21, 2006, 04:02:54 AM
Why is there no coffeetable book, about this lady!!!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 21, 2006, 04:35:27 AM
I wish these photos were of Prince John's funeral. It would be so fascinating to see them.  :( And yes the royal ladies do look very regal and impressive in their mourning attire, especially Queen Mary.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on October 21, 2006, 05:58:28 AM
Royal ladies always look impressive in mourning. Reminds of that famous photo of the 3 Queens following George VIs death. Oh and the other one I like is the one of Queen Victorias five daughters surrounding the bust of Prince Albert, very impressive IMHO :)

Yes Royal ladies look impressive in mourning, I think especially in the time where they were in heavy black with the veils and fur.
But not only the Royal Ladies looked impressive, My Grandmother told me every time her parents had to go on a funeral.
Her mother opened up a drawer and took out a long black veil which she attached to her hat she was wearing.
And my grandmother was watching it with great attention, how her mother got ready to go to the funeral.
She told me she never forgot how her parents walked to church in Mourning, “as a little girl it made a big impression on me “.
My grandmother  kept the veil after the death of her mother and gave it to my mother a couple of years ago.
If non-Royal ladies were already impressive the Royal ones had to be  even more.

 (http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/Royals%20past%20and%20present/mrlostprincev040.jpg)
 In the film the Lost Prince their is the Funeral scene at the end, I knew it was a film but I could   imagine the Royal family standing their just like that.
 This picture Shows Miranda Richarson as Queen Mary at the Funeral of Prince John at Sandringham, And I much say I don’t find it hard to think Queen Mary really looked that way.

RN
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Svetabel on October 21, 2006, 08:10:17 AM
This picture Shows Miranda Richarson as Queen Mary at the Funeral of Prince John at Sandringham, And I much say I don’t find it hard to think Queen Mary really looked that way.

RN

Here I agree,though Miranda Richardson does not resemble Queen Mary in appearance, but she was superb in playing her.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: kmerov on October 23, 2006, 02:45:48 PM
Don't know if these have been posted before, but I just found them a bit funny!
Alix and MF on a car!
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/kmerov/Alexandra/mfalixoncar.jpg)

Alix between May and George V
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/kmerov/Alexandra/alixgm.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: boffer on October 23, 2006, 04:17:20 PM
Don't know if these have been posted before, but I just found them a bit funny!

Alix between May and George V
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/kmerov/Alexandra/alixgm.jpg)

regarding the picture of her with Queen Mary, this has always baffled me, because the captions i have read of it say that they were walking across the lawns ... but i do not recall that the forcourt of buckingham palace ever been turfed, however it does look that way - and it does look like the front facade. I believe that they were on the way to celebrate the end of WWI and the signing of the Treaty of Versaille.

Does anyone know the actually location and event in the picture? Sorry if i have baffled slightly
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on October 23, 2006, 04:24:06 PM
I've never read about it being on the lawn. I think it is in front of Buckingham Palace. They were going to one of the celebrations (the Peace parade maybe?) commemorating the end of World War I.  One a side note, you can see Queen Auguste Viktoria of Portugal over Queen Mary's shoulder between her and Queen Alexandra.  I think that it's Princess Mary and Princess Victoria behind Mary and Alexandra.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: boffer on October 23, 2006, 04:43:56 PM
I think you are right, im sure that was the last occassion of which George V approved of the lengths of skirts before the 1920's and "shorter" fashions.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 23, 2006, 10:09:07 PM
GV never allowed QM to wear short skirts. Although Maud, like her mother Alix was very much into fashion wore them. She even wore one to her mother's furneral... :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 24, 2006, 01:35:39 AM
As skirt lengths were quite short by 1925 and Maud was known for being fashionable in her dress, I suppose her choice of attire at her mother's funeral was to be expected and was not risque at all.  She didn't have to have George's permission for her choice in clothes, unlike May.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 24, 2006, 02:57:59 AM
Yes...I agree of all three daughters of Alix, Maud was the only one to inheirit her mother's fashion sense. I tend think that Alix remained very clothes consious near the end.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 24, 2006, 11:37:42 AM
To reference the debate on the last Alexandra thread, even if we had those letters that were burned, we still might not know. I think there were doubtless things that even between them, they did not write to each other, but that they understood, even if unspoken/unwritten. I don't think Alexandra ever came close to divorcing Bertie. After all, she was of the put up and bear it type, and as well this was the Victorian era, and a prominent royal like her could never have done it if she wanted to. As for being sick of his scandals,etc, I think everyone in his family was certainly sick of those. Alexandra would not have been alone there.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 24, 2006, 10:01:00 PM
I agree...There may not have been anything written about them in England. However I do suspect there may be tit bits of those in her letters to her mother ( Queen Louise of Denmark) and her sisters (Dagmar & Thyra (both survived Alix)).   ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 25, 2006, 12:07:08 PM
Well, there were things about them/ by them in England. They got burned so we don't know what it was. What we do know is that there was a possibility of some info from there. But I argue that even we had these things, the truth most likely would not just be there, waiting for us to see it, about Alexandra and Bertie's marriage.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 26, 2006, 08:02:28 AM
Well, there were things about them/ by them in England. They got burned so we don't know what it was. What we do know is that there was a possibility of some info from there. But I argue that even we had these things, the truth most likely would not just be there, waiting for us to see it, about Alexandra and Bertie's marriage.

