Queen Victoria and the First Opium War

Queen Victoria ascended to the throne of the British Empire in 1837. Shortly after, she was at war with China in the First Opium War (1839-1842). Here, Sam Kelly explains the background to the war, the war itself, and the curious drug-taking habits of the Queen and mid-nineteenth century Britain.

Lin Zexu and the destruction of opium.

Who is the most notorious drug kingpin of all time? Most people would say Pablo Escobar, or perhaps El Chapo. But they would be wrong. More than a hundred years before these men were born, there was a powerful woman who controlled a drug empire so vast and so unimaginably lucrative that it made Escobar and El Chapo look like low-level street dealers. Unlike modern drug lords, she didn’t have to live in a remote jungle compound surrounded by thugs toting machine guns because no one was coming after her. She didn’t have to conceal her ill-gotten gains from the tax collectors because the proceeds from her drug operation were funding the entire country. And she didn’t have to worry about being gunned down in the street or locked away in prison because every single person who was empowered to punish drug crimes was already on her payroll. Her name was Queen Victoria and she was running the British Empire.

Her meteoric rise as a drug lord began innocently enough. It happened because British people loved drinking tea. The average London household was spending 5% of its annual income on Chinese tea, which was not a problem as long as Britain could trade something to China in exchange for all the tea. Unfortunately, Britain didn’t have much that the Chinese wanted. China saw British manufactured goods as inferior and unnecessary. Having nothing to trade, Britain was forced to pay for tea with the currency of the realm, which was silver. Britain was almost literally pouring silver into China’s imperial treasury and racking up massive trade deficits in the process. China was getting rich, and Britain grew resentful. The British Empire was determined to find something, anything, that Chinese people craved.

They found opium. It ticked off all the boxes. It grew natively in India, which the British Empire controlled. It was an amazingly effective painkiller, which meant the Chinese were willing to pay outrageously high prices for it. And most importantly, it was obscenely addictive. People who used opium got hooked almost immediately, which allowed Britain to increase the price as demand grew.

Thanks to opium, the trade imbalance was reversed almost overnight. China was forced to return all of the silver the British had spent on tea, plus a great deal more. Now it was China, not Britain, that was racking up ruinous trade deficits. And millions of Chinese citizens were being transformed into hopeless opium addicts.

China Fights Back

China tried to put a stop to it. It declared opium illegal and banned it throughout the country. However, the British Empire wasn’t ready to give up its lucrative drug operation. If they could not sell opium legally, they would hire drug mules and third parties, pay off corrupt officials, or just plain smuggle it in, whatever it took to keep the money coming in. They even offered free samples of opium to Chinese citizens in a craven attempt to get as many people addicted as possible. From their point of view, it wasn’t personal; it was business, and business was extremely good. Opium sales were now responsible for some 15% - 20% of the British Empire’s annual revenue.  

The Chinese Emperor was determined to wipe out the opium scourge by any means necessary. His viceroy, a man named Lin Zexu, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria, explaining what she was doing was immoral. Opium was illegal in England and punished with the utmost strictness and severity, yet she was flooding China with opium and deliberately getting people hooked. The Queen never saw the letter and when she did not respond to his letter, Lin Wexu decided it was time to take aggressive action. He seized a massive shipment of British opium and ordered his soldiers to trample it under their feet and then dump it into the South China Sea. This time, the Queen responded.

Something you need to understand: Queen Victoria was only 18 years old when she ascended to the throne in 1837. She was new in the job – and under the impression that, as queen, she could do whatever she wanted. So when the Chinese government dumped 2.5 million pounds of British opium into the sea, she reacted like any all-powerful young imperial leader would. She declared war on China in 1839.

It is known as the First Opium War (1839-1842). There was a Second Opium War a few years later (1856-60). British forces laid waste to the Chinese army and slaughtered tens of thousands of Chinese citizens. The Emperor had no choice but to capitulate and sign a one-sided peace treaty that surrendered Hong Kong to the British, opened additional ports for British opium to flood into the country, and granted British citizens who were living in China immunity to Chinese laws. It was an unprecedented blow to the nation’s sovereignty. The esteemed empire of China had been defeated and humbled by a young ruler. China was now perceived as weak by the rest of world, making it ripe for invasion and subjugation by Western powers, Russia, and Japan. And so began China’s tragic “century of humiliation.”  

