Censoring Queen Victoria: How Two Gentlemen Edited a Queen and Created an Icon

by Yvonne M. Ward

'Fascinating' BBC History

'Remarkable and clever' New York Times

'Original and important' Sir David Cannadine

When Queen Victoria died, two gentlemen were commissioned with the monumental task of editing her vast correspondence. It would be the first time that a British monarch's letters had been published, and it would change how Victoria was remembered forever.

The men chosen for the job were deeply complex and peculiar Viscount Esher, the consummate royal confidant, blessed with charm and influence, but hiding a secret obsession with Eton boys and incestuous relationship with his son; Arthur Benson, a schoolmaster and author, plagued by depression, struggling to fit in with the blue-blooded clubs and codes of the court. Together with King Edward VII these men would decide Victoria’s legacy. In their hands 460 volumes of the Queen’s Correspondence became just three, and their decisions and – distortions – would influence perceptions of Victoria for generations to come.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, Victorian, Royalty, Womens, Historical

220 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 1, 2013

About the author

Yvonne Ward is a historian with a doctorate from La Trobe University. Her publications include the lead essay in a special edition of The Court Historian, published to mark the Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. This is her first book. She lives in Victoria, Australia.

Reviews

[Leo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was shocked by this book that Queen Victoria had been censored so much. 4 big collection of correspondence became three and a lot of important details and personality where removed. I really begin to wonder how the real queen Victoria was.

[Linda Harkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book jacket immediately attracted me to Censoring Queen Victoria. It's an exquisite portrait of the young queen commissioned for Albert just four years into their marriage. It's a romantic portrait of a sweet, blue-eyed girl focusing on someone or something outside the picture. In her early twenties, Victoria is pictured with light brown locks flowing over bare shoulders. This depiction is decidedly different from photos I've seen of the short, rather squat sovereign in a high-necked dress with a tiny crown perched on her head because she said the official one gave her a terrible headache.

Apparently, Yvonne Ward was fortunate enough to have written a doctoral dissertation that advisors thought publishable. Indeed, this story is an eye-opener. Two gay men (not partners), both accomplished authors, were selected to edit Queen Victoria's voluminous correspondence after her death. Their goal was to publish an authoritative and iconic biography of Victoria's early reign up until the time of Albert's death. Ward's revelatory perspective explains how Queen Victoria's image was manipulated to suit her eldest son, King Edward VII.

I highly recommend this to anyone who enjoys reading history and biography.

[Michelle Birkby · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is fascinating - how two men, although very different from the establishment in their way, edited, rearranged and even destroyed Queen Victoria’s words to present her as the establishment wished to see her, hiding her passion, her anger, her rudeness, and her intelligence

[Shelley · Rating 4 out of 5]

The two men responsible for creating Queen Victoria's legacy and shaping history's view of her were the absolute worst men for the job. Any man at the time would have bungled it, but they were especially ill suited. Both were gay, neither considered any woman worth their time (even a royal one), neither was capable of understanding (or maintaining) a romantic relationship with anyone, and both were obsessed with one of the men Victoria worked with. When dealing with the first few decades of her life, including her courtship, marriage and full decade of pregnancy, they disregarded it all. They actively cut out 99% of her correspondence with women, deeming it worthless, and gave a disproportionate amount of time to their crush. In fact, most of the letters they published were from men, with very little of Victoria's own writing included - this when the main point was to let Victoria tell her own life story! They shaped the story into the narrative they felt comfortable with, which was that she was taught and led by great men, and the great men mattered most.

I was pretty fascinated by the whole thing, but most of this is about the two editors and their personal lives and issues, and how they put the volumes together. I would really like to have had more Victoria in this, to see more of what they omitted.

[Penny · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was a bit disappointed in the lack of primary sources that were edited out. While the discussion and conclusions the author makes we're interesting and valid, I did hope to see some of the material that had been edited.

[Heidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very insightful book.