Well some inside details with special information could have been in those letters, but we will never know as they were burned.  >:(

With regards to Bertie's scandals, Alexandra would have been more annoyed than others at them since she was his wfie, and as her patience with Bertie was not infinite, she demanded that he at least keep his dignity in public.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: imperial angel on October 26, 2006, 11:06:38 AM
Well, yes as his wife it was worse with his scandals, especially as Alexandra was always a dignified and calm person. She must have found it hard to bear as his wife, but much worse given what she was like. But his scandals bothered all his family, and Queen Victoria. These letters would no doubt have contained more info than we know, but how much?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 26, 2006, 10:32:00 PM
A lot...She written very faithfully to Dagmar & her mother Queen Louise (and later to Thyra too because of her understanding nature). I suspect these will be the no holds bared letters if found will revealed much more about Alix than any other.  ::)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 27, 2006, 02:23:02 AM
I would love to read the letter Alexandra wrote to Minnie in 1919 begging her sister to leave Russia before it was to late. I presume it was lost?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Zanthia on October 27, 2006, 02:29:57 AM
Most likely, but her letters to Minnie could also be in the russian state archive, who knows  ::)
Some of her letters has survived. I have a book by danish author Inge-Lise Klausen "Alexandra - Princess from Denmark", containing some of Alix's letters to Minnie. I think Inge-Lise found them in California by accident, when she was doing research for her first book "Dagmar - Zarina from Denmark". Quite good books, both of them, but only avaliable in danish, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 27, 2006, 07:15:50 AM
Very interesting, thank you Zanthia. I think Alexandra and Minny both deserve futhur bios. Georgina Battiscombes (sp?) book on Alexandra was nice but would love a more scholarly one. I would have thought Minnie would have taken many letters with her into exile, but perhaps in the rush she left them. Be interesting to know if any of Alexandras letters are in the state archives.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on October 27, 2006, 08:17:33 AM
According to Georgina Battiscombe, there are forty (yes 4-0) volumes of Alexandra's letters to Dagmar in Moscow dating from 1867-1917.  They are all in Danish and depite my best efforts at emailing said archive in (not very good) Russian, I have not yet had any luck in finding out more.  Also her letters to Waldemar have survived and are in Copenhagen, but again their content and accessibility is proving a bit tricky to ascertain.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 27, 2006, 11:03:11 AM
So there is a huge amount of letters of Alix's that do survive, and there would be an amazing amount of secrets and insights into her emotions in them I am sure. Maybe one day they will be made public and put into English, but surely she must have written some in English to begin with?  :-\
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 27, 2006, 12:52:41 PM
Amazing information! Thank you Kate! What a fantastic resource for a new biography. I bet they make interesting reading. Why is it do you think that archives are reluctant to release information?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on October 27, 2006, 01:47:05 PM
It may just be that I am not getting through to the right people.  I know that the name of the archive changed from the archive of the October Revolution to a different name (which I cannot think of without checking my notes).  I think the best option is to befriend somebody who speaks Russian properly and either write or telephone which would hopefully generate a response.  Waldemar's letters were still not released to the public when Battiscombe wrote her biography as he only died in 1939.  This means they entered the public domain in 1989.  I really do need some Danish friends!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 28, 2006, 10:55:40 AM
Hopefully Crown Prince Frederik when he is King will not be like his mother, and will let scholars and historians look into the archives. Margarethe II refuses to let anyone look into the archives to research Thyra and her illegitimate baby, and she only let Dagmar get re-buried in Russia if everyone promised that the casket not be opened, and no DNA sample taken. I do not like her attitude. She's trying to cover up all the secrets, and since they happened so long ago, I think things should be out in the open. Including Queen Alexandra's many volumes of letters.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 28, 2006, 04:16:43 PM
Then again, if these letters were private, from sister to sister, do we really have the right to pry into them, much as we would like to know the contents?  ???

On the other hand, it is only through private letters that we have a better picture of Prince Eddy, for example, and these letters have exonerated him from the reputation that he was mentally subnormal.

