For four weeks Prince Albert trailed sleeplessly around Windsor Castle, suffering from a mysterious illness that, when a rash appeared on his stomach, was thought to be typhoid. He’d fallen ill chasing after his libertine son Bertie, the future Edward VII, who had brought a scandalous woman to Cambridge from America. On his way back from a vain attempt to instil moral discipline in the wayward boy, Albert was caught in the cold November rain. He’d been exhausted even before he visited Bertie and predicted his demise: “I do not cling to life; you do; but I set no store by it,” he wrote to Victoria. “I am sure that if I had a severe illness I should give up at once.”
He died December 14, 1861, leaving Victoria to her famously prolonged and expressive grief. Victorian medicine gave him a sorry end: on the day before he died, he was doped with brandy every half hour. This was the shattering conclusion to one of the great nineteenth century romances. Two cousins who had met young and married passionately were tragically torn apart. But as Albert’s comment about setting no store by life suggests, the marriage was not always the fairytale it was supposed to be.
Albert had been ill for years: rheumatic, depressed, full of stomach cramps, shivering in between bouts of diarrhoea. But he had not always been a sickly royal. In his short time as Victoria’s consort, Albert transformed the monarchy and Britain. Those 42 years had been enough for him to achieve in a lifetime what most people couldn’t dream of in a dozen. He is a model of hard work, someone who ought to be an object of fascination to Progress Studies for his ability to see the big picture and the details, and to get things done.
The wonders of his name form a dizzying list. Without Albert, we would never have had the V&A, the Natural History Museum, the Royal Albert Hall, Imperial College. That swath of South Kensington was based on his vision and paid for by money raised by the Great Exhibition, which he enabled and promoted. His proposals for affordable, sanitary housing for the poor were presented there.
Albert was a reformer. He built a close relationship with Robert Peel, the prime minister who revoked the Corn Laws, thus making bread affordable for labourers. When he was appointed Chancellor of Cambridge, the syllabus was limited to Maths and the Classics; only 40 students each year took honours degrees. He introduced the chance to study Moral Sciences and the Natural Sciences; he also proposed using the colleges’ income from rents to fund 700 places for poor students. In 1843, Albert drove through the streets of Birmingham, side-by-side with the radical mayor, and was cheered by republican Chartists: he put the monarchy in touch with the people.
He also rudely awakened it to a new century of industrialisation, capitalism and technology. When he married Victoria, the royal household was still roasting 12 large joints of meat a day, and hundreds of candles were replaced overnight, irrespective of use. The monarchy was a sleepy old institution on the brink of republicanism. Albert was sent to save it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe author seems to forget that Victoria was not just another society woman, enjoying a life of parties. She was a head of state. The ‘bullying’ or taking her away from the parties was trying to get her to do her job properly instead of jusy playing.
This looking at history from a modern viewpoint is meaningless. 150 years ago, men saw themselves as the head of the household. Serious people would not listen to women – that’s how it was. After Albert died Victoria still needed very strong guidance from her ministers as she fell into depression.
I’m not convinced by this analysis. It’s easy to portray someone who is an energetic altruist as a controlling egotist. He wasn’t responsible for his wife’s fecundity in a contraceptiveless age. He could just as easily have been an indolent womaniser like his son rather than make the national contributions he did. There was little more here than the information featured in the TV series providing the article photo. Quoting original sources does help to avoid the historical revisionism which I suspect is going on here.
A couple of errors in this article. Firstly, the future Edward VII actually had an affair with an actress called Nellie Clifden, whom he met whilst undergoing military training in Curragh, Ireland. He had been to Canada and America the previous year.Secondly, Albert was not Prince Consort for 42 years but rather for 22, dying at 42.
Otherwise, quite an interesting read.
Splendid article ! Spot on about A & V. A royal romance which rivals that of George (3rd) and Charlotte – brilliantly described by Andrew Roberts in his latest “magnum opus” (which is a must-read).
After Prince Albert’s idea in 1850 for a Great Exhibition in UK, and the failure of the Committee’s competition to elicit suitable designs, my family firm Chance Brothers (Smethwick, Birmingham) shook hands with J Paxton, architects Fox & Henderson, and others in July 1850 to furnish 330,000 panes of 4 x 1 glass for the Crystal Palace, which opened on 1 May 1851. In typical British fashion,the enterprise looked doomed but turned out to be game-changing. Without it (as the article states), no V&A, no Imperial College, no Royal College of Music etc. etc.
Thanks Giles, for both your family initiatives and skilled employees “Not by Chance” now has a significant meaning which may will have made your childhood a pest.
Fascinating essay. Thanks.
Very interesting read… thanks
Very good read. Thanks.