2

I came across a English exam practice question that basically says Queen Victoria was initially very stubborn but became more flexible during her later years (on formal matters such as the state, rather than personal matters). I want to know if this is in actual history a true claim or a false one.

And if it is indeed true, I want to know some short evidence of each stage as well (I don't want to know details so one or two sentences is fine), that shows she is stubborn when young and softer after getting older.

Note: I am not a native English speaker and I have no prior knowledge about the Queen, so I would appreciate answers even seemingly trivial to Anglophiles.

  • 1
    You'll need to define what you mean by "flexible" for the question to be answerable. – Felix Goldberg Oct 18 '16 at 8:15
  • 1
    @cr001 Stubborn about what? About her menu and daily ablutions? About matters of state? About the governance of her large family? Please be more specific. – Felix Goldberg Oct 18 '16 at 8:20
  • 2
    @MarkC.Wallace: That is a gross oversimplification - much of our present understanding of how a constitutional monarchy should work is a direct consequence of Queen's Victoria's *abdication of (many of) her then constitutional duties during her mourning for Alfred. She entered her reign with much more constitutional power than she resumed it with. – Pieter Geerkens Oct 19 '16 at 2:22
  • 1
    All comments are gross oversimplification, but I think this question does not merit deeper discussion of British constitutionalism. – Mark C. Wallace Oct 19 '16 at 8:26
  • 2
    did she become more flexible? yeah, she was the first geriatric gymnast. This comment is made to highlight that entropy evident in this comment stream. Either answer the question, or don't, but this run on argument in comments does not seem productive in getting an answer. An answer can include a frame challenge, to offer an answer that also corrects improper assumptions in a question. – KorvinStarmast Oct 19 '16 at 21:08