I see both sides here -- it is an invasion of privacy to read personal letters but it does give us far more understanding and insight into those who wrote them.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Antoniam on October 28, 2006, 09:26:25 PM
There's no indication that Frederik will change the stance his predecessors have taken over making private information public. The fact that there's a long tradition and his mother, grandfather, great-grandfather etc have all keep the archives closed shows that there's a very good chance that they will remain so.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Zanthia on October 30, 2006, 01:50:48 AM
So there is a huge amount of letters of Alix's that do survive, and there would be an amazing amount of secrets and insights into her emotions in them I am sure. Maybe one day they will be made public and put into English, but surely she must have written some in English to begin with?  :-\

Those that are in my book are very touching, especially the first ones she wrote during her "trial" in England before the wedding, and as newlywed. I'm sure she wrote letters in english too, but the ones to her family was always in danish. Once in a while a german word, like "bitte" and "geburtstag" (please and birthday) sneak into the letter, and later some english words too.
Some of the letters in my book, does'nt have many secrets (I guess the author was'nt allowed to publish those), but shows clearly how she felt about Preussia, and her great admiration for Queen Victoria, that later cooled over the years. (In one letter to Minnie, she even refers to QV as "The ogre" :))

In the authors note it says that Alix used every inch of the paper, starting on one side, continued on the back side, then turned the paper 90 degrees, and then wrote sideways. Minnie is said to have written like that too. It was a habit they had from their home. The king was the only one who did'nt have to pay postal charges for his letters, so Prince Christian and his family got used to write all over the paper, so the letter did'nt became to heavy and not so expensive to mail.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on October 30, 2006, 01:59:28 AM
"The ogre"!  ;D ;D

How human that makes her sound -- referring to her mother-in-law in this way?  Wish that book wasn't in Danish but thanks for posting, Zanthia.  :) 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 30, 2006, 02:01:06 AM
Then again, if these letters were private, from sister to sister, do we really have the right to pry into them, much as we would like to know the contents?  ???

On the other hand, it is only through private letters that we have a better picture of Prince Eddy, for example, and these letters have exonerated him from the reputation that he was mentally subnormal.

I see both sides here -- it is an invasion of privacy to read personal letters but it does give us far more understanding and insight into those who wrote them.

Oh but they are our Royals are they are long since dead, I can see your point, but I want to read Queen Alexandra's letters anyway. Think of the Eddy content that would be in them.  ;) Not to get off topic, but there are lots of other things about Eddy other than his letters that show he was NOT mentally subnormal or anything other than reasonably intelligent. I was just reading his letter to Louis about his love for Alicky and asking for advice the other day, and it is very eloquent!  :-* He REALLY did want to marry her, things could have been so different.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 30, 2006, 02:09:25 AM
So there is a huge amount of letters of Alix's that do survive, and there would be an amazing amount of secrets and insights into her emotions in them I am sure. Maybe one day they will be made public and put into English, but surely she must have written some in English to begin with?  :-\

Those that are in my book are very touching, especially the first ones she wrote during her "trial" in England before the wedding, and as newlywed. I'm sure she wrote letters in english too, but the ones to her family was always in danish. Once in a while a german word, like "bitte" and "geburtstag" (please and birthday) sneak into the letter, and later some english words too.
Some of the letters in my book, does'nt have many secrets (I guess the author was'nt allowed to publish those), but shows clearly how she felt about Preussia, and her great admiration for Queen Victoria, that later cooled over the years. (In one letter to Minnie, she even refers to QV as "The ogre" :))

In the authors note it says that Alix used every inch of the paper, starting on one side, continued on the back side, then turned the paper 90 degrees, and then wrote sideways. Minnie is said to have written like that too. It was a habit they had from their home. The king was the only one who did'nt have to pay postal charges for his letters, so Prince Christian and his family got used to write all over the paper, so the letter did'nt became to heavy and not so expensive to mail.

What is this book you are talking about Zanthia? The more juicy and revealing letters would not be allowed to be included I bet. How poor they were that they had to write all over the paper, even sideways down the side. And yet they came to such positions of Majesty, due to their impeccable royal pedigree.

That is funny that she called QV the ''Ógre''. I think QA was intimidated by QV, which is understandable, just imagine if she was mad at you.  :o Eddy was very clever he knew exactly how to charm QV and get her to listen to him, esp. with his introducing her to Helene in that very clever way, to get the Queen's support, which he suceeded in doing.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 30, 2006, 03:34:16 AM
QA was intimdated by QV that is true but wasn't afraid of her. During the Danish-Prussian War, Alix faced off all her Pro-German relatives ( QV included) and successfully changed English public opinion to the Danish side entirely due to her beauty and charm. Although it did not change the result, QA did much PR for Denmark.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Zanthia on October 30, 2006, 04:05:44 AM
I wrote it on page 2, but I'll gladly repeat. It's called "Alexandra - Princess from Denmark" by Inge-Lise Klausen, but it's only avaliable in danish.
She has currently written three books about the Gluckborg family:
"Dagmar - Zarina from Denmark"
"Alexandra - Princess from Denmark"
"Thank you for the dance, Louise"
The last one is about Alix and Minnie's parents, the title refers to what Christian IX said to his wife after their wedding dance. He said it again at their 25th wedding day, and at their 50th wedding day he added; "thank you for the dance of my life", it's so sweet  :D
They all are based on the familys letters to each other, and are very well, allthough there are some few historical errors. Fx. she write that QV was'nt at Alberts side when he died. And she also writes that Thyra never had a illegetimate child, but that it was a lie from Preussia to ruin the princess's reputation.

