I have a theory about people who get really attached to (or even idolize) certain historical figures. Unless you are truly mentally ill or a hideous murderer, people have a propensity to empathize with you, especially if you lived as any sort of celebrity in life. Some people naturally root for the underdog in history, while others pick out certain traits that they find appealing, certain hallmarks of an era which are reflected in their historical person. I can't quite tell how I pulled Queen Victoria out of the history lotto but I was 7 years old, and I read a book about a pretty wedding, and a pretty coronation. Then suddenly, this all came back to haunt me when I played internet roleplaying games with a bunch of online friends I'd never met in person as a geeky teenager and became hooked on her life story once again.
Since I was 14, I have read almost all of the biographies on her in existence. I have read people's hideously boring grad school theses and books which only vaguely related to her, seen all of the movies about her life (most of which are really crappy--though the guy who plays Prince Albert in the most recent movie is ridiculously drool-worthy...sorry). ANYWAY. I often find myself having to defend this weird choice of historical figure idols to friends, loved ones, and most often- myself. Victoria is really low on the public popularity scale, especially in terms of monarchs. I think most people just think of her as the fat old lady wearing a crown who accompanies that foggy London world in which Charles Dickens and Sherlock Holmes solve Jack the Ripper's murder of Eliza Doolittle (who was taken out because she complained about wearing a corset and being repressed).
If the historically-aware public has issues with her because in her later years (of loving, devoted mourning to her monogamous and kind husband) she was "dull" and ugly, then I guess that's okay. Boring and unattractive people do exist and do sometimes run the world, though--this isn't something that should be swept under the carpet. The problem I have is a genuine, educated concern that she did something morally wrong as a monarch. In order to idolize someone or at least appreciate them, you have to agree with their policies on some level.
I'm giving a church group a lecture this weekend on my trip to England, in which I confess that I'm a Victoria enthusiast. This sort of "outing" myself is hard, especially because many trusted friends who go to the church are very educated people with strong values, who will politely and educatedly tell you off if they think you're wrong. It leads me to a not-unhealthy questioning of my motives. For instance, when I say I am "Victorian" it indicates that I may agree with old-world virtues, such as respect for politeness and a general unwillingness to act like a complete slut in public. I am not, however, someone who agrees with kicking the chambermaid (if you are blessed with a 19th century chambermaid, it would probably be better to engage her in conversation), being a racist or saying racially insensitive, stupid things, or any form of genocide.
Here is a history pondering for tonight: In the 19th century, monarchy was already starting to slip into a largely formal, non-political role (according to my humble opinion). However, I know that through book research and googling that Victoria (or her government/prime ministers/etc.) committed at least two separate incidents of world unpleasantness that make my stomach somewhat queasy. The first and most prominent issue was the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's. To sum this up without being boring, a disease struck Irish staple crops, but the English were still able to import other types of food out of Ireland (so there was only a perceived famine, or it only affected poor people) and they barricaded the Irish from receiving other forms of nourishment or substantial aid money because they thought the Irish were less than human. The question is: how much did Victoria herself contribute to this? Wikipedia (that brilliant "resource") sort of excuses her from it due to how much money she donated to the Irish, but other scholars have issues with how the Irish were treated and state that the "monarchy" executed genocide.
Another issue that I haven't had as much time to research tonight is the messy and horrible Boer War in Africa, which was violently racist and full of that horrible, colonial conquer-y stuff that the British would be associated with for a long time. Other runners up for historical figure guilt include the Raj in India and..well...Australia (but that's a long, and sometimes funny story).
At any rate, I don't know yet if I can exonerate her from atrocious crimes, but I have this sense that she tried to be a good person and reflect a decent character in history. I got the best feeling at her exhibit in London of anywhere that I went, a feeling of love and family support, of peace extended to the less fortunate of the time. Of course, it counts more to "try" when you rule large portions of the world, and I am still ready to criticize her reign at any time, especially if something that goes against my internal values is uncovered.
No comments:
Post a Comment