The Victorians were prim, proper, and moral to the point of insanity, right? Maybe not. There's always been a question or two hovering over that most famous of Victorian ladies, Queen Victoria herself, and her Scottish servant John Brown.
This fascinating article from the New York Times explores the relationship - one of certainly confidante levels of intimacy (she referred to him as her 'best friend') which would have been seen as quite unseemly between a man of his class and the widowed Queen.
One doctor of Queen Victoria, Sir James Reid, referred to one instance of intimacy which involved some skirt (and kilt) lifting - though this may have been fairly innocent by today's standards, at the very least there would have been some showing of leg, unthinkable in the Victorian period. Completely scandalous between unmarried individuals of any class - a Queen and her servant being quite so flirtatious would have been atrociously sinful! And is there truth to the secret instructions to place the wedding ring of John Brown's mother onto the Queen's finger after her death? She certainly couldn't marry him in life! A servant! How dreadful!
So maybe, then, there was less of the prude to the Queen than there at first would seem. Maybe she too, displayed the behind-closed-doors hypocrisy partaken in by so many.
No comments:
Post a Comment