The official website for BBC History Magazine
“Literally whipped”: the boys who took the beatings meant for royal bottoms
Naughty young royals would escape punishment from their teachers by having someone else nearby to take the whipping… or did they? Were ‘whipping boys’ even real?
In medieval and early modern Europe, the education of a young royal was an important business. If they weren’t already sitting on the throne and having to quickly learn the ropes, they had to be prepared to one day wear the crown. The tutors of royal students faced a difficult issue: how to chastise their charges. How would they use the tried-and-tested corporal punishments, like whipping, without laying a hand on a prince or even a divinely ordained monarch? The answer was a proxy. What was a whipping boy? A whipping boy was a young boy who accompanied a prince throughout his education and received any necessary punishment. The name ‘whipping boy’ was literal. Today, the term refers to someone who is scapegoated or constantly blamed for the wrongdoing of others. Read more | Schools of hard knocks: Georgian and Victorian public schools There may have been a hope that the young royal, upon seeing their friend unfairly beaten, would feel enough remorse to correct their behaviour (and, as we all know well, European monarchs during these periods were well regarded for their empathy, so it must have worked a treat). However, being a whipping boy did come with incentives. They could form a close bond with their royal schoolmate, which might see them rewarded with titles and honours. It may have even been a coveted position, similar to the equally un-glamourous Groom of the Stool – the man who helped the king with his daily ablutions. How common were whipping boys? Henry VIII’s son Edward VI was said to have a whipping boy. So too, it is believed, did his illegitimate son Henry FitzRoy, as well as the future Charles I a century later. The 13th-century king of Jerusalem, Conrad II, reportedly had 12, while France’s Louis XV (r1715-74) was apparently partnered with the son of a cobbler at Versailles to take his punishments. The practice could be seen as far away as China, too. The young Guangxu Emperor began his education in the late-19th century with the assistance of a 'ha'hachutsze. According to a report in the Peking Gazette, “Whenever the Son of Heaven is naughty or inattentive, the 'ha'hachutsze is beaten or disgraced”. Were whipping boys real? There is no solid evidence that whipping boys were ever actually used, other than circumstantial or speculative commentary. Historians are divided on whether they existed at all. The Renaissance humanist Erasmus wrote two treatises in the 16th century on how young royals should not be physically chastised, but without mentioning the whipping boy loophole. Many of the supposed examples of whipping boys, like those above, are based on nothing more than rumour that became accepted as fact over time. Read more | Off to school: how do the royal family educate their children? The idea, which may have taken root as a means of illustrating just how out of touch or uncaring a maligned monarch of the past could be, was established more through literature than record. Edward VI’s whipping boy may have first appeared in a 1604 play by Samuel Rowley, When You See Me, You Know Me. Whipping boys then show up with increasing frequency in the 19th century, such as in Sir Walter Scott’s 1822 novel The Fortunes of Nigel, and Mark Twain’s 1881 historical fiction The Prince and the Pauper, both without grounding in fact. More from us HistoryExtra members can explore more medieval history with exclusive content from our archives Medieval manners and etiquette: dos and don’ts of the Middle Ages Medieval England's political miracle: how the 13th and 14th centuries laid the foundations for modern Britain How to go on a medieval pilgrimage Why there’s no such thing as a typical medieval peasant Not a HistoryExtra member? Explore our latest membership offers
The other prince in the Tower: the tragedy of Edward of Warwick
The 1499 execution of Edward of Warwick snuffed out the final embers of the Wars of the Roses. Sarah Norton introduces the last male heir to the House of York – and explains why he “had to perish” to secure the crown for Henry VII
On 28 November 1499, Edward of Warwick – the 24-year-old heir to the House of York – finally left the Tower of London. It was only the third time in 14 years that he’d been outside the infamous Norman fortress – but he wasn’t able to appreciate the moment. He was not striding out towards freedom but instead, flanked by two men, being marched the short distance to Tower Hill, where an executioner waited on a temporary wooden scaffold. Between two and three o’clock in the afternoon, Warwick was beheaded for treason. His execution marked the culmination of years of political instability. For much of the 15th century, England had been embroiled in civil war as the houses of York and Lancaster vied for the throne. After Henry Tudor took the crown from Richard III in 1485, Warwick was taken to the Tower, aged just 10. He was not the first Yorkist prince to meet this fate, of course. His cousins, the better-known princes in the Tower, had been similarly imprisoned here in 1483 – and their subsequent disappearance remains the most infamous cold case in medieval and early modern English history. Listen | All eight episodes of our podcast series, The Princes in the Tower: a Medieval Murder Mystery In comparison, the story of Edward of Warwick has been largely overlooked – perhaps because of the absence of mystery and conspiracy in his tale, which is no less tragic. The “unhappy boy”, as he was called by contemporary Italian scholar and diplomat Polydore Vergil, was one of the longest-standing residents in the Tower’s near-thousand-year history. So how did this third prince come to be in the Tower? To understand, we must go back to the beginning of his tale – because his execution brought to an end a lifetime of tumult. His story reflects the turbulent times through which he lived, when brother fought brother and cousin met cousin in battle. Edward of Warwick: early life in the Wars of the Roses On his birth in February 1475, Warwick was fourth in line to the throne. He was orphaned just days before his third birthday, when his father, George, Duke of Clarence, was executed for treason. Relations between George and his brother, Edward IV, had long been fraught. George had rebelled against the king once already, in 1470; though forgiven, he was never again fully trusted by that monarch. Following his wife’s death in December 1476, several weeks after giving birth, George became convinced that she had been murdered by one of her ladies-in-waiting, Ankarette Twynho. Next April he had Ankarette abducted, tried and unlawfully executed – thereby infringing upon the rights of the king in exacting justice. Read more | The Wars of the Roses: the 15th-century clash of kings that heralded the dawn of the Tudor dynasty George’s error was compounded weeks later when one of his retainers, Thomas Burdett, was arrested for necromancy and, despite his denials, was executed. The following day, George burst into the king’s council chamber to protest – which was the last straw in the brothers’ relationship. Edward was in no mood to forgive George another transgression and, in a grim precursor to his son’s fate, George was arrested and kept in the Tower awaiting trial, at which he was found guilty of high treason. He was executed on 18 February 1478. An act of attainder against Clarence stripped Warwick of his inheritance, and he was tainted by his father’s crime for the rest of his days, “barred from all right and claim to the crown”. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2024/11/BAL5937945web-30462d1-e1731336289933.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="George, Duke of Clarence, father of Edward of Warwick. Fraught relations with his brother Edward IV culminated in George’s execution in 1478 (Photo by Philip Mould Ltd, London/Bridgeman Images)" title="George, Duke of Clarence, father of Edward of Warwick. Fraught relations with his brother Edward IV culminated in George’s execution in 1478 (Photo by Philip Mould Ltd, London/Bridgeman Images)" /> In 1480, care of the boy was given over to the king’s stepson, Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset, who paid £2,000 for Warwick’s wardship. Edward may have lived at the Tower during this time – Dorset was constable there for a period – but, if he did, it was certainly not as a prisoner. He seems to have been cared for reasonably well despite his father’s treason: Edward IV’s wardrobe accounts show that the boy was given costly gifts. In summer 1481, he received “for his wear and use” nine pairs of shoes – four of the expensive, higher-quality double-soled kind – and a pair of “tawny Spanish leather” boots. Was Edward of Warwick a threat to Richard III? However, 15th-century English politics were nothing if not unpredictable. In April 1483, Edward IV died suddenly. His heir was Warwick’s cousin, the 12-year-old prince set to become King Edward V – but the boys’ uncle Richard moved to seize power. In June, Edward IV’s children were declared illegitimate and, with Warwick also ineligible, Richard was next in line. Edward V, who was at the Tower while ostensibly preparing for his coronation, was joined there by his brother, Richard of York. They were never again seen beyond its walls. Read more | Philippa Langley on the Princes in the Tower: “It was clear we had to consider the possibility that they survived” Though legally invalid, Warwick’s claim to the throne was stronger than his uncle’s, and an act of parliament could easily have reversed George’s attainder. But, rather than joining his cousins in the Tower, Warwick was moved to the royal household. He even attended Richard’s coronation on 6 July 1483. The new king did not seem to view Warwick as a threat; indeed, Richard even seems to have begun planning for his future. Knighted in York that September, the boy was then moved to Sheriff Hutton in north Yorkshire. This was not a quiet, remote estate where he and other royal children lived in obscurity. On the contrary: in 1484, it was one of two administrative centres for Richard’s Council of the North, a body established to give subjects in that region access to the king’s justice, and one on which Warwick was even given a position. The castle was essential for the running of the council and, though Warwick’s role was minimal – he was only nine years old – it was no doubt expected that it would increase as he grew older. Richard was clearly setting up his nephew for a position of importance in the north, and for a while Warwick’s future seemed bright. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2024/11/BAL1066157web-ba5fc79-e1731336142289.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="Richard III, in a c1520 portrait. The last Yorkist king seems to have seen his nephew as an asset rather than a threat (Photo by Bridgeman Images)" title="Richard III, in a c1520 portrait. The last Yorkist king seems to have seen his nephew as an asset rather than a threat (Photo by Bridgeman Images)" /> What happened to Warwick under the Tudors? That all changed when, in August 1485, Henry Tudor landed at Milford Haven on the Pembrokeshire coast. With an army of mercenaries and Lancastrians at his back, Henry made his way into England, meeting the king in battle at Bosworth Field. Richard III was killed and, as the sun set on 22 August, the crown that – according to legend – had been found by the victor in a hawthorn bush now belonged to Henry VII. Though still only 10 years old, Warwick represented one of the most significant threats to the new king. Despite the attainder, with the princes in the Tower missing, presumed dead, Warwick was next in line. He was taken into custody almost immediately and, as London prepared for another coronation, he was incarcerated in the Tower – for no crime save his royal blood. Little is known about where Warwick was kept in the Tower, but chronicler Edward Hall wrote that he was kept “out of all company of men and sight of beasts”. Whereas the other princes in the Tower had been seen roaming the grounds and “taking the air” during the early stages of their stay in 1483, Warwick was not granted this liberty. Indeed, he would never taste true freedom again. What did Warwick have to do with Lambert Simnel? It is testament to the security under which he was kept that the first pretender to Henry VII’s throne initially claimed to be Warwick, escaped from captivity. That boy, later identified as Lambert Simnel, was also about 10 years old, and was guided by Richard Simons, an Oxford priest. Simons took the boy to Ireland, where Yorkist support could still be found and where, in May 1487, Simnel was crowned king at Christchurch Cathedral, Dublin. Clearly, the real Warwick was so well sequestered that Simnel’s supporters had no trouble believing – or claiming to believe – that he was not imprisoned at all. But the episode also demonstrated that significant support could still be amassed for a Yorkist heir – even one whose claim was void. This was exactly why Warwick was being held in the Tower: even as a child with no legal right to the crown, his very existence threatened Henry VII. To put to bed the “foolish notion that the boy was in Ireland”, Henry had the real Warwick paraded through London to St Paul’s Cathedral along a route lined with citizens. After hearing a sermon and – on Henry’s instruction – speaking to several men, Warwick then returned to the Tower. This demonstration of his real location did not stop Simnel, though, who invaded England, reinforced by prominent Yorkists such as Warwick’s cousin John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. The matter came to a head in June 1487 at the battle of Stoke Field, where it is thought that as many as 7,000 died, Lincoln among them. Simnel was captured and, having received a pardon in recognition of his young age, was sent to work in the royal kitchens. Warwick, however, remained in the Tower despite his innocence. Perkin Warbeck, another princely pretender In 1490, another pretender to Henry’s throne burst onto the political scene overseas. This was Perkin Warbeck, born in Tournai (today in Belgium), who claimed to be Richard of York, the younger of the princes in the Tower. He was endorsed by Charles VIII of France, James IV of Scotland, and Warwick’s aunt, Margaret of Burgundy. Like Simnel before him, Warbeck tried to take the crown, invading England several times after 1491 – always unsuccessfully. In 1497, he landed in Cornwall and, though he was declared King Richard IV at Bodmin Moor, he was soon captured by the king’s forces and taken to the Tower. After confessing that he was not really the son of Edward IV, Warbeck was – like Simnel – treated remarkably fairly by Henry VII. Not only was he moved to the royal household, he was even allowed to attend banquets. It was captivity of a different kind, yet one much more lenient than Warwick’s. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2024/11/W862FJweb-033a334-e1731336544469.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="Edward of Warwick joined his cousins the princes in the Tower, and numerous other royals in being incarcerated in the Tower of London over the centuries (Photo by Steve Vidler/Alamy Stock Photo)" title="Edward of Warwick joined his cousins the princes in the Tower, and numerous other royals in being incarcerated in the Tower of London over the centuries (Photo by Steve Vidler/Alamy Stock Photo)" /> The contrast is stark: the latter had been imprisoned for over a decade, whereas those who had actively attempted to usurp the crown lived far more comfortably. Their lack of royal blood meant that, though Simnel and Warbeck had raised armies and invaded, Warwick remained the biggest threat to Henry’s security. It was only when Warbeck tried to escape in 1498 that he was taken back to the Tower. Here his story intersects with Warwick’s, putting them both on a path to destruction. In a rare glimpse of the latter’s character, he reportedly spoke to Warbeck through a hole in the ceiling, urging him to “be of good cheer and comfort”. In the event, he would have neither; within months, a plot was uncovered to break out both men, involving stealing from the treasury and blowing up the Tower’s gunpowder store. On trial, Warwick reportedly confessed that he “consented to break prison and depart out of the realm with Perkin” – though, Hall noted, “because of his innocence... many men” doubted Warwick had agreed to the plot “of his own free will”. Indeed, a life in seclusion may have led to naivety on Warwick’s part, and he may not have understood the full extent of what he was agreeing to when he was “made privy [to] the enterprise”. Why was Edward of Warwick sentenced to death? Both men were tried for treason, and Warwick was found guilty on 12 November 1499. The trial records state that he was to be “drawn and hanged” – the most brutal method of execution, reserved for traitors. Warbeck had been similarly sentenced. This did not come as a surprise. Some believed that the scheme had been “the king’s device” – that “Perkin was but his bait to entrap the Earl of Warwick”. Though there is no evidence that the plot was fabricated, it is not outside the realms of possibility. At the time, Henry was negotiating the marriage of his eldest son, Arthur, to the Spanish princess Catherine of Aragon, whose parents were hesitant. Francis Bacon later claimed that her father, Ferdinand II of Aragon, “had written to the king in plain terms, that he saw no assurance of [Arthur’s] succession as long as the Earl of Warwick lived; and that he was loth to send his daughter to troubles and dangers”. Hall, too, noted that Ferdinand “imagined that as long as any Earl of Warwick lived, England should never be cleansed or purged of civil war”. To secure the alliance with Spain, Warwick had to die. Why isn’t Warwick as well remembered as the Princes in the Tower? On 23 November, Warbeck suffered a traitor’s death at Tyburn, and his head was set on a spike on London Bridge; Warwick’s nobility spared him this grisliest of punishments. Instead, his sentence was commuted to beheading on Tower Hill. Afterwards his body, “with the head laid into a coffin”, was taken for burial at Bisham Priory, the resting place of his Neville ancestors. “The entire population mourned the death of the handsome youth,” Vergil wrote later, “who was committed to prison not for any fault of his own but because of his family’s offences.” <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2024/11/H6E0GYweb-e17b277-e1731336606887.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="A 1505 portrait of Henry VII. He may have schemed Warwick’s death to secure the marriage of his eldest son, Arthur, to Catherine of Aragon (Photo by Peter Barritt/Alamy Stock Photo)" title="A 1505 portrait of Henry VII. He may have schemed Warwick’s death to secure the marriage of his eldest son, Arthur, to Catherine of Aragon (Photo by Peter Barritt/Alamy Stock Photo)" /> Despite reported public grief, there were no reprisals for Henry VII. Richard III had been maligned for the alleged murder of the other young royals, but there was no great uproar at the death of this third prince. It is impossible to say why, but perhaps it was because of his age. At 24, his death was tragic – but much less shocking than those of the princes in the Tower who, if they did indeed die in 1483, had been just 12 and 9 years old. Perhaps, too, it was also because there were few left who could take up the Yorkist mantle. Though John de la Pole’s brothers Edmund (nicknamed the ‘White Rose’) and Richard (the ‘Last White Rose’) both tried, neither succeeded in raising the same kind of Yorkist spirit that tormented Henry VII in the latter years of the 15th century. And though the Tudor quest for security would spill more Yorkist blood in the years to come, the direct male line of the House of York died with Warwick. In Vergil’s words, “Edward had to perish in this fashion in order that there should be no surviving male heir to his family”. Read more | The Tudors: 51 moments that shaped the royal dynasty A life without freedom Henry VII had paid for the Spanish alliance with Warwick’s blood – and it proved to be a poor investment. Arthur died in 1502, and in 1509 Catherine of Aragon married Henry VIII. But when Henry’s plan to divorce her was revealed, Catherine “used some words that she had not offended, but it was a judgment of God, for her former marriage was made in blood; meaning that of the Earl of Warwick”. Though she argued that her marriage remained valid, Warwick’s death clearly lay heavy on her mind. Henry VII had justified the young man’s execution with the accusation of treason, but there remained some – like Catherine – who saw the tragedy in it. For the sole reason that he was Clarence’s son, Warwick was forced to live a life without freedom – and, just like the thousands who died during the Wars of the Roses, ultimately lost it. Sarah Norton is a historian specialising in kingship in the late Middle Ages and Tudor period This article was first published in the November 2024 issue of BBC History Magazine
Mary & George: the real history behind the new drama
Benjamin Woolley introduces the mother-and-son duo who changed the face of the royal court in the early 17th century
New drama Mary and George has just arrived on Sky Atlantic, transporting us back to the intrigues and scandals of the court of King James VI and I. Author and historical advisor Benjamin Woolley introduces Mary and George Villiers, the mother-and-son duo who changed the face of this early 17th-century royal court. Speaking to Elinor Evans, he explores what we really know about George's relationship with King James, and the lingering question over the Villiers' hand in the monarch's death.
Queen Victoria's unhappy childhood: life under the 'Kensington System'
What was Queen Victoria like as a child? And did she have a normal childhood? Here, historian Lucy Worsley explores the monarch’s youth at Kensington Palace – where she lived under the rules of the 'Kensington System' – and finds that it might not have been as unhappy as Victoria herself would have had us believe
On 24 May 1819, a baby girl was born at Kensington Palace. It was then the least fashionable of the royal palaces, hidden away behind the lime trees of its wide green gardens to the west of London. The arrival of Alexandrina Victoria, as she was christened, did cause some excitement. A long line of carriages calling for news about the health of the mother, the Duchess of Kent, reached all the way to Hyde Park Corner. But at that point the new baby, King George III’s latest granddaughter, was fairly low down the royal pecking order. As the years of her childhood passed, however, and as her elder cousins failed to thrive and died, Alexandrina Victoria grew in importance. It gradually emerged that the little girl growing up quietly behind closed doors at Kensington Palace would one day reign over the whole of the British Isles, including Ireland. And, in due course, a quarter of the globe’s landmass. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2019/05/GettyImages-513688265-347013e-e1703672371102.jpg" width="621" height="406" alt="The young Victoria with her mother, Victoire, Duchess of Kent, in an 1821 portrait by William Beechey. "My greatest of fears was that I loved her too much," said Victoire. (Photo by Kean Collection/Getty Images)" title="The young Victoria with her mother, Victoire, Duchess of Kent, in an 1821 portrait by William Beechey. "My greatest of fears was that I loved her too much," said Victoire. (Photo by Kean Collection/Getty Images)" /> The death of Queen Victoria's father Just as Queen Victoria’s path to the throne was not obvious at the time of her birth, her education and training for the position seem at first sight to have been quite shockingly inadequate. One of the problems was the early loss of her father, the Duke of Kent. He had terrible debts, caused partly by an expensive refurbishment of his apartment at Kensington. In the winter of 1819–20, he tried to save money by taking his beloved wife and baby daughter to live cheaply in a rented holiday house, out-of-season, at Sidmouth in Devon. There he caught pneumonia and passed away. This left his widowed duchess, whose name was Victoire, in a difficult position. German, and only recently married to her duke, she spoke no English and felt ostracised by the rest of the royal family. She had few resources, either financial or intellectual, on which to fall back for the care of her daughter. View Green Video on the source website One person who knew Victoire, Duchess of Kent, described her as “very delightful, in spite of want of brains”. If she was scatty and disorganised, she was also warm and loving. Her late husband’s will now placed Victoire in an unusual situation. Normally, a child in the line of succession would be handed over to the reigning monarch for education and guardianship. But the Duke of Kent had loved and trusted his wife, and made her guardian of their daughter instead. This was a duty Victoire intended to carry through. The rest of the royal family would perhaps have preferred it if she’d slipped back off to her native Germany – but Victoire remained. The daunting implication was that, if her daughter came to the throne before she was 18, Victoire herself would become regent of Britain. She would effectively be reigning over a country of which she could not even speak the language. Unfortunately, Victoire lacked confidence in herself. “I am not fit for my place, no, I am not,” she would say. “I am just an old stupid goose.” No wonder that she now fell into the outstretched hands of a man on whom she would come greatly to rely: her late husband’s adjutant from his army days, John Conroy. Who was Sir John Conroy? Conroy was a 6ft, black-haired, good-looking chancer from an Irish background. It's easy to see how Victoire was forced by necessity, loneliness and incapacity to depend on the man who became her advisor and factotum (an employee who takes on several types of work). Her husband's death had left her both distraught and penniless. Her brother Leopold came down to Sidmouth to help out, but failed to bring her any ready money. "Gut, gut Leopold," as Victoire called him, in her German accent, was nevertheless "rather slow in the uptake and in making decisions". It was Conroy, with his "activity and capability", who arranged a loan for her at Coutts bank. And Conroy could see, as the duchess’s chief advisor, that he might one day become the power behind the throne. He encouraged Victoire and the little Victoria to go back to live at Kensington Palace, and there devised something called the ‘System’, a set of strict rules under which the princess would live. What was the Kensington System? It sounds rather sinister, and on some levels it was. At its most basic, the System (as Conroy himself called it, with capital S) was for the young Victoria’s personal safety. It demanded she be kept in semi-seclusion at Kensington Palace. Behind the garden walls, she’d be isolated from both disease and assassination attempts. Secondly, the fact that she was rarely seen at court distanced her, in people’s minds, from the unpopular regime of her uncles, Kings George and then William IV. As a possible future queen, she’d remain untainted by association with them. She would be a fresh start – or, as Conroy put it, “the Nation’s Hope”. But thirdly – and sinisterly – the System also seems to have been about breaking Victoria’s spirit, and getting her to submit. It contained an element of surveillance: she wasn’t allowed to sleep alone, play with other girls or even walk downstairs without having someone holding her hand. And each day she had to write in her ‘Behaviour Book’ how well – or badly – she’d behaved (see more rules below). On the podcast | Professor Jane Ridley reveal lesser-known aspects of Queen Victoria's life Accounts of Queen Victoria’s childhood usually take at face value her adult recollections of this period in her life, in which she complained of trauma and loneliness. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that she did have a natural tendency to make a drama out of her own life. And perhaps there were some elements of the System that helped to make her reign a success. There is no doubt that Conroy was indeed a manipulative bully, but there is also something more to his poor reputation among historians than just Victoria’s well-recorded dislike. The snobbish court establishment looked down on his lack of an aristocratic background. Born in Wales to Anglo-Irish parents – his father was a barrister – Conroy had reached his position of influence entirely by his own efforts, which contemporaries found troubling. Read more | ‘Dumpy’ dowager or vibrant beauty: what did Queen Victoria really look like, and how tall was she? Secondly, if the System Conroy had devised had three components, the first two were wildly successful. He did keep Victoria safe. And, through a carefully stage-managed series of public appearances in her teenage years, he did manage to create an enormous groundswell of warmth for her when, eventually, she became queen. The Kensington System that governed Queen Victoria's childhood Victoria was not allowed to spend time by herself and she always had to sleep in her mother’s room. Victoria could not walk downstairs without holding the hand of an adult in case she fell. (It sounds melodramatic, but Victoria did actually confirm in later life that this was a rule she had to abide by.) Victoria was not allowed to meet any strangers or third parties without her governess being present. The young Victoria had to write in a ‘Behaviour Book’ how well she’d behaved each day, so that her mother could assess her progress. Sometimes it was good, sometimes “VERY NAUGHTY”. Victoria could only appear in public on carefully stage-managed ‘publicity tours’. This was to distance her from the unpopular regime of her uncles, Kings George IV and William IV, and to present her as “the Nation’s Hope”. Victoria was not allowed to dance the scandalous and intimate new dance called the waltz, not even (as is often said) with other royal relations. She would never waltz until married to Prince Albert. Victoria had to build up her strength by exercising with her Indian clubs [a pair of bowling-pin shaped wooden clubs] and a machine with pulleys and weights, and was mandated to have plenty of fresh air. She would be a life-long devotee of open windows, to the extent that her courtiers would always be shivering. The young Victoria was not allowed to gorge on her food. She was allowed to eat bread with milk and plain roast mutton, and was restricted from eating her favourite things: sweetmeats and fruit. Young Victoria's publicity tours One of the items on display in an exhibition at Kensington Palace is the small wooden travelling bed that Victoria used for another strand of Conroy’s System: the country-wide ‘publicity tours’ that he organised for her. Taking her on closely choreographed visits to provincial towns and nobleman’s houses around Britain gave her future subjects an intriguing glimpse of their future monarch. It was a strategy that paid off entirely. When, in the early hours of 20 June 1837, the 18-year-old Victoria was woken up at Kensington Palace with news that her uncle had died in the night, she was able to emerge – as Conroy had planned – as a fresh start for the monarchy. Victoria's journey to the throne was a struggle. But once she was queen, she would not long remain at Kensington Palace. She removed herself as quickly as she could to the relative freedom of Buckingham Palace instead. There’s a well-known and compelling narrative that sees Victoria, on her accession day, cutting free of the System to the extent, even, of changing her name. Read more | Victoria’s great palaces: 5 of the queen’s grandest and most significant homes When called on to sign her name, the new queen put just plain “Victoria” – not the “Alexandrina Victoria” of her christening. It’s widely believed that she was called “Drina” in childhood, rather than Victoria, and that the change symbolised a break from the past. But her mother had some time earlier agreed that the “Alexandrina” should be dropped quietly, and her toys are marked with a “V”. The duchess had, in any case, also called her daughter by the pet name of “Vickelchen”. How did the Kensington System affect Victoria? So the System was not entirely a black-and-white affair. Even the most unpleasant aspect of it, that of surveillance, perhaps had an unintended benefit. It toughened Victoria up. She would have to face a lifetime of being watched and judged. The Behaviour Books were just the start. As her mother explained to her: “You cannot escape… from the situation you are born in.” Victoria might as well be given the chance to get used to living under watch and under pressure. This was far from normal for a 19th-century girl, who was expected by society to shrink away from attention. But even Victoria’s Uncle Leopold, an enemy of Conroy’s, likewise coached his niece about the element of performance that would be so central to her role as a constitutional monarch. “High personages are a little like stage actors,” he explained. “They must always make efforts to please their public.” Harsh judgement has sometimes been heaped upon the Duchess of Kent for not standing up to Conroy when he bullied her. But while Victoire lacked moral fibre, that did not make her a bad person, and this too is something that Victoria herself in later life came to appreciate. As Victoire explained, she’d simply done her best for her daughter. “My greatest of fears was that I loved her too much,” she said. And what Victoire did bequeath to her daughter was a huge capacity for love. Most royals of the early 19th century could not afford to look for love in their marriages, which were pragmatic affairs undertaken for blood or politics. Yet Victoire, creature of an age in which romantic novels were beginning to provide a new template for living, had sought and found a soulmate in her husband. She brought up her daughter to desire the same thing – and Queen Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert was a love match. Read more | Love before Albert: Queen Victoria’s suitors Victoria came in later life to realise the love her mother had felt for her – despite the System – and she also spent her childhood watching her mother defer so much to the advice of a man. The result of this was that she herself, in due course, would cling all the more closely to her own family. And in doing so, Queen Victoria would model for the media and the nation a domestic life that was more than acceptable to the age in which she lived. The dutiful queen The industrial revolution had allowed a man, working in industry or business, to earn enough money to keep his wife at home, untroubled by the outside world. In her own family life, Victoria would become a kind of super-Victorian: submissive to her husband, Prince Albert, apparently devoted to her children – the perfect pin-up for a populace tired of the debauchery, the mistresses and the general excesses of previous kings. Read more | Who were Queen Victoria's children? Everything you need to know about her sons and daughters But while the young Victoria was loved to the extent of being spoilt, there were still terrible gaps in her more formal education. The System had given her nothing more than the standard education for a genteel young lady being prepared for marriage. The majority of her time was spent on music, drawing (at which she excelled), dancing, religion, French and German. Her tutors reported her as “indifferent” at spelling, but “good” at most other subjects. “The rest of her education,” one of Victoria’s prime ministers later noted, “she owes to her own natural shrewdness and quickness.” But there was also a curious advantage to having a queen who relied on her “natural shrewdness”. It made her an instinctive, populist politician in a way that her classically educated male court and cabinet could never really appreciate. When she did ultimately come to write a book, for example, it was far from a learned tome. She published an account of holidays she’d taken in Scotland, which became a huge success and a runaway bestseller. Its rather banal content appealed directly to the people among her subjects who mattered, the people who held the balance of political power in the 19th century: the middle class. Read more | Friends, family and rivals: Queen Victoria and the European empires While other monarchies across Europe were being threatened by revolution, the British monarchy survived the 19th century unscathed. This was not least because the middle classes thought that their undereducated, dutiful, home-loving queen simply wasn’t worth overthrowing. It was not the result that Conroy’s strange ‘System’ was intended to achieve. Victoria would look back on her Kensington childhood with horror and regret. But far from being the breaking of her, you could argue that Victoria’s unusual childhood was in fact the making of her reign. This article was first published in the June 2019 edition of BBC History Magazine
Off to school: how do the royal family educate their children?
How should a young prince or princess be best prepared for their unique role? From private palace tutors to the school of hard knocks, each generation of royals has chosen new and different ways to educate their children
Beyond the ABCs and time tables, educating a young royal comes with unique challenges as they are prepared for a life of constant media scrutiny. They need to be prepared for their responsibilities as national ambassadors and, in the case of the heirs themselves, the burden of wearing the crown. Yet each generation of post-war Windsors has made bold moves away from centuries of traditional royal schooling. In fact, far from the private tutoring of the future Queen Elizabeth, there have been calls by newspaper columnists for the newest arrival to date, Louis, to be sent to a public school. Much like many royal children before them, Elizabeth and her sister Margaret received their education at home. Tutors were brought in to cover specialist subjects, but the core of their teaching was entrusted to their governess Marion Crawford, nicknamed “Crawfie”, under the supervision of their mother. Mornings covered history, language, literature and music before afternoons were spent on games, dancing and singing. While the dutiful Elizabeth showed a propensity for learning, home-schooling did not stretch her academically, although she now speaks fluent French and some German thanks to native speakers working at the palace. The young princess had not been expected to ascend to the throne, so it was only after the abdication of her uncle in 1936 that Elizabeth’s education gained pace, with private tuition in constitutional history from Henry Marten, vice-provost of Eton, and religious instruction by the archbishop of Canterbury. Margaret, however, was not privy to such lessons, and later in life she resented her lack of serious education. Still, Elizabeth never sat an exam or earned a formal qualification. Read more | The Queen’s “rebel sister”: 8 facts about Princess Margaret Breaking with tradition Perhaps frustrated by her own limited education, the Queen wished for her children to go to school, marking a significant change for the royal family. Read more | What was Queen Elizabeth II like as a mother? Charles had brief spells at Hill House School and Cheam — where the headmaster suggested he play football as the other boys would certainly show him no preferential treatment when going for the ball. Later, Prince Philip sent Charles to his own former school, which was notoriously tough. Gordonstoun, in the north of Scotland, championed physical and mental fortitude with unorthodox teaching. Its students took cold showers, slept on hard beds and went on morning runs whatever the weather. Prince Philip hoped it would have the same effect it had done on him, and turn the sensitive and timid Charles into a man. From arriving at age 13 as a boarder, though, Charles hated Gordonstoun and called it a “prison sentence” and “Colditz in kilts”. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2023/11/GettyImages-592603145cmyk-bb98eab.jpg" width="813" height="1040" alt="A black and white photograph of Queen Elizabeth II and son Charles at Gordonstoun." title="The Queen visits Charles at Gordonstoun. The school’s physical regime was tough but the prince went on to appreciate its challenges. (Photo by Central Press/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" /> Charles struggled with bullying and loneliness. This only worsened when the detective guarding him, Donald Green, was sacked for letting the young Charles drink a cherry brandy, not knowing a tabloid reporter was watching. Yet Charles, as his father had hoped, would end up praising Gordonstoun, saying: “I believe it taught me a great deal about myself and my own abilities and disabilities. It taught me to accept challenges and take the initiative.” From there, he went to Cambridge where, in 1970, he became the first heir to the throne to be awarded a university degree. The life of a royal nanny What does it take to look after the heir to the throne? Changing cloth diapers, keeping the nursery spotless, and being trained in martial arts, anti-terrorism tactics and defensive driving—it’s all in a day’s work for a royal nanny. Considering they care for future monarchs, duties go far beyond childcare and come with a host of regulations and protocols. Maria Teresa Turrion Borrallo, nanny to William and Kate’s children, was trained at the prestigious Norland College in Bath. She is always on call, accompanies the family on visits and has a role in their education, notably teaching them Spanish. Their constant presence means a nanny becomes close to their charges, but sometimes too close. Hands-on mother Diana clashed with a string of nannies, including Tiggy Legge-Bourke, who referred to the children as “my babies”. It is a well-paid, illustrious job, but can be ended on the whim of the royal parent. Charles’s favourite nanny was Mabel Anderson, but another, Helen Lightbody, was dismissed after a disagreement with the Queen over a pudding. The Queen’s own nannies were Clara Knight, affectionately called “Allah” (a child’s pronunciation of her first name), and Marion Crawford, who incurred the palace’s wrath by publishing a book about her experiences caring for the princesses. If there is one quality the nanny must embody above all, it is discretion. Read more | Life in the royal nursery: growing up as a young prince or princess Diana’s influence The education of Charles’s own sons, William and Harry, was heavily influenced by their mother, Diana. Not only did they join her on official visits from an early age, where seeing homeless shelters and clinics for AIDs-related conditions instilled in them a philanthropic spirit, but instead of Gordonstoun they went to Eton, the school Diana’s father and brother had attended. William fully immersed himself into his time at school, which began in 1995, becoming a member of the Eton Society, the elite group of prefects who had the unique privilege of wearing whatever design of waistcoat they wanted. On Sunday afternoons, he would walk the short distance to Windsor Castle to have tea with his grandmother, as well as lessons on his royal duties. The Queen would take him through the documents in the state boxes. Harry enjoyed his time at Eton less than his brother and, always prone to mischief, admitted he wanted to be the “bad boy” at school. While he may not have been the strongest student academically, Harry certainly thrived in sports, playing rugby and polo, and being made House Captain of Games. He also became a member of the Combined Cadet Forces. View Green Video on the source website After leaving Eton, both boys kept up the tradition for male royals to go into the military, with Harry completing officer commissioning training at Sandhurst after first spending some time abroad. William joined him there after graduating from the University of St Andrews, where he met Kate. As is fitting for the “new royals”, William and Kate have chosen new schools for their children. In 2018, Charlotte started at the exclusive Willcocks Nursery, near Kensington Palace, from which she may join her older brother George at Thomas’s Battersea. The young prince had previously gone to a Montessori nursery school, favoured for its emphasis on independence and social development. Thomas’s Battersea, an £18,000-a-year preparatory school, will promote above all else its primary ethos of “be kind”, and offer George an extensive curriculum unlike anything his great-grandmother would have had. We’ll have to wait and see where William and Kate will choose for Louis, or what Harry and Meghan intend for their first child, but the days of traditional home-schooling are long gone as the new royals seek to give their children as normal a start in life as possible. Read more | From Nell to Meghan: 10 romances between actors and royals
What was Queen Elizabeth II like as a mother?
