The limits of power of monarchs in exile: Part II

Tags

Austria, Austria-Hungary, Constitutional Monarchy, Karl von Habburg, King Michael of Romania, Otto von Habsburg, Romania, SalicLaw

 Last week I wrote of the controversy surrounding the disputed successor to the Headship of the Royal House of Saxony. This raises the question of does the head of these former ruling houses have the power to change centuries old house laws? With so many disputes after the head of the house dies, I guess the consensus is that they do not have that power or right. I think what may be closer to the truth is that the heads of these former ruling dynasties is that they have no power to make their new laws or ruling stick past their tenure as head of the house.

The Imperial House of Austria has been somewhat more successful in changing their house laws. They had had very rigid marital laws and when the now head of the house, Archduke Karl (Emperor Karl II to his supporters) married in 1993 to Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza. The marriage received the dynastic authorization of Karl’s father, Archduke Otto who was then head of the House of Habsburg, despite objections from some members of the dynasty because the brides family was not aristocratic enough. Baroness Francesca is the only daughter of Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon, a European industrialist, and his third wife, Fiona Campbell-Walter. The Thyssen-Bornemisza family is of the nobility of pre-republican Hungary and Transylvania, but since they did not descend in the canonically legitimate male line from a family of dynastic, mediatised or alter Adel status, many former Habsburg family members protested the marriage. Since that time Otto amended the rigid marriage rules to allow marriages into noble families that would not have been deemed acceptable during the times when the dynasty ruled.

Romania is another case. King Michael was ousted in 1946 (many say illegally) and he leaves no male heir. His eldest daughter is Princess Margarita and in 2007 the king designated her as his heir with the titles of “Crown Princess of Romania” and “Custodian of the Romanian Crown.” This is technically against the Romanian kingdom’s last democratically approved constitution of 1923 which was in effect while the monarchy was extant. That constitution stated that upon the death of King Michael, and should he have no sons, the claim to the Crown devolves once again upon the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family from which the Romanian royal family descends.

The Constitution of 1923 provides for an agnatic primogeniture (basically the “Salic law”) which means males only may inherit the throne, barring females, and females may not pass succession rights to their children. However, the 1923 Constitution is no longer in affect but many feel that the traditions behind those ancient laws still carry the rule of the day. Under the old constitution the next in line to the Romanian throne are the descendants of Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern (1924-2010).

These are the Hohenzollern members in line to the throne under the old Constitution.

1. Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern (b. 1952)
2. Alexander, Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern (b. 1987)
3. Prince Albrecht of Hohenzollern (b. 1954)

4. Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern (b. 1960)
5. Prince Aloys of Hohenzollern (b. 1999)
6. Prince Fidelis of Hohenzollern (b. 2001)

The Romanian situation is complex and so I will continue with this next week and then give my overall opinion on if a former monarch or head of a former ruling dynasty does have the right to change their house laws.

Aftermath of the Assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand

Tags

Austria, Austria-Hungary, Austrian Empire, Franz-Ferdinand, Franz-Josef, Gavrilo Princip, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany

Aftermath of the Assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand

One of the sad things for me is that even in death the insults and snubs to the Archduke’s wife Sofie continued. Alfred, 2nd Prince of Montenuovo, Emperor Franz Joseph’s Chamberlain, hated Franz Ferdinand and Sophie passionately and decided to turn the funeral into a massive and vicious snub. Foreign royalty had been invited to the funeral and planned to attend. Generally when an heir to the throne had passed away there were would be a large funeral attended by many royal heads of state. However, on this occasion they were pointedly dis-invited and a much smaller funeral planned with just the immediate imperial family, with the dead couple’s three children excluded from the few public ceremonies. The officer corps was forbidden to salute the funeral train, and this led to a minor revolt led by Archduke Karl, the new heir to the throne. The public viewing of the coffins was curtailed severely and even more scandalously, Montenuovo tried unsuccessfully to make the children foot the bill. Also during the viewing the Archduke’s coffin was set higher than Sofie’s to remind all that she was not an equal to her husband. The Archduke and Duchess were interred at Artstetten Castle because his wife could not be buried at the Imperial Crypt.

