Queen Victoria’s well-meant matchmaking

SIR – James Hughes-onslow (Letters, August 28) is over-hasty in blaming Queen Victoria and her offspring for all the evils of the 20th century.

In fact, she and Prince Albert had hoped – by marrying their eldest daughter, Princess Victoria, to Prince Frederick, heir to the Prussian throne – to encourage the growth of liberal ideas in the rigid and reactionary Prussian court.

These hopes were shattered by a combination of Bismarck’s machinations, the longevity of Frederick’s father and the untimely death of Frederick himself, from throat cancer, three months after succeeding to the throne in 1888.

Had he lived as long as his father, he could have reigned until at least 1920: one of the great “what ifs” of history. How can Queen Victoria be blamed for a twist of fate? Karin Proudfoot

Fawkham, Kent

SIR – Speculating on what might have been is always entertaining, but to blame the woes of the world on Queen Victoria’s “obsession with reproduction”, as Mr Hughes-onslow does, is a little unfair.

The fault, if fault there be, lies with the laws of succession. Because she was a woman, the Queen’s eldest child, Princess Victoria, was prevented from becoming queen in 1901.

If she had been queen of this country, her son would have then become king, as well as Kaiser of Germany. It is hard to imagine a war breaking out between the two countries in a situation such as this.

The origins of the First World War were complex, but in truth it was the German general staff who took the fateful decision, and at the crucial moment the Kaiser was deliberately misled by them. Although his name is on the mobilisation order of 1914, he is reported to have said to his generals: “You will regret this, gentlemen.”

Is that perhaps the greatest understatement of the 20th century? Nicholas Young

London W13