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really different and looked in detail at the 2 men who edited her letters for publication. It was quite fascinating to see how their views and thoughts censored what was actually released and how it shaped much of the modern understanding of Victoria as a person and how wrong they were in certain aspects.

[Victoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won this book through the Goodreads First Reads Giveaway program.

I've read biographies on Queen Victoria, as well as historical fiction based on her life, and I can see now where the source material for these later works have come from. It is from that understanding, of what was censored, that I understand why we have the persona that we have of Queen Victoria.

The book, with it's focus being the publication of her letters up to Prince Albert's death, explains why the editors cut the things they did and made the decisions they did. It would be interesting now, I think, to go back and review the material that was left out to create a more complete picture of the Queen. I thought it was especially interesting that so much of her female correspondence was excluded, because it was deemed less important and more domestic. With the shift in historical study into women's history and social history, I think that it would be fascinating to read her opinions and insights instead of only her political dealings.

I found the beginning of the novel hard to get through. I honestly didn't care about the men who were the editors, or what their sexual histories and preferences were. The reason being, I don't think it mattered when editing her letters. What they deemed important I would assume any man in the late Victorian, early Edwardian era would, too. After Chapter 4 it became much better, and once we were into the second section I felt I could really enjoy the book.

[Claire · Rating 3 out of 5]

I received Censoring Queen Victoria as part of a Goodreads giveaway.

Censoring Queen Victoria explores the queen's published correspondence, as well as the two men responsible for editing them, Baron Esher and Arthur Benson. Esher and Benson carefully chose what to include in order to satisfy Victoria's son and grandson, who followed her, and to perpetuate the image of the Queen as the paragon of virtue in the era named for her.

It was an interesting read, but I felt like it didn't go deep enough. It's a short book, and I felt like I got barely an overview of each of the major players (Prince Albert, Queen Victoria, Esher, and Benson). Add in a few examples and, well, that's the book. It could easily have been twice its current length. The issues Ward explores are fascinating--how female actions are edited and changed to fit gender stereotypes--but I would have liked a more extensive treatment.

[Kimberly Ann · Rating 1 out of 5]

"Gentleman"? I don't think so..... Both were Etonian Homosexuals into pedophilia and one was into incestuous pedophilia with his youngest son..... Which according to the author was no great sin among the Etonians of the time.

But what I'd like to know is: What the hell does their sex lives & perversions have to do with the work they did editing Queen Victoria's letters?

According to the book, the editors Lord Escher & Benson both were prigs when it came to women, women's feelings, & femininity (which was the norm in those days) and they ignored most of Victoria's personal correspondence w/ family & friends, unless it had to do with Governance.

It was boring and I believe I missed the entire point the author was attempting to make.

[Meghan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting nonfiction! (I usually don't even read nonfiction). I love reading about royals for some reason. The only thing is the pedophilia described in the beginning, and that at first the book was way more about the editors than the queen, which wasn't what I expected. But it got very interesting at the end. I'd have had it done earlier, but certain people would interrupt me every time I cracked it open (...ahem, Dave, cough cough).

[T.J. Gillespie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Two gay aristocratic men, influenced by a desire to sell books, pressure to appease their king, and their own innate sexism, edited the letters of Queen Victoria in a way that diminished her complex character and over celebrated the men in her life.

You're better off reading a real biography of the queen than this behind-the-scenes making of a book.

[John Nash · Rating 2 out of 5]

A great and interesting idea in need of a much fuller exploration and a good editor. Unfortunately this had neither.

[Mariana · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rather dull. Not at all what I expected to be (about queen Victoria), but about the pedophile editors who censored her letters and opinions because of the sexism present at the times.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a deeply interesting one because it raises some fascinating questions about the nature of censorship and the various motives that are involved in it.  This book focuses on one particular example of censorship and examines the context of that censorship, who was responsible for it, what was censored and why, and what the result of that censorship was.  Each of these questions and their answer is fascinating, and the author managed while she was doing all of this to deal with some more topical issues for contemporaries regarding questions of gender and sexuality and class, all of which are of interest in this particular story and all of which help explain the nature of the censorship and the early examples of the gay mafia that managed to inveigle themselves in such questions about controlling the narrative of history by shaping what was known by the public about Queen Victoria.  And knowing what is commonly known about Queen Victoria and why is the sort of question that one can ask about a great many other people as well, making this sort of book profitable for others to read in hopes of creating their own volume in this genre.