Of course the largest aftermath was War. However, I wanted to share what happened to the assassin, Gavrilo Princip. Like his fellow assassin Čabrinović who tried to swallow the cyanide pill but vomited instead, Princip had the same experience with his cyanide pill. It seems they had purchased stale cyanide that was out of date. Princeip was arrested and in October of 1914 was convicted of his part in the murder of the Archduke and his wife. Princip was too young to receive the death penalty, being only twenty-seven days short of the 20-year age limit required by Habsburg law for the death sentence. Instead, he received the maximum sentence of twenty years in prison. He was held in harsh conditions and squalor which were worsened by the war as supplies went to the war effort. While in prison he contracted tuberculosis. He died on April 28, 1918 at Terezín 3 years and 10 months after he assassinated the Archduke and Duchess. At the time of his death, Princip, weakened by malnutrition and disease, weighed around 40 kilograms (88 lb; 6 st 4 lb). His body had become racked by skeletal tuberculosis that ate away his bones so badly that his right arm had to be amputated. Now I am not happy that this man assassinated the Archduke and Duchess, but his treatment in prison was inhumane.

As the saying goes “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”? He’s their freedom fighter. Well in Serbia Princip is still regarded as a national hero and on the 100th anniversary of the assassination of the Archduke and Duchess Bosnian Serbs erected a statue of Gavrilo Princip.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/27/gavrilo-princip-statue_n_5538356.html

War broke out on July 28th, 1914 when Austria fired the first shots in its invasion of Serbia. Russia mobilized against Germany, while Germany invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before moving towards France, causing Britain to declare war on Germany. Closer to July 28th I will focus on what the three emperors, Franz-Joseph of Austria-Hungary, Nicholas II of Russia and Wilhelm II of Germany, did to either prevent or encourage the war.

The Fall of Louis XVI of France and Navarre: Part V

Tags

Austria, Emperor Leopold II, Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia, Holy Roman Empire, Leopold II, Louis XIV of France, Louis XVI of France, Marie Antoinette, Tuileries Palace

Part V

Despite the Kings flight from the Palace the Legislative Assembly still favored a constitutional monarchy. After a new Constitution was written and Louis agreed to swear an oath to uphold it, there was still a chance the monarchy could survive. What most people often think is that that the Enlightenment ideals were against a monarchy because the French Revolution came so quickly on the heels of the American Revolution where the former British Colonies said “No” to being ruled by a king. That is not the case. The Enlightenment ideals supported many types of government as long as it was the will of the people and that they had a say in the process of government. While an absolute monarchy, which was the type Louis XVI inherited, was not congenial to Enlightenment principles but a constitutional or limited monarchy was favorable because it limited the powers of the monarch and allowed for elected officials that represented the populace.

However, it seems with what transpired next, it wasn’t so much that a constitutional monarchy was against the Enlightenment or the Revolution, it seems that those in the French government grew tired of Louis. One of the events that lead to the toppling of Louis and his crown was the war between France and the Holy Roman Empire in April of 1792. At this time Marie-Antoinette’s brother, was Leopold II, the Holy Roman Emperor. Leopold, along with King Friedrich-Wilhelm III of Prussia and French Émigrés issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which declared that in the interest of the all European monarchs of Europe that the well-being of Louis and his family was essential, and threatened vague but severe consequences if anything should befall them. Shortly after this deceleration the Legislative Assembly, with the support of Louis, ironically, declared war on the Holy Roman Empire.

This war solidified many factions within the Revolution. To these revolutionaries this war was not about the protection of the Royal Family but against French sovereignty itself. When the leader of the Prussian-Austrian army Prince Carl-Wilhelm-Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick issued a proclamation called the Brunswick Manifesto on July 25, 1792, written by Louis’s émigré cousin, Louis Joseph de Bourbon the Prince de Condé, declaring the intent of the Austrians and Prussians to restore the king to his full powers and to treat any person or town who opposed them as rebels to be condemned to death by martial law, this was the final blow for Louis.