And by the way, you're quite right, I think I really would find Victoria intimidating, if I lived back then.  ;D In spite of her small size, she just fills you with respect.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on October 31, 2006, 05:45:36 AM
Queen Alexandra's Wedding Dress.

I love it.  :-*

Click to enlarge.

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_aafhl.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/aafhl.jpg)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/th_aaghlul.jpg) (http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/feliciavictoria_2006/aaghlul.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Zanthia on October 31, 2006, 06:32:13 AM
Does there exist any photos of the dress she got from Leopold of Belgium?
As much as I love her wedding dress, I would love to see the other one too.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 31, 2006, 09:19:35 AM
I think the thrifty Alix kept the valuable brussels lace but dismantle the dress.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Zanthia on October 31, 2006, 12:16:06 PM
I think the thrifty Alix kept the valuable brussels lace but dismantle the dress.  ;)

Yeah, that's very possible, it defintely sounds like something our Alix could have done  :), but I really would have liked to see it anyway ;)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 31, 2006, 07:36:07 PM
I wondered if she ever did wore it ??? Especially since QV thinks Honiton lace was superior...
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on November 01, 2006, 08:00:47 AM
I've just finished reading Jeremy Maas' book about Frith's commission to paint a portrait of the wedding for Queen Victoria, and one of the problems that he found qute early on was that Alexandra had already had her wedding dress partially dismantled. I wouldn't be surprised if Leopold's met the same fate!  It was very common practice, although more specially in the eighteenth century for dresses to be remodelled over again.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: gogm on November 01, 2006, 10:07:47 PM
I was wondering how that deliciously fluffy gown in the wedding portraits turned into something as simple as what is on display now. Thank you for clearing that up! ;D
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 01, 2006, 10:30:40 PM
Yes...I often wondered what happened to all those wonderful dresses that QA & QM owned ? Are they still in storage ?  ???
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on November 02, 2006, 06:55:26 AM
Some of both QA's and QM's garments are in museum collections, either in the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection in Kensington Palace or the Museum of London. About 25 of QA's dresses are held in the stores  of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, acquired from an auction in 1935.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: gogm on November 02, 2006, 08:27:11 PM
The Met should put them on display and send them around. It would be quite a show, especially if Kensington Palace contributed some items. :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on November 02, 2006, 10:15:21 PM
2013 (while still a good ways off, these take awhile to put together) would be a nice time for an exhibit, either here or in the UK since it will be 150 years since she married and became the Princess of Wales.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on November 03, 2006, 04:28:42 AM
Yep the dresses are in NYC.  There was an exhibition that included  some of them a few years back.  Watch this space for another! My PhD is about QA and her clothes and one of the potential outcomes is a collaborative exhibition (possibly a virtual show if it is tricky to transport garments) dedicated entirely to QA.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: basilforever on November 03, 2006, 08:40:46 AM
I wish for an exhibition of QA's dresses very much as well. Including her wedding dress. And I would want the exhibition to come to Australia - all capital cities!

This should definitely happen long before 2013! It doesn't take anywhere near that long to get it together, I'm sure, and I just want to see it, the anniversary isn't that important.

While they're at it perhaps they could get out some of Eddy's old uniforms (they must still exist right?) and tour them around with his mother's clothes.

A Queen Alexandra and her son The Duke of Clarence and Avondale exhibition would be very great.  ;D

I find it sad that QA stripped down her wedding dress and altered it so much, I would think she would want to leave it exactly as she wore it so that is was  preserved from that day of the Wedding. Well that is what I would have done. Was she so poor that she had to re-use her wedding dress for other occasions?! I think not.  :-\



Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on November 03, 2006, 08:50:03 AM
Exhibtions would be fantastic but they really dotake a long time to implement.  Textiles, almost more than any other museum object are the most difficult and fragile to both transport and display owing to their fragility.  Dresses of the late 19th century are even more so as they were tin-weighted, a chemical treatment used to create a distinctive rustling quality to the silk. This treatment causes the silk to shatter in surviving garments and so removal and display is either hugely expensive or simply not allowed. 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: royal_netherlands on November 03, 2006, 11:15:45 AM
First of all thank you fore all the information, it is really interesting.
But know you’re talking about Queen Alexandra's clothes here is a link to British Pathe where there are a few pictures of Queen Alexandra's dresses. (It's about Edwardian fashion)


RN :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Zanthia on November 03, 2006, 11:36:16 AM
Was she so poor that she had to re-use her wedding dress for other occasions?! I think not.  :-\

No, of course she was'nt.  :D But remember she came from a home, were everything was used and re-used if possible. She was brought up with that nothing should go to waste. Later she overcomed this old habit, but as a newlywed she still had this opinion deep inside her and she probably felt that it was a terrible waste, if this dress and all it's laces and ornaments should only be used once.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on November 03, 2006, 03:14:43 PM
I don't think QA ever completely overcame the habits of her youth, when her family had little money.  There is a story which I am not completely clear on, where she insisted on a beautiful brocade dress she couldn't wear any more be taken apart to cover some chairs with.

