Edward VII

King of the United Kingdom (r. 1901-1910)

• Born: November 9, 1841
• Birthplace: Buckingham Palace, London, England
• Died: May 6, 1910
• Place of death: Buckingham Palace, London, England

King Edward VII made the British monarchy fascinating and thereby brought to it an appeal that contributed greatly to its popularity in the twentieth century. He exercised little influence in politics, but he used his natural talents to promote his country’s foreign policy.

Early Life

Edward VII, who was christened Albert Edward, was obliged as a child to follow a most exacting plan of study. His parents, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, expected him, the heir to the throne, to become a model of morality, piety, and intellectual accomplishments. Edward was ill-suited for such a regimen, however, and the early educational pressures did not produce the desired results. Indeed, for the rest of his life Edward sought pleasure and avoided work. He schemed for indolence. The future king seldom read a book and tried to avoid “intellectuals” and clever people.

Victoria and Albert were bitterly disappointed in their son, but they admitted that he was gentle and good-natured, and had a gift for languages, although he always spoke English with a slight German accent. Very early, too, Edward developed a reputation for gaiety and charm, qualities that would be associated with the Edwardian monarchy. Perhaps the charm was superficial, a facade with little behind it, but it was a facade that left a lasting impression.

Five feet seven inches in height and with protruding blue eyes, Edward had a fine figure as a child, as well as curly hair and a fresh complexion, but an enormous appetite for rich food made him plump as a young man and portly at the time of his accession. Always smartly dressed, Edward as prince and as king was known for his courtly manners and zestful energy. He also had a captivating smile and was invariably cheerful in public.

The Princess of Wales, whom Edward married in 1863, added to his aura of charm. The future Queen Alexandra, who shared her husband’s love of fun and his lack of interest in anything serious, had a beauty and presence that made her a fitting centerpiece for Edwardian court life. As a mother, however, Alexandra was anything but frivolous. She gave her children the same intense affection she had received as a child in Denmark, and her influence was central in the formation of her second son, the future George V. His devotion to family and other simple virtues came in large part from his mother.

Although Edward’s charm and gaiety were widely acknowledged, most Victorians undoubtedly shared their queen’s view that these were not sufficient qualifications for a future king. Reservations about the Prince of Wales were reinforced by a number of scandals in which the prince became involved, including the suggestion of matrimonial irregularity and a fondness for card games and light, irresponsible companions. Most of England probably shared William Ewart Gladstone’s view, expressed in a celebrated remark in 1870: “To speak in rude and general terms, the Queen is invisible and the Prince of Wales is not respected.” Accordingly, Edward’s accession was greeted with little enthusiasm. His charm was well-known, but his personal life and character raised doubts about his fitness to be king.

Life’s Work

Albert Edward succeeded his mother in 1901, at the age of fifty-nine. He at once asserted his independence by announcing that he was taking the name of Edward rather than retaining, as his mother had wished, the two names of Albert Edward.

The new king made other changes in keeping with his personality. Most important, there was a new visibility for the sovereign. During Edward’s reign, Parliament was regularly opened in person by the king, a custom that has been followed ever since by his successors; Victoria had rarely done so. On Valentine’s Day, less than a month after his mother’s death, Edward drove to Parliament in George III’s state coach. For Londoners this magnificence was new, and the king heightened the effect by having all the peers who possessed state coaches drive to Parliament in them.

Another early act of the king was to move into Buckingham Palace, a place Victoria had disliked and seldom used. The rooms of the palace were cleaned, and everything was made ready for the ostentatious entertainment that so well suited the new king. At Windsor, meanwhile, women were required to wear tiaras every night, while the men wore court dress with decorations. As the king willed, his court radiated formality and glitter.

Edward’s style was a public relations triumph. The English of all classes seemed ready to accept as king a very human, genial figure of faintly disreputable past who made monarchy fascinating and glamorous again. The new court life obviously pleased most of the upper classes, who responded by imitating the royals. Those who could afford to do so repaid royal hospitality with an ostentation of their own, knowing that lavish entertainment was no longer disapproved of by the royal family. Tradesmen came to see the advantage of having a style-conscious king, and the middle classes took it for granted that, once on the throne, the new king deserved the respect due to Great Britain’s sovereign.

The king appealed especially to the lower classes, for he seemed to have an instinctive understanding of the need to personalize government and the nation and make monarchy real in the sense of making it a part of everyday life. People seemed to like a king with fat cigars and earthy pleasures and were either unaware of or simply accepted his lack of interest in their welfare. Edward did spend thirty thousand pounds to give a dinner for half a million London poor on his accession, but of greater importance was the fact that Edward simply acted as they thought a king should act. People loved to bet on the king’s horses, and when the royal horse won the Derby in 1909, tens of thousands of people sang “God Save the King” and cheered and cheered again.

