missmoe Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Sally Bedell Smith in Queen Elizabeth explains, "Her formal education was spotty by today's standards. Women of her class and generation were typically schooled at home, with greater emphasis on the practical than the academic." Later on she further explains, "Elizabeth was not expected to excel, much less to be intellectual. She had no classmates against whom to measure her progress, nor batteries of challenging examinations." What she did learn before the age of 10 (before it become a common assumption she would some day be monarch of England) to read (by her mother) history geography grammar literature poetry composition music dancing French handwriting what we would call nature study silent reading time set aside each day (she loved to read historical fiction) mother and grandmother read-aloud classics encouraged to journal on a daily basis Bible/religion Memorization of poetry ---her governesses were not able to teach her math beyond the basics Extra-curriculars Equestrianism as well as breeding of horses hunting Girl Guides (similar to American Girls Scouts) After she became 1st in line to the throne she continued the above studies and added a mentorship with Sir Henry Marten, vice provost of Eton College and co- author of The Groundwork of British History---This mentorship provided a six year study of the British constitution and political and social history as well as history of the British imperial commonwealth and United States. In-depth study of French literature and history Composition in both French and English Public speaking Field trips to places such as museums, galleries, the mint, the Bank of England, palaces, and the Tower of London. Genealogy Origins and particulars of the royal jewelry collection Miss Bedell Smith also laments Queen Elizabeth's lack of a college education! I see this attitude a lot---without an "accredited" education one lacks a "real" education. Off my high horse---for now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDays Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Wow. Um, the poor deprived woman. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoLuRu Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 There is certainly a lack of math and science, and the expectation that she wouldn't excel is a bit sad. Perhaps she would have enjoyed the mental challenge but wasn't given the opportunity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubiac Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Love this post. Thank you for sharing. (How much detail does the book go into? A couple pages or more than one chapter?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmoe Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 I read it on an e-reader, so I'm not sure how many pages, but it is pages and not chapters. I loved the book and learned a ton. Just that one section about education drove me insane! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Given the time and role of women, even those first in line who were expected to marry above their station to produce a king, it seems normal to me. I like the spin given on the official royal website.: http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Education/Overview.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lailasmum Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I know that she was trained to be an ATS mechanic in her late teens during WWII and appeared to have been successful at that, I assume that would require reasonably decent maths and science knowledge even if she was never actually taught it directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negin Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Wow. Um, the poor deprived woman. :glare: :smilielol5: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca VA Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 It sounds as though she had a WONDERFUL education. I totally envy her. She probably was never a science and math person anyway. Queen Elizabeth has earned the love and respect of her subjects for 60 years now. No one has a bad word to say about her. I think she probably had exactly the right education -- and character training -- to prepare her for her adult life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candid Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I'd guess based on some subtle hints that she may have had a Charlotte Mason trained tutor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wintermom Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I'd be curious about her education, both formal and informal, from her early 20s on up. As we all know, learning doesn't stop at age 20, and it doesn't have to be taught by someone else. If someone looked at my educational background, they would miss the incredible amount of history I've been learning just within the last few years as a home educator. Without this, it would look like I never learned a thing beyond basic Canadian history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AimeeM Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 It sounds as though she had a WONDERFUL education. I totally envy her. She probably was never a science and math person anyway. Queen Elizabeth has earned the love and respect of her subjects for 60 years now. No one has a bad word to say about her. I think she probably had exactly the right education -- and character training -- to prepare her for her adult life. Why would you assume that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebra Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I am reading that book right now (well, not this exact moment....) and I thought the same thing. "Spotty" is a weird way to describe it. My public school education was certainly more spotty than hers. They don't go into her education much more than that. But there is some about her holding her own against