Queen Victoria Was a Drug User

But why? Why did Queen Victoria choose to bring ruin and shame upon one of the world’s most ancient civilizations simply to preserve her illegal drug smuggling operation? Partly it was due to being given too much power at too young of an age. And partly it was due to the nationalistic impulse to regard British wealth and happiness as more important than the lives of Asian peoples halfway around the world. But it certainly didn’t help matters that she was on drugs. Yes, that is correct. Her Majesty the Queen was not only selling drugs, she was using them.

She used opium every day. Unlike the Chinese citizens who became addicted, she did not smoke it in a pipe. In Britain, the more fashionable way to ingest opium was to drink it in the form of laudanum, comprised of 90% alcohol and 10% opium. Laudanum was available over the counter without a prescription. Doctors recommended it to mothers for their teething children. Queen Victoria drank a glass every night to help her sleep.

Her other drug of choice was cocaine. It was not illegal at the time. Cocaine was brand new on the scene and regarded as a wonder drug. European explorers had witnessed indigenous peoples living on the slopes of the Andes Mountains, who chewed coca leaves regularly and had amazing stamina and were strong and hardy, despite being physically small. European scientists reached the conclusion the same active ingredient from coca leaves would have even greater salutary effects on Europeans who, in their not-so-scientific and racist opinion, were inherently healthier, stronger and more intelligent than their South American counterparts.

Queen Victoria was a particular fan of cocaine chewing gum. It came highly recommended for soothing aches and pains from tooth and gum disease, plus it supplied the chewer with boundless amounts of energy, and for reasons that were unexplainable at the time, it tremendously boosted one’s feeling of self-confidence – just the ticket for a young inexperienced Queen who desired to project a strong assertive image. It was extremely popular with British elites. In fact, Victoria is reported to have shared cocaine chewing gum with a young Winston Churchill. Back in those days, no one knew about the downside of cocaine use. Doctors and scientists genuinely believed it was good for you.

Which brings me to the final twist in this story: Because she believed cocaine was good for you, Queen Victoria refused to sell it to the Chinese. She was happy to sell them all of the opium in the world, despite its devastating effects, but they could not touch her cocaine.

What do you think of Queen Victoria and the First Opium War? Let us know below.

References

Stephen R. Platt, Imperial Twilight: The Opium War and the End of China’s Last Golden Age. Knopf 2018.

Tom de Castella, “100 Years of the War on Drugs,” BBC News Magazine, January 24, 2012, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/magazine-16681673

Matt Schiavenza, “How Humiliation Drove Modern Chinese History,” The Atlantic, October 25, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/10/how-humiliation-drove-modern-chinese-history/280878/

Ellen Castelow, “Opium in Victorian Britain,” Historic UK, https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium-in-Victorian-Britain/

“Did This Beloved Queen of Britain Use Drugs,” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/did-this-beloved-queen-of-britain-use-drugs/

“The Opium War and Foreign Encroachment,” Asia for Educators, Columbia University, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_opium.htm

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world.

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne?  What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

In part one (here) we discussed the tragic death of Charlotte, Princess of Wales, and her stillborn son. Her death had major ramifications on the royal succession. In part two (here), we discussed the sons of George III and how the lack of heirs prompted the events that led to Victoria’s birth.

Here in part 3 we’ll consider Victoria’s children with Prince Albert, how the genetic disease hemophilia spelled disaster for Europe in the 20th century, and various ‘what if’ scenarios.

Denise Tubbs explains.

Prince Albert, Queen Victoria and their nine children, 1857.

To start, let’s consider hemophilia. It is a disease whereby a person’s blood does not clot. Clotting of blood is essential as clotting helps stop bleeding. As a result, the affected person will bleed for longer than those without the disease. They will bruise easily, take longer to heal, and can bleed internally. Any of these can lead to death. In the 19th century, a disease like this would likely result in a limited life span.  A lot has been learned about the disease since the time of Victoria and her immediate family. In fact, al lot of what was learned was from the study of Victoria herself and her children. 

So how does one get a disease like this? We already established that it is a genetic disease; so, the individual must carry that gene and then pass it to their children. Putting on our high school biology hats we learned that humans have 46 Chromosomes. So 23 from mother and 23 from father combine to make the next person. In that same class we learn about dominant and recessive genes. A large ‘X’ for example would denote a dominant gene, while ‘x’ means recessive genes. Now, women’s chromosomes are represented by ‘X or x’ symbols, and men are just ‘Y’. Hemophilia is a recessive disease that is carried in the ‘x’ chromosomes. Since we know that men only inherit one ‘x, X’ from their mother, the man will inherit one or the other. Men will have a 50/50 chance of getting the disease from their mother. And yes, in case you’re thinking, women can get hemophilia but only if she receives both recessive ‘x’ genes. 

