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 - ilyala

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 136
I think Hannah Pakula made a very good argument when she said that she doesn't believe Missy's infatuation for Waldorf turned to anything physical due to the fact that Missy mentions Waldorf quite a lot in her memoires. Barbu Stirbey barely makes it - which shows that there's a bit of guilt there, but Waldorf (who wasn't nearly as important as Barbu Stibery in the end...) is in there quite a lot.

The Playboy King mentions Nicolae being Waldorf Astor's son which in my opinion is at best a court rumour. But since this is the only book on Marie that mentions it, my guess is that the author simply knew about her infatuation with Aldorf, checked out the children birthdays and decided Nicolae must have been his son.

The Tudors / Re: New Showtime Series About the Tudors
« on: April 14, 2010, 07:57:17 AM »
If they are going to go up to 1603, my fear is that they will just insert Mary Queen of Scots like they've inserted James King of Scotland (mentioned in the scene where Henry was looking for his wife and "bumped" into Mary of Guise) - as "Elizabeth's Cousin" (Like James was Henry's "Nephew") without any other reference. And my fear is that the audiences that will not know the truth (for whom the whole Margaret/Mary debacle was made) will not even stop to wonder "Wait... what nephew? What cousin?"

I highly think this is a morganatic marriage type of situation. Camilla is old enough to assume that there will be no children, and even if there were, Prince William and Prince Harry pretty much ensure that none of her offspring will be a monarