Family of Ernst August of Hannover & Thyra of Denmark

I do not blame Christian, he was just trying to save his daughter and family reputation by hushing up the affair. Vilhelm had seduced his innocent daughter, and quite a cad in his eyes, but nothing can be done at that point. Whether or not the love between Vilhelm and Thyra was strong or just a dalliance is mere speculation. Sex education was non-existance at this point. Thyra was honest though and told AE the whole story before he propose to her, it made no difference to him. It is easy to undertand why she stood by someone who the family called "difficult" man.

Vilhelm had seduced his innocent daughter, and quite a cad in his eyes,

How is this known? This is an old, stale excuse for young peoples' mistakes, but I doubt very much the daughter of a Danish king was as accessible to be "seduced" and not be a very willing, if not luring, participant. People knew their places in those situations and a cavalry man would have, in most cases, not been the aggressive one.

I understand trying to cover up the affair; most people still try that tact. But, Christian dramatically harmed at least three two lives to 'save ' his reputation, and I find that dispicable.

Well...I doubt Thyra who was kept innocent by Queen Louise knew what she was getting into. The solider of course have enough sexual experience to know what it could lead to. So he has more to blame for the pregnancy.

Well...I doubt Thyra who was kept innocent by Queen Louise knew what she was getting into. The solider of course have enough sexual experience to know what it could lead to. So he has more to blame for the pregnancy.

unless there is proof of that pov, I'm not buying it. 19th century teens, in spite of the myth of Victorian uptightness, were not kept in the dark. Particularly royals; they felt far more leaway in experiencing life and its offerings than the common persons. No way would a soldier sneak into a monach's daughter's bedroom without her opening the door.

The story is that does she know she is going to get pregnant ? I don't think Thyra was that sexy (since both Alix and Dagmar did not appear to anywhere near Samantha Jones !). I tend to believe in Thyra's innocence in this matter even if you don't buy it. Christian IX and Queen Louise did the right thing in this case.

they may have done the right thing if maintaining a charade for continuing the image of their royal superiority and protecting their riches at all costs is the right thing. Morality certainly did not calculate in to much of their or their relations' decisions.

On the other hand, most people would have considered the right thing to have raised the child as one of their own and allowed the father his rightful place in the child's life. The selfish decision by Christian led to an abandoned baby, whose quality of life and happiness is generally unknown, and very likely to the untimely death of the father. How anyone can rationalize the righteousness in that is incomprehensible.

First, nobody knows what the relationship between Thyra and Vilhelm was like or what happend, IF anything happend at all. And least of all people who havn't got the full details about the story. 
Secondly, moral, norms and society was very different in those days and you can't judge people by todays moral. I'm sure must people would agreee that a 17 year old pregnant and unmarried woman in 1871 would have been a scandal for any family in upper class circles, and most would try to hide the pregnancy. I don't think that the Danish Royal Family reacted any differently that what most other royal families would have done, or just middle class families. 
And according to the story the child was not abandon, but was adopted into a nice family and had a very normal life.

 

It was stated earlier that Vihelm wanted to marry her and/or have custody of the child. Both were denied. So it's not quite "a 17 year old pregnant and unmarried woman". The situation would have been able to be covered up it they were married quickly.

there were no middle class families in 1871. The rich did live amongst a different set of norms, admittedly, but had this situation occured amongst the lower class, a 'shotgun' marriage would have likely occured, but many, many people got married fast when a young girl was pregnant.

Put up for adoption and denied a biological father and mother for shame reasons is abandonment in most peoples' view, I suspect. But the implication the father was at least partially driven to suicide from the ordeal remains a very, very, very big black mark of shame and guilt on the king and the cohorts who mastered the situation.

First, nobody knows what the relationship between Thyra and Vilhelm was like or what happend, IF anything happend at all. And least of all people who havn't got the full details about the story. 
Secondly, moral, norms and society was very different in those days and you can't judge people by todays moral. I'm sure must people would agreee that a 17 year old pregnant and unmarried woman in 1871 would have been a scandal for any family in upper class circles, and most would try to hide the pregnancy. I don't think that the Danish Royal Family reacted any differently that what most other royal families would have done, or just middle class families. 
And according to the story the child was not abandon, but was adopted into a nice family and had a very normal life.

 

But the implication the father was at least partially driven to suicide from the ordeal remains a very, very, very big black mark of shame and guilt on the king and the cohorts who mastered the situation.