I like this characteristic, anyway -- waste not, want not!  ;D
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on February 29, 2012, 04:22:28 AM
I don't think QA ever completely overcame the habits of her youth, when her family had little money.  There is a story which I am not completely clear on, where she insisted on a beautiful brocade dress she couldn't wear any more be taken apart to cover some chairs with.

I like this characteristic, anyway -- waste not, want not!  ;D

She did unpick six of her brocade dresses to cover chairs in Sandringham.  I have a copy of a document written by one of her dressers after her death informing Queen Mary that this had been carried out in the 1880s.  Have emailed the Royal Collection to see if the chairs are still there but no luck so far
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 29, 2012, 09:13:04 AM
They must have been special chairs. I wonder how many of Queen Alexandra's many dresses (other than her wedding & coronation dresses) survived.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on February 29, 2012, 12:08:32 PM
Well in total I now have discovered in excess of 100 objects of dress and accessories that relate to Queen Alexandra surviving in various museums around the world.  This includes more ephemeral objects such as handkerchiefs but it is still a sizeable collection all told.  They are just so far scattered which makes it more complex in terms of considering it as a 'whole' collection.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 29, 2012, 12:09:56 PM
That is fascinating Kate! What random museums have items turned up in?? Makes one wonder how they ended up there! :)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 29, 2012, 01:52:53 PM
Thanks Kate.  ;) I think your book will be one I will be happy to buy and read. Some of her clothes I read was dispersed during her lifetime. She also given some objects to friends...or even strangers (in her older years) when no visitor was allowed to leave Sandringham without a souvenir from the blessed lady herself. 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 01, 2012, 03:48:53 AM
There are two dresses in the Bunka Gauken Museum in Japan, three in Oslo (obviously thanks to Maud) only one in Copenhagen surprisingly, seven in Canada, lots in New York, three in Liverpool, five in the Fashion Museum Bath, various museums in London have them and so the list goes on.  It is endlessly fascinating and I now have a little over a year to tie it all up.  The routes are usually via servants, particularly dressers or housekeepers who were gifted items.  So much to learn from each garment as well.  My PhD completes next year and then....hopefully....a publisher!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 01, 2012, 05:58:07 AM
Oh Good luck! It sounds wonderful!
Amazing to think some items found there way to Japan!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 01, 2012, 02:42:38 PM
Not too surprising though, Japan has a very good textile museum due to its interests in silk garments. In fact Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna (niece of Queen Alexandra) usually put on a kimono before she dresses for the evening. That museum is really worth it visit from what I hear and has an extensive collection. Not surprising that they should have a dress worn by the fashionable Edwardian Queen. If you come to New York for research, should really meet up.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on March 14, 2012, 03:42:04 PM
I didn't remember to see this (http://imagesonline.bl.uk/en/asset/show_zoom_window_popup.html?asset=19802&location=grid&asset_list=19802&basket_item_id=undefined) photo of Queen Alexandra's coronation. It reminds me a bit her daughter Louise. Sorry for the watermarks!  :(
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 15, 2012, 09:44:35 AM
Queen Alexandra chose Indian dress material for her coronation gown. The type of material rich Indian brides use in their weddings even today.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Olga Maria on June 13, 2012, 02:51:13 AM
Alexandra and a dog (from the Royal Collection)
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/856/alexandraprincessofwale.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/alexandraprincessofwale.jpg/) (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/856/alexandraprincessofwale.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/alexandraprincessofwale.jpg/) (http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/856/alexandraprincessofwale.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/213/alexandraprincessofwale.jpg/)

Alexandra and baby Louise
(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/856/alexandraprincessofwale.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/alexandraprincessofwale.jpg/)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: miki_nastya on December 15, 2012, 12:17:37 PM
what was her hair color?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on March 12, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
One of QA's dresses from the V&A

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FwnpOzkTOiE/Tk2AP-gP6bI/AAAAAAAAFXg/a8X3f-T3en0/s1600/princessalexandraseveningdress1.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T2d72F0eUSc/Tk2ARcqqdFI/AAAAAAAAFXk/JFascntGYhc/s1600/princessalexandraseveningdress2.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: CountessKate on March 12, 2013, 05:00:41 PM
A glorious dress.  There seems to be few of Queen Alexandra's dresses which still survive, so it's nice to see one still around.  She apparently made many purchases from Parisian sources though the maker of the V&A dress, Maison Laferriere, was the only one listed as holding her warrant. Her daughter Maud wore Larerriere as well.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 14, 2013, 12:31:39 PM
Alexandra also made purchases from the House of Worth just like her sister Minnie.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: RoyalWatcher on March 14, 2013, 02:04:37 PM
One of QA's dresses from the V&A