This book of between 150 and 200 pages is divided into two parts and 11 chapters.  After a preface the author spends the first part of the book talking about the editors responsible for publishing the expurgated version of Queen Victoria's voluminous correspondence that is most known to readers and researchers (I).  This part of the book includes the effort to publish Victoria's letters in an accessible format (two or three volumes) (1), as well as the biographies of the two closeted gay gentlemen, one noble and the other gentry, who were responsible for the project, the second Viscount Esher (2) and A.C. Benson (3).  After that the author discusses the preparing of the king and publishers for the project (4) and what went into the editing (5).  The second part of the book discusses what aspects of the Queen's life attracted the most attention from the editors/censors (II), namely Sir John Conroy and Lady Flora (6), King Leopold and his intrusive advise (7), Prince Albert, a welcome foreigner and strong husband (8), various aspects of women's business like childbirth and Victoria's not very prim nature (9), the queen's relationships with her ministers (10), as well as the dicey relationship that the project had with the English king (11).  After a conclusion that discusses the way the censors shaped the reputation of the Queen, the book ends with the usual acknowledgements, notes, and index.

There were a lot of aspects about this book that were deeply fascinating, including the way that the authors had such mixed motives in wanting to provide an exciting enough book that it would sell while being careful to avoid offending the sensibilities of the king, other relatives who had burned letters already and considered themselves royal censors, or people whose descendants were alive.  The scope of the letters of Victoria published was reduced to the point where it only included letters written up until the death of Prince Albert in 1861 and avoiding any discussion that showed Victoria to be anything other than a proper woman who did not busy herself with questions of sex or pregnancies, even though she spent most of time as a married woman before her husband's death pregnant with a large brood of children and came from a fertile family that had to deal with the usual layings in or miscarriages that resulted from such high fertility.  If the author's discussion about sexuality was more than a bit uncomfortable, this book certainly reveals a great deal about elite politics when it comes to how rulers are presented in the publishing of their personal letters.

[Mary Arkless · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much of what we think we know about Queen Victoria is based on her letters, ones she wrote and ones written to her, private letters and royal letters and letters dealing with governance. However, how did "we" come to know about these letters and what was in them? Well, that is what this book is about. The author originally wrote on this topic in her PhD dissertation, and it was later thought, it would make a good book.

The author tells us about the men who wrote the books first publishing a VERY FEW of the recently deceased queen, as this directly influenced what material was included. Their outlook was very much influenced by their life experiences, social standings, and personalities. The books (three volumes) were commissioned by Victoria's eldest son, the then king. This also influenced what letters and quotes were left out. You see, it is thought Victoria wrote several letters every day, and over such a long life, that would mean tens of thousands of letters. These men decided, for example, to basically ignore letters Victoria exchanged with other women, although these letters showed very much an important part of Victoria's personality. Some letters to her cousin, the queen of Portugal or her older half sister in Germany would be revealing, but they were considered to be of no importance. Also, it was important that not too much foreign correspondence was included, because you couldn't have people thinking that foreigners had too much influence on the queen when she was very young (her mother was German, so she had a lot of German relatives).

Anyhow, the book is obviously very well researched and is interesting. I somehow wanted more, but I don't rightly know what that "more" is.

[Christina Baehr · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh my goodness, wait -- shocking revelation -- historians have biases that impact their selection and presentation of primary sources.

Um, yep. Kinda knew that. I also knew that the Edwardians were utterly insufferable.

Things I didn't know that I learned from this book:

The Edwardian upper classes were rife with homosexuality of a pederastic nature which disdained and minimised the social role of women. And members of this weird boys' club were the ones who selected the first published letters and papers of Queen Victoria.