Victoria’s impact

Victoria was a carrier of the disease and had a total of nine children with Albert. Of her four male children, only one had the disease. Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, made it to adulthood and had two children; but the disease killed him after a fall in 1884. His daughter Alice would inherit the gene from her father and went on to pass it to her son Rupert of Teck. This would become a pattern in all of Victoria’s children, influencing the world. 

Calling Victoria the ‘Grandmother of Europe’ was an understatement. All her children made it to adulthood, and all married into prominent families of Europe. And she would have a total of 87 grandchildren. Through this, her daughters brought the disease right into the heart of Europe. Daughters Beatrice and Alice both would pass on the gene to their daughters: Alix (future Empress Alexandra of Russia), Irene, Victoria (future Queen of Spain) all carried the disease. We already know how the story ends for Empress Alexandra and her son Alexei, Tsarevich of Russia. His disease would in part be the catalyst for the fall of the Russian Empire. 

But what of the other two? Beatrice’s daughter born Victoria Eugene married into the Spanish royal line. Later as Queen of Spain two of her three sons inherited the disease. Alphonso, Prince of Asturias, died after a car accident; his injuries exacerbated by the hemophilia inherited from his great-great grandmother Victoria. Eerily his brother Infante Gonzalo of Spain also died in a car accident years before and also had the disease. 

Irene, or Princess Irene of Hesse and by Rhine, had three sons with her husband Prince Henry of Prussia. Two of her sons would inherit the disease, with one (Heinrich Viktor) dying at age four. The other son Prince Waldemar Wilhelm not only lived to adulthood; he lived the longest of all the men afflicted with the disease. Waldemar lived until the age of 56, by far the oldest of any of his cousins. During the final stages of World War II, Waldemar had fled the safety of his home in Bavaria when word came of a Russian advance. He relied on blood transfusions to keep his hemophilia in check. 

After leaving Bavaria, he and his wife made it to the town of Tutzing and Waldemar was able to get a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, the United States entered the city and took over all available resources.  The army had moved all medical supplies and personnel to the nearby concentration camp of Dachau. With no other option of medical assistance Prince Waldemar died in May of 1945, due to complications from the disease.

The importance of Victoria’s family

In looking at the impact of Victoria and her family, clearly, we see that this one family controlled more than just the fates of each other. They also held the world in its hands. Even after her death, her eldest son Albert (later Edward the VII) came to be called the ‘Uncle of Europe’ because of the number of relations by blood and marriage. Indeed, if Victoria had not been born, the world could look very different. It’s an interesting thing to contemplate - a lot of ‘what if’s’ begin to emerge. 

Starting with the circumstances of Princess Charlotte. If she had lived, and by extension her child (who was a boy), the line of Hanover would have continued through him. We can only guess who he would have married and subsequently the impact it would have had on Europe.

But in a situation where Charlotte had lived, and her son did not, there are two scenarios. Firstly, that the young age of Princess Charlotte would surely have allowed another chance to have a child with Prince Leopold. This could have prevented his crowning of Leopold as the first king of Belgium. Leopold stayed in London after Charlotte died, and the Belgian revolution resulted in a list of candidates to take the throne of the country. Leopold, who had already turned down the crown in Greece, may have opted not to take the crown and instead remain with his wife. With no Leopold as the king of Belgium, it could also mean that his son Leopold II would not have been born and the exploitation and atrocities in the Congo would not have happened.

The second scenario is that with Charlotte surviving and the child dying, there would still have been a succession issue since she and Leopold were still childless. It could be theorized that if she had become pregnant with a second child and still died, the crown is in the same position as before. Only in this scenario, if Victoria is not born, the crown would go to Ernst Augustus and subsequently his son George. The line of Hanover would then exist in Britain and Germany through the unification of Germany in 1866.

There are more ‘what ifs’ out there, regarding the line of Victoria; however I think these are probably the two largest. 

What do you think would have happened if Princess Charlotte of Wales had not sadly died? Let us know below.

What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 2 - The Many Sons of George III

Queen Victoria is one of the most famous monarchs in history. Her reign of 63 years was the longest in the history of the United Kingdom until Queen Elizabeth II surpassed her, reigning 68 years and counting. Her name is synonymous with an entire time period. Surely there was never an individual that made such an impact on a country, if not the world.