Paris mobs had reached their boiling point. With foreign powers threatening to give Louis his full absolute powers and threatening French sovereignty, Paris mobs marched on the Tuileries Palace where both the Royal Family and the monarchist members of the Legislative Assembly had taken refuge. On August 13, 1792 Louis XVI and his family were formally arrested. The Legislative Assembly was replaced by a National Assembly which formally abolished the Monarchy on September 21, 1792.

It is difficult to evaluate Louis’ actions and figure where did he go wrong? One of Louis’ problems was that he was a kind man yet indecisive. If he had been a powerful presence would the outcome have been the same? I really don’t know. It seems even with a powerful ruler the Revolution was larger than one man. In the light of the revolution many of Louis’ actions are understandable.

As a prisoner in the Tuileries Palace he had but little choice but to go along with the revolutionary government. I don’t think all of his actions with the government were insincere. While he was an absolute monarch at heart he did show some level of willingness to work with the government. I do not really think Louis would have objected to a role as a Constitutional monarch. I do see the radical nature of the Revolutionary assemblies as having much to do with Louis’ downfall. It was not all of his fault.

He did, however, play a role. The two largest issues seem to be his flight from the Tuileries Palace and his plotting with foreign powers to end the revolution and to be restored to his full powers. I do think those were the two major points that brought Louis down. However, I can have empathy for him. I do not blame him for trying to regain power. Who wouldn’t have under those circumstances? Plus after a couple of years being a prisoner in his own palace, I can’t blame him for trying to flee that condition.

For myself, I think the larger problem was the absolute monarchy itself. The seeds were sown and the threads for its downfall were laid in the times of Louis XIV. His hunger for power, territory and war was something his successor Louis XV strived for. In some lesser extent so did Louis XVI. Another key ingredient was by placing the court at Versailles and isolating the King from his people, the monarchy lost touch with the common man and his sufferings. That was the true issue that brought down the monarchy.

The Fall of Louis XVI of France and Navarre: Part IV

Tags

Austria, Constitutional Monarchy, French Émigrés, French Revolution, Legislative Assembly, Louis XVI of France, Marie Antoinette, Tuileries Palace, Varennes

Part IV

Things took a turn for the worse for Louis XVI and family in 1791 when the Constituent Assembly was replaced with the Legislative Assembly. This assembly consisted of two factions. One group, known as the Freuillants were wealthy middle class men that supported a Constitutional Monarchy and felt the revolution had runs its course. The second group, the Democratic faction did not trust the king and felt the revolutionary principles had to continue to reform society and the government.

The reason the Democratic faction did not trust the king? That came on 1791. Louis was very discontent being a prisoner of the revolution. He had been conspiring behind closed doors with diplomats favorable to the king. Louis envisioned a congress consisting of French Émigrés that would, along with foreign troops, restore the king to his full powers and end the revolution.

This was not occurring swiftly enough and on the night of June 21, 1791 (223 years ago tomorrow)  Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette their two surviving children fled from the Palace. They were soon recognized, making it as far a Varennes where they were apprehended and arrested and returned to the Palace. The Legislative Assembly stripped Louis of his remaining powers. This flight was seen as a betrayal of the revolution and it greatly shocked the French people, who, up until then, saw Louis and the Royal Family as symbols of the revolution and champions for progress and change. The flight from the Tuileries Palace changed all of that and from that moment the monarchy lost considerable support.

Was this the point of no return for Louis? Was this his fatal mistake? As we shall see in the next section this was a monumental moment in the reign of Louis XVI. With the notion of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings gone forever in France, the notion of popular sovereignty was keeping the monarchy alive. As long as a majority of the people supported the king then the throne was stable. This betrayal greatly weakened that support.

We shall see in the next and last section that this stumble was Louis’ last mistake. For the final events that toppled the crown from his head were not of his doing.

 

The Fall of Louis XVI of France and Navarre: Part II

Tags

Ancien Régime, Austria, Encyclopédie, Franz I, French Revolution, Holy Roman Emperor Franz I, Holy Roman Empire, Louis XVI of France, Maria Theresa, Marie Antoinette, Rousseau, The Enlightenment

On May 10, 1774 King Louis XV of France and Navarre died after a reign of 59 years leaving the throne to his grandson who became King Louis XVI of France and Navarre. Tracking the fall of Louis XVI isn’t always easy because proving that one event caused another can be rather difficult to prove. However, there were a few things that do weight heavily in the direction of Louis’ downfall.