This was so clearly a doctoral thesis, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who reads history for enjoyment. There was some interesting info and I do take my hat off to Ward for the amount of archival research she must have done with a subject as wildly prolific as Queen Vic.

It's funny to note that Ward is presenting a thesis on historian bias and - surprise! - her own prioritisation of material has a strong feminist bent. I thought it was rather unfair of her to blame Prince Albert for both the Queen's pregnancies AND his assistance of her throughout them (I don't think their affectionate marriage was his masterful plot to gain political power, which she doesn't assert, but let's follow the logic here!).

I'd love to read a book just on the private and public relationship between V and A as all of the quotes from their own communications about their marriage and the ups and downs of working so closely together are fascinating.

[Lauren · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ward's "Censoring Queen Victoria" is a cautionary tale which reminds us that history is written by the victor. Or, in this case, by two fascinating and enterprising men who happened to outlive the Queen and gain access to her writings. Though their edited collection of Victoria's letters is in no way meant to be malicious in its portrayal of the late queen, Ward makes it clear that their perspective on what was and was not worthy of inclusion was heavily tinted by the prevailing misogyny of the day.

For some, the book could serve as a fascinating unveiling of the true Victoria underneath the mythos that encircles her, and this may have been true for myself had I read it decades ago. Any biography of the last twenty-odd years dispels the ideas set forth by Esher and Benson, reminding that the Queen was a vivacious young woman who, despite having assistance and advice from the men around her, was willful and tempestuous. Victoria was more than her love for Albert and succeeding depression at his death. Instead, the truly fascinating stuff here comes out of the process of narrowing down her writings for publication and the internal sniping between editors.

Four stars for an enjoyable read that puts you into the blossoming Edwardian psyche of the time.

[Na · Rating 3 out of 5]

From the viewpoint of a historian who doesn't know much about Victoria - somewhat of a good read. The first half, which concerned Esher and Benson, was far more interesting than the second half. I was enjoying the book and eager to learn more, but by the time I got to the actual editing content, I found myself losing interest quickly, and only finished it because it wasn't long. ("Come on, there are only 79 pages left, you can do that in less than an hour, just finish the thing.)
I think it might have been partially because of all the new people being mentioned that really weren't being kept track of (Victoria's various family members) and also because the content of the journals just wasn't that interesting as it was presented. Ward's job was to demonstrate the excisions and their reasoning, not to show how interesting the original journals were, so I think she did fine, but it just didn't keep my attention. Benson & Escher's lives were much more interesting than their editorial decisions!

In summary: the parts of the book that were NOT about the censorship of Victoria's writing were the interesting ones!

[Linda C · Rating 3 out of 5]

After Queen Victoria's death in 1901, Lord Esher, in charge of organizing the funeral and the coronation of King Edward VII, suggested to the King a publication of the Queen's letters as a memorial. Upon approval and gaining access to the material he approached Arthur Benson to co-edit. They produced a 3 volume work that became the primary documents for all research for more than 60 years. Two full rooms of papers were whittled to 3 volumes and each document was edited. They removed almost all personal decisions and anything doing with home life and highlighted how all the major male political figures guided her decision-making. With this as the only available resource, later biographies painted Victoria as Lytton Strachey did (biography, 1921) : “Victoria in effect was a mere accessory.” Both editors were gay and Esher a predator and incestuous. Both were repressive and wanted an idealized portrayal of their Queen. King Edward opposed any comments that would give pain to any survivors of people mentioned or that would jeopardize any foreign political relations at that time. Interesting work based on the author's dissertation.

[Sally · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the editors of the royal writings was Arthur Benson - I've already read about him and his siblings in 'The Impossible Life of Mary Benson' by Rodney Bolt. Viscount Esher was a very manipulative character indeed.

Mainly, I picked this book up in the library because I enjoyed the ITV series 'Victoria' and wondered about the source material. Victoria wrote enormous amounts of letters and diaries. Sadly, some of the original diaries were destroyed by her daughter after her death (as per the will) after copying out the less controversial parts.