But what if that had never happened? What if she never came to the throne? What if the original heir presumptive had lived to take the throne? And most importantly, how would the world have been different? This is an examination of those scenarios and how one death changed the entire world.

In part one (here) we discussed the tragic death of Charlotte, Princess of Wales, and her stillborn son. Her death had major ramifications on the royal succession. In part two we look at the sons of George III who all found themselves suddenly in need of wives in order to continue the Hanover line.

Denise Tubbs explains.

George III in the 1770s. Painting by Johann Zoffany.

Great Britain has had its share to succession crises over the centuries. The legitimacy of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and their subsequent children has been debated for over 500 years. During the reign of Elizabeth I, succession was a huge topic since she refused to marry. Even spanning back to 1066, the Battle of Hastings between William of Normandy and Harold Godwinson started as a result of a succession crisis. So, what is it about this crisis that separates it from the rest? Well, no other royal house had more effect on world events for the next 100 years. 

George III had a lot of kids. A total of 15 children - nine sons and six girls. Of his daughters, two never had children, two were never married, one died in childhood, and the last had no surviving children. The continuation of the house of Hanover lied solely with his sons. His son the future George IV and Ernest Augustus both had only one child. Ernest Augustus had a son days apart from Victoria, missing the title of heir by a mere three days (Victoria was born on May 24, 1819 and George was born on May 27, 1819). The future William IV had a total of 10 children. Unfortunately, none of those 10 were legitimate. Prince Augustus Frederick had three children from his marriage; however, because he got married in secret and without the permission of his father, all were deemed illegitimate. Prince Frederick married, but had no children. Prince Adolphus has children but not until after the births of Victoria and Prince George. Lastly, Prince Edward had one child with Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld (she was the sister of Prince Leopold, Charlotte’s husband) before dying at the age of 52. This child was Victoria.

The line of succession

Since George IV was the oldest son and heir apparent to his father’s throne, that made his heir Charlotte. But when she died in 1817, the new heir apparent would have been the second oldest son of George III, Prince Fredrick. He would die in 1827, so the heir became the third oldest son of George III, William. At the time of Charlotte’s death William, Edward and Adolphus were not married. Ernest Augustus had married two years prior. All three unmarried princes were pressured by the public to do away with their bachelor life, marry and have a child before the line had no one left. The three of them would get married in rapid succession of each other - all getting married in 1818.  

So, let us recap since this was a lot of information. By 1817, George lost his only child and heir in childbirth, Charlotte. At the time of her death, William, Edward, and Adolphus were not married nor had any legitimate children. Ernest Augustus was married but had no children yet. Frederick was married but with no children. Augustus had children but they were ruled illegitimate. If William became king after George IV, and none of the remaining sons got married, William’s heir would be Ernest Augustus (Edward would be dead by 1820, so he and Frederick will be out of contention). Ernest Augustus had a son in 1819, so the throne would have passed to him next. If his son had no heir and the remaining sons were still alive the succession would have passed to Augustus and Adolphus. The line would die after Adolphus. 

This meant that the first son to have a child would be the father of the future of the country. The game is set, and as mentioned above, Victoria is born three days before her first Cousin George of Hanover in 1819. If Charlotte had not died in childbirth, there would have been no need for those three sons to make their rush to the altar. Victoria, as a result, would not have been born and her direct descendants who had a major effect on world history as we know it today would be drastically altered. Furthermore, even with Charlotte’s, if Victoria was born after George of Hanover she also would not have been in direct line to the throne. There are then two what if possibilities: of Victoria never being born or born after her cousin.

Next up we will look at the children of Victoria and the effect they would have on world events. 

Now, read part 3, the final part, here: What if Queen Victoria never made it to the Throne? Part 3 – The Impact of Queen Victoria on Europe

What do you think of this royal succession? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia

PBS drama Victoria

Family Squabbles and the Outbreak of World War I

Rebecca Fachner starts a series of articles on World War I by considering how close family ties between many European rulers may have contributed to the outbreak of war – like a family squabble on a grandiose scale.

This summer marks the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I, and over the next few months there will be plenty of articles and books that deal with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the diplomatic machinations between the various countries after the Archduke’s death, and the outbreak of hostilities a few weeks later. One of the most interesting aspects of the beginning of the war is how most of the major powers seemed completely prepared for war, but stunned that war broke out so quickly. It is then, worth considering the political situation before the war to understand why the situation fell apart in the way it did, with the speed that it did.

