II
Princess Victoria’s first Journal was commenced on August 1, 1832. She was thirteen years old. The first entry is made in a small octavo volume half bound in red morocco, of a very unpretentious kind.[1] On the first page there appear the words, “This book Mamma gave me, that I might write the journal of my journey to Wales in it.—Victoria, Kensington Palace, July 31.”
The Duchess of Kent was at this time forty-six years of age. She had been a widow for twelve years. She was the fourth daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and was first married to the Prince of Leiningen-Dachburg-Hadenburg. He was twenty-three years her senior. By him she had one son, Charles, often mentioned in these Journals, and one daughter Feodorowna, subsequently married to Ernest, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg.
Two years after her second marriage, to the fourth son of George III., the Duchess of Kent was left a widow for the second time. Crippled by the Duke’s debts, that she was quite unable to pay,[2] with three young children on her hands, she was miserably poor. Her jointure yielded her an income of under £300. Her brother Leopold, then living at Claremont, came to her assistance, and made her an allowance of £3,000 a year.
In 1825, when it became evident that her daughter Princess Victoria would in all probability succeed to the Throne of England, Parliament voted an annuity of £6,000 to the Duchess, for the maintenance and education of her child, and this was subsequently increased after the accession of William IV.
The upbringing of her daughter became her absorbing occupation, and, shutting herself up in Kensington Palace, she devoted herself to the child’s education.
The lessons of Princess Victoria’s childhood were superintended by the Dean of Chester. Her education, judged by the standards of to-day, was not of an exceptionally high order. It would be interesting to know what old Roger Ascham would have thought of the Dean of Chester’s curriculum. So far as can be gathered from her own childish records and from the correspondence and memoirs of those who had access to Kensington, she was taught the ordinary things which children are supposed to learn. Fortunately, perhaps, no effort of any special kind was made to train her mind or mould her character, with a view to the responsibilities which lay before her or to the position she appeared destined to fill. When, at a later stage, the Bishops of London and Lincoln were requested to draw up a report, for presentation to Parliament, upon her moral and intellectual attainments, they found no difficulty in giving credit to the Duchess of Kent for the conscientious manner in which she had endeavoured to educate the heiress to the Throne. We may, however, take leave to doubt whether those entrusted with the Princess’s education were teachers endowed with any special aptitudes; and it is certain that the outlook of the Duchess herself, although practical and wise, was not of that discerning character which enabled her to differentiate between a commonplace education and its more subtle forms. It was precisely what might have been expected from one whose youth had been spent in a small German Court, and whose later opportunities had not brought her into contact with highly trained and thoughtful minds.
A foreign observer and critic once suggested a doubt whether the Queen could have maintained through life her admirable mental equilibrium if education had developed in her high intellectual curiosity or fantastic imagination. It is an interesting speculation. Soundness of judgment possibly rests upon the receptive rather than upon the creative faculties, and upon physical rather than upon intellectual activities. It may, as has been said, require a rare type of intelligence—that of Disraeli—to combine ideas and dreams with the realities of public life. In the domain of learning, Queen Victoria had very little in common with Elizabeth or with any Sovereign of the Renaissance. Her mother and the worthy Dean, who watched over her youth, were content to foster the quality of good sense, and to inculcate high standards of private and public virtue. Her future subjects, could they have been consulted, would have strongly approved. In after-years the English middle-class recognised in the Queen a certain strain of German sentimentality which they affectionately condoned, and a robust equilibrium of mind which they thoroughly admired.
It is as well, therefore, that events took the shape they did, and that the mind and character of the Princess were trained upon simple lines in accordance with the practice of the average citizen families subsequently to be her subjects. In years to come the Queen was perhaps better able to look at events and persons from the point of view of the majority of her people than would have been possible if her education had given her a high place among the intellectuals. It was a saving grace throughout her long reign that while she could recognise intellect and capacity, her sympathies were with average people, whose feelings and opinions she more readily understood and in reality represented.
In these days, when Accomplishments, as they were called in the first half of the nineteenth century, are no longer esteemed in young people, and their place has been usurped by athletic exercises, it is difficult to describe, in a way that appeals to the serious imagination, the girlish tastes of Princess Victoria. Perhaps the world has not lost much because young ladies to-day learn to play golf and have ceased to sing duets.
In the thirties, music and painting and a knowledge of modern languages were the necessary equipment of a girl destined to move in Society. It mattered little how reedy and small the voice, she was expected to vocalise like Grisi and to sing duets with Mario.
The Queen had been well trained musically, according to the lights of those days. She could appreciate the simpler forms of melody, especially Italian opera, while she could sing and play sufficiently well to give much pleasure to herself and mild pleasure to others. As a linguist, as a reader, and as a writer of letters and memoranda she had no pretensions to pre-eminence; but she could speak modern languages as well as any Queen is called upon to do, she could read and appreciate high literature, although not without effort, and she could express herself with pungency and vigour, although not with any marked literary skill or distinction of style.
Her drawings and water-colour sketches were through life a constant source of happiness to the Queen. There are at Windsor literally hundreds of small sketch-books, containing reminiscences of her journeys and sojournings in Scotland and in Italy, again not of high artistic merit, but sufficiently vital to suggest the reflection that a young lady of to-day is possibly no gainer by having substituted the golf-club for the pencil.
The Queen’s teachers were excellent, commonplace people, and they left precisely those traces on her mind that might have been expected. Her character was another matter. They could not and did not influence that, and it is the character of the Queen that places her in the small category of rulers who have not only deserved well of their country, but have left an indelible stamp upon the life of their people.