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FwnpOzkTOiE/Tk2AP-gP6bI/AAAAAAAAFXg/a8X3f-T3en0/s1600/princessalexandraseveningdress1.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T2d72F0eUSc/Tk2ARcqqdFI/AAAAAAAAFXk/JFascntGYhc/s1600/princessalexandraseveningdress2.jpg)

When would Queen Alexandra wear a beautiful dress like this? Would it be considered day wear, evening wear or event wear? Royal ladies and ladies of wealth had rules about what could be worn during which part of the day; however, I'm not familiar with those rules! Anyone know?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on March 14, 2013, 02:38:28 PM
I found the V&A page of this gown  

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O16778/evening-dress-maison-laferriere/

It says its an "evening gown" but it looks like a ballgown to me
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 14, 2013, 04:18:00 PM
I think an evening gown. A ball gown is usually more elaborate affair with a train. In fact Ella once wrote to Ducky in Darmstadt about how long the train is required during the coronation ball in Moscow. 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on March 14, 2013, 04:37:27 PM
According to that page, it dates from about 1900. During that time, Alexandra and Bertie hosted, and attended, many evening events in addition to nights at the theatre and so on--especially at this point in the Queen's reign when they were the de facto reigning couple. The society pages were full of notations of the various events they attended.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 14, 2013, 04:52:20 PM
Don't think Alexandra went to many balls, although she must have presided over quite a few. The gown looked more like one like one for a dinner party.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on March 15, 2013, 08:07:00 AM
I didn't say balls--I said a variety of evening events. That includes theatre, balls, dinner parties, etc...And she did, in fact, go to quite a few balls. It's all documented in the papers, Court Circular, etc...
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 15, 2013, 02:12:57 PM
That is why I said evening gown not a ball gown. One that people wore to dinner parties. In fact people are expected to dress just for dinner and with their tiaras in place when dining with royals even in private homes.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: CountessKate on March 17, 2013, 03:52:07 AM
I hope this has not been posted before, but the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising Museum (FIDM) in New York has an interesting dolman jacket of the 1870s which belonged to Queen Alexandra:

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a42/cfarnon/Costume/QAlexdolman-1a_zpsdaaccc6a.jpg)

It is made of cashmere, silk braid and metallic thread.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 17, 2013, 07:58:14 PM
I wonder if she got it in the Middle East during her tour there ?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 19, 2013, 09:51:31 AM
That is why I said evening gown not a ball gown. One that people wore to dinner parties. In fact people are expected to dress just for dinner and with their tiaras in place when dining with royals even in private homes.

It is very unlikely that this was worn for dinner.  There were strict gradations of sleeve length etc which determined suitable dress for evening wear.  This was probably worn for a ball or dance and Alexandra certainly attended many of these according to the entries in the Court Circular which can be read online via The Times archive. Although she appeared to have all of her tailor-mades commissioned from British couture houses here evening wear was all French.  In fact she very rarely bought from Worth.  They appeared not to see eye to eye and J. P. Worth's memoir records the only fitting Alexandra ever had in which her ladies in waiting fussed too much around the dressmakers and flustered everyone in the room.  Her wardrobe accounts reveal that she made only one small purchase from Worth between 1880 and her death in 1925.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 19, 2013, 09:52:03 AM
It is very unlikely that this was worn for dinner.  There were strict gradations of sleeve length etc which determined suitable dress for evening wear.  This was probably worn for a ball or dance and Alexandra certainly attended many of these according to the entries in the Court Circular which can be read online via The Times archive. Although she appeared to have all of her tailor-mades commissioned from British couture houses here evening wear was all French.  In fact she very rarely bought from Worth.  They appeared not to see eye to eye and J. P. Worth's memoir records the only fitting Alexandra ever had in which her ladies in waiting fussed too much around the dressmakers and flustered everyone in the room.  Her wardrobe accounts reveal that she made only one small purchase from Worth between 1880 and her death in 1925.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 19, 2013, 09:52:43 AM
I hope this has not been posted before, but the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising Museum (FIDM) in New York has an interesting dolman jacket of the 1870s which belonged to Queen Alexandra:

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a42/cfarnon/Costume/QAlexdolman-1a_zpsdaaccc6a.jpg)

It is made of cashmere, silk braid and metallic thread.

Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 19, 2013, 09:53:54 AM
Sorry I meant to add to that post that this is one of a number of Alexandra related items that FIDM have acquired including some tailor made jackets, an early blouse and a couple of dresses.  Very exciting!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2013, 11:00:37 AM
I think you must also include those dresses that Alexandra made in England to march those of her sister Dagmar in Russia, who had a big account with Worth. Those may not be made by the Couture house itself, but the style certainly was.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 19, 2013, 11:11:51 AM
Yes there are some quotes that suggest Worth had a hand in the 'like-dressing' that the sisters indulged in during the Russian state visit in 1873 but other than that it was not a relationship that flourished!  None of her surviving garments are by Worth compared to Dagmar's and nothing in the wardrobe accounts bar one small order.  My theory is that Alexandra preferred some of the more unusual and lesser known couture houses which is why Morin Blossier were her favourite dressmaker from the 1880s.  She quite liked to be a little different I think.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2013, 11:20:05 AM
Indeed. I wonder where the dresses went after she died. I think the RF kept the important ones but the others ?
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2013, 11:22:17 AM
Also wonder where the "matching dresses" went. I think she continue to wear matching dresses with Dagmar and even Queen Olga of Greece until very later in her life.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 19, 2013, 11:39:45 AM
Her dressers and other members of her household were given some of them which is where most of them crop up in museums via family bequests.  A list of the garments to have survived was written by her dresser Mrs Giltrap which is now in the Royal Archive and details everything that was in the wardrobe in Sandringham and Marlborough House.  Some things were auctioned in the US in the 1930s but as to the rest............
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2013, 11:54:11 AM
I think Maud might have taken some back to Norway or to Appleton House. Her own clothes collection was quite impressive too and the only child of Alexandra that shared her mother's taste in fashion and clothes.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 19, 2013, 11:58:30 AM
There are only three garments in Oslo - a fur jacket and a Morin Blossier dress and cloak so not a tremendous amount there.  It certainly is intriguing since over the decades her wardrobe was large even as it evolved and things were sold or given away.  Exhibition plans are underway so hopefully as many of her clothes as possible will be shown together.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2013, 12:18:15 PM
Looking forward to those. I read Alexandra also gave away lots of things in her old age...
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on March 19, 2013, 06:26:54 PM
I think Maud might have taken some back to Norway or to Appleton House. Her own clothes collection was quite impressive too and the only child of Alexandra that shared her mother's taste in fashion and clothes.

All Alexandra's children were pretty sharp dressers, not just Maud. 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2013, 07:48:17 PM
Really ? Don't think Toria or Louise in later age was a sharp dresser...
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: CountessKate on March 19, 2013, 09:27:16 PM
[quote ]Exhibition plans are underway so hopefully as many of her clothes as possible will be shown together.  [/quote]

Kate, you mentioned something of this a long time ago, and I have been longing to hear more!  Is the exhibition planned for a UK venue? 

Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 19, 2013, 10:02:01 PM
Love to hear more of a UK exhibition.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Grace on March 19, 2013, 10:32:21 PM
Really ? Don't think Toria or Louise in later age was a sharp dresser...

Well, at least interested in personal presentation and smartness, if not actual fashion trends.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 20, 2013, 11:31:16 AM
Yes it has been a long term project.  I submit my PhD thesis at the end of this summer after 7 years!  Then we are moving on with the exhibition.  So far three venues have confirmed as wishing to participate - one in the UK and two internationally (better not give the game away until we have actual dates but it looks like being 2018 - these kinds of things take time!) Anyhow, I am meeting curators after Easter to start on a forward plan.  I am also then hoping to get some stuff published.  I have written a couple of articles which are in academic journals about her clothes if anyone is interested - one which is a detailed analysis of the Coronation dress and a second which is about some of her clothing choices based on a number of different factors.  A book is in the pipeline.........
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: grandduchessella on March 20, 2013, 12:02:19 PM
Yes there are some quotes that suggest Worth had a hand in the 'like-dressing' that the sisters indulged in during the Russian state visit in 1873 but other than that it was not a relationship that flourished!  None of her surviving garments are by Worth compared to Dagmar's and nothing in the wardrobe accounts bar one small order.  My theory is that Alexandra preferred some of the more unusual and lesser known couture houses which is why Morin Blossier were her favourite dressmaker from the 1880s.  She quite liked to be a little different I think.

Font of knowledge as always, KateS! Thanks for your insights into her wardrobe and clothing. It's good to have an expert on hand. How goes your work anyway?

Oops--just saw the previous post with the update. :)

Really ? Don't think Toria or Louise in later age was a sharp dresser...

Toria and Louise had very fine clothing. They just weren't cutting edge like Maud was--that's where her legacy lies. They, like Queen Mary, were more locked into a certain style--as was Queen Alexandra after a certain point. Nonetheless, they had very fine materials, tailoring and accessories.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 20, 2013, 12:28:59 PM
Aww thanks GDE, it has been a labour of love and the number of garments that have appeared in different places has been amazing.  It still amounts to hardly a fraction of the things that Alexandra would have owned in her lifetime but they still have their tales to tell!
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 20, 2013, 12:50:35 PM
I think the dresses of Alexandra will make a nice photo and research book. Looking forward to it.