Edward added an important new dimension to monarchy the dimension of interest but he played a very limited role in politics, domestic or foreign. He exercised far less influence than his mother, who was more intelligent and better informed. Throughout his reign, Edward fought to retain remaining royal prerogatives, especially the right to be consulted, but virtually all the vestiges of royal power were eroded while he was king. An effective parliamentary system restricted the king’s room to maneuver, but the main reason for the decline of royal power was Edward’s laziness. He was not willing to do his homework and read documents of great length and tedium. He did not like to be bored, avoiding subjects that did not interest him. Moreover, his views hardly qualified him as a modern political leader. They were trivial and superficial and were largely influenced by personalities.

Even in foreign policy, which did interest him, the king’s knowledge and influence were superficial, a fact the public did not realize during Edward’s lifetime. The king’s close blood ties with almost all the sovereigns of Europe and his frequent travels to the Continent (six times in the year 1909), give rise to the myth that Edward was his own foreign minister, shaping Great Britain’s policy toward other countries. Many people were surprised, therefore, when a biographical essay on the king appeared in 1912 to suggest that Edward had been too lazy to exercise direct influence over British policy. Other authors sprang to the king’s defense, but the evidence seems strong that even in international affairs Edward contributed to the decline of royal influence, simply because of his lack of ability to concentrate.

If he did not determine policy, the king, as a large European personality, could smooth the way for his ministers. That he did most effectively in 1903, in a triumphant visit to Paris at a time when the French and British governments wished to improve relations between the two powers. The king’s visit, according to the British ambassador in Paris, had proved a success “more complete than the most sanguine optimist could have foreseen.” There is no doubt that the king played a significant part in clearing the way for an entente with France; the mistake of many observers was in believing that he had formulated the policy as well.

In only a few areas did the king exercise considerable influence. It is the consensus that, without the support of the king, Sir John Fisher’s naval reforms would not have prevailed. In military affairs, the king’s support was crucial in bringing about a restructuring of the British army during his reign. Except in these special areas, in which the king’s likes and dislikes were influential, the reign of Edward saw the monarchy removed from a central role in politics.

Significance

Edward did not fit the Victorian conception of a monarch. Indeed, to a great extent he represented the antithesis of everything his mother represented. However, he turned out to be one of the most successful and popular kings of modern times. He captured the attention and favor of the public by making monarchy fascinating and glamorous, thus filling a gap in modern life by personalizing government and the nation. It is doubtful whether the monarchy could have survived in the twentieth century without this “show” that is now associated with the institution. Edward’s success was entirely accidental, an outcome of his rather vulgar and indulgent personality, and was not based on any brilliance or insight on his part. The king’s obvious enjoyment of kingship also contributed to his success and made him a very appealing figure.

Edward played a minor role in the government of Great Britain, but that was fortunate for the monarchy and the country. The decline in the royal prerogatives, hastened by the king’s laziness, shielded the monarchy from political controversy. This development was highly important at a time when the British monarchy was being transformed from an essentially political to an essentially social and psychological institution.

Bibliography

Battiscombe, Georgina. Queen Alexandra. London: Constable, 1969. A vivid, elegantly written portrait of the Danish-born consort. Based on materials in the Royal Archives and private papers of friends of the king and queen.

Cowles, Virginia. Edward VII and His Circle. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1956. A popular, sympathetic study written in an anecdotal style. Based largely on memoirs and letters of the day. Examines the king largely in personal terms and relates him to his era.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Royal Victorians: King Edward VII, His Family, and Friends. New York: Medallion, 1977. A sprightly, sympathetic narrative based on private papers, memoirs, and public records, including the police dossiers on the king’s movements and activities when he was in France.

Lee, Sir Sidney. King Edward VII: A Biography. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1925-1927. A full and official chronicle of the king’s life written by a recognized historian. Based on papers in the Royal Archives but not Edward’s personal and private letters, which were destroyed after his death.

Magnus, Philip. King Edward the Seventh. London: John Murray, 1964. The standard biography. A balanced, kindly, semiofficial account by a practiced biographer.

Thompson, J. A., and Arthur Mejia, Jr. The Modern British Monarchy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1971. This book traces the development of the British monarchy from the early nineteenth century to the present and explains how a seemingly anachronistic institution came to play a vital role in contemporary Great Britain. Its authors place the Edwardian monarchy in perspective and describe the important new elements Edward added to the legacy of his mother.

Weintraub, Stanley. Edward the Caresser: The Playboy Prince Who Became Edward VII. New York: Free Press, 2001. Weintraub recounts the life story of “Bertie,” the roguish prince who became a much-loved king.