I don't think it's fair to judge the king by modern standards, as Kmerov says.  As Vilhelm was supposed to be a gentleman, there surely could be no conceivable excuse of any kind - moral or social - in the minds of any of his contempories, for persuading the daughter of a good family of infinitely higher rank than his own, to sleep with him.  As a military man, he was the senior in experience and must have known the disgrace this would occasion in any family.  Whatever his eventual intentions, he must have been delusional to suppose that he would be allowed to marry Thyra if there was any chance the business could be hushed up.  While the Danish royal family were less ferociously obvious about the importance of 'equal' marriages compared to say, the Prussians, they were quite as proud in their fashion about their royal bloodlines and this would definitely be a tremendous blow in every way.  The king's furious row with Vilhelm, while clearly it made the poor young man realise his future options were pretty much nil, should be seen in the historical context where his activity would have been perceived as a blow to the royal family on many levels.  A century earlier, indeed, it would actually have been treasonous.  I don't think it is likely the King felt shame - after all, the man took his own life rather than continue to face the persons he had wronged.  He may have felt compassion - but he may have thought it just deserts. 

I don't think it's fair to judge the king by modern standards, as Kmerov says. 

I understand, but that is what history and "re-search" is often all about. We do judge slave owners according to our current standards, for an obvious example, and we have judged in many ways Nicholas II in the context of contemporary society in this forum, as another example. So, while the same criteria may not have been used to pass judgment in 1871, I think it's not only fair but worthy to look at historical events and see them through the eyes of a more sophsticated, hopefully, and ethically evolved social purview.

 As Vilhelm was supposed to be a gentleman, there surely could be no conceivable excuse of any kind - moral or social - in the minds of any of his contempories, for persuading the daughter of a good family of infinitely higher rank than his own, to sleep with him. 

I don't think we know how much persuading he did versus how much Thyra was equally or more the eager participant. The manner in which "good" families protected their own from mingling with those of "lesser" rank was quite intensely monitored and I doubt Vilhelm could have made his moves without the great assistance of Thyra.

A century earlier, indeed, it would actually have been treasonous.  I don't think it is likely the King felt shame - after all, the man took his own life rather than continue to face the persons he had wronged.  He may have felt compassion - but he may have thought it just deserts.  

I agree a century earlier Vilhelm would have been convicted of treason, but again, that's why we SHOULD judge such behavior in current terms.

"Face the persons he had wronged"? The information here has stated he DID face the king and tried to accept both husband and father responsibilities. That clearly inidcates he "faced" up to his actions, but I heartily disagree with the idea that he "wronged" anyone. Who lost the most in this case? Vilhelm lost his love, his child and ultimately his life; everyone else went on, so it seems somewhat absurd to consider him the one who had wronged everyone. In today's environment, the king would likely be sued for wrongful death; and I would agree with the charge.

there were no middle class families in 1871. The rich did live amongst a different set of norms, admittedly, but had this situation occured amongst the lower class, a 'shotgun' marriage would have likely occured, but many, many people got married fast when a young girl was pregnant.

There were middle class families in 1871, also described as the Bourgeoisie or upper middle classes. They were the dominant culturel group in that period.
Yes girls would get married of, sometimes against their will and to people other then the childs father. What lower classes did is not relevant for the case of Thyra for obvious reasons, and I agree with CountessKate.

I don't think it's fair to judge the king by modern standards, as Kmerov says. 

I understand, but that is what history and "re-search" is often all about. We do judge slave owners according to our current standards, for an obvious example, and we have judged in many ways Nicholas II in the context of contemporary society in this forum, as another example. So, while the same criteria may not have been used to pass judgment in 1871, I think it's not only fair but worthy to look at historical events and see them through the eyes of a more sophsticated, hopefully, and ethically evolved social purview.

 As Vilhelm was supposed to be a gentleman, there surely could be no conceivable excuse of any kind - moral or social - in the minds of any of his contempories, for persuading the daughter of a good family of infinitely higher rank than his own, to sleep with him. 

I don't think we know how much persuading he did versus how much Thyra was equally or more the eager participant. The manner in which "good" families protected their own from mingling with those of "lesser" rank was quite intensely monitored and I doubt Vilhelm could have made his moves without the great assistance of Thyra.

One of the basic things you learn when you study history is that you don't judge the past by standards of today. If you do that, you loose the ability to understand the society you are studying,and often come up with wrong conclusions. Books dealing with slavery (I presume you mean slavery in North Amrica in the 1900th century) and Nicholas II would understand this if they are any good.

A century earlier, indeed, it would actually have been treasonous.  I don't think it is likely the King felt shame - after all, the man took his own life rather than continue to face the persons he had wronged.  He may have felt compassion - but he may have thought it just deserts. 

I agree a century earlier Vilhelm would have been convicted of treason, but again, that's why we SHOULD judge such behavior in current terms.

And today Vilhelm in many countries could have been accused of statutory rape against a minor.

And today Vilhelm in many countries could have been accused of statutory rape against a minor.

Not in Denmark where the age of consent is 15.