One of the fallacies Bagehot skewered was the idea that it was the function of the Crown to give a moral example to the nation. Queen Victoria’s domestic virtues were admirable, but not an essential part of her role, claimed Bagehot, and it was unfair to criticize her son for not following her example. “All the world, whatever is most attractive, whatever is most seductive, has always been offered to the Prince of Wales of the day, and always will be. It is not rational to expect the best virtue where temptation is applied in the most trying form at the frailest time of human life.”1 Queen Victoria did not agree. She bombarded Bertie with letters, warning about “the frivolity, the love of pleasure, self-indulgence, luxury and idleness” of the aristocracy which, she thought, “resembles the time before the French Revolution.… It is, dear Child, in your power to do much to check this,” she wrote. “It is for this reason that I always urge you so strongly not to frequent Races, for they lead to every species of evil, gambling etc.”2 Victoria envisaged Bertie acting as “social sovereign,”
