Talk:Victoria Memorial, London/Archive 1

Archive 1

'War and peace' (and European architecture as history)

A Quote by Saint Augustine of Hippo on peace, purpose, and war (the quote is 'the purpose of all war is peace', without any reference to current documentary evidence) dates back to the first empire of Christian government and thus to what seems to have been the commencement of the relationship of the Christian religion with 'war and peace', in the first instance within Europe, and later in the world (the 'world wars' from the 18th Century). It seems also that the issue was made more complicated with the advent of the Renaissance and the French revolution. This seems also to be quite certainly politically and historically controversial in Europe, both east and west, at the present time (the 21st Cent.) and not simply as from the (atheist) Communist revolution early in the previous (the 20th) Cent. and based on politics of the 19th. Cent. I am not sure anyone would wish to discuss such a matter here, given the rather discouraging complication (both political and legal, even if it is directly involved with the character of humanity on the eternal level and as such involves religions) that seems (at least in my own view) to be here in question, but perhaps I may be allowed to suggest this as an 'eternal' subject directly involving this 'Victoria Memorial' in London as here described and of which we (government and citizens within Europe) should perhaps all be better aware, although we may believe it no longer matters.

I say this with particular relevance to the form of many subsequent 'world war' memorials and international documentary evidence including in particular the 'Inter-Allied Victory Medal' in Europe east and west, that is, including those erected under Communism, during the period when it was in existence as governmental politics in the East, and including also the possible connection with the assorted Communist revolutions in the West, after the First World War (given that they related directly to 'war and peace', and therefore notwithstanding that these did not of course prove to be successful).

Well, I give to readers of this 'Talk' thanks for attention and relevant considerations and perhaps we should after all take into account the fact that the most directly involved in this particular issue is it seems clearly within the United Kingdom to be our historically significant Monarchy (in the person in particular of the Queen herself?) together with the government and the courts while also involving the individual destiny of all of us ordinary citizens at all times (past present and in the future?) and our perhaps confidential convictions (in conclusion I should perhaps make clear I have myself the good fortune of being a British citizen and therefore incidentally of course a subject of Her Majesty The Queen, but I find disturbing the apparent 'indifference' on the part of the government and the courts as confirmed by myself over a period of time in my personal efforts, rightly or wrongly but in any event at my own purely personal time and expense, to get these matters clarified).

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.160.118 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed content

I have removed the following text by the above user from this article, as the article space on Wikipedia is not the proper place for original speculation.

[...On the pinnacle is a statue of unclear entitlement and arguably relating both to 'Peace' and to 'Victory', with two seated figures (the subsidiary figures were given by the people of New Zealand)], this being a design which is evidently intended to be related to both the Greek Winged Victory and to the Russian 19th Cent. Alexander Column (the latter being itself related, after the Napoleonic wars, to other 19th Cent. monuments within France) as confirmed within the official records of her change of name upon accession to the throne, the name provided immediately below the statue being VICTORIA in one line followed by REGINA IMPERATRIX (see photograph of front of memorial within the Gallery in this article). [Footnote starts] Since the text is evidently Latin the word 'Victoria' could also be understood, historically, as referring to the original Greek goddess Nike; for what was presumably the related intention at the time of the creation of the memorial see the document under Ref. 34 in Queen Victoria official documents prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Alexandrina Victoria, but the first name was withdrawn at her own wish and not used again and for the possible signficance of this admittedly difficult and complicated ambiguity on an historical basis in connection with current (late 2011) events at a governmental and international level including the United Nations vide the Olympic Games (the ultimate historical element remaining that of the recreation or renewal at the end of the 19th Cent. of the Games supposedly in the interest of world peace, as at present but followed at the time, unfortunately, by almost completely unique series of elements in world history in the form of the two 'world wars'). This particular 'Victoria Memorial' was it seems not completed until after the First World War and it seems that the suggested historical element can also be traced in war memorials, the name (or Latin word?) 'Victoria' having been, for instance, included in the exterior architecture of the Scottish National War Memorial but without any other explanations in the form of text and therefore without any reference to its possible relationship with either 'Nike' or this particular London memorial or both, but coinciding in the date of its opening with the date of the 'Victory Parade' in Paris (14 July) and therefore with particular connections with the Paris Arc de Triomphe, and having been opened by the Prince of Wales with, on the same date, the direct involvement in relation to the architecture of the shrine of the King and Queen, involving the presentation of the central casket with the phrase 'Their Name Liveth' for inclusion at the highest point of the 'Castle Hill', within the Shrine, as created by the architect to be added to what formerly had been a 19th Century barrack and which before that (when Scotland was presumably independent) had been a Church. [Footnote ends]

[From 'External links' section] The Royal Enclopaedia 1991 contains a description of the Victoria Memorial (London) statue, possibly in the form of an amendment by AME in 1998, in the form of the single word 'Victory', cf. http://www.advantour.com/russia/saint-petersburg/attractions/alexander-column.htm with the text 'the bas-reliefs with allegorical figures of Wisdom and Abundance, geniuses of the Victory and Peace' (but without in either case any further details of the source from which the information is derived).