Louis came to the throne amidst many changes in Europe and France in particular. This was the Age of Enlightenment when things such as tradition and religion were being questioned in favor of reason, individualism and along with the scientific method were being explored with the goal of changing society. Skepticism and intellectualism were being praised as logic and empiricism was now the yardstick in measuring knowledge and wisdom. In France, the Enlightenment ideas were discussed in salons all over Paris and larger cities which culminated in the great Encyclopédie (1751–72) edited by Denis Diderot (1713–1784) and Jean le Rond d’Alembert (1717–1783). This historic tome was developed with contributions by leading intellectuals, notably Voltaire (1694–1778), Rousseau (1712–1778) and Montesquieu (1689–1755).

The ideals heavily influenced Louis’ early reign and he attempted reforms that agreed with these principles. These reforms included efforts to abolish serfdom, remove the taille, and increase tolerance toward non-Catholics. The reaction by the more tradition bound and conservative French nobility angrily opposed their implementation with great success. The failure to enforce his reforms increased discontent among the common people who felt that Louis should have been bold in his leadership when confronting the French Nobility.

During the early part of his reign came the American Revolution from Great Britain, France’s long time enemy. The American Revolution was also influenced by Age of Enlightenment ideals which Louis supported. From 1776 Louis XVI actively supported the North American colonists, by supplying troops, food and money. The French were very instrumental in assisting the colonies in their war for independence which was realized in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Although the French were triumphant against Britain, the ensuing debt and financial crisis contributed to the unpopularity of the Ancien Régime which culminated at the Estates-General of 1789 for the first time in over one hundred years.

Although Louis was favorable toward Enlightenment ideals he was still an absolute monarch and the principles of absolute monarchy were also well instilled within him and his queen, Marie-Antoinette. I could do a whole series on Marie-Antoinette and in the future I am sure I will. Louis married Marie-Antoinette when she was only 15 and he was 16. I am that placing these strangers together at such a young age contributed to their development. Part of the Palace system was living in isolation at court which helped them live lives cut off from the common people and their circumstances.

Maria Antonia Josepha was born an Archduchess of Austria, was Dauphine of France from 1770 to 1774 and Queen of France and Navarre from 1774 to 1792. She was the fifteenth and penultimate child of Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor Franz I. Was she the villain revolutionaries made her out to be? Was she a victim of her times? That is a question for another blog entry. The French people initially fell in love with the young princess from Austria, but after a few scandals and rumors of her extravagant lifestyle she became very disliked among the French population. As we shall see in the final chapter her greatest ‘sin” is that helped her husband and herself in their own downfall was the principles of absolute monarchy which helped place her and Louis so out of touch with the people and their times.

The Fall of Louis XVI of France and Navarre: Part I

Tags

Austria, French Revolution, House of Bourbon, Kings of france, Louis XV of France., Louis XVI, Louis XVI of France, Marie Antoinette

I have always had a soft spot for King Louis XVI of France and Navarre. I am not a fan of capital punishment to begin with and it always seems a sense of injustice for Louis to have loss his head during the french Revolution. Another interesting part of the life of Louis XVI I like to examine is how did he go from King to a prisoner that was executed? What were his faults that led him down that path? Was it all his fault? Once the revolution began was the fall of the monarchy inevitable? Was he a scapegoat? Could he have done something different to have influenced the outcome of his circumstances? Those are some of the things I would like to investigate in this short series.

Louis XVI is an example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was an absolute monarch who did not posses the abilities for the office for which he was born. Despite lacking the ability to be an absolute monarch he was, by all accounts, a very decent human being who did not deserve the fate that he experienced.

HRH Prince Louis Auguste de Bourbon of France was born  August 23, 1754 to HRH The Dauphin (Prince Louis Ferdinand, son of King Louis XV) and his second wife Maria Josepha of Saxony (daughter of Imperial Prince-Elector Friedrich August II of Saxony, King of Poland and HIH Archduchess Maria Josepha of Austria). When Louis was born he had an elder brother ahead of him in the line of succession behind their father the Dauphin. Louis Joseph Xavier, Duke of Burgundy died in at the age of 9 and when Louis XVI was born his other elder brother, Xavier Marie Joseph de Bourbon of France had died that previous previous March 5 months prior to his birth. At his birth the future Louis XVI was created Duke of Berry by his grandfather, King Louis XV.

