The Life of King Edward VII
he represented the nation as a whole and must consequently be respected.
This powerful feeling has often in English history made the bravest and
strongest submit to slights from their Sovereign, and has won the most
disinterested devotion and energetic action from men who have never
even seen the Monarch in whose personal character there was sometimes
little to evoke or deserve such faith and sacrifice. For ages this
loyalty had been the preservative of society in England, and it is still
indispensable to the tranquility and permanence of a state, whether
given in its full degree to the Sovereign of Great Britain, or in a more
divided sense to the elective and partisan head of a modern republic.
In the time of the Georges, as well as in the middle ages and at the
present moment, loyalty was and is a sincere and honest patriotism,
refining the instincts and elevating the actions of those who were
willing to waive self-interest on any given occasion in order to guard
what they believed to be the true basis of national stability and order.
Certainly, a Monarchy which could survive the wars and European
revolutions, the internal discontents and personal deficiencies, of the
period which commenced with the reign of George I. and closed with that
of William IV., must have possessed some inherent strength greater than
may be gathered from many of the superficial works which pass for
history. But, whatever that influence was, it does not appear to have
been personal. With the close of the reign of Queen Anne the brilliant
_prestige_ of personal authority and power wielded by the Sovereign had
passed quietly away and, up to the death of William IV. and the
accession of Victoria, had not been replaced by the personal influence
of a constitutional ruler.
PRESENT POSITION OF THE MONARCHY
Out of all these changing developments has come a military position in
which the Sovereign no longer leads his forces in war but in which he
commands a sentiment of loyalty as hearty, in the breasts of the
Colonial soldiers ten thousand miles away from his home at Windsor, as
ever did the personal presence of an Edward I., or a Richard the
Lion-Hearted. Out of them has come a religious position in which the
Sovereign is head of a particular Church and yet, as such, gives no
serious offence to masses of his subjects who belong to other faiths and
who receive through his Governments around the world absolute freedom of
religious worship--almost as a matter of course. Out of the
constitutional evolution has come the adaptation of the Monarchy to not
only new conditions but to countries separated by oceans and continents
from the mother-state, and the evolution of a system which combines
420,000,000 people under one Crown and one flag. In August, 1884, the
_Times_ spoke of a correspondent amongst the Khirgese of Central Asia
who stated that the people of that region had not the remotest idea of
where or what England was--but they had heard of Queen Victoria; and a
few years later Mr. Henry Labouchere, the inconsistent and bitter
Radical, told the _Forum_ of New York that "were a Parliamentary
candidate to address an electoral meeting on the advantages of a
republic he would be deemed a tilter at a windmill."
Such is a summary of the history and position of the British Monarchy. A
thousand years ago it combined the seven little Kingdoms of England into
one; to-day it combines the Kingdoms and Dominions and Commonwealths and
Islands of a quarter of the earth's surface into one. The power of the
Crown was once chiefly employed in making war and compelling peace by
force of arms and military skill; to-day it is largely utilized in
promoting peace and controlling diplomacy. The position of the Monarch
was once that of the head of a class, or the leader of some distinct
manifestation of public feeling, or the military chief of a great
faction; to-day it is that of embodying the power of a united people,
giving dignified interpretation to the policy of a nation, and serving
as the symbol of unity to the masses of population in an extended
empire.
One of the interesting features in the Crown's popularity and influence
is the absence of serious criticism or controversy over the expense of
its maintenance. Perhaps the only practical expression of disapproval
affecting the Monarchy heard during Queen Victoria's long reign was an
occasional grumbling as to the paucity of Court functions, the absence
of Royal splendour and expenditures from the City of London, the
sombreness and quiet which characterized the ordinary, everyday life of
the Sovereign. The total financial cost of the Monarchy has been placed
at a million pounds sterling per annum, but this total includes various
large sums which could just as properly be charged to the ordinary
governing requirements of the country without reference to the
particular form of its institutions. Against this sum may also be placed
the proceeds of the Crown Lands which were surrendered to Parliament
upon the accession of William and Mary and which had before that been
recognized as a personal estate of the Sovereign over which Parliament
had no control. In addition to these Crown Land revenues other sums were
voted as required. Upon their surrender to the nation (during the life
of each Sovereign) it has become the custom, since 1868, to vote a
permanent Civil List for the ensuing reign and out of this sum the
ordinary Court and personal expenses are supposed to be met. In the case
of Queen Victoria the amount was L385,000 a year, supplemented, however,
by other votes and special allowances to herself and the Royal family
from time to time.