The last part of the book I felt to be a bit of an anticlimax as the chapter detailing the cuts was relatively short - you were left wanting to read more of that material which was not even considered for publication. But there wouldn't have been room for much of it - I'd need to look for further publications. This book was enlightening about the various political factors which affected selection and how this set the public's idea of the young queen in the early C20th.

[Joseph Hare · Rating 1 out of 5]

tl;dr VERY thinly veiled homophobia

Somewhere in this book there’s a fascinating story, but good luck finding it beneath the writer’s obsession with homosexuality, which is found on almost every page. The facts in this historical account are few and far between. Mostly, Ward makes bald assertions to construct a narrative of their own. Benson’s sexuality is put on trial early in the book. His relationship with his mother and father is interpreted through scrutinised selected writings, which serves to portray an outdated and absurd idea of homosexuality being a result of weak fathers and domineering mothers. Pedophillia and homosexuality are often referenced interchangeably. Lord Esher, an obvious pedophile, is one of the two prominent figures in the book. But Ward is more shocked by Esther’s disinclination for women than his sexual fascination with underage boys, and the two things are presented as mutually inclusive. This is a narrative dripping with prejudice, where homosexuality is depicted as a nefarious and dangerous presence in Victorian society.

[Joanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I knew that one of Victoria's daughters had destroyed some of her prolific journal materials to eliminate anything deemed possibly embarrassing to the family. But I did not know that the letters that were published and eventually used by virtually all her biographers were severely edited by two men who left out all her feelings about being a wife and mother and friendships with women (all those female things) as well as her thoughts about ruling and focused on her relationship with her male PMs and others. What was published often contained more of the men's letters than hers and left out most of her responses that weren't simply agreeing with them. Good grief! I didn't get quite the sense of the real Victoria that I'd hoped to, but found out at the end that this is the author's PhD dissertation. Then I recognized the format. It's still an interesting read. I hope that in the future more of the full material on Victoria will be published or made safely available for scholars.

[Sara G · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is very clearly a doctoral thesis and not edited for readability or general interest. That being said, the author didn't go very far into depth about Victoria's character and how she was censored in her published edition of letters from her childhood until Albert's death. She goes into great detail about the two editors and their personalities (think women-hating, one a pedophile, and both eager to ingratiate themselves with the king) but less so about Victoria herself. It's a shame because the topic is pretty interesting. The fact that Victoria's daughter Beatrice burned all of her journals was only touched upon for a brief moment, but I found that to be the most interesting "censorship" of all.

[Danielle Peterson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book highlights the major biases two men had when publishing the letters written by/about Queen Victoria. Definitely not my favorite text regarding Queen Victoria. I understand the author’s point in highlighting their biases, and favoring the correspondences/opinions of the men in her life. However, I found the description of these two editors boring and harder to get through.

[Renee · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book to read if you're interested in how the myth of Queen Victoria was created.
History is only as good as its sources. In the case of Victoria, the first three volumes of her letters were a primary source for a lot of what was written about her. Benson, who compiled the letters, ignores almost everything about Victoria as a woman (who wants to read about that?) and picked through everything else to create a narrative that Victoria as queen was largely shaped exclusively by the men around her. Then Esher went through and insisted on a bunch of deletions claiming Edward VII demanded the changes to avoid embarrassment. Of course, like a lot of courtiers, Esher was saying what he thought Edward wanted without bothering the king with details. At least the letters weren't destroyed after these two edited the hell out of them unlike her journals.

[Molly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This well-written and engrossing account of the editing of Queen Victoria’s 1837-1861 letters is an illuminating example of how history can be influenced, even misrepresented, because of the experiences and circumstances of editors, biographers, and historians.