Because Louis was not the heir upon his birth, he spent the first seven years of his life feeling neglected due to the fact that his parents lavished their attention and affection on his older brother, Louis Joseph Xavier, Duke of Burgundy, until the young dukes death at the age of 9 in 1761. As Louis grew to maturity he excelled in his studies of Latin, history, geography, and astronomy. Other than speaking his native French Louis became fluent in both Italian and English. It was during these formative years that Louis developed his life long, and well know, hobby of being a locksmith. Despite all these successful endeavors Louis was always a shy, hesitant and indecisive individual.

In 1765 Louis’ father, the Dauphin, died from tuberculosis and within two years his mother also died, leaving the young Louis, now Dauphin of France, in the care of his grandfather, King Louis XV. Many historians have theorized that had Louis’ parents lived to mount the French throne, the Revolution of 1789 may have never happened or it would have been delayed. This is another “what if” in history. It is said that the Dauphine, Maria-Josepha, was a very kindly woman who had a compassion for the poor, something that it is said the future Marie Antoinette greatly lacked.

This gives us some background on Louis and it will help to understand some of his later behavior. In Part II I will examine his marriage to Marie Antoinette, Archduchess of Austria, and the early reign of Louis XVI. In Part III I will look at another great “what if” in history and examine where Louis XVI went wrong and where was his point of no return and what could he have done differently to save his throne if he could have done things differently?

 

Prince Ernst-August II of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland

Tags

Austria, Christian IX of Denmark, Duke of Cumberland, Emperor Alexander III of Russia, German Empire, Gmunden, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King Edward VII of Great Britain, King Frederik VIII of Denmark, King George I of Greece, Prince Ernst-August II of Hanover, Prussia, Queen Victoria, Titles Deprivation Act, World War I

I wanted to revive an old feature, where I would focus on one monarch or prince/princess. The problem with that in the past was that it was difficult for me to keep it brief. I ended up writing way too much for a blog post. So, I will revive this feature and see if I can keep it brief!!

HRH Prince Ernst-August II of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland. He was born in 21 September 1845 the eldest son of King Georg V of Hanover and Marie of Saxe-Altenburg. He was the grandson of Queen Victoria’s uncle, King Ernst-August I of Hanover. Prince Ernst-August’s father, Georg V of Hanover, lost the throne when it was annexed to Prussia in the 1866 war against Austria. As a descendant of King George III of Great Britain, Elector of Hanover, Prince Enrst-August II was heir to the vacant throne of Hanover and the Duchy of Brunswick as well as a British Prince and as Duke of Cumberland he was a British Peer.

Because of Hanover’s annexation to Prussia Ernst-August had long deep-seated prejudice and hatred toward all things Prussian and the House of Hohenzollern. For that reason he took Princess Thyra of Denmark as his wife. Thyra was the youngest daughter of  Christian IX of Denmark and Louise of Hesse-Kassel. The Danish Royal Family lost a war against Prussia in 1864 so they all shared a common hatred of Prussia. This marriage also made him the brother-in-law to King Frederik VIII of Denmark, King Edward VII of Great Britain, Emperor Alexander III of Russia and King George I of Greece.

Queen Victoria appointed the Duke of Cumberland a colonel in the British Army in 1876 and promoted him to major-general in 1886, lieutenant-general in 1892 and general in 1898. After his time in the British Army he lived in Gmunden, Upper Austria. Although he never renounced the succession to the thrones of Hanover and Brunswick Ernst-August II was eventually reconciled to Prussia when his eldest surviving son, Ernst-August III, married Princess Victoria-Luise of Prussia, the only daughter of German Emperor Wilhelm II in 1913. That same year his son was created the reigning Duke of Brunswick by Wilhelm II.

