I don’t think the Russian czars had to worry about 110 F heat very often. And besides, when the seasons did become uncomfortable, royals could simply head off to their summer palace. Personally, if I could choose between spending my summers here in Memphis (with the interior AC at my office cranked up so it’s freezing cold, while it’s baking hot outdoors), or spending them at Balmoral Castle in the fresh air of the Scottish Highlands, there’d no contest–off to Balmoral right away! I just don’t have the kind of financial resources that royalty would have for travel, nor do I have a huge household staff to take care of my “principal” home while I’m away.
- No (but judging by palace exhibitions, royal beds look fairly comfy). 2. Kind of, esp. in the 19th century (and ice harvesting had been in use long before mechanical refrigeration was an option). 3. Yes, to some extent–beginning in the 15th century, royalty (and even wealthy commoners) in northern Europe regularly imported citrus fruits from warmer climates. Poorer citizens didn’t have the same kind of access, needless to say.
Why drive when you can stay at home and receive them as guests at your palace? And in the 19th century, if you did feel like leaving the manor, train travel was an option–and very pampered train travel, too. You have to ask yourself, which is preferable–fighting with all the other commoners in gridlocked car traffic, or sitting back and enjoying the ride while someone else takes care of you? And as for communication, you underestimate the speed and availability of telegraphs in the 19th century.
Of course royalty could have a bath drawn at the desired temperature–your servants would heat it up for you and let you know when it’s cooled down enough for your comfort. And many people would willingly forgo the pleasures of carbonated soda and bland, processed burger meat in favor of having the finest wines and cuisine at your beck and call, all hours of the day.
Your last remark about how women “look better now because of hair/makeup etc.” is either spoken in ignorance of pre-21st century fashion and cosmetics (which royalty and the aristocracy have always indulged in, far more than we do today), or it’s such a subjective and culturally-based opinion that it’s impossible to consider seriously. You may have a different conception of feminine beauty today than someone from the 18th century would have had, but in their day, women like Sarah Siddons (as portrayed by Gainsborough) or Madame Rimsky-Korsakov (as portrayed by Winterhalter) were gorgeous–and in my eyes, still gorgeous today. When she was young, Queen Victoria was pretty cute, too, in my 21st-century opinion–far different from the dumpy old widow that people usually think of when they hear her name.
This question of whether or not a pre-modern royal would prefer living as a modern commoner comes up often on the SDMB, and many posters automatically assume that, since they themselves couldn’t imagine giving up their electronic resources and on-demand entertainment, that no one time-travelling from the past would want to live without them, either. We forget about how culturally rich past periods of history were in their own way. I really doubt that a pre-modern royal would really prefer to live as a modern commoner, no matter how glitzy our consumer goods would seem, instead of living as an exceptionally wealthy and privileged royal–UNLESS that royal were a sickly sort that would benefit from modern medical care. I would concede that people from any walk of life (and any time period) would give up their customary privileges in exchange for a longer and a pain-free life. But if we’re talking about a royal who is generally in good health and not suffering from, say, a congenital disease, then I’d still maintain that such a royal would prefer their times and privileges to ours as 21st-century common folk.
