King Edward VII (1841-1910) and Queen Alexandra (1844-1925)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Today in Royal History is the 117th Anniversary of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra's Coronation as king and queen of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, took place at Westminster Abbey, London, on 9 August 1902.
 
:previous: Edward VII's coronation had to be postponed when he needed emergency surgery for acute appendicitis. Edward had the operation. The original coronation had been planned for June 26, 1902.
 
:previous: Edward VII's coronation had to be postponed when he needed emergency surgery for acute appendicitis. Edward had the operation. The original coronation had been planned for June 26, 1902.
At first the King said the coronation would go on as planned "even if he died in the Abbey." His doctors told him that was exactly what would happen. He postponed the coronation.
 
At first the King said the coronation would go on as planned "even if he died in the Abbey." His doctors told him that was exactly what would happen. He postponed the coronation.

Thank goodness Edward had the operation. Whoever heard of a newly crowned sovereign deceased immediately during his coronation?
 
Odds were that he would have collapsed before he got to the Abbey.. But having an appendectomy was a much more serous business back then.. it wasn't done in Hosptial. Anastethtics were more dangerous, and Edward was old and very fat...
 
Odds were that he would have collapsed before he got to the Abbey.. But having an appendectomy was a much more serous business back then.. it wasn't done in Hosptial. Anastethtics were more dangerous, and Edward was old and very fat...
Lucky for Prince Philip the delay gave Andreas of Greece and Alice of Battenberg time to fall in love and later get married.
 
Lucky for Prince Philip the delay gave Andreas of Greece and Alice of Battenberg time to fall in love and later get married.
Which proves that there's a meaning behind everything. :flowers:
 
During the First World War, Queen Alexandra begged King George V to remove Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany's honorary flags from the chapel of St. George's at Windsor. :royalstandard::royalstandard::royalstandard::royalstandard:
 
:previous: Edward VII's coronation had to be postponed when he needed emergency surgery for acute appendicitis. Edward had the operation. The original coronation had been planned for June 26, 1902.

As it turned out, it wasn't appendicitis, but a big abscess (per Jane Ridley). Bertie kept his appendix, contrary to popular myth, and his life, and went to his delayed coronation.
 
Last edited:
The doctors drained an abscess on the appendix which had been causing fever and pain in an efficient operation and King Edward was soon well again.

https://www.unofficialroyalty.com/g...s-appendix-and-the-coronation-that-never-was/

Incidentally, Jane Ridley lost me early in her biography of Bertie when she states that Albert was Queen Victoria’s ‘only first cousin’. Really!!

Did not Jane Ridley know that Albert had an older brother, Duke Ernest II of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?
 
Obviously not. Nor that both Albert and Victoria had many aunts and uncles of the Saxe Coburg Gotha family line, almost all of whom had children.
 
Last edited:
That really is bad! Surely any British historian would know about all George III's numerous children and their various offspring, and surely anyone writing about Victoria and Albert would know about Albert's brother, and, at the very least, about "Uncle Leopold"'s family.
 
That really is bad! Surely any British historian would know about all George III's numerous children and their various offspring, and surely anyone writing about Victoria and Albert would know about Albert's brother, and, at the very least, about "Uncle Leopold"'s family.

So do we beleive her if she says that it was an abscess and not his appendix that caused his illness?
 
Did not Jane Ridley know that Albert had an older brother, Duke Ernest II of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?

Considering she mentions Ernest on the very next page... It seems more like a simple slip. I never even noticed the "only first cousin" thing, and I've read the book several times, although she is very critical of Albert.

So do we beleive her if she says that it was an abscess and not his appendix that caused his illness?

She's not the only source for debunking the appendicitis claim, so in this case, yes.
 
Last edited:
So do we beleive her if she says that it was an abscess and not his appendix that caused his illness?

Appendicitis=inflammation of the appendix which may occasionally lead to an appendiceal abscess surrounding the appendix as a complication of appendicitis (in around 5% of cases). These days, the treatment would be appendicectomy along with drainage of the abscess, but in Victorian times, a simple drainage of the abscess was obviously sufficient for the 'lucky King Edward!'
In the era before antibiotics, most of these patients would have sadly died.
 
Appendicitis=inflammation of the appendix which may occasionally lead to an appendiceal abscess surrounding the appendix as a complication of appendicitis (in around 5% of cases). These days, the treatment would be appendicectomy along with drainage of the abscess, but in Victorian times, a simple drainage of the abscess was obviously sufficient for the 'lucky King Edward!'
In the era before antibiotics, most of these patients would have sadly died.

If Treves (who was basically the foremost expert at the time) determined Edward's appendix was actually not so "hot" as to require removal (and you would have to have been an utter idiot to leave it in there if there was any indication otherwise, when the man had been in agonizing pain and was already undergoing surgery)... isn't it possible the abscess was somehow not related to his appendix? The fact Edward never suffered from any appendix-related problem after that seems to indicate it wasn't the issue. If it was so bad as to have abscessed, why not just take it out?

Edit: Edward, afaik, was afraid it was cancer (after having lost his siblings Vicky and Affie in the years immediately prior; he had decent reason to feel fearful).
 
Last edited:
If Treves (who was basically the foremost expert at the time) determined Edward's appendix was actually not so "hot" as to require removal (and you would have to have been an utter idiot to leave it in there if there was any indication otherwise, when the man had been in agonizing pain and was already undergoing surgery)... isn't it possible the abscess was somehow not related to his appendix? The fact Edward never suffered from any appendix-related problem after that seems to indicate it wasn't the issue. If it was so bad as to have abscessed, why not just take it out?

Edit: Edward, afaik, was afraid it was cancer (after having lost his siblings Vicky and Affie in the years immediately prior; he had decent reason to feel fearful).
Perhaps (I dont know) but the idea was that the less surgery you did was better, and if draining the abscess would fix it, why take the appendix out as well? Anyway thankfully it wasn't cancer and he did make a good recovery
 
Appendixes seem to have loomed large in Treves’s life in one way or another. One of his daughters died at 18 of peritonitis after her appendix burst (he had delayed operating) he was knighted after treating the King, and Treves himself expired in Switzerland of the same condition as his daughter.
 
Last edited:
When Queen Victoria became Empress of India, was it suggested that Prince Albert Edward receive a title such as Prince Imperial of India?
 
You could say "by disliking his nephew". Edward was aiming for peace with the Entente Cordiale, though, not military action.

Inadvertently contributed, maybe, but it's more than a century later and historians don't seem to have come up with anything that would have realistically prevented World War One.
 
King Edward VII and tiaras

I was watching Pawn Stars today. For those of you who don't know, it is a reality show about a pawn shop in Las Vegas. The owner buys some really amazing items. Anyway, a seller came in wanting so sell a set of Cartier betting chips. Chumlee, who works there, discussed a little about the British Royal Family's association with Cartier. He said that King Edward VII purchased 27 tiaras from Cartier!! WOW!! Is that true? Is so, does anyone know if there is any information on or pictures of the ones he bought?
 
I was watching Pawn Stars today. For those of you who don't know, it is a reality show about a pawn shop in Las Vegas. The owner buys some really amazing items. Anyway, a seller came in wanting so sell a set of Cartier betting chips. Chumlee, who works there, discussed a little about the British Royal Family's association with Cartier. He said that King Edward VII purchased 27 tiaras from Cartier!! WOW!! Is that true? Is so, does anyone know if there is any information on or pictures of the ones he bought?
Edward and Alexandra gave tiaras to many of their nieces when they married so that number is not that surprising.
 
Back
Top Bottom