Upon her accession the Queen retained out of the old Crown Lands, or
revenues, those of the Duchy of Lancaster and they have risen in value
from L20,000 to L50,000 per annum. The Royal palaces are maintained
apart from the Civil List and the building of Royal yachts and other
similar expenses are considered as additional items. The revenues of the
Duchy of Cornwall, which have always pertained to the Prince of Wales,
and the incomes or special sums voted to the members of the Royal
family, make up an amount nearly as large as the Civil List. But these
apparently large sums have not in recent years created any feeling of
dissatisfaction; nor has any been expressed save by certain individuals
of the Labouchere type, who possess little influence and less sincerity.
Upon the whole the situation in this connection possesses considerable
interest to the student of history, or of popular sentiment, as showing
how a practical, business-loving, money-making people can become devoted
to an institution which must in the nature of things be expensive and
which, in the ratio of its dignity and effectiveness as an embodiment of
growing national power, must be increasingly so as the years roll on.
The reason for this condition of feeling is the combination which the
Monarchy has during the past century come to present to the minds of the
public. Tradition and history reaching down into the hearts and lives of
the people may be considered the basic influence; a general belief in
the superiority of British institutions over all others may be stated as
a powerful conservative force; while personality and character in the
Sovereign may be described as the chief constructive element in this
process of increasing loyalty to the Crown. Convenience, custom, love of
ceremony, belief in stability and aversion to change, are lesser factors
which may be mentioned. The result is that Mr. George W. Smalley, for so
many years the American correspondent of the New York _Tribune_ in
London, could write recently in the _Century_ the belief of a foreigner
and a republican that "England is a very democratic country, but there
does not exist in England the vestige of a republican party."
King Edward, therefore, came to the throne of Great Britain and its
Empire at a time when the influence of the Sovereign was growing in
proportion as the influence and popularity of Parliament appeared to be
waning. Fifty years before his accession it was a truism to assert that
power in England was being steadily concentrated in the House of
Commons; to-day it may be said with equal truth that the position of the
Crown is growing steadily in a power which is wielded by personal
influence and popularity and which, while it touches no privilege, nor
right, nor liberty of Parliament, increases in proportion as the latter
body is relegated to the back-ground by public opinion and popular
interest. Vast responsibility, therefore, rests to-day in the hands of a
British Sovereign and the results for good or ill, depend largely upon
his character, his training, his previous career and his present sense
of duty. Alarm has even been expressed upon this point by historical
theorists such as Professor Beesly and Dr. Goldwin Smith. Certain it is,
however, that in the hands of King Edward this growing power was safe.
If prolonged experience and acquired statecraft and intimate knowledge
of his people can be considered sufficient guarantees for its exercise,
it is also safe in the hands of King George.
CHAPTER II.
Early Years and Education of the Prince
The married life of Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort was one of the
happiest recorded in history or known in the private annals of
individual lives. It was a love-match from the first and it lasted to
the end as one of those beautiful illustrations of harmony in the home
which go far in a materialistic and selfish age to point to higher
ideals and to conserve the best principles of a Christian people. His
affection was shown in myriad ways of devoted care and help; her feeling
was well stated in a letter to Baron Stockmar--"There cannot exist a
purer, dearer, nobler being in the world than the Prince." From such a
union was born Albert Edward, the future King and Emperor, on November
9th, 1841. The Queen's first child had been the Princess Royal, and
there was naturally some hope that the next would be a male heir to the
Throne. There was much public rejoicing over the event which was
announced from Buckingham Palace at mid-day of the date mentioned; the
Privy Council met and ordered a thanksgiving service; the national
anthem was sung with enthusiasm in the theatres and public places;
telegrams of congratulation poured in from Princes abroad and peers and
peasants at home; and _Punch_ perpetrated verses which well illustrated
the public feeling:
"Huzza! we've a little Prince at last
A roaring Royal boy;
And all day long the booming bells
Have rung their peels of joy."
On December 8th following, the little Prince was created by
letters-patent Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester--the titles of Prince
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Saxony, Duke
of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of
the Isles and Prince, or Great Steward of Scotland, being his already by
virtue of his mother being the reigning Sovereign at the time of his
birth. During six hundred years there had been from time to time a
Prince of Wales. The first was the son of Edward I., but the title was
never made hereditary, and there have been periods, totalling altogether
288 years, in which it lay dormant. The Black Prince was perhaps the
best known of the line. The new Prince of Wales--destined to hold the
designation for nearly sixty years and to make it one of the best known
in the world--was solemnly baptized on January 25th, 1842, in St.
George's Chapel, Windsor, by the simple names of Albert Edward. The
first was after his father, the second in memory of the Queen's father,
the Duke of Kent. The scene was one of splendour, and the uniforms and