When Viscount Esher and Arthur Benson started the monumental task of editing down Victoria’s voluminous correspondence into 3 manageable volumes, they didn’t have a clear strategy to assist them in choosing what to retain and what to eliminate. As they progressed, certain factors began to weigh in and shape the collection as it took form. Political influences (predominantly the current King, Victoria’s son, Edward VII, but others as well) dictated that no living relative, servant, or foreign dignitary must be offended or harmed in any way. Social constraints commanded that no mention must be made of any emotional intimacy or too-personal details. Victoria could not be shown to be “excessively assertive, unfeminine, or insulting,” to have any political bias, or to have been under too much foreign influence. Any implication of such things must be excised, “…even if the book should suffer….” More sinister, however, are the ways in which the experiences and prejudices of the editors themselves exerted immense influence over what was deemed interesting and appropriate for inclusion.

Indeed, this situation provides some of the most interesting (and horrifying) information in the book. Both Esher and Benson had endured experiences in their lives that greatly colored their perception (and lack thereof) of women and heterosexual relationships, intergenerational relationships, and relationships between people of different statuses. As a student at Eton, Esher was preyed upon by serial pedophile William Cory, resulting in a sort of “Peter Pan” syndrome, symptoms of which included a perpetual need to recreate the “teacher-student” power dynamic, and an inappropriate fascination with his son Maurice, which indicates that he may have continued the cycle of abuse. Benson suffered a childhood dominated by a ferocious, overbearing father, and a young, innocent, almost childlike mother. Elements of these boyhood ordeals impacted greatly the approach the editors took to portraying Victoria’s early life and reign.

Nearly all correspondence with other women was eliminated, giving full preference to letters written to, and especially from, male advisors. In the Introduction to the collection, the authors state ‘Confident, in a sense, as she was, she had the feminine instinct strongly developed of dependence on some manly adviser.’ She is portrayed as an innocent girl-queen, guided by the firm hands of Lord Melbourne (Prime Minister upon her accession), her uncle, King Leopold of Belgium (though his influence had to be downplayed because he was foreign), her husband, Prince Albert, and many others. “Her queenship they depicted as one of youthful vitality and a keenness to learn from older men…” Both editors had suffered at the hands of older, powerful men, and seem to have reanimated their experiences in their treatment of Victoria as young, naïve, and in need of a stern, male hand. (Dr. Ward provides ample primary source evidence that this was not at all the case.)

Furthermore, both Benson and Esher were homosexual and, to a large degree, homosocial, and seem to have had very little interest in, or knowledge of, adult women in general. Their “focus…seems to have been the ‘historical and social events’ in which Victoria had participated as a public figure. [Benson] does not seem to have been particularly interested in Victoria ‘the woman,’ or even Victoria ‘the person.’” That the editors believed they could accurately portray Victoria’s character without considering her experience as a female monarch, wife, and mother, and ignoring her important relationships with other women, shows just how little they understood the female experience. Some of the strongest passages in the book detail Victoria’s correspondence with the Queen of Portugal, as they provide mutual support through marriage, queenship, motherhood, etc.

Dr. Ward has provided us with a valuable introduction to what could be a revolution in the way we view Queen Victoria. The book stemmed from her PhD thesis, and in the acknowledgements, the author makes reference to abridgements made from the original document. While I’m sure some work was needed to make the book “fit” for public consumption, I do feel that in the editing some information was lost (ironic, no?). Several times, statements were made that appeared to come from nowhere and to be lacking any supporting evidence. Mention was made of historical figures by last name only and without introduction or context that could challenge a reader unversed in English history. But these omissions are rare and minor in the grand scheme, and do little to dampen the reader’s satisfaction in this excellent historical account. It would be wonderful if Dr. Ward, herself, will follow through with a more comprehensive and even-handed collection of Victoria’s letters!

**I received a copy of this book through a Goodreads First Reads Giveaway**

[Nicola · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very clear and detailed analysis of how Queen Victoria was presented when publishing her correspondence. Nicely written and easy to read

[Linda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating reading and well researched by Yvonne Ward.

[Rae]

Viscount Esher. Arthur Benson. PhD dissertation. Queer history. What we leave behind.