-- Ham 22:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have only now noticed this removal (June 2012) of text added by myself earlier this year by one calling himself or herself (as usual meaning absolutely nothing at all at least so far as I am concerned!) 'Ham'.

I am sorry but while I will leave to others a decision as to whether or not this text should be restored, I do have to make clear that in my own opinion these are certainly significant national and indeed European issues which it seems have an uncertain character quite clearly on a political basis, i.e. as a result of governmental and executive agency actions in many respects since the Second World War, as for instance in what is now called a 'Redeugh Gardens memorial' apparently by implication or as stated now at the present date explicitly supposed to relate to the entire First World War and named 'Winged Victory' by both the local authority and English Heritage but which was originally (when opened in 1921 in historic Hartlepool) -- and quite clearly -- intended to relate to one specific event in December 1914 (the East Coast Raid), together with numerous other features relating both to the previous history of the area, but, within the war, to this one date only as stated, with (as can be confirmed by any person who views it) this statue being in point of fact in the form of a male figure (as an unnamed one of the first four to die within the United Kingdom since the creation of the British Empire) holding a Latin cross.

Even if there are for various reasons which have to be understood on an historical basis also within this statue certain features which relate to the Greek goddess Nike the name given in relevant contemporary documents is indeed 'Triumphant Youth' and it thus can be said to relate both to the French Arc de Triomphe and the procedures after the first World War ('Arc de Triomphe' and Greek 'Winged Victory') in two separate ways, having much in this particular respect therefore in common with the London Victoria Memorial.

When, if ever, are these matters going to be sorted out, ladies and gentlemen, and by whom if not by myself? It would obviously be from many points of view (including for instance the evident complete amusement if this is not done of the Germans themselves, who are no doubt well aware of the true character of their remarkable East Coast Raid) something clearly incompatible with a remembrance of the First World War in accordance with the memorials erected at the time and the general history.

It must I suggest also be held clearly to relate to what has been now suggested by Ham as an entirely personal opinion (my own) in relation to this Victoria Memorial that was here dealt with but has now been removed, but is I am glad to say made available above on this Talk Page. I am in any event glad that the quite clearly correct fact that at the time it was created just before the outbreak of the First World War the statue in question was intended to relate both to peace and to victory has for the time being at leat been left in place (the direct involvement is incidentally quite clearly that of the monarchy itself in relation to history, but I see little prospect of it in any way whatsoever becoming directly involved even if legal issues are as described quite clearly in question with regard to Hartlepool on the north-east coast). Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.145.252 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

'Ham' is, I assure you, pregnant with significance: it is the word spelt by my initials. The memorial was conceived in 1901 and unveiled in 1911, though it was not completed until 1924. The Winged Victory figure was in place by 1911 and cannot be considered to make any reference to the First World War, and I seriously doubt the iconography of the memorial was in any way affected by it. Why can't it simply be a learned pun on Victoria's name? Albert Gilbert, incidentally, seems to have been the first to exploit this pun in a work of sculpture, back in 1887 for Victoria's Golden Jubilee: [1] Ham 18:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed for coming back and making clear to myself that I should think carefully about contributing to Wikipedia at all, perhaps here or anywhere else; for I am sorry that I find it a waste of time in a good many of the already generally established articles such as this one; on the other hand of course the problem for myself is that there are some others that accept my contributions and to these I am of course duly grateful, given the apparent complete indifference of the government itself, for whatever reason.

