• "PRINCE ALBERT: WHY IS HE ITNPOPIJLAIt?"* Tin question is
often asked—far oftener than polite people sup- pose ; and we do not know that any advantage is gained by whis- pering it instead of asking it audibly. There are reasons for the fact, and the fact itself might be materially modified if the rea- sons were openly discussed. The silence is broken by the pam- phlet whose title we have taken to head our present remarks, and Which designates the husband of our popular Queen as "the most unpopular man in these isles." The writer proceeds to investi- gate the question "why," in a right spirit, yet hardly brings out the instances of colourable evidence advanced to sup- port the popular notion on the subject. The Prince, says the pamphlet, has been accused of battue-shooting, the pheasants available for the purpose being fat and peaceful birds mul- tiplied under fatter hens ; of having shot red deer out of a bedroom-window ; of not hunting like a Leicestershire farmer, nor taking every fence that offers ; of having kept a lady stand- ing until the Emperor Nicholas asked her to take a seat; of being qualmish in the -Royal yacht; of having meddled in the admini- stration of the Army ; and of having meddled in the foreign po- licy of this country. Some of the most important of these emu- sationS have been exploded. The Prince is known, on authority, to have declined any office which would have removed him from his right place near the Queen ; the degree of advice which he afforded to the Sovereign, as Privy Councillor and as Consort, was explained by Sir Robert Peel. The pleasant pamphleteer challenges evidences of real culpability even in the minor cases : if the Prince is a game-preserver, where are the "game cases" that he has prosecuted before the magistracy? if the Prince is not a good sailor, how is it that he never suffers at sea, though our sailor Queen sometimes suffers ? What lady in waiting, or lord either, has resigned from ill treatment at court? On the contrary—what court in other lands or in other times could show the same perfect purity of life, the same deference for public opinion, the same hearty participation in the sympathies of Eng- lish life, the same dignity, with the kindly family feeling, which distinguishes the first house in the land ? We might find home- liness in the court of Frederick William, or Queen Charlotte— and niggardly bad taste : the family dodge was kept up in the household of the Citizen King, but "Mr. Smith" never lost sight of the parish business in which he had his objects to serve. The court of George the Fourth was gay—and worthless. Our own court unites the magnificence, the good taste, the exclusiveness, the hospitality, the refinement, the sterling qualities, the virtues, the social ease, which are all esteemed in this country, and deemed essential to high life, especially the highest. And how could it have been so if the Prince Consort had not been a man of sense, of refinement, of intellect—a gentleman? The answer is complete.
And yet !- Oh yes ! that is the way. A man may answer to the require- ment of every set virtue, and yet the Joseph Surface of society will hint away his good name, in charitable forbearance to say out the offence.
The offence ! Why, what has the Prince done ? For nearly twenty years he has occupied the most conspicuous and difficult position in the country, and what charge has been substantiated against him, except some imaginary charge of being "too good " ? Surely twenty years are an allowance of time long enough to convict a man who had committed any fault however great or however microscopic ; and what has been established against Prince Albert.? or rather, what has not been established for him. Is not the Prince something more than inoffensive —absolutely meritorious ? Has he not, besides being a good husband, a good father, a good Privy Councillor, been most admirable as a sort of coadjutor Archbishop, moralizing public occasions in speeches unique for their wisdom, succinctness, and completeness? Detraction said that Prince Albert's speeches were composed by Dr. Prtetorius—until Dr. Prxtorius went, and the speeches only grew more excellent. The residuary charges are in some cases specific, and we see no reason why they should not be explicitly stated. As to the truth of the stories we have not the faintest voucher; but they are current, and they are absolutely uncontradicted. It has been said, for example, that the Prince, who draws 30,0001. a year of English money, is not in the English sense of the word " liberal"— your Englishman cannot abide a great man who is not open- handed. It is a graver accusation that he has studiously set himself to beat down the prices of artists, and that the Prince is a customer from whom handsome payment cannot be expected. Another charge is that of personal hauteur. We have heard it related that a most estimable professional man, who attended at the Palace to correct some royal work, was asked. When he had performed his task in solitude—was asked by a ser- vant, "what was his charge ? " on which he went away indig- nant, without waiting for payment. The hauteur has been re- garded as a reason why the last Highland visit was a failure ; for last year a story was sent about of much umbrage taken by the Scotch gentry at the manners of the Prince. At some High- land gathering, it is told, he saw a group- of young ladies con- spicuous for their attractive appearance, with whom he desired to be better acquainted ; but, instead of asking to be introduced to them, as even a prince rusticating- might have deigned to do, he.turned to his equerry and said, " , Fesent them " ! and then took up an imposing position, prepared for an impromptu ceremony. These stories may be all false ; but they are uncon- * The title of a pamphlet, published this week by Saunders and Otley. traclicted—perhaps only because they have never been frankly stated. The grain of truth that is in them may be nothing more than a necessary consequence of German birth and manners; for, no doubt, a part of the popular mistrust is simply vulgar_pre- judice—mistrust of the Prince because he is "a German." He is supposed to have patronized a particular style of tailoring in the Army, and we do not admire its taste ; but in the eyes of the public that avatar of the Coburg was shocking, unconstitutional, ugly. The "hat" at least was never contradicted, and it has pro- bably been taken to confirm some of the worst tattle against the Prince.
Previous page
