Bedchamber Crisis and Peel

There was an incident where Queen Victoria's favorite Prime Minister Lord Melbourne wanted to resign and she asked Arthur Wellesley (Wellington) and then Robert Peel to form a government. Peel insisted that Victoria dismiss some ladies of the bedchamber and replace them with Tory ones.

So two question. Ummm... why does Peel care? They don't control any ministries, vote on bills, earn a salary, or control Britain's key industries. The Bedchamber Ladies might have the ear of the crown, but even when the crown was more powerful they were not the principal political advisors.

Related, why didn't Wellesley accept? He could count on some level of support.
 
Peel cared because it was about power.

The Ladies of the Bedchamber were appointed by the Monarch but under preceding rulers since the Hannoverians came to the throne a precedent was set more and more that when the Government changed the Monarch would signal his or her support for the incoming government by shuffling their Royal appointees accordingly, picking from a list of suggestions made by the Prime Minister. Under William IV, Victoria's immediate predecessor, this had become almost rubber-stamped by the monarch, largely because William IV didn't really care about the issue.

You've got to remember that although Parliament is ascendant by this time, it still officially governs at the invitation of the monarch. In 1839 Melbourne resigned after his majority eroded and advised the Queen to call on Peel and the Tories, as the procedure went. Peel wanted Victoria to shuffle her Ladies to show that she supported his incoming government - otherwise you'd have had the Monarch surrounded by Liberal Ladies whilst the Government went Tory.

Part of it was symbolism - Peel wanted to be sure that the Queen would publicly signal her support for, and thus the validity of, his government. If not, you could imagine a situation where MPs on the fringe of a potential vote, or the wider public, might begin to wonder whether the Queen disagreed with her Government and whether they should too.

Part of it was about how political power worked in the period. While you are right that the Ladies held no direct power, that isn't how politics works then or now. They were still influential, and most were the wives/sisters/etc of prominent Liberal politicians. You can't separate the informal politics of parties and social events from the formal politics of Westminster in this period. Alliances could, and were, made and broken in drawing rooms and ball rooms in the c19th and the female relatives of prominent politicians were often key players behind the scenes.

And part of it was about gender. Queen Victoria was young at this time, and untested, but also a woman in a period where it was felt women shouldn't hold political power directly. Of course she was the Queen, but part of Peel's request was very much about testing the Queen to see if she intended to be a mere figurehead or more involved in politics. Remember that whilst William IV had let parliament shuffle his Gentlemen of the Bedchamber about, George IV hadn't. In fact in a very similar situation in 1812 he brought down a prospective Government by refusing exactly as Queen Victoria did here. While respecting her as Queen Peel was, to some extent, trying to put her in her political place as a woman nonetheless.
 
You've got to remember that although Parliament is ascendant by this time, it still officially governs at the invitation of the monarch.

Official it still does! Yeah... no one really believes that anymore. On the plus side, it does take the burden of actually thinking and doing paper work off Liz, something monarchs had to do. I don't think there is an English or British monarch 1700s or earlier that got to just enjoy life and leave the thinking to someone else on their own choice.

In 1839 Melbourne resigned after his majority eroded and advised the Queen to call on Peel and the Tories, as the procedure went.

Makes sense so far.

Peel wanted Victoria to shuffle her Ladies to show that she supported his incoming government - otherwise you'd have had the Monarch surrounded by Liberal Ladies whilst the Government went Tory.

Ughhh... I think Victoria would be happier if he picked a ministry to shuffle. I guess this is why Melbourne had to take a few months to prepare her for shuffling her Ladies.

Part of it was symbolism - Peel wanted to be sure that the Queen would publicly signal her support for, and thus the validity of, his government. If not, you could imagine a situation where MPs on the fringe of a potential vote might begin to wonder whether the Queen disagreed with her Government and whether they should too.

I guess this makes sense. I thought inviting Robert Peel to be the replacement PM was a sign of her support of her government's validity. Then again, considering he was not actually the first replacement choice, he just wanted to be sure.

Part of it was about how political power worked in the period. While you are right that the Ladies held no direct power, that isn't how politics works then or now. They were still influential, and most were the wives/sisters/etc of prominent Liberal politicians. You can't separate the informal politics of parties and social events from the formal politics of Westminster in this period. Alliances could, and were, made and broken in drawing rooms and ball rooms in the c19th and the female relatives of prominent politicians were often key players behind the scenes.

This might be so, but I don't see why social events are tied to the bedchamber ladies since all sorts of influential people are invited. This part still doesn't make sense to me. I guess Peel wanting a sign of support is good enough.
 
@Alex Zetsu @Reydan It sounds like, then, that this is actually a PoD with legs; if Victoria keeps the prerogative to surround herself with whoever she damn well pleases, how does that affect the evolution of Britain's constitutional monarchy?
 
Last edited:
@Alex Zetsu @Reydan It sounds like, then, that this is actually a PoD with legs; if Victoria keeps the prerogative to surround herself with whoever she damn well pleases, how does that affect the evolution of Britain's constitutional monarchy?

No it's not a POD. Victoria wasn't rejecting Peel outright (although she considered Melbourne her favorite) but considered the Bedchamber Ladies her friends and not political pawns. Anyways, the problem is that since the Glorious Revolution days, royal power either stayed the same or weakened, never getting back what was lost. Crowns aren't going to directly intervene unless the public votes genocidal MPs. I don't mean "self destructive," "votes in a cabinet that commits recession," "draconian free-speech-hating liars" but Rwanda, Soviet Union, or Waterberg level killing for racial, ethnic, or linguistic reasons "Genocide". If that happened, the crown (Victoria, George, Elizabeth, whoever) would refuse royal ascent, appoint a minority cabinet of non-insane MPs, and flee to Canada with the Royal Navy where she/he is still Queen/King (as hanging around people who voted for such MPs could be dangerous). Refusing royal ascent for anything less, not matter how destructive for Britain it would be, would be unthinkable and cause chaos.
 
Top