Should Lord Chelmsford have fallen in line with Barle Frere's desire for war?

Posts : 600 Join date : 2013-09-18 Location : West Country

rusteze,

Are you saying that QV was irrelevant with regards to military matters or are you saying that she was irrelevant because it was a constitutional monarchy. Didn't she have influence over matters regarding the poor and their housing (Royal Commission on Housing) she was influential in mediating on the issue of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act of 1869 and the 1884 reform act. She was a firm supporter of the British Empire, she supported improvements within education and Hospitals, the list goes on. In my opinion QV was never irrelevant.

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

What I am saying is she was irrelevant largely because it was a constitutional monarchy (exactly as it should be). I am not saying her heart was not sometimes in the right place, but I am not aware of any significant move on her part that went against anything the government wanted to do, particularly if it was a Conservative government. I am not sure what being a firm supporter of Empire means. if it means maximising the returns to the UK, upholding a British way of life, "civilising" the natives and protecting the trade routes with the Royal Navy then yes I think she was. In terms of relevance to this forum I don't think her endorsement, or otherwise, of military strategy has any basis in expertise and should not be regarded as significant. Perhaps inconsequential is a better word than irrelevant.

Steve

I think she supported Lord C simply because she liked him. It was not a decision, based on any other considerations.

Purely my opinion of course.

Posts : 600 Join date : 2013-09-18 Location : West Country

rusteze,

I'm in full agreement with you on the term 'inconsequential'.

Waterloo

Posts : 600 Join date : 2013-09-18 Location : West Country

Martini-Henry wrote:: I think she supported Lord C simply because she liked him. It was not a decision, based on any other considerations.

Purely my opinion of course.

I reckon your right with that, QV was apparently very vocal in private about who she liked and didn't like. LC was on the 'like list' I guess LC couldn't put a foot wrong in her eyes.

Dave I was replying to ctsg's post where he thought she was the greatest Queen England ever had , or because of his sloppy punctuation he may have been referring to Frank as the best Queen England's ever had , which doesnt make sense he's the Queen Bee of Sth Africa !! Very Happy

. Hope this made sense to you ? . Shocked

90th

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 60 Location : UK

Frank Allewell wrote:: I do wonder however if Victoria was influenced by Mr Brown on this issue as much as on others?
CTSG your a pratt.

Frank that's not nice.. I remember time when he stuck up for you.

All this ballyhoo reminds of the 1882 satrical work Mrs Brown and King Cetewayo, by Arthur Sketchley.

John Y.

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 60 Location : UK

Luckily Mr Brown was Scottish and not Welsh.. Hey Martin!

No no one wants to be seduced by a Welsh hoax!

Posts : 2871 Join date : 2010-06-02

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Steve

PDF copy if anyone wants a read.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Or read on line. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Posts : 2594 Join date : 2009-04-24

John wrote:

Frank Allewell wrote:: I do wonder however if Victoria was influenced by Mr Brown on this issue as much as on others?
CTSG your a pratt.

Frank that's not nice.. I remember time when he stuck up for you.

Sticks and Stones John.

Funny really as I stuck for frank only the other day.

Posts : 600 Join date : 2013-09-18 Location : West Country

Meanwhile Lord Chelmsford was urgently burying all the evidence that could be used against him. He propagated the myth that a shortage of ammunition led to defeat at Isandlwana. He ensured that potential witnesses to his errors were unable to speak out. Even more significantly, he tried to push blame for the defeat onto Colonel Durnford, now dead, claiming that Durnford had disobeyed orders to defend the camp. The truth is that no orders were ever given to Durnford to take command. Chelmsford's behaviour, in retrospect, is unforgivable. Many generals blunder in war, but few go to such lengths to avoid responsibility.

Saul David

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

The above Written by Saul David.

Posts : 600 Join date : 2013-09-18 Location : West Country

Dave wrote:: The above Written by Saul David.

Yep, its not something I would say,

Waterloo

Posts : 1604 Join date : 2009-09-21

Helps to name the source. If you know it.

I'm sure it was an oversight Dave.

Posts : 600 Join date : 2013-09-18 Location : West Country

Hi M/H

It was an oversight, copied and pasted from my old notes, didn't include authors name, it wasn't deliberate. I was just throwing it out there!

Regards

Dave

Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France

Bonjour waterloo,

scratch

See your post (yesterday 7.12pm), you cited the name of the author (Saul David)!
Cheers
Frédéric

Posts : 600 Join date : 2013-09-18 Location : West Country

Bonjour ymob,

Kind of you to point out that I had cited the author but I did so only after an edit, my mistake.

Kind Regards

Waterloo

Posts : 2268 Join date : 2010-10-22 Location : France

Don't worry, it's not a real problem! Wink

» Lord Chelmsford.
» If you were Lord Chelmsford!
» Lord Chelmsford in tears
» Was Lord Chelmsford a psychopath?
» Lord Chelmsford question in the house of commons 02 September 1880 regarding the Battle of Isandlwana.