Throughout her long reign, Elizabeth II juggled being a mother and grandmother with royal duty. But with careful judgment, hard work and a mischievous sense of humour, she forged a dynasty and inspired a nation
They might not be the first monikers to spring to mind when thinking of Queen Elizabeth II, a monarch who was renowned for her sense of duty and her dignified demeanour, but “Gary” and “Cabbage” are two of the nicknames bestowed upon her by her family. “Gary” was how Prince William knew his grandmother as a youngster, apparently confusing the word with “Granny”, while the Queen’s great-grandchildren Prince George and Princess Charlotte know the Queen affectionately as “Gan-Gan”. As for “Cabbage’, this was the fond nickname used by her husband Prince Philip – which might come from the French term of endearment, “mon petit chou”, translated to “my little cabbage”. Was Elizabeth II a mother when she came to the throne? As matriarch of “The Firm” (the insider name for the royal family), now in her 10th decade and the oldest monarch in British history, it’s perhaps easy to forget that Elizabeth assumed the throne in 1952 at the age of just 25, the mother of two young children. Thrust into royal duties, she faced the immediate challenge of balancing the work of monarchy with the demands of motherhood, a battle which has been present throughout her reign. Read more | A brief guide to the British royal family, by The Crown historian Robert Lacey Just 18 months after her accession in 1952, Elizabeth II was called upon to tour 13 countries, including Australia, over six months, without Charles, age five, and Anne, age three. The young children were famously greeted with handshakes upon the return of their parents, and though she dispensed with some of the more formal royal traditions – the children were not required to bow or curtsey to their mother – their childhoods were marked by absence. The prince and princess were largely raised in their younger years by governesses and other household staff, in the same way that Elizabeth and Margaret had been by “Crawfie”, in keeping with the manner of many upper-class families of the time. The children were required to understand that travel and time were part of the monarch’s commitment to rule. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/10/GettyImages-3419178-906a70c.jpg" width="1024" height="733" alt="c1965: Queen Elizabeth II plays with Princes Edward and Andrew at Windsor Castle. (Photo by Lisa Sheridan/Studio Lisa/Getty Images)" title="c1965: Queen Elizabeth II plays with Princes Edward and Andrew at Windsor Castle. (Photo by Lisa Sheridan/Studio Lisa/Getty Images)" /> It was a decade after Anne that the Queen gave birth to her third child, Prince Andrew, in 1960. Prince Edward followed in 1964, making the two sons the first children to be born to a reigning monarch since Queen Victoria. Ten years after her accession, many noted a difference in the Queen’s relationship with her two younger sons. Royal historian Robert Lacey suggests the Queen became “warmer and flexible”, able to step back a little from her duties. What were Queen Elizabeth's relationships with her children like? Both Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip agreed that their children should not be hampered, as they saw it, by the social and educational constraints of homeschooling, which had previously been the norm for royals. Yet Charles’s education was far from straightforward. Prince Philip wished Charles to be sent to Gordonstoun school in Scotland, hoping to make his son in his own image. The Queen Mother (who favoured Eton, close to Charles’s Windsor home) wrote to the Queen in 1961, saying, “it is miles and miles away, he might as well be at school abroad. He would be terribly cut off and lonely up in the far north.” The Queen Mother’s fears for her sensitive grandson were not unfounded. Two years after the Queen’s “annus horribilis” of 1992 (which saw the marriages of three of her children break down amid tabloid scandal, as well as a fire at Windsor Castle) an authorised biography of Prince Charles dealt perhaps the harshest blow to the Queen’s reputation as a mother. The 1994 account, written by Jonathan Dimbleby, described the bullying and “crushing loneliness” Charles experienced at school, and a childhood characterized by long periods of his mother’s absence. Charles was said to feel “emotionally estranged” from his parents and yearning for affection that, in his view, they were “unable or unwilling to offer”. The book declared Charles’s bonds of affection to be much stronger with his nanny Mabel Anderson and detailed how the Queen would spend short windows of allotted time with her son in the morning before his daily walk and before bedtime. Historian Piers Brendon has suggested that in contrast to the “tremendously affectionate, and very welcoming and warm” Queen Mother, with whom Charles had a close relationship, Elizabeth II was “a very distant mother”. Read more | A brief history of royal mothers and childbirth Yet in a 2002 BBC documentary, Princess Anne said: “We understood what the limitations were in time and the responsibilities placed on her as monarch, in the things she had to do and the travels she had to make. “But I don’t believe that any of us, for a second, thought she didn’t care for us in exactly the same way as any other mother did. I just think it’s extraordinary that anybody could construe that that might not be true.” What was Queen Elizabeth II like as a grandmother? If the Queen’s reputation as a mother has been characterized as distant by some, there was a more palpable fondness for her eight grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. From the birth of her first grandchild – Peter Phillips, the son of Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, born in 1977 – the Queen took on a new persona; the dutiful grandmother who inspired by example. “I’ve always been very close to my grandmother, and we speak often,” Peter Phillips told The Telegraph in 2016. “She has been an inspirational person throughout my life.” In 2018, Princess Beatrice told of how her grandmother “goes out into the community with a genuine curiosity as to how she can be a force for good in the world”. Though duty evidently came first, there was also an enduring sense of fun that she shared with those close to her. Many royal sources have recounted how the Queen was an excellent mimic, and particularly fond of impersonating former prime ministers and US presidents she had known through the years (some favourite impressions were reported to be René from TV show ’Allo ’Allo! and Labour politician Tony Benn). One royal aide, Angela Kelly, shared how the Queen has “a wicked [mischievous] of humour”. Read more | The 8 most famous royal weddings in British history The Queen proved herself an adept grandmother in the 21st-century online world too, no more evident than when she joined her grandson Prince Harry in 2016, recording a sassy comedy video message to US president and first lady Barack and Michelle Obama in order to promote the Invictus Games. At Christmas, even as her descendants started their own families, the Queen remained at the centre of the royals’ festive celebrations, bringing together the whole family at her Sandringham residence. At 6pm sharp, the tradition was for adults to exchange cheap joke gifts and Prince Harry could clearly get away with a little extra cheekiness towards his grandmother. On one such occasion he gave the Queen a showercap with the slogan: ‘Ain’t life a bitch’. Elizabeth II’s ancestor Queen Victoria was notoriously meddlesome in the marriages of her grandchildren – as ‘Grandmama Queen’ she felt uniquely placed to orchestrate the marriages of her 42 grandchildren, manoeuvring them into seats of European power. The Queen did hold the power to exercise control over her descendants’ marriages­ – though not all; since 2013, the Succession to the Crown Act has meant that only the first six royals in line to the throne require the monarch’s permission to validate their marriages. So in 2018, Princess Eugenie could marry without the Queen’s consent (though it’s unlikely that she wasn’t consulted), whereas Prince Harry still had to obtain the monarch’s permission. This the Queen duly bestowed, writing in her official capacity: “My lords, I declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between My Most Dearly Beloved Grandson Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales and Rachel Meghan Markle.” It’s clear though that her grandchildren valued the Queen’s approval beyond an official seal. And it seems that a sure way to impress the monarch was by getting on with her beloved corgis. “For the last 33 years, I’ve been barked at,” Harry told the BBC ahead of his 2018 wedding. That apparently wasn’t the case for the Duchess of Sussex. “This one walks in,” the prince joked, indicating his bride-to-be, “Absolutely nothing. Just wagging tails.” <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/10/GettyImages-960080914-8456f66.jpg" width="1024" height="662" alt="The Duchess of Sussex wore the Queen’s grandmother Queen Mary’s platinum and diamond bandeau tiara for her wedding in May 2018. (Photo by Aaron Chown / POOL /AFP via Getty Images)" title="The Duchess of Sussex wore the Queen’s grandmother Queen Mary’s platinum and diamond bandeau tiara for her wedding in May 2018. (Photo by Aaron Chown / POOL /AFP via Getty Images)" /> The Queen also publicly showed her support and welcome to her grandsons’ wives by lending them two significant family heirlooms for their weddings. The Duchess of Sussex wore the Queen’s grandmother Queen Mary’s platinum and diamond bandeau tiara for her wedding in May 2018. The Duchess of Cambridge wore the Queen’s Cartier scroll tiara, purchased by the Queen’s father King George VI and given to Elizabeth on the princess’s 18th birthday. Long to reign over us More than seven decades after starting her own family, it’s clear that the late Queen imbued her dynasty with her own strong sense of duty and service. She served as the figurehead of the family, an inspiring example by which to measure their own public activities. Despite the familiarity, it's also clear that the Queen was still able to keep her family on their toes. In 2018, Prince Harry gave the following advice to a group of visitors to Buckingham Palace: “If you suddenly bump into her in the hallway, don’t panic. I know you will. We all do.”
The real history behind Becoming Elizabeth
Becoming Elizabeth tells the story of the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn before she became Elizabeth I, as she navigated the tumultuous reigns of her half-siblings. But how historically accurate is the drama? Discover the real history behind the show and the life of the teenage Princess Elizabeth
What is Becoming Elizabeth about? Becoming Elizabeth dramatises the life of the young Elizabeth I, daughter of King Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. The princess was born on September 1533 as heir-presumptive. Three years later, she was declared illegitimate and ousted from the succession, after her mother was executed on fabricated charges of adultery. From there on, she was largely ignored by her father, permitted to see him on only a handful of special occasions. But, against all expectations – and Henry’s best-laid plans – Elizabeth did eventually become Queen of England. And she would be arguably the greatest monarch of the entire Tudor dynasty. That is another story. Becoming Elizabeth is a tale of Elizabeth’s days before the throne, before she became the Virgin Queen, Gloriana or Good Queen Bess. It is the story of her precarious life during the reigns of her step-siblings, Edward VI and Mary I, during a period of polarising religious tensions. The drama begins in the immediate aftermath of Henry VIII’s death when Elizabeth is sent to live with dowager queen and Henry’s sixth wife Katherine Parr, and her new husband – the rakish Thomas Seymour (brother of Edward’s mother Jane Seymour). Below we explore the real history behind the drama. What was the true nature of Elizabeth’s relationship with Thomas Seymour? What did Elizabeth really think of her mother, Anne Boleyn? And could she really trust her stepmother, Katherine Parr? Read on for the real history behind Becoming Elizabeth – warning, there will be spoilers. View oEmbed on the source website How to watch Becoming Elizabeth Becoming Elizabeth was first broadcast on Starz in the US and STARZPLAY in the UK in June 2022. The series is currently airing weekly on Channel 4 in the UK, with new episodes available stream on Channel4.com shortly after. Becoming Elizabeth is still available to stream in full on Lionsgate+, the new name for STARZPLAY, which is available as an add-on channel for Amazon Prime Video. Sign up for a 7-day Lionsgate+ trial. If you don't have Prime Video, you can sign up for a 30-day trial of Amazon Prime. Is Becoming Elizabeth a true story? The real history behind the drama What was Elizabeth’s relationship with Thomas Seymour? When Elizabeth is sent to live in Chelsea with Katherine Parr (an event that occurs both in the drama and real history), the princess comes into the orbit of Thomas Seymour – brother of the Lord Protector, uncle to the King, and Parr’s new husband. He is 25 years her senior. Elizabeth, we see, holds some infatuation for the dashing Thomas, and Thomas returns those affections. There are lingering looks, and stolen glances. “We’re not meant to marry princesses,” his brother Edward, Earl of Hertford (later the Duke of Somerset) intones to his brother, serious as a death knell. Thomas, we are soon to learn, cares little for whom that bell tolls. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/06/eli1-105-040821-0060-a-1--ad120a7-e1654875750637.jpg" width="620" height="415" alt="The relationship between Thomas Seymour (Tom Cullen) and Princess Elizabeth (Alicia von Rittberg) is a focal point for the drama" title="The relationship between Thomas Seymour (Tom Cullen) and Princess Elizabeth (Alicia von Rittberg) is a focal point for the drama (Photo courtesy of Starz)" /> To modern sensibilities, what follows is uncomfortable viewing. More than once we see Thomas stride into Elizabeth’s bedchamber in his underclothes. There are quiet rendezvous in hidden corners, and in one particularly unsettling scene, Katherine Parr joins in with Thomas to rip a dress from Elizabeth’s body piece by piece. It is left ambiguous as to the extent of Elizabeth’s willingness throughout these events, but much of what is portrayed is rooted in the truth, as much as sources suggest. Most of the detail come from Elizabeth’s own servants, who gave evidence to a Privy Council investigation after Thomas was caught in the act of attempting to kidnap Edward VI – a 1549 inquiry that ultimately concluded that Thomas was also planning to wed Elizabeth without the council’s consent, and culminated in his execution. The servants told of how Thomas would “strike her on the back or the buttocks familiarly”, how sometimes she would shrink from him, and how he would climb into her bed to tickle her, and that sometimes Katherine would join in. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/06/eli1-101-121020-0016-a-p-a2ec40a.jpg" width="980" height="653" alt="Thomas Seymour (Tom Cullen) and Katherine Parr (Jessica Raine) in Becoming Elizabeth" title="Thomas Seymour (Tom Cullen) and Katherine Parr (Jessica Raine) in Becoming Elizabeth. Exactly what the real Parr made of Thomas's horseplay with Elizabeth remains unclear (Photo courtesy of Starz)" /> The scene in which Thomas shreds Elizabeth’s dress with a sword within the halls of Chelsea is in reality said to have taken place in the gardens at Hanworth Park, one source stating (as portrayed in Becoming Elizabeth) that Katherine “held her” as Thomas savaged her finery. “The nature of Katherine’s holding is not clear,” notes historian Suzannah Lipscomb. “Held her down? Held her to protect her? Laughingly participated in mere horseplay? We don’t know how Elizabeth reacted.” As to whether Elizabeth returned any of Thomas’s attentions, Lipscomb adds: “Kat Ashley [Elizabeth’s governess] said that Elizabeth blushed when Seymour was spoken of, but this might not indicate affection, or fancy, so much as shame.” Though as historian Helen Castor points out, there may have been a reason for Elizabeth engaging with Seymour’s advances: “If this was an adolescent crush on a handsome and attentive older man – a father-figure who was not sexually out of bounds, should he ask for her hand – it is only likely to have been intensified by the fact that the prospect of marrying Seymour would spare Elizabeth the usual fate of royal daughters: to be sent abroad, in permanent exile from all that was familiar, to make a new life with a stranger for a husband.” Read more | Did Thomas Seymour sexually abuse the teenage Princess Elizabeth? Was Katherine Parr a friend or foe to Elizabeth? Katherine Parr is largely given short shrift in Becoming Elizabeth. Perhaps the most misunderstood of Henry VIII’s six wives, she is often relegated to being ‘the one who survived’ – when in fact, she thrived. During Henry’s lifetime, she played a prominent role in state affairs and published books under her own name. Here, the view we are given is she was in love with someone else at the time of Henry’s demise – Thomas Seymour, with whom she was smitten in real history long before the king called upon her to be his sixth wife. Her intentions surrounding Elizabeth’s wellbeing once she engages in Thomas’s horseplay are portrayed as clouded, to say the least. “Was she jealous,” asks Lipscomb. “Did she think Elizabeth was just a young girl infatuated with her handsome husband? Did she see it as mere high jinks? Or did she resist seeing what was happening in front of her face?” As with Elizabeth herself, it is impossible to say how Katherine truly felt, but the result was the same – the princess was ultimately sent away from Parr’s household in May 1548. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/06/eli1-101-121020-0084-a-p-7eab304.jpg" width="980" height="653" alt="Jessica Raine as Katherine Parr, the wife who 'survived' Henry VIII and took on the mantle of Elizabeth's stepmother" title="Jessica Raine as Katherine Parr, the wife who 'survived' Henry VIII and took on the mantle of Elizabeth's stepmother (Photo courtesy of Starz)" /> “It is possible that Katherine sent Elizabeth away in order to protect her, as the heavily pregnant Katherine knew that she would soon have been going into confinement and would not be able to stop Seymour’s advances,” says Lipscomb. It’s also not apparent in the show, but before the period portrayed, it was Katherine Parr who was responsible for rekindling the relationship between Elizabeth and her father, and for convincing Henry to restore both Elizabeth and Mary to the line of succession. Katherine became queen in July 1543. “Within a few months she arranged for Henry's children to pay visits to their father and thus provide him with some semblance of the home life he had never had,” writes historian Derek Wilson. “Extant letters, written between 1544 and 1547, bear witness to a very warm relationship between the royal children and their stepmother. Whether sending a court musician to perform for Mary or correcting the Latin exercises of Edward and Elizabeth, Katherine took a keen interest in their wellbeing.” Read more | Did Henry VIII love Katherine Parr? Was there a rumour that Elizabeth became pregnant by Thomas Seymour? “I’m late,” the drama’s Elizabeth announces flatly to her governess and confidant, Kat Ashley. Not long after, she asks: “Shall we fetch a woman?” It is never stated what the ‘woman’ might do. Nothing is explicitly shown as having happened between Thomas and the teenage princess, nor is anything explicitly said. But the significance Elizabeth puts on her lateness – and the extent of her relief when her period arrives – is intended to speak louder than words. As she waits, the story is put out that Elizabeth, who by this point has left Parr’s household, is unwell. In reality, Elizabeth was certainly ill during the summer of 1548, after she had been sent away from Chelsea – but the suggestion that she might have been pregnant was not contemporary, emerging some 60 years later. “The evidence [for a pregnancy] is laughably slender and easily refuted,” writes Lipscomb. “It seems more likely that Elizabeth was stressed and traumatised by the separation from her stepmother and the sexual harassment by her stepfather.” The Tudors on screen The real history behind ‘The White Princess The real history behind The Spanish Princess The time travelling Tudor: Anne Boleyn’s most surprising representations in film, TV and literature Did Thomas Seymour really try to marry Elizabeth? Following Katherine Parr’s death after childbirth, the drama has the grasping Thomas Seymour asking Elizabeth to marry him. But did it ever happen? It is plausible. The same Privy Council investigation into Thomas Seymour’s attempt to kidnap Edward VI concluded that Thomas had conspired to marry the princess in secret. Whether the real Elizabeth knew the extent of Thomas’s machinations is unclear. There is one significant detail that the show omits: Thomas had asked Elizabeth to marry him once before, prior to his marriage to Katherine Parr. “Thomas Seymour asked the 13-year-old Princess Elizabeth to marry him by letter in February 1547, within a month of Henry VIII’s death,” writes Lipscomb. “Elizabeth rejected his proposal elegantly, also by letter, saying she was too young and would be in mourning for her father for two years.” Within a month or so, Thomas was married to Katherine Parr. “Katherine had been in love with him since before her marriage to Henry, but it is possible that Thomas married her to get closer to Elizabeth,” Lipscomb adds. Read more | What happened to Katherine Parr’s daughter, Mary Seymour, after her mother’s death? What did Elizabeth think of her mother, Anne Boleyn? In the drama, Anne Boleyn casts a long shadow over the teenage Elizabeth. History may have rehabilitated the second of Henry VIII’s six wives, but in Becoming Elizabeth, Anne is almost universally reviled as “the Great Whore”. And with rumours of affections between Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour, that shadow comes into even sharper relief. Elizabeth seems sanguine about her mother and her reputation, at one point threatening to visit court wearing Boleyn’s now-iconic ‘B’ necklace – an act of provocation that draws shock from both Katherine Parr and governess Kat Ashley. But do we have any idea of what Elizabeth made of her mother? “The popular misconception is that Elizabeth didn't really regard her mother at all,” and that “she only mentioned twice in her life,” writes Tracy Borman. “In fact, Elizabeth mentioned her a good deal more than that.” She had to be careful, but Elizabeth expressed her affinity to Anne in subtle ways –promoting her Boleyn relatives at court, for instance. She also possessed a locket ring that contained two portraits, one of herself and the other of Anne. “That locket ring was kept in a locked casket by Elizabeth until the day she died. It was clearly one of her most treasured possessions,” says Borman. Read more | What did Elizabeth I think of her mother, Anne Boleyn? Learn more about Elizabeth I as Queen of England A Tudor love triangle: Elizabeth I, Lettice Knollys and Robert Dudley Queens at war: Elizabeth I vs Mary, Queen of Scots Elizabeth I and the Spanish Armada <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/02/GettyImages-1354452119web_ready-7c63418.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="The Armada Portrait of Elizabeth I, painted to honour her victor over the Spanish in 1588 (Photo by: Pictures From History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)" title="The Armada Portrait of Elizabeth I, painted to honour her victor over the Spanish in 1588 (Photo by: Pictures From History/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)" /> Who was Edward Seymour? In the Parr household, Thomas Seymour looms large, but at court it is his brother who dominates proceedings. On the night of Henry VIII’s death, it is Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford who rides off in the dead of night to Prince Edward’s side, and in being the first to reach him, cements his position as the new king’s closest confidant. Though Henry envisaged his son ruling under the influence of 16 councillors, Hertford manages to make himself pre-eminent among them, as Edward’s Lord Protector. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/06/eli1-101-020321-0015-a-p-8598ff4.jpg" width="980" height="653" alt="The fates of Henry VIII's children are dominated by two men in the immediate aftermath of his death: Edward and Thomas Seymour (John Heffernan and Tom Cullen), who brothers to his third wife, Jane Seymour" title="The fates of Henry VIII's children are dominated by two men in the immediate aftermath of his death: Edward and Thomas Seymour (John Heffernan and Tom Cullen), who brothers to his third wife, Jane Seymour (Photo courtesy of Starz)" /> “Over the centuries historians have offered many explanations as to why the councillors agreed to Seymour’s power-grab,” writes historian Derek Wilson, “including the need for a strong government to fend off any conservative reaction, the fact that Seymour was Edward VI’s uncle, and the dishing out of sweeteners to pliable supporters. “Whatever the reason, Seymour was now Protector of the Realm. Soon, he was consulting the council less and less and ruling by decree in his nephew’s name.” Like so many overmighty subjects, that would prove his undoing – and 1552 the Lord Protector was executed. Read more | Who decided Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, should be executed? Was Edward VI anything like Henry VIII? In each of the first three episodes, Edward feels the need to exclaim, loudly, “I am the king!” On one occasion, as he adds an intermediary expletive for added emphasis, leading Edward Seymour and his ally Lord Dudley to acknowledge that this new boy king could end up very much like his father – a perspective that historian Tracy Borman agrees with. Though often regarded as a sickly child, the real Edward VI, writes Borman, was a hearty lad who could have been as terrible as his father had he not died early – at just 15 years old – in 1553. “Far from being dominated by ambitious councillors such as the Dukes of Somerset and Northumberland [as Dudley was later known], he had strong opinions, ideas of his own and all the makings of a tyrant. In short, he was a chip off the old block.” Read more | Why wasn’t Henry VIII’s son crowned as Edward V? Why is Edward called the new Josiah? As Edward plunges ahead with religious reform in the guise of the Reformation, the king is hailed, more than once, as the ‘new Josiah’. But why? Josiah was a young king of ancient Judah, who reigned in the mid-to-late 7th century BC, and took great pains to fight idolatry and ensure that God was truly worshipped. And it was his example that the archbishop Thomas Cranmer is said to have urged Edward to emulate at the young king’s coronation in February 1547. “Cranmer’s exhortation was a sign of things to come: far from reversing Henry VIII’s break with Rome, Edward would go on to quicken the pace of his father’s religious reforms,” writes Ralph Houlbrooke. “The result was that England would, for the first time, become an officially Protestant country during the six-year reign of the boy king.” Read more | Edward VI: boy king and religious zealot Was there a plot to marry Jane Grey to Edward VI? A significant subplot in Becoming Elizabeth centres around Thomas Seymour and Katherine Parr’s attempts to gain influence at court by introducing Edward VI to Lady Jane Grey – another ward in their household. This was yet another charge levied at Thomas Seymour after the Privy Council investigation that ultimately cost him his head, but Jane would get closer to the throne that even Thomas had imagined. For nine days, she would be England’s (disputed) queen. “The seeds of Jane’s spectacular fall from grace were sown, earlier in 1553, by one of Edward VI’s last acts as king of England, writes Nicola Tallis. “Championing Protestantism in his lifetime wasn’t enough for Edward. He wanted the work to continue after his death, and that meant preventing his fiercely Catholic elder half-sister, Mary, from succeeding to the throne. “His solution was to author a famous document, ‘My Devise for the Succession’, in which he excluded both Mary, and his other half-sister, Elizabeth, on the grounds of their illegitimacy (as his father had done before him). Lady Jane Grey, a fellow Protestant who had sat third in the line of succession, suddenly found herself anointed Edward’s heir.” Edward’s death, in July 1553, thrust Jane into the halls of power, but her reign would be tumultuous and brief. Read more | Who was Lady Jane Grey? The tragic story of the 'Nine Days Queen' Why is England at war with Scotland? In the drama, it seems that no sooner than has Edward Seymour become Lord Protector, that he leaves court to battle the Scots at Pinkie Cleugh – a catastrophic real-life defeat for Scotland that was fought in September 1547 and saw thousands killed, wounded or captured. That the battle was fought at all was Henry VIII’s doing, who in the last years of his reign tried to break the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France by securing a betrothal between Prince Edward and the infant Mary, Queen of Scots. When diplomacy failed, Henry turned to war – which would be later romanticised by literary figures such as Walter Scott as the ‘Rough Wooing’. It didn’t work and, fearing for Mary’s life, her guardians arranged for a marriage pact with the French dauphin instead. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV and film to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
Royal sibling rivalry: Henry VIII, Richard III and other monarchs whose fate was determined by their brothers and sisters
Through history, the role of the second or third royal sibling has not always been easy. Here, historian Sarah Gristwood explores 10 of the most famous – and dysfunctional – royal sibling relationships...