Queen Victoria in 1887. Her relatives were closely connected prior to World War I.

Many people have compared World War I to a bar fight; there is even an internet graphic floating around that imagines the entire war as if the countries involved were drunks fighting at a bar rather than nations. If the war itself was a bar fight, the political situation leading up to the war is best characterized as a family squabble. Part of the reason that a comparison to a family makes sense is that the European political landscape at that time was in some ways like that of a large family. King George V of Great Britain was a grandson of Queen Victoria, first cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany through his father and the Kaiser’s mother. He was also first cousins with the Tsarina of Russia, Empress Alexandra, herself a granddaughter of Victoria. To make family dinners even more complicated, George was also a first cousin of Alexandra’s husband, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia; their mothers were sisters. His own sister was married to King Haakon of Norway, whose brother was King Christian X of Denmark, both of whom were cousins of both George and Nicholas. George and Wilhelm also had cousins in the royal houses of Greece, Romania and Spain. Confused yet? Well, almost every European royal family was related to almost every other European royal family, and untangling the branches of the family tree is a complicated endeavor, to say the least.

In an age when Europe was dominated by kingdoms and emperors, minor family disagreements became a huge problem. We all have family members that we don’t like too much for whatever reason, that’s the nature of families. But it is one thing if you don’t like your annoying cousin Nick or don’t trust cousin Bill, but when you all run countries, your dislike becomes both political and very important. Suddenly, the fact that you don’t trust your cousin has major policy implications for your government’s relationship with him and his government. This is not to suggest that pre-war alliances were purely based on family discord, or that the world lost millions of lives because of family drama. Two of the major players in the story were not linked to this large family: France because it no longer had a monarchy and Austria-Hungary because its rulers weren’t closely entwined in Queen Victoria’s royal circle. Since the war actually started between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, the non-family political situation was clearly very important too.

Why war broke out

As almost all histories tell us, World War I was the product of entangling alliances between the various powers, and their inability to stop the chain of events from overtaking them in the wake of the Archduke’s assassination. That is true; however, the crucial piece is not the entangling alliances, but the inability of each country in Europe to stop the train wreck as it was happening. The manifest weakness of many of the hereditary rulers of Europe was lethally exposed in 1914, along with their lack of diplomatic skills, their poor management style and general incompetence.

It is impossible to say whether better and more skilled (i.e. merit based) rulers would have been able to stave off a war, but it does seem clear that letting nations behave like a dysfunctional family is not the way to international harmony. Unfortunately it took an awful lot of lives to convince world leaders that international conferences shouldn’t look quite so much like a family reunion. One of the most enduring legacies of the war is that it ultimately toppled a number of the monarchies in Europe, perhaps because the conflict exposed the problems of hereditary rulers to such an extreme extent. Hereditary rule is like rolling the dice with your leadership, sometimes you roll a Peter the Great or Frederick the Great; at other times you roll a Nicholas II or Kaiser Wilhelm. Taking that kind of chance might have been a good idea at some point in history, but in an age of warfare on a massive scale and increasingly deadly weaponry, the major powers needed more skilled diplomats to manage international affairs, not to mention better military commanders.

Did you enjoy the article?

As always, your feedback is welcome. If you have the time to leave a comment below, we’d really like to hear what you thought about the article.

The Greatest Exhibition of the 19th century? – Image of the Week

This week’s image of the week is from the time when the British Empire was dominant.

It has been a few weeks since we shared an image of the week, so it is time for this majestic image…

The Great Exhibition, a type of World’s Fair, took place in London in 1851. Opened by Queen Victoria, it was a majestic event that happened at a time when the British Empire was at its peak. It was also well-attended and extremely popular among many of the local population, not least because it had exhibits from over 25 countries, so allowing people to marvel at wonders from the world over, as well as exhibits from closer to home.

The image above shows the main hall with flags from a variety of countries and well-dressed people visiting the different stands from all over the world. At the top we can see the roof, a glass structure known as the Crystal Palace, situated in Hyde Park, London. Light also fills the exhibition hall.

The second image shows a poster advertising trips to the Great Exhibition from Abergavenny in Wales. People traveled from very far to come to what was an unprecedented spectacle and a rare opportunity to see much of the world under one roof.

Catch all of our articles by subscribing to our rss feed - click here.

George Levrier-Jones