As a British and German Prince, Ernst-August II lost his British peerage in 1917 when all German relatives of the British Royal Family lost their British titles during World War I when King George V issued the Titles Deprivation Act. Prince Ernst August, the former Crown Prince of Hanover and former Duke of Cumberland, died of a stroke on his estate at Gmunden in November 1923. He was 78 years old.

Divided by War: Austro-Prussian War 1866

Tags

Austria, German Unification, Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hesse and By Rhine, Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Otto von Bismark, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Prussia, Queen Victoria of Great Britain

Often when I think of monarchy I envision a family, royal family, or, if you will, a national family. In the context of a national family which represents the nation it leaves out a part of their story and who they are. Throughout history royal families have been large extended families that often transcend national boarders. We can see this played out during the Victorian era when the numerous descendants of Victoria and Prince Albert were scattered about Europe. With centuries of inter-marriage the royal families of Europe, were in truth a grand family with many branches. Although we mere commoners may not have the degrees of consanguinity that the royals have, we too often belong to large extended families that may be scattered about all over the globe. We also, through our ethnic heritage may share kinship with more people than we are aware of. A problem that occurs when large extended families are separated by geography and culture and nationality it can place family members in conflicting positions both socially and politically.

One of the examples of that was during the 1866 War between Prussia and Austria. This war was part of the plan in uniting Germany under Prussian leadership that Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismark had constructed. The origins of the war are complex and worthy of a series of blog posts of its own, so I will only give you a brief synopsis. In 1864 there was a great controversy over the ownership of the thrones of the united Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. When the succession to that throne was contested between Denmark and Prussia war ensued with Denmark being easily trounced by Prussia. At this time both the Hohenzollerns of Prussia and the Habsburgs of Austria were wrestling for supremacy over the German nation and to see who would become the central power within Germany. Bismark desired a Germany with Prussia as its head and he found no room for Austria in this system. After the 1864 war with Denmark both Austria and Prussia took jurisdiction over the twin duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The next step in German unification for Bismark was to remove Austria from German interests and to do this he goaded them into War. With Prussia at war with Austria many of the smaller, or lesser, German states in southern Germany, sided with Austria. Like the US Civil War which happened in that same decade, this conflict divided families, even royal families.

This conflict affected two sisters specifically, Crown Princess Victoria of Prussia, and Hereditary Grand Duchess Alice of Hesse and By Rhine. Prior to their marriage they were both princesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Victoria, was the Princess Royal, eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, and Princess Alice was their second daughter. In 1858 Victoria married the future German Kaiser and King of Prussia, Friedrich III. In 1862 Alice married the future Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hesse and By Rhine. Crown Prince Friedrich of Prussia was commander of one of the three division sof the Prussian Army and he was an essential leader in the Prussian victory at the Battle of Königgrätz on July 3, 1866. Prince Ludwig of Hesse and By Rhine found himself on the side with Austria and pitted against Prussia. He was a front line officer in a Hessian Regiment. With Prussia easily winning this war, Vicky was proud of the victories and accomplishments of her husband. However, Ludwig was feared for his life as Prussian troops marched into Darmstadt, the capital of the Hessian Grand Duchy.

Vicky and Alice, despite being on opposite sides of the war did have a strong relationship through the short conflict. Although Crown Prince Friedrich was a succesful leader during the conflict he was personally against the war. That did have some solace in easing family tensions. All of the parties mentioned wanted Great Britain to mediate the conflict but all efforts were squashed by Bismark. during this time Vicky had a tragedy. Days prior to her husband’s triumphant victory at the Battle of Königgrätz their son, Prince Sigismund, died of meningitis at 21 months and was the first grandchild of Queen Victoria to die. Therefore this tragedy also helped to detract Vicky from the war.

Another aspect of their relationship which helped them through the war was the fact that both being intellectual they were brought together over recent developments in both science and philosophy that made them both question their Christian faith. Liberal Biblical scholarship was in its infancy in 1866 but it had left the sisters to question some of the historical accuracy of the faith. They were also interested Darwin’s book, Origin of the Species, published in 1859. Their enlightened attitudes put them in disfavor with their mother, Queen Victoria, who could easily show favoritism or displeasure not only her children but anyone who displeased her and these new attitudes of her daughters did just that. It is interesting to see that royal families have petty squabbles just like the rest of us.