prime ministers...which to me means she must not be a total idiot. I think at some point the book also touched upon the fact that she was better educated than Margaret, and Margaret was always upset about that. So make up your mind already...or is Margaret illiterate and still grunts and eats with her hands so in contrast Elizabeth's education looked stellar? The attitude that a formal education is the only one worth anything is very frustrating and pervasive. As a side note, I never liked the Queen all that much and this book is making me like her a lot more and realize what a difficult position she is in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsMommy Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I'm currently reading Andrew Marr's biography of Queen Elizabeth II, and I've found it to be very supportive of how she was educated. He does bring up other people's objections, particularly to the fact that she never attended a traditional school, but his summary of her education is quite inspiring to me as a homeschooling mother: "It is not true, then, to say the Queen was badly educated. She was just differently educated. She was, and is, very fast at absorbing information and always had remarkable powers of concentration. From early on, she became shrewd at sizing up people, and good at recalling names and faces. Although going to a proper school might have helped her understand non-royal life, the lack of a formal education did not cripple her intellectually." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebra Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 "It is not true, then, to say the Queen was badly educated. She was just differently educated. She was, and is, very fast at absorbing information and always had remarkable powers of concentration. From early on, she became shrewd at sizing up people, and good at recalling names and faces. Although going to a proper school might have helped her understand non-royal life, the lack of a formal education did not cripple her intellectually." That's an excellent quote. Biographers like to pretend they are neutral, but that is obviously not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca VA Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 AimeeM, if her governesses were never able to teach her math beyond the basics, that's a clue that she was probably never a math and science person. If she were really, really interested in math and science, I imagine her parents would have seen that her interests were indulged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlorih Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Sally Bedell Smith in Queen Elizabeth explains, "Her formal education was spotty by today's standards. Women of her class and generation were typically schooled at home, with greater emphasis on the practical than the academic." Later on she further explains, "Elizabeth was not expected to excel, much less to be intellectual. She had no classmates against whom to measure her progress, nor batteries of challenging examinations." What she did learn before the age of 10 (before it become a common assumption she would some day be monarch of England) to read (by her mother) history geography grammar literature poetry composition music dancing French handwriting what we would call nature study silent reading time set aside each day (she loved to read historical fiction) mother and grandmother read-aloud classics encouraged to journal on a daily basis Bible/religion Memorization of poetry ---her governesses were not able to teach her math beyond the basics Extra-curriculars Equestrianism as well as breeding of horses hunting Girl Guides (similar to American Girls Scouts) After she became 1st in line to the throne she continued the above studies and added a mentorship with Sir Henry Marten, vice provost of Eton College and co- author of The Groundwork of British History---This mentorship provided a six year study of the British constitution and political and social history as well as history of the British imperial commonwealth and United States. In-depth study of French literature and history Composition in both French and English Public speaking Field trips to places such as museums, galleries, the mint, the Bank of England, palaces, and the Tower of London. Genealogy Origins and particulars of the royal jewelry collection Miss Bedell Smith also laments Queen Elizabeth's lack of a college education! I see this attitude a lot---without an "accredited" education one lacks a "real" education. Off my high horse---for now! Her education was SPOTTY by today's standards??? :001_huh::001_huh::001_huh: This looks more well-rounded than anything I've ever seen a PS kid have to do! Sheesh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmoe Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) AimeeM, if her governesses were never able to teach her math beyond the basics, that's a clue that she was probably never a math and science person. If she were really, really interested in math and science, I imagine her parents would have seen that her interests were indulged. Actually, the book blames that part of her education on the teacher. Evidently the teacher didn't have any education past basic mathematics. And you know--I don't think her parents would have indulged her interest after she came into line for the throne. The family's world had suddenly changed, and preparing her for the monarchy became important---above any interest of their own. Also, I think the Queen is extremely knowledge in natural sciences including biology. She is considered one of the best horse breeders in the world and is very hands-on in that aspect. She is also hands-on with the managing of her large landholdings. She was a mechanic during WWII which would be training in physics---so there you have some math and science training. Her education does sound very Charlotte Mason. The book does talk about her many experiences past school age that have helped form her and her policies. She leads a life where learning continues and continues and continues. I think traveling and meeting new people is an awesome way of expanding one's world. Edited July 8, 2012 by missmoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 It seems like there's this attitude that large, government funded schools with age segregated classrooms invented education. That these schools popped up in their current form instead of evolving over time. Everyone knows that's isn't the case, but you would think it from people's general fear of stepping outside of that educational model. People seem to think that education can't happen outside of the classroom or at least that it's terribly risky. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macpuffins Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Her education was SPOTTY by today's standards??? :001_huh::001_huh::001_huh: This looks more well-rounded than anything I've ever seen a PS kid have to do! Sheesh! :iagree: many of us would have loved to have had that *spotty* education! and everything HRH has attempted in the world stage, she has excelled and come off as nothing less than highly articulate and knowledgeable about world events - and she has done so in more than one language. *spotty* indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I wonder what the college admin people would think about an elective like "Origins and particulars of the royal jewelry collection." Do you think it would make her stand out as someone worthy of their institution? If not, their loss, I'd say. She'd have looked good on the alumni lists. :lol: Rosie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momacacia Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Oh dear, another subject to add. I've decided we need to study Origins and Particulars of the Royal Jewelry Collection in oh, say 7th grade--complete with field trips and hands-on research. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmoe Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Oh dear, another subject to add. I've decided we need to study Origins and Particulars of the Royal Jewelry Collection in oh, say 7th grade--complete with field trips and hands-on research. ;) Hmmm, how to fit this into our 8th-grade year (too late for the 7th-grade year)???! ;) And should I list it as a core class--perhaps history or just keep it as a good extra to list on the transcript. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmoe Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'm currently reading Andrew Marr's biography of Queen Elizabeth II, and I've found it to be very supportive of how she was educated. He does bring up other people's objections, particularly to the fact that she never attended a traditional school, but his summary of her education is quite inspiring to me as a homeschooling mother: "It is not true, then, to say the Queen was badly educated. She was just differently educated. She was, and is, very fast at absorbing information and always had remarkable powers of concentration. From early on, she became shrewd at sizing up people, and good at recalling names and faces. Although going to a proper school might have helped her understand non-royal life, the lack of a formal education did not cripple her intellectually." This is a lot better attitude towards her education, but still that word--proper--rubs me the wrong way here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Oh dear, another subject to add. I've decided we need to study Origins and Particulars of the Royal Jewelry Collection in oh, say 7th grade--complete with field trips and hands-on research. ;) Hmmm, how to fit this into our 8th-grade year (too late for the 7th-grade year)???! ;) And should I list it as a core class--perhaps history or just keep it as a good extra to list on the transcript. Here is a tutorial for you: From Her Majesty's Jewel Vault And another one: Jewel Central Don't want to be behind the rest of the world, do you? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In The Great White North Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 AimeeM, if her governesses were never able to teach her math beyond the basics, that's a clue that she was probably never a math and science person. If she were really, really interested in math and science, I imagine her parents would have seen that her interests were indulged. What they considered the "basics" of math in 1940 likely included more than what we would include today. I know my grandfather's "basic math," which ended with the rest of his schooling at 8th grade, included algebra and trig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsMommy Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I love Order of Splendor...best blog name ever! I found it around the Diamond Jubilee, and read through the whole thing while I was up for middle-of-the-night feedings with the baby. And I was so excited to see she started the Jewel Vault. It sounds silly, but there's a lot of history to be learned through those jewels...fascinating. Missmoe, I just took proper to mean "standard" or "expected" the way he used it. Based on the context of the chapter the quote was in, I don't think he meant it in a negative way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 It sounds as though she had a WONDERFUL education. I totally envy her. She probably was never a science and math person anyway. Queen Elizabeth has earned the love and respect of her subjects for 60 years now. No one has a bad word to say about her. I think she probably had exactly the right education -- and character training -- to prepare her for her adult life. Hmm, I know quite a few people who have a bad word to say about her, most recently concerning her having the Order of Precedence updated so that the common-born Kate remembers her