When writing her memoirs in later life, Consuelo could recall very little of her early childhood. She remembered nothing of the ugly brownstone building where she was born. No-one registered her birth either, an oversight that subsequently caused a great deal of bureaucratic trouble. She moved into 660 Fifth Avenue with her parents in 1883, just before she was six, so the childhood she recollected began in surroundings of extraordinary affluence. She does not seem to have been present at the 1883 ball (unlike Cousin Gertrude who was two years older and went for part of the evening, dressed as a tulip). She remembered other parties, however: ‘How gay were the gala evenings when the house was ablaze with lights and Willie [her younger brother] and I, crouching on hands and knees behind the balustrade of the musicians’ gallery, looked down on a festive scene below – the long dinner table covered with a damask cloth, a gold service and red roses, the lovely crystal and china, the grown-ups in their fine clothes … the ladies a-glitter with jewels seated on high-backed tapestry chairs behind which stood footmen in knee-breeches.’40
At other moments, there were distinct disadvantages to living like a princess in a neo-Gothic palace, which, like many houses built primarily for entertaining and display, could feel gloomy and frightening when no-one else was there. The fact that the stairway was carved in Caen stone was quite irrelevant when the princess happened to be cursed with a neo-Gothic imagination. ‘I still remember how long and terrifying was that dark and endless upward sweep as, with acute sensations of fear, I climbed to my room every night, leaving below the light and its comforting rays. For in that penumbra there were spirits lurking to destroy me, hands stretched out to touch me and sighs that breathed against my cheek.’41 Life in an urban chateau had its compensations, however. On the floor beside her bedroom there was a playroom big enough for bicycling with friends. There were horse-drawn sleigh rides in the streets of New York in winter, trips to the family box at the Metropolitan Opera to hear Adelina Patti sing, and weekly classes at Dodworth’s Dancing Academy marking her out as a junior member of New York’s elect from birth.
Alva always said that she loved motherhood. She remembered a sense of religious joy when she discovered she was to have her first baby. If it ever became fashionable to decry such feelings, she wrote, she would not join in. ‘So long as the world endures there will be women who will quiver to these emotions … no matter what freedom of expression is finally attained.’42 Consuelo’s birth in 1877 was followed by the arrival of her brothers William Kissam II (known as Willie K. Jr) in 1878, and Harold Stirling in 1884. Alva prided herself on the fact that, unlike members of the English aristocracy, she did not hand her children over to the care of others. ‘I dedicated the best years of my life to rearing and influencing and developing those three little beings who were my links with the future. I gave them an exclusive devotion. I considered their welfare before all else. I lived in their lives and cultivated no other apart from them for myself.’43
In 1909 Alva announced that she was writing a book about her child-rearing methods, and though it never materialised, she told the New York City Journal: ‘[My children] were not put away to sleep in a room with the nurse; they slept in my room. The nursery was next to my room, and when they were older they slept there, but with the door open to I could look after them, and the smallest one slept in my room. I nursed all my children, though I don’t know that anyone is particularly interested in that.’44 By 1917, however, she had come to believe that excessive pre-occupation with her children had been misguided, and that mothers should not sacrifice themselves as she had done. ‘I want to say unhesitatingly that I believe this was wrong. I deplore the eternal sacrifice of women for another or others. Motherhood and Individuality should not conflict. Motherhood ought not to kill Personality in the mother and Personality in the mother ought not to injure the child.’45
However much Alva enjoyed motherhood she was also ambivalent about it – largely on the grounds that many women became mothers just at the moment they were finding themselves. ‘It is a formative time for them so far as intellect goes … [A young mother is] in a sense a diamond already cut and ready to sparkle as she can find the light. Yet for the sake of developing the unknown quantity which her children are she gradually slips back into the darkness.’46 Alva always felt that the equation between the perfect woman and virtuous female martyr was wrong. ‘The whole history of most women’s lives is summed in self-sacrifice. If it is not for a child whose future is uncertain then it is for an aged parent whose life is done. Again and again people have pointed out to me some splendid woman who was burying her talent under care for a decrepit relative. “Isn’t her life beautiful!” they would exclaim. No, it is not beautiful. I think it is disgusting. I think it is wicked,’47 she told Sara Bard Field.
In Alva’s case, talk of immolating maternal self-sacrifice should be treated with caution. This was not modern hands-on motherhood. Like other affluent households in New York in the 1880s, 660 Fifth Avenue had nursemaids, nannies, housemaids, governesses and cooks. The fact that Consuelo’s earliest years were so unmemorable has much to do with the disciplined and dull world of an affluent nineteenth-century nursery where the emphasis was on avoiding undue stimulation, building up the infant’s strength and avoiding infection. Even when her children were very young, Alva was occupied with other matters: designing and decorating houses with Richard Morris Hunt, ensuring the Vanderbilts were behaving like Medicis, taking her rightful place at the apex of New York society, as well as the complex task of managing two large households.
There is also no sign that Alva’s personality was in any way dimmed by maternity, though as each child left the nursery she certainly exercised an increasing degree of control over its life. Alva saw a direct relationship between building houses and building children: ‘If one can judge of her own self I would unhesitatingly say that the two strongest characteristics in me are the constructive and the maternal. They are or ought to be associated.’48 Children were, of course, the greater responsibility for here one was building character. Alva’s view of maternal responsibility was first, that the mother was directly responsible for developing the character of each child; second, that each child should be treated as an individual with an independent mind; and third, that it was the parent’s responsibility to ‘guide’ the child to the right course in life, based upon (and this was the rub) parental assessment of the child’s individual characteristics.
This view of maternal responsibility was, in many ways, an extension of the way Alva had described how she played with her dolls as a child (‘I loved dolls … I took them very seriously. I put into their china or sawdust bodies all my own feelings.’49) She frequently expected Consuelo to behave with the submission of a doll, a ‘china body’ on to which Alva projected all her own feelings. Consuelo was to be the