Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Silja

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 40
The Tudors / Re: What Got You Interested in the Tudors?
« on: July 29, 2010, 03:49:08 PM »
No, it wasn't a program it was a movie. I saw it 4 years ago, perhaps is Elizabeth the virgin queen, i can recognize that scene (my favorite)

This still IS from The Virgin Queen. I really hated that mini series. I have rarely seen such bad acting. It bored me immensely, which speaks volumes as usually I devour anything to do with Elizabeth I.

The Tudors / Re: Catherine Howard
« on: July 28, 2010, 02:23:04 PM »
This one is attributed to him

See this one..

This is I think, the nightdress sketch with the Wyatt crest on the back... see article here.

I have always believed that the coin we have seen elsewhere on these threads is the only "life portrait" of Anne but I am pretty convinced by these two. (But then what do I know....I am only an armchair enthusiast and even art historians are divided.)

Yes, I know you were referring to these two. Nevertheless they are not authenticated. It all remains speculation.

The Tudors / Re: Catherine Howard
« on: July 27, 2010, 01:51:30 PM »
Hans Holbein painted Anne Boleyn,

There is no authenticated portrait by Holbein of Anne Boleyn. The two drawings you may refer to are probably not of Anne.

The Tudors / Re: Catherine Howard (II)
« on: July 25, 2010, 02:40:00 PM »
Se was only a girl, she didn't think that her acts could result in her death...

Any Tudor courtier, girl or not, would have known such conduct could result in death. Katherine would have known, and so would Lady Rochford.

The Tudors / Re: Elizabeth I.
« on: July 25, 2010, 02:32:40 PM »
And Henry had the nerves to say she wasn't his daughter!

Where does he say this? As far as I know he never doubted his paternity.

The Habsburgs / Re: Empress Elisabeth, Part I
« on: July 02, 2010, 09:30:27 AM »
She felt MV had changed after she became a mother and wife. She was Tatiana, Queen of the fairie land. It just did not fit into her illusions. 

Always selfish, she probably simply couldn't accept the fact that her daughter now had a life of her own and wouldn't put her mother first any more. According to M. Valerie her mother once told her she would never be happy again to see her if she [M.V.] was going to get married. She was like some animals which abandon their young once they have been touched by somebody.


If I heard "German Royals" and "Reich" in the same sentence, I'd instinctly think of the Holy Roman Empire (Heiliges Römisches Reich)! Why is it that only the Third Reich is branded as "Reich" in English,

But when I hear the word Reich in German I also primarily associate it with the Third Reich, not with the HRE or the German Empire, which also in German would usually be called Heiliges Römisches Reich and Kaiserreich respectively. Think of the notorious expression "Heim ins Reich" which always refers to the Third Reich.

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: May 10, 2010, 07:22:55 AM »
well if henry could decide his heirs, why couldn't edward? after all they were both kings...

If this was the case then Jane Grey was the rightful queen of England.

Personally, I don't think Edward had the right to change the statute of 1544 because at 15 he was still a minor.

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Questions about Alexandra's Name?
« on: May 06, 2010, 04:05:33 AM »
One more little thing: Adelheid is not Alix en French, but "Adelaïde",

I'm not an etymologist, but it appears Alix is also a variant of the German Adelheid.

Forum Announcements / Re: Some Germans there???
« on: May 04, 2010, 03:18:21 PM »

An Ostern fuhr ich am Weg hin und her nach Paris durch das oldenburgische und westfälische Münsterland und fand die Gegend wunderbar melankolisch. :-)

Melancholisch? Welch interessanter Eindruck

"Ich hatte lieb Konni ihr Kleid an". Der Dativ war offenbar schon damals dem Genitiv sein Tod, auch in der guten Kinderstube einer Prinzessin. :-)

Ich bin schockiert. Was für  Proleten - haha.

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: May 04, 2010, 02:47:07 PM »
Maybe I'm jumping the gun a little, but looks like it'll be another pro-Jane/anti-Mary book. I'd take issue with the statement from the little blurb - I woudn't call Jane 'one of the least studied figures of English history'. Plenty has been written about her (although most has been rubbish).  Also, I'd be interested to read his argument that Jane had 'strong legal grounds' for her claim to the throne - Edward VI's will could not overturn an act of parliament (in this case the 1544 Act of Succession) and in any case, as a minor, any will he made would have no validity in law. I know Northumberland wanted to change the law so Edward would achieve his majority at 15 (or 16?) but I'm not sure if this ever actually happened.

Ives exonerates Northumberland from the traditional view that it was his idea.

I have now read his study, and while I think it is a very good book, which raises interesting questions, I disagree with most of his theses.
Ives argues it was Edward’s idea to pass over his sisters and leave the crown to Jane. I agree that originally it was indeed Edward’s plan to disinherit Mary and Elizabeth because he wanted an all male succession and considered his half sisters illegitimate. This is strongly suggested by his original “deuice for the succession”. As stated here the crown was to go to the first male offspring born to any of the females from the Brandon line, that is to either Frances, her daughters  or Margaret Clifford. This is very much in keeping with Edward’s protestant mindset. He was certainly never the manipulated victim as which he has traditionally been presented.

But from here I disagree with Ives. To me all the evidence points to Northumberland having then persuaded Edward into leaving the crown directly to Jane since the original device would have been too impractical and absurd.   Ives, on the other hand, thinks Northumberland simply wanted to be loyal to his king and fulfill his wishes. Like Derek Wilson in The Uncrowned Kings of England, Ives considers the multiple marriages that took place in May 1553   "routine aristocratic alliances".  I find this and  the general total whitewash of the duke not at all convincing.

As to the legal grounds for Jane’s claim, according to Ives the statute from 1544 reinstating Mary and Elizabeth into the line of succession meant “setting aside the inheritance rights of legitimate heirs in favour of a bastard, so Edward by his device simply returned to common law.
Technically this may be so but the Act of Succession was the result of parliament having granted Henry VIII the right to name his successor. So Ives obviously denies the validity of such a right.

Has anyone read the book yet? Any comments?

Having Fun! / Re: Famous Habsburgs in movies/plays/cartoons
« on: April 18, 2010, 02:23:37 PM »

The movie "Elisabeth Von Österreich" with Lili Dagover as the Empress is to be released on dvd in Austria and Germany.

Thanks for the news! Great. It will be released in June.

Having Fun! / Re: Famous Habsburgs in movies/plays/cartoons
« on: April 11, 2010, 12:42:51 PM »
The film is available on DVD in Germany but without any subtitles.

Palaces in the Crimea / Re: Livadia, Palace of Nicholas II
« on: April 06, 2010, 12:58:09 PM »
The shop is disappointing though . . . Had expected more books.

Forum Announcements / Re: Some Germans there???
« on: March 17, 2010, 02:55:37 PM »

Mir scheint, unsere deutschen Mitglieder seien lauter Hessen, Sachsen, Bayern und Schwaben! Nur eine einzige aus Norddeutschland? Gibt es keine Forummitglieder von dem Waterkant?

Mit Norddeutschland kann ich nicht dienen. Ich bin aus NRW, aus Münster.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 40