place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmoe Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Here is a tutorial for you: From Her Majesty's Jewel Vault And another one: Jewel Central Don't want to be behind the rest of the world, do you? ;) WoW! Now I have a whole new way to waste some time this summer---drooling over royal jewels! I've learned a ton already this morning---turns out I don't even have a clue who half the royals are in this world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobynV Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Quote:Originally Posted by MrsMommy I'm currently reading Andrew Marr's biography of Queen Elizabeth II, and I've found it to be very supportive of how she was educated. He does bring up other people's objections, particularly to the fact that she never attended a traditional school, but his summary of her education is quite inspiring to me as a homeschooling mother: "It is not true, then, to say the Queen was badly educated. She was just differently educated. She was, and is, very fast at absorbing information and always had remarkable powers of concentration. From early on, she became shrewd at sizing up people, and good at recalling names and faces. Although going to a proper school might have helped her understand non-royal life, the lack of a formal education did not cripple her intellectually." This is a lot better attitude towards her education, but still that word--proper--rubs me the wrong way here! I think that really is a British English (vs. American English) use and doesn't imply that anything else is improper. DH is English and we often joke that we speak entirely different languages. LOL After almost 13 years of marriage, I recognize most of the context differences, but it sure led to some interesting (and heated) "discussions" until I did. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momacacia Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Here is a tutorial for you: From Her Majesty's Jewel Vault And another one: Jewel Central Don't want to be behind the rest of the world, do you? ;) Wow, this is going to be a tough course! Between the gemology AND history and meanings of the pieces, this could be a junior year core class!! After looking at the second link, I've decided I need a tiara. Maybe a small one, but nonetheless. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammyla Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 qE has done pretty well for herself imo. I'm in the camp thinking, an early/mid 20th century education was so much better than today; a private one would be the icing on the cake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I think the standard for comparison for most readers would either be the strict classical, Latin heavy sort of boys' schools OR the modern especially for those in the US, American ) school education. In comparison to either of those, hers is certainly different, but I am not sure what makes hers inferior. She seems to have been able to perform adequately at her job for quite some years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Wow, this is going to be a tough course! Between the gemology AND history and meanings of the pieces, this could be a junior year core class!! After looking at the second link, I've decided I need a tiara. Maybe a small one, but nonetheless. Sigh. I want one too. I totally covet the one Zara wore for her wedding with the Greek key design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmoe Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 I want one too. I totally covet the one Zara wore for her wedding with the Greek key design. Personally, I need one that can be converted into a necklace. And after further reading I now know I should wear it with bigger hair than normal!:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Hmm, I know quite a few people who have a bad word to say about her, most recently concerning her having the Order of Precedence updated so that the common-born Kate remembers her place. I wonder why anyone outside the royal family cares how they order themselves. Blood relatives take precedence in most families. I think people, instead of being grumpy over typical royal protocol, should be glad they don't have to use that level of manners when they are at home! :p I don't think the changes are because Kate is common-born but because she isn't royal-born. Anyway, if they take all their royal traditions away and behave like the rest of us all the time, who'd benefit? Rosie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmoe Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 I wonder why anyone outside the royal family cares how they order themselves. Blood relatives take precedence in most families. I think people, instead of being grumpy over typical royal protocol, should be glad they don't have to use that level of manners when they are at home! :p I don't think the changes are because Kate is common-born but because she isn't royal-born. Anyway, if they take all their royal traditions away and behave like the rest of us all the time, who'd benefit? Rosie I agree. I believe a new Order of Precedence is formed whenever some one new enters the family. I think the author of the linked article had an agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I agree. I believe a new Order of Precedence is formed whenever some one new enters the family. Isn't this true for every family? ;) hee hee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I agree. I believe a new Order of Precedence is formed whenever some one new enters the family. I think the author of the linked article had an agenda. :iagree: It did read that way, didn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmoe Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 Isn't this true for every family? ;) hee hee And wouldn't it be easier if it was in writing and we all knew! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.