Indeed Maud changed with the fashions but her sisters did not.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: CountessKate on March 20, 2013, 03:50:10 PM
Quote
   I have written a couple of articles which are in academic journals about her clothes if anyone is interested - one which is a detailed analysis of the Coronation dress and a second which is about some of her clothing choices based on a number of different factors.   


I would indeed be interested - it has always saddened me that there are so very few of Alexandra's costumes left and we have only the many photos of the luscious outfits she wore over the years.  Was the sharing out of her clothes among her maids both during her life and at the end of it part of the perquisites system which essentially was part of the dressers' wages?  I know Prince Albert instituted reforms in the royal households which dismantled many of these perks, but some were likely to have remained.  I think at any rate I read somewhere that this is why so few royal wardrobes are in existence to any great degree except for relatively recent times.  In the early 1700s, the old Duchess of Orleans was complaining that every year, her wardrobe down to her linen was given up to her household officers, unless she actually bought items back! 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 20, 2013, 05:44:38 PM
Most only kept important dresses like wedding dresses and coronation dresses.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: CountessKate on March 20, 2013, 08:51:02 PM
Most only kept important dresses like wedding dresses and coronation dresses.

And I suspect the reason might lie in these very ancient traditions of giving your wardrobe basically to your servants in part-payment of wages, rather than a lack of desire to keep at least some of them, for sentiment's sake or even for economy.  I also wondered whether the survival of much more extensive wardrobes from the Russian imperial family was due to the previous generations of serfdom where there would not have been such traditions. 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 21, 2013, 01:23:33 AM
I think Dagmar kept most of her dresses. Especially on special occasions because they have sentimental value. Whereas Ella's dresses (of which of much more value as she designed them herself) are even harder to find since they were dispersed during her lifetime.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Kate_S on March 21, 2013, 01:15:47 PM
No I don't think her decisions to gift items of clothing to dressers was a part of the perquisite custom but rather her desire to give things to those around her on a whim.  Some of the letters show that the dressers were quite overwhelmed on receipt of the garments.  One in particular was given a grey silk dinner dress which Alexandra apparently wanted her to wear but which the dresser, one of the Temple sisters, felt was too grand for her to actually put on.  This was cited in Georgina Battiscombe's biography and so is not footnoted very consistently.  The newly acquired garments in Los Angeles came via the family of Harriet Giltrap, a dresser who was with Alexandra form the 1880s until her death. 
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 21, 2013, 03:44:59 PM
Thanks for the info. Alexandra's more elaborate creations came with her opening of parliament dresses and ball gowns. Those dresses had extensive beading and real and costume jewels sewn into them to create that breathtaking result...
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: CountessKate on July 19, 2016, 12:52:06 PM
You seldom find the surviving clothes of Victorian royalty with them actually photographed (or painted) in them.  So I was rather surprised that the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection owns the bodice of the dress worn by Queen Alexandra, when Princess of Wales, to the christening of her grandson (Albert) Edward, on the 16th July 1894 at White Lodge, but does not seem to have put it together with the photograph which shows Alexandra wearing it.

The bodice (by Madame Froment, of Paris)
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a42/cfarnon/Costume/1894-Alexandra-Madame%20Froment-1a_zpsiteroqen.jpg) (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/cfarnon/media/Costume/1894-Alexandra-Madame%20Froment-1a_zpsiteroqen.jpg.html)

And Alexandra wearing it:

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a42/cfarnon/Costume/1894-Alexandra-Madame%20Froment-1b_zpssrrxutvk.jpg) (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/cfarnon/media/Costume/1894-Alexandra-Madame%20Froment-1b_zpssrrxutvk.jpg.html)

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a42/cfarnon/Costume/1894-Alexandra-Madame%20Froment-1e_zps34my0mzu.jpg) (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/cfarnon/media/Costume/1894-Alexandra-Madame%20Froment-1e_zps34my0mzu.jpg.html)

A closer look at Alexandra:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a42/cfarnon/Costume/1894-Alexandra-Madame%20Froment-1c_zpsg88pikx3.jpg) (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/cfarnon/media/Costume/1894-Alexandra-Madame%20Froment-1c_zpsg88pikx3.jpg.html)

One wonders if the lace part of the bodice has discoloured over time as the colour doesn't appear really fit in with the sleeves and the skirt (the latter appears to be missing but clearly from the photograph was a match for the sleeves).  However, the sepia tones of the photos often lead one to assume colours and textures were much softer and more muted than they actually were.  But it's fascinating to see the costume part which has survived, actually being worn in a photograph.
Title: Re: Queen Alexandra (1844-1925), Part V
Post by: thebelgianhare on June 20, 2017, 09:33:00 AM
Good eye, I like stuff like this, a cogent link between then and now. It's a wonder any clothes survive from the period shows the dedication of the people who save and look after these items daily. In terms of history it is not from too long ago..but as we all know materials don't always last the stand of time! ...Half of my clothes become discoloured and dull in a few months let alone a hundred years! XD