Your reference Sir or Madam (alias 'Ham') to a certain character 'Albert Gilbert' is however likewise something that demonstrates the degree of your own knowledge and I am sure I shall find it extremely interesting given that I am already aware that the London Victoria Monument is quite directly related at a European level in numerous ways to the British Empire and the 19th Cent., together with the Buckingham Palace itself, even if this so far as I am aware has never been put down in writing, and this it seems will not be in any way done here. I repeat this is unfortunate since I repeat that this does also relate directly, through architectural designs, to certain memorials of the First World War, and incidentally to the East Coast Raid and the 19th Cent. architecture on the coast which is now completely, it seems, forgotten, except of course that it can perhaps be worked out if you look at a 1:2500 OS Map (I refer to historic Hartlepool and the 'Headland' as the target of the Germans quite clearly directly chosen on this basis, that is with particular reference to all that had already been said and done by the British within the first few months of the war on what is now entitled the 'North Sea' and incidentally the involvement, as here mentioned, of the German Emperor in the funeral of Queen Victoria, including the dedication of the Victoria Memorial which as you say took place before the war, but only by a couple of years, and incidentally of course it was the Greek 'Winged Victory' that related in all sorts of ways to German architecture and memorials at this time, with particular reference to 'Gott Mit Uns 1870' as held by every single soldier as well as on the national flag).

You may agree with what is implied in all this or not but I shall not be responding further I am afraid given that it seems to myself that whatever I say and as a result of what seems are your own views on these matters it will evidently never result in any truly significant changes to the article itself. I still believe that the fact remains that this should be sorted out one way or another before the centenary coming up in two years as from now (2012) and I repeat that the Germans themselves are likely to find a failure to do so ridiculous if we hold ceremonies that ignore the true significance in history of our architecture, in whatever part of the country, in this (the subject of the wars) and of course also in other respects. PS It is incidentally not correct to suppose that the particular little form of Greek 'Winged Victory' or 'Nike' actually held within the hands of Queen 'Victoria' ('Nike' in a Latin version) on this memorial relates only to the statue itself since it relates also directly to the identical feature to be found on the hands of the statue of Napoleon now in London as brought to this country after the Napoleonic wars and generally available to any member of the public at the relevant house in Hyde Park Corner and also to the whole history of that particular 19th Cent. war together with the other more general issues I have tried to outline for the reason given and in case anyone is interested (I admit it is all nothing but history except that it also involves architecture and in particular the original statue sometimes known as 'Victoria' (Latin), 'Nike' (Greek) and in our own language 'Winged Victory' although the original Greek goddess was not always shown winged). Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.154.159 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gold leafing?

I was wondering, why doesn't the article mention the statue's gold leafing? Or is that not actual gold leafing? --RThompson82 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Old photos

I've uploaded a number of old photos from the unveiling which I believe are all now public domain and should be of some use to upgrading this article in the next month.

• File:Unveiling of the Queen Victoria Memorial.jpg
• File:Inauguration du Monument de la reine Victoria.jpg
• File:The Statue of Queen Victoria on the Queen Victoria Memorial Now Unveiled.jpg
• File:At the Moment of Unveiling.jpg
• File:Vmsketch model.jpg JMiall₰ 22:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

These are wonderful; excellent work! Ham II (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Scope

Should we be attempting to cover the gardens surrounding the monument as well as the monument itself within this article as they were designed by the architect as a whole? None of the articles on things nearby seem to already cover them. JMiall₰ 16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that all aspects of the "Victoria Memorial project" (as it's called in Ward-Jackson 2011, p. 131 – I'll do a big edit citing this book presently) should come under the scope of this article. Although Aston Webb designed the gardens, Thomas Brock was adamant that he was the designer of the memorial itself, architectural elements included. Ham II (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, perhaps Canada Gate and Canada Memorial should be separated, given that the former is part of the Queen Victoria Memorial scheme? It doesn't make much sense for them to have the same Wikidata item. Ham II (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Title

Should this article's title be changed to Victoria Memorial (London) (currently a redirect), following the same style as Victoria Memorial (India), Victoria Monument (Liverpool) and Victoria Memorial (Montreal)? Ham II (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of statues in London with titles with a comma though that it could also have the same style as. WP:COMMADIS seems to be the best guideline. The use of London here seems to be more on the bracket side of the guideline to me but I'm not fussy. JMiall₰ 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The comma is the normal style for all buildings and structures in the UK (since it is the normal style in British English). I have moved it back and also moved the Liverpool memorial. We use consistency within countries, not necessarily throughout the website. American articles, for instance, always use the parenthetical form. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Thanks for this; I wasn't aware of the convention. Is it written down somewhere in the Manual of Style? Ham II (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. It's just one of these conventions that's grown up over time but which can easily be seen in the appropriate categories, where the vast majority already use the comma style (and those that don't are only the ones that haven't been caught yet). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)