In the bad old days of high infant mortality, any royal family needed an heir and several ‘spares’ – north of the border, James V and his daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots, are just two of the many British monarchs with elder brothers who died in infancy. William the Conqueror left England to his second son, another William, while the eldest son, Robert, inherited Normandy. Since then, the history of these islands has been littered with famous second – or third, or fourth – royal siblings (or, more specifically, royal sons, since gender continued to trump age right into the 21st century), who for better or for worse have done much to shape the monarchy that we know today. Here are 10 of the most famous... Read more | 'Royal Family’: the fly-on-the-wall documentary the Palace doesn’t want you to see Richard I (1157–99) It wasn’t Richard the Lionheart, but his elder brother, Henry, who was crowned ‘the Young King’ of England, unusually during their father’s lifetime. In the event Henry predeceased his father, but perhaps the fact Richard hadn’t been raised for the job explains why the crusader showed so little real enthusiasm for hands-on rule of England, spending only a few months in the country during his 10-year reign. Richard was himself succeeded by his younger brother, John. Fairly or unfairly, King John has gone down in popular history as a disastrous monarch whose reign was epitomised by his losing the crown jewels in the Wash – but he did inadvertently help to give us Magna Carta. Read more | When and how did Richard the Lionheart die? John of Gaunt (1340–99) By contrast to John I, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster – fourth son of the prolific Edward III – has traditionally been accorded a good measure of respect for the steering hand he kept on the country during the minority of his nephew, Richard II. His harsh fiscal policies, however, made him a particular target of the Peasants’ Revolt – while almost as soon as John himself died, Richard II was deposed by John’s exiled son, the Bolingbroke of Shakespeare’s plays, who took the throne as Henry IV. These were the family divisions that, half a century later, would produce the Wars of the Roses. Richard III (1452–85) The best-known casualty of those wars was of course Richard III, whose death at Bosworth ushered in the Tudor dynasty. Richard was only the fourth son of the York family, but by the time he seized the throne the first, second and third sons were all dead – Edmund killed by the Lancastrians, and George, Duke of Clarence (after plotting against Edward) drowned in the famous butt of malmsey. The grounds upon which Richard took the throne in 1483 – chiefly the supposed invalidity of Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville – are still debated today. So too, of course, is the fate of Edward IV’s sons, the princes in the Tower, and Richard’s role in their possible murder. Either way, Richard – his brother Edward’s most loyal supporter during his lifetime – provides the most dramatic prism through which to examine both the royal sibling bond, and the question of sibling rivalry. Henry VIII (1491–1547) It wasn’t Henry but his elder brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales, who was expected to lead the Tudor dynasty through the 16th century. But Arthur died in 1502 – and if anyone ever forgot that in the glorious early days of Henry VIII’s reign, they had ample cause to remember two decades later, when Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was endlessly debated, and ultimately declared invalid, on the grounds that she had been his brother Arthur’s widow. Indeed, there has been speculation that Henry’s position as a mere second son – reared with his mother and sisters, while Arthur was sent away to Ludlow – affected his later attitudes, and his infamous marital history. Elizabeth I (1533–1603) Elizabeth was Henry’s second surviving legitimate child; her sister, ‘Bloody’ Mary, Henry’s eldest. But both women accepted that first place in the succession went to their younger brother, Edward VI. After Edward’s premature death in 1553, however, differences between the sisters led to Elizabeth being imprisoned in the Tower, in danger of her life. This was no simple case of sibling rivalry, of course, since religious differences led to real dispute as to whether the Catholic Mary or the Protestant Elizabeth had best claim to the throne. All the same, no one looking for the model of a happy family is ever going to pick the Tudors! Read more | 7 things you (probably) didn’t know about Elizabeth I Charles I (1600–49) When James VI and I’s eldest son, Prince Henry, died in 1612 of what was probably typhoid, shock waves went through the country. At 18, the vibrant Henry was already the great hope of the Stuart dynasty. His brother Charles, by contrast, was a sickly 11-year-old considered unlikely to survive. Perhaps early insecurities left the adult Charles, as a monarch, particularly susceptible both to the influence of his favourite Buckingham [George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham] and his Catholic wife, Henrietta Maria, and to an inflated conception of the monarchy. Elizabeth of Bohemia (1596–1662) It may seem like cheating to list two siblings as separately important, but it’s the descendants of Elizabeth of Bohemia, not of her brother, Charles I, who sit on the British throne today. When Charles I’s eldest surviving son, Charles II, was succeeded by his own younger brother James, the latter’s unpopularity and Catholicism led to his deposition in 1688. The ‘Glorious Revolution’ of that year brought in, instead, James’s Protestant daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange, while the Catholic descendants of James’s second marriage dwindled to the status of pretenders. Anne (1665–1714) When William and Mary died without children, the crown passed to another younger sibling. Mary’s sister, Anne, came to the throne under the Act of Settlement of 1701, which effectively secured the throne to the Protestant Hanoverian dynasty, since it was already apparent that Anne too was unlikely to bear a surviving child, despite 18 pregnancies. Upon Queen Anne’s death the throne was offered to the Elector of Hanover, a grandson of Elizabeth of Bohemia, who became Britain’s George I. He and his Hanoverian descendants would reign, however, on very different terms from those earlier rulers had enjoyed. The stage was set for a modern, ‘constitutional’, monarchy (a position confirmed more than a century later when George’s great-great grandson William IV – succeeding his elder brother George IV – ceded yet further royal powers). George V (1865–1936) You might think that in the modern age the importance of the royal second sibling is outdated – we are, after all, past the days of high infant mortality. King George V was born the second son of the future Edward VII, but his elder brother, Albert Victor, known as Prince Eddy, died of pneumonia in his twenties, while his grandmother, Queen Victoria, was still on the throne. By that time Eddy had been linked to the Cleveland Street scandal, which involved a homosexual brothel, amid wider concerns over his character and abilities. (He has, however unconvincingly, even been identified as Jack the Ripper). His brother George, by contrast, was a formidable figure who, besides taking on Eddy’s engagement to Princess Mary of Teck in 1917, changed the name of the royal family from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. George VI (1895–1952) The first half of the 20th century saw two second sons accede to the throne – both important in shaping the form of the present monarchy. George V was of course succeeded by his eldest son, Edward VIII, the future Duke of Windsor, but Edward’s reign lasted less than a year, and he was never crowned. When he abdicated in order to marry the divorced Wallis Simpson, his younger brother was forced to step up to the plate. Diffident and reluctant – we’d come a long way from the power-hungry days of the medieval monarchy – George VI nonetheless saw the country through the dark days of Second World War. That example of dutiful service would model an ideal for his daughter, Elizabeth II. This article was first published by HistoryExtra in April 2018
Seasons 5 and 6 of The Crown, beginning in the early 1990s, depict the gradual decline of one of its most vibrant and controversial characters, charting the failing health of Princess Margaret, once a dazzling beauty and staple of the gossip columns. Anne de Courcy maps Princess Margaret’s life and final years, and considers what might have led to her early death…
In February 1999, the 68-year-old Princess Margaret was holidaying on Mustique, in her private villa Les Jolies Eaux. One morning, she went into the bathroom to wash her hair. Stepping into the bath, she inadvertently turned on the bath taps instead of those of the overhead shower. The water that gushed out of them was, thanks to a faulty thermostat, near-boiling. Janie Stevens, lady-in-waiting and friend to the princess, became alarmed by Margaret’s non-appearance and went into the bathroom, where she found the Princess sitting dazed on the edge of the bath, her feet appallingly scalded and in great pain. The incident, which left Margaret hospitalised, was a well-publicised episode in a broader period of declining health and spirit, a sorry trajectory for the Queen’s sister, once the sparkling face of the royal family. Princess Margaret’s early life <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-1036124564-1b5671e-e1667818467197.jpg" width="619" height="412" alt="Princess Margaret, future Countess of Snowden, 1930 - 2002. Younger daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and sister of Queen Elizabeth II. From The Coronation Book of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, published 1937.(Photo by: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)" title="Princess Margaret, future Countess of Snowden, 1930 - 2002. Younger daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and sister of Queen Elizabeth II. From The Coronation Book of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, published 1937.(Photo by: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)" /> Princess Margaret was born at her mother’s home, Glamis Castle, on 21 August 1930. She was four years younger than her sister, the then Princess Elizabeth. At the time, their parents, the Duke and Duchess of York, had no idea of the future that awaited them. On the podcast | British royal family podcast episodes With an older brother, the future Edward VIII, as heir to the throne, the Duke of York had believed that he and his family (‘we four’, as he often described them) would continue to lead the quiet and peaceful life they so enjoyed. But Edward’s abdication in December 1936 catapulted not only the Duke and Duchess, as the new king and queen, into public roles for the rest of their lives. It also altered the relationship between their two daughters. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-515219070-daa4e7a-e1667818256231.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="The crowned King George VI and Queen Elizabeth with Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret Rose, acknowledging the cheers of the crowd from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on their return from Westminster Abbey." title="King George VI and Family in Royal Regalia" /> No longer was Margaret simply the younger sister of an older sibling, but of someone who would one day become the most important figure in the kingdom – while she remained, merely, the younger sister. Separation of sisters <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-929229918-c6adaad-e1667818354120.jpg" width="620" height="411" alt="Princess Elizabeth, future Queen Elizabeth II, left, and Princess Margaret, right, driving a pony and trap in Great Windsor Park, England, 1941. Princess Margaret, Margaret Rose, 1930 – 2002, aka Princess Margaret Rose. Younger daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. Princess Elizabeth, future Elizabeth II, born 1926. Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. From a photograph. (Photo by: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)" title="Princess Elizabeth, future Queen Elizabeth II, left, and Princess Margaret, right, driving a pony and trap in Great Windsor Park, England, 1941" /> Of course, this dramatic change in status was not immediately apparent to the small child Margaret then was. But as she grew older, it was clear that Princess Elizabeth was being groomed as future queen. The children had always done everything together, including lessons under the supervision of their governess Marion Crawford; now Elizabeth was being given twice-weekly tuition in constitutional history by Henry Marten (later Sir Henry) the Vice-Provost of Eton (conveniently close to Windsor Castle); and Margaret was unhappy that she was not included. In fact, all her life she would regret her lack of education and, in later days, when she visited museums, would map out programmes and take notes on objects or paintings she particularly admired, to study them afterwards. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-929227248-16c4cc0-e1667817722235.jpg" width="413" height="538" alt="Princess Margaret, left, and Princess Elizabeth, future Queen Elizabeth II, right, playing a duet at the piano in 1940. Princess Margaret, Margaret Rose, 1930 – 2002, aka Princess Margaret Rose. Younger daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. Princess Elizabeth, future Elizabeth II, born 1926. Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. From a photograph. (Photo by: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)" title="Princess Margaret, left, and Princess Elizabeth, future Queen Elizabeth II, right, playing a duet at the piano in 1940. Princess Margaret, Margaret Rose, 1930 – 2002, aka Princess Margaret Rose. Younger daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. Princess Elizabeth, future Elizabeth II, born 1926. Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. From a photograph. (Photo by: Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)" /> As the princesses grew up, the difference in their temperaments was underlined by the differing roles they would play. Elizabeth, naturally more serious and responsible, had begun to realise her destiny, while Margaret was, as their governess ‘Crawfie’ put it, “warm and demonstrative”, with a well-developed sense of mischief. “Lilibet is my pride, Margaret is my joy,” said the King. Both parents, conscious that as the girls grew up, Margaret would be relegated more and more to the background, tried to make it up to her by indulging her, something that may have encouraged a naturally rebellious streak. Coming out When the two princesses respectively reached 18 – the age at which upper-class girls traditionally ‘came out’ – the difference in their roles was apparent. Elizabeth, in those wartime years, was in ATS uniform learning how to maintain and repair vehicle engines. Read more | From balls to Bridgerton: a brief history of debutantes and the social season <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-3362632-2a44b72-e1667817843229.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="13th June 1946: Queen Elizabeth II attending the passing out parade of the ATS whilst wearing full military uniform. (Photo by J. A. Hampton/Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)" title="13th June 1946: Queen Elizabeth II attending the passing out parade of the ATS whilst wearing full military uniform. (Photo by J. A. Hampton/Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)" /> Margaret, now a pocket Venus with an hour-glass figure, was free to go to the parties that were beginning again and to take on public roles and presidencies such as those of the NSPCC and the Girl Guides Association. She was also in love – with a glamorous war hero sixteen years older than herself. Group Captain Peter Townsend, DSO, DFC and Bar, who had been appointed equerry to her father in 1944, a job in which he saw the Princesses almost every day. After her idolised father’s death in 1952, Townsend must also have represented the security so often found with someone older. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-545350045-1a2a190-e1667820393573.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="(Eingeschränkte Rechte für bestimmte redaktionelle Kunden in Deutschland. Limited rights for specific editorial clients in Germany.) Margaret Rose, Prinzessin *21.08.1930-09.02.2002+Graefin von Snowdon, GBSchwester von Queen Elizabeth II.- mit Captain Peter Townsend in ueüdafrika- 1955 (Photo by ullstein bild/ullstein bild via Getty Images)" title="Margaret Rose, Prinzessin - Graefin von Snowdon, GB/ mit Peter Townsend" /> But Townsend was divorced (although the innocent party) which meant that the Queen, as Head of the Church of England, which in those days forbade the remarriage of divorced persons, could not give her consent. At 25, if Margaret gave up much of her royal status, she would be free to marry. But when the time came, she renounced Townsend in a touching statement. Party years Then came the party years: Margaret in a wasp-waisted Dior dress, long ivory cigarette holder in manicured hand, Margaret in night clubs, Margaret doing the can-can at the American Embassy, Margaret at the centre of a group of friends, her violet-blue eyes smiling first on one suitor, then another – among them Colin Tennant (later Lord Glenconner), ‘Johnny’ Dalkeith and ‘Sunny’ Blandford, heirs to the Buccleuch and Marlborough fortunes and estates respectively; ideal conventional husbands for a princess. Read more | “Cheap men and expensive bottles”: Princess Margaret’s love affairs She was the Diana of her day, one of the two most photographed women in the world (the other was Elizabeth Taylor) and garlanded with the aura of a tragic romance. An unlikely suitor But Princess Margaret did not settle for domesticity with a duke. Instead, in an extraordinary divergence from conventional royal behaviour, she chose a photographer, Antony Armstrong-Jones (later Lord Snowdon) at a time when photography was regarded as a trade rather than a profession. True, Tony, as everyone called him, had been to Eton and danced at debutante balls, but when he took the photographs for Colin Tennant’s wedding to Lady Anne Coke (later Lady Glenconner, she became a lady-in-waiting to the princess), he was sent to the back door tradesman’s entrance and Anne’s father, the Earl of Leicester, derogatorily dubbed him ‘Tony Snapshot’. Unlike other royal courtships, Margaret’s romance with Tony was conducted in such total secrecy that the first the world, and the avid press, knew of it was the announcement of their engagement on the Six O’Clock News. They were married in May 1960. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-3426604-c8fea3f-e1667818578529.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="1964: Princess Margaret (1930 - 2002) with Lord Snowdon and Viscount Linley at Kensington Palace shortly after the birth of her daughter, Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones. (Photo by Fox Photos/Getty Images)" title="1964: Princess Margaret (1930 - 2002) with Lord Snowdon and Viscount Linley at Kensington Palace shortly after the birth of her daughter, Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones. (Photo by Fox Photos/Getty Images)" /> After the birth of Princess Margaret and Antony’s two children, their marriage gradually began to fall apart and, although they did not divorce until 1978, both largely went their separate ways. Around the same time, Margaret began making annual visits to the Caribbean island of Mustique, where its owner, her friend Colin Glenconner, had given her a plot of land on which a private villa was built – Les Jolies Eaux. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-1302429443-7601241-e1667818668402.jpg" width="620" height="404" alt="Princess Margaret, Colin Tennant, Lord Glenconner and Anne Tennant, Lady Glenconner wait on the jetty for Queen Elizabeth ll and Prince Philip's arrival to Mustique on Britannia in1977 in Mustique. (Photo Anwar Hussein/Getty Images)." title="Princess Margaret, Colin Tennant, Lord Glenconner and Anne Tennant, Lady Glenconner wait on the jetty for Queen Elizabeth ll and Prince Philip's arrival to Mustique on Britannia in1977 in Mustique. (Photo Anwar Hussein/Getty Images)." /> In 1973, she began an affair with Roddy Llewellyn, a sweet-natured man 17 years her junior. When it was revealed, causing a tabloid scandal, Margaret was vilified; a far cry from her celebrations as a glittering young debutante. Throughout these turbulent years, Margaret’s love and loyalty to the Queen never faltered. Although they had very different personalities, she said they rarely argued. “I’ve only twice ever had a row with my sister,” Margaret told author Andrew Duncan. The two would speak on the telephone most days; what the Queen wished for above all was her sister’s happiness saying, much later, to Anne Glenconner: “It was rather difficult at moments, but I thank you so much for introducing Princess Margaret to Roddy because he made her really happy.” How did Princess Margaret die? As she entered her sixties, Princess Margaret’s health deserted her. She had smoked heavily since her early teens – although she gave up smoking in 1991 – and drunk equally heavily, mostly her favourite whisky, Famous Grouse. Already, at 54, a portion of her left lung had been removed and she suffered from migraines, bronchitis and laryngitis. Additionally, Anne Glenconner had noticed that she would often pause in mid-sentence for a few seconds before carrying on as if nothing had happened. In 1993, she was rushed to hospital with pneumonia. Then 1998, on her annual three-week visit to Mustique, she and the Glenconners were out to dinner with friends when Margaret suddenly slumped over the table. She had suffered a mild stoke but, bar a slight speech impediment, seemed to recover well from it. And then came the trauma of the bathtub scalding. Despite her injuries, Margaret had to leave the villa because her son, David Linley, had let it out almost immediately afterwards. Somehow Janie found them another place but she had to leave shortly thereafter. So, Anne Glenconner took over as the princess’s day-and-night nurse. She wore a buzzer around her neck at all times and, as the princess would allow no one in her room but Anne, whom she summoned constantly, it was a wearing time. Eventually the exhausted Anne rang the Queen to say that either she must have more help or else the princess must be flown home – by Concorde, as she was not strong enough for the much longer regular transatlantic flight. The two were flown home. Margaret’s recovery was slow and only partial, and she suffered a relapse before Christmas 2000. Three months later, in March 2001, she had a further stroke, which left her paralysed down her left side so that she now needed a wheelchair. Her sight was also impaired. Princess Margaret's final moments and death She was last seen in public before Christmas 2001 at the 100th birthday party of Princess Alice, the dowager duchess of Gloucester, sitting in a wheelchair, her face puffy and swollen through medication, her famous eyes hidden behind dark glasses. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-52107207-edfaa3b-e1667818805886.jpg" width="413" height="619" alt="LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - AUGUST 04: Princess Margaret At Clarence House She Is In A Wheelchair After Suffering A Number Of Strokes. Helping Her Is The Queen Mother's Butler William Tallon. (Photo by Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)" title="Margaret In Wheelchair" /> Soon afterwards, after a further stroke that left her with heart problems, she was rushed to the King Edward VII’s Hospital in London, where she died peacefully in her sleep at 6.30am on 9 February 2002, her son and daughter at her side. Her final years were a sad contrast with the lovely young woman remembered by so many and, by the Queen, as “my beloved sister”. Read more | The Queen's "rebel sister": 13 facts about Princess Margaret Anne de Courcy is a writer, journalist and book reviewer and the author of the authoritative Lord Snowdon biography (Snowdon: the Biography, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2008) Read more about the history behind each episode of The Crown season 5: The Crown S5 E1: ‘Queen Victoria Syndrome’ and a second honeymoon The Crown S5 E2: Prince Philip’s ‘keeper of secrets’ and Andrew Norton’s book on Princess Diana The Crown S5 E3: exiled royals and the al-Fayeds The Crown S5 E4: the Queen’s “annus horribilis” and Princess Margaret’s relationship with Peter Townsend The Crown S5 E5 real history: ‘Camillagate’ tapes and a “war council” for the monarchy’s survival The Crown S5 E6 real history: the Romanovs’ murder, and Philip’s “spiritual companionship” The Crown S5 E7 real history: the introduction of Martin Bashir, and a royal education The Crown S5 E8 real history: Diana’s Panorama interview causes fireworks The Crown S5 E9 real history: the divorce settlement between Charles and Diana
Queen Elizabeth's relationships with US presidents
Queen Elizabeth II's 70-year reign spanned the rule of 14 US presidents, all of whom she met except one. These relationships, writes Lauren Good, provide us with an intimate understanding of the alliance between Britain and the United States...
Queen Elizabeth II’s 70-year reign spanned the rule of 14 US presidents, all of whom she met except Lyndon B Johnson. These encounters were more diverse than might be expected, and ranged from traditional teas at Buckingham Palace to the Queen tasting her first enchilada at an American ranch. And her meetings were not short of the occasional mishap. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter caused consternation when he kissed the Queen Mother and, more recently, President Donald Trump broke royal protocol by standing ahead of Her Majesty during an inspection of the Royal Guard. Some meetings, though, were triumphant. Queen Elizabeth II exchanged letters with President Dwight D Eisenhower for years after their first meeting, and even shared a family scone recipe. She also found common ground with President Ronald Reagan over their love of horses, and he was the first US president to stay the night at Windsor Castle. Queen Elizabeth’s relationship with each president was unique, and provides an intimate understanding of the enduring alliance between Britain and the United States since the mid-20th century. President Harry Truman, 1945–53 <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/truman-cfc28cc-e1666175673162.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="President Harry Truman and Princess Elizabeth in a motorcar following the reception ceremony at Washington National Airport. (Picture by Getty)" title="President Harry Truman and Princess Elizabeth in a motorcar following the reception ceremony at Washington National Airport. (Picture by Getty)" /> The Queen was a princess when she first met Harry Truman in 1951. She was only 25 years old and was visiting the United States on behalf of her father, King George VI, who was unwell at the time of the scheduled overseas trip. She disembarked from the plane wearing – some observed at the time – a little more makeup than usual. But she needn’t have worried about first impressions: “Whenever anyone becomes acquainted with you,” Truman told her that day, “they immediately fall in love.” On the podcast | British royal family podcast episodes When greeting Truman, she said: “In that other proud capital where I live, and in Canada from where I have just come, we also are determined to work with all our strength for freedom and for peace.” These words provided a glimpse of the future relations between the British monarchy and the US federation. President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953–61 President Eisenhower hosted Elizabeth II for her first state visit to the US as Queen, at a banquet in the White House. Along with his black tails and white shirt, Eisenhower wore the British Order of Merit award given to him by the Queen’s father, George VI. This was in recognition of his work as the supreme commander of allied forces in Europe, during the Second World War. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/eisenhower-d76aabd-e1666175805866.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="Queen Elizabeth with President Dwight Eisenhower at a White House State banquet. Eisenhower is wearing the British Order of Merit awarded him by King George VI after World War II. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)" title="Queen Elizabeth with President Dwight Eisenhower at a White House State banquet. Eisenhower is wearing the British Order of Merit awarded him by King George VI after World War II. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)" /> Eisenhower also visited the Queen at Balmoral Castle in August 1959, during which he was promised a family recipe for scones. We can see from her letters that this was, indeed, shared. President John F Kennedy, 1961–63 John F Kennedy was the first president to be hosted by Queen Elizabeth II in London. He visited Buckingham Palace with First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy during their tour of France, Austria, and the UK in 1961. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/kennedy-d892d4b-e1666175899197.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="At Buckingham Palace during a banquet held in his honour, President John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963) (right) and his wife, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (1929 - 1994) (second left), pose with Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain (second right) and her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, London, United Kingdom, June 15, 1961. (Photo by Photoquest/Getty Images)" title="At Buckingham Palace during a banquet held in his honour, President John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963) (right) and his wife, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (1929 - 1994) (second left), pose with Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain (second right) and her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, London, United Kingdom, June 15, 1961. (Photo by Photoquest/Getty Images)" /> However, their meeting was not all smooth sailing, and there were reported tensions between Queen Elizabeth and Jacqueline. Cecil Beaton, who photographed the First Lady numerous times, later claimed she was “unimpressed by the palace furnishings and by the Queen’s dress and hairstyle.” Read more | In pictures: Queen Elizabeth II through the decades Despite these earlier strains, Queen Elizabeth corresponded with Kennedy until his assassination in 1963. Following the president’s death, a memorial was erected in Surrey in his honour, where Jacqueline and the former president’s children joined the Queen in paying tribute. President Lyndon B Johnson, 1963–69 Queen Elizabeth did not meet President Lyndon B Johnson. The palace or White House has never offered any definitive explanation for this, but it is supposed this could be because his presidency was consumed by the Vietnam War. However, Princess Margaret, the Queen’s younger sister, attended a White House dinner dance in November 1965, maintaining the diplomatic ties between the British royal family and the US presidency. During the evening, both Princess Margaret and the president made speeches, and later partnered in a dance to 'Everything’s Coming Up Roses'. President Richard Nixon, 1969–74 Queen Elizabeth first met Richard Nixon when he was Eisenhower’s vice president. A few weeks after his inauguration as president, on 15 February 1969, he visited Buckingham Palace. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/nixon-c79ca85-e1666176032338.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="Queen Elizabeth with British Prime Minister Edward Heath, along with President Richard Nixon and his wife Patricia at Chequers, Heath's official country residence, 1970. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" title="Queen Elizabeth with British Prime Minister Edward Heath, along with President Richard Nixon and his wife Patricia at Chequers, Heath's official country residence, 1970. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" /> The following year, in July 1970, the Queen visited Canada. On this trip, she was accompanied by Prince Phillip and their two eldest children, Princess Anne and Prince Charles. After this, Prince Charles and Princess Anne made an official visit to the United States. It was at this time that Nixon reportedly attempted to instigate a union between his daughter, Tricia, and Prince Charles. Once the royal family had left, Tricia declared the prince an “excellent dancer” and that “the house is going to seem empty without them”. King Charles III later commented on the visit, recalling with apparently less fondness “the time when they were trying to marry me off to Tricia Nixon”. Ultimately, Nixon failed in his efforts to influence Tricia’s matrimonial choices. Less than a year following the royal’s visit, she married Edward Cox in the White House Rose Garden. A decade later, in July 1981, Charles married Lady Diana Spencer. President Gerald Ford, 1974–77 <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/ford-87b661d-e1666176169952.jpg" width="620" height="399" alt="President Gerald Ford dancing with Queen Elizabeth at a ball at the White House, Washington, during the 1976 Bicentennial Celebrations of the Declaration of Independence, 7th July 1976. (Photo by Universal History Archive/Getty Images)" title="President Gerald Ford dancing with Queen Elizabeth at a ball at the White House, Washington, during the 1976 Bicentennial Celebrations of the Declaration of Independence, 7th July 1976. (Photo by Universal History Archive/Getty Images)" /> Queen Elizabeth met President Gerald Ford along with Prince Phillip during a state visit to the US, for the bicentennial celebrations of the Declaration of Independence. She was also hosted by First Lady Betty Ford. When being escorted to the Yellow Oval Room, the Ford’s second oldest son, Jack, appeared with an undone shirt and studs in hand. Betty Ford recalled the Queen having said, “Oh think nothing of it. I have one of those [a son] at home.” Read more | Queen Elizabeth II: mother, monarch, matriarch Later, in her toast, the Queen described the union between Great Britain and the United States: “History is not a fairy tale,” she said. “What is more important is that our shared language and traditions and history have given us a common vision of what is right and just.” Betty Ford referred to the Queen’s visit in her memoirs, writing: “If I hadn't kept mixing up Your Highness and Your Majesty, I'd give myself four stars for the way that visit went off.” President Jimmy Carter, 1977–81 <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/jimmy-carter-9decd6f-e1666176247999.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="President Jimmy Carter standing with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace, at a dinner for NATO summit leaders. (Picture by Getty)" title="President Jimmy Carter standing with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace, at a dinner for NATO summit leaders. (Picture by Getty)" /> President Jimmy Carter attended Buckingham Palace for a NATO convention on 10 May 1977. When he was introduced to the Queen Mother, he committed the ultimate faux pas by kissing her on the lips. “Nobody has done that since my husband died,” she remarked. The Queen Mother later commented on the blunder, saying “I took a sharp step backwards – not quite far enough.” President Ronald Reagan, 1981–89 Queen Elizabeth seems to have been most comfortable with President Ronald Reagan, and met with him many times. He was the first US president to stay the night at Windsor Castle, and visited with his wife, Nancy Reagan, on 8 June 1982. This was one of his three visits to the UK. Read more | Fit for the Queen: Elizabeth II's royal residences During the first stay, Elizabeth II and Reagan bonded over their love of horses, and rode through the Windsor estate for over an hour. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/reagan-817c006-e1666176390614.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="Queen Elizabeth riding her horse 'Burmese' in Windsor with President Reagan who rode 'Centennial'. (Picture by Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)" title="Queen Elizabeth riding her horse 'Burmese' in Windsor with President Reagan who rode 'Centennial'. (Picture by Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)" /> Reagan later described this trip as a “fairy-tale visit” in his memoir, and one of the most “fun” moments of his presidency. He also admitted to the Queen being “quite an accomplished horsewoman”. Later, the Reagans hosted Her Majesty and Prince Phillip at their home, Rancho del Cielo, near Santa Barbara. There, she first ate enchiladas, tacos, and refried beans which she later mistakenly referred to as “used”. In 1989, the Queen awarded Reagan with an honorary knighthood, a certain symbol of their close relationship. President George HW Bush, 1989–93 President Bush and Barbara Bush had lunch at Buckingham Palace in 1989, where they met with the Queen and Prince Phillip. Two years later, the Queen attended a Major League Baseball game in Baltimore with Bush. According to onlookers, she fully immersed herself in the proceedings, and even held a receiving line with the players in the Orioles dugout. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/georg-h-w-bush-8677cd1-e1666176481204.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="Members of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, including manager Tony La Russa (fore, center left), shake hands with, rear, from second left, US President George H. W. Bush, British monarch Queen Elizabeth II, and First Lady Barbara Bush in a dugout at Memorial Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland, May 15, 1991. During her State Visit, the Queen was there to watch a baseball game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Oakland Athletics, the latter of whom went on to win the game, 6-3. (Photo by Arnie Sachs/CNP/Getty Images)" title="Members of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, including manager Tony La Russa (fore, center left), shake hands with, rear, from second left, US President George H. W. Bush, British monarch Queen Elizabeth II, and First Lady Barbara Bush in a dugout at Memorial Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland, May 15, 1991. During her State Visit, the Queen was there to watch a baseball game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Oakland Athletics, the latter of whom went on to win the game, 6-3. (Photo by Arnie Sachs/CNP/Getty Images)" /> President Bill Clinton, 1993–2001 Queen Elizabeth first met President Bill Clinton at a dinner on 4 June 1994 in Portsmouth, for the 50th anniversary of D-Day. They met again in 1995 at Buckingham Palace, accompanied by First Lady Hilary Clinton. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/bill-clinton-4bc542f-e1666176648816.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="The Queen and Prince Phillip sitting with President Bill Clinton at a banquet held at Portsmouth Guildhall as part of the D-Day commemorations. (Picture by Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)" title="The Queen and Prince Phillip sitting with President Bill Clinton at a banquet held at Portsmouth Guildhall as part of the D-Day commemorations. (Picture by Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)" /> President Clinton recorded his thoughts of the Queen in his memoir: “Her Majesty impressed me as someone who but for the circumstance of her birth, might have become a successful politician or diplomat. As it was, she had to be both, without quite seeming to be either.” President George W Bush, 2001–2009 Her Majesty met President George W Bush and First Lady Laura Bush at Buckingham Palace in 2001. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/george-w-bush-641f386-e1666176905431.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="President George W. Bush the Queen Elizabeth II on the North Portico of the White House for a formal white-tie state dinner May 7, 2007 in Washington, DC. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, were on a six day trip to the United States. (Picture by Win McNamee/Getty Images)" title="President George W. Bush the Queen Elizabeth II on the North Portico of the White House for a formal white-tie state dinner May 7, 2007 in Washington, DC. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, were on a six day trip to the United States. (Picture by Win McNamee/Getty Images)" /> His later return in 2003 was overshadowed by street demonstrations over the war in Iraq. Security was, therefore, very heavy, and the visit was highly controlled. Four years later, the Queen visited President George Bush at the White House. “If the Atlantic unites, not divides us,” she said during this trip, “ours is a partnership always to be reckoned with in the defence of freedom and the spread of prosperity. That is the lesson of my lifetime. Administrations in your country, and governments in mine, may come and go… But united we must always remain.” President Barak Obama, 2009–2017 President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama made a state visit to Buckingham Palace on 1 April 2009. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/barak-obama-ffc78b1-e1666177009301.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="Queen Elizabeth poses with President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in the Music Room of Buckingham Palace ahead of a State Banquet on May 24, 2011 in London, England. (Picture by Chris Jackson - WPA Pool/Getty Images)" title="Queen Elizabeth poses with President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in the Music Room of Buckingham Palace ahead of a State Banquet on May 24, 2011 in London, England. (Picture by Chris Jackson - WPA Pool/Getty Images)" /> Obama presented Her Majesty with an iPod containing video footage of her previous visits to the United States, along with recordings of Broadway songs. She also received a signed songbook by composer Richard Rogers. Michelle Obama revealed in her memoir Becoming that she made a faux pas by placing her arm around the Queen. Her Majesty was believed to have taken no offence, as she politely returned the gesture. “She is truly one of my favourite people,” President Obama commented in 2016. “She’s an astonishing person, and a real jewel to the world and not just to the United Kingdom”. President Donald Trump, 2017–2021 President Trump visited the Queen at Windsor Castle on 13 July, 2018. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/trump-eb3248b-e1666177072178.jpg" width="620" height="389" alt="President Donald Trump and Queen Elizabeth inspect a Guard of Honour, formed of the Coldstream Guards at Windsor Castle on July 13, 2018 in Windsor, England. (Picture by Matt Dunham - WPA Pool/Getty Images)" title="President Donald Trump and Queen Elizabeth inspect a Guard of Honour, formed of the Coldstream Guards at Windsor Castle on July 13, 2018 in Windsor, England. (Picture by Matt Dunham - WPA Pool/Getty Images)" /> In keeping with tradition, Trump carried out an inspection of the Royal Guard on the palace grounds. However, in a much publicised faux pas, he cut in front of the Queen and blocked her path. The proceedings continued once she had resumed her proper position. President Joe Biden 2021– <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/10/joe-biden-6c20888-e1666177166116.jpg" width="620" height="414" alt="Queen Elizabeth speaks with President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden, along with leaders of the G7 during a reception at The Eden Project on June 11, 2021. (Picture by JACK HILL / POOL / AFP) (Photo by JACK HILL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)" title="Queen Elizabeth speaks with President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden, along with leaders of the G7 during a reception at The Eden Project on June 11, 2021. (Picture by JACK HILL / POOL / AFP) (Photo by JACK HILL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)" /> The Queen met Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden on 11 June 2021, at the Group of Seven summit reception in Cornwall. He was the 13th, and last, US president she met during her reign. Prince Phillip had died only two months prior to this visit, and Biden paid tribute to him during a speech he made the day before. “Today would have been Prince Philip's 100th birthday," he said. "I know there are a lot of people feeling his absence today." Read more | Queen Elizabeth II: 50+ facts about her life and reign Her Majesty also had an audience with Biden on 13 June at Windsor Castle. Following their meeting, Biden noted the Queen’s graciousness and said she reminded him of his own mother. He and Jill Biden noted Queen Elizabeth’s legacy after her death, saying “she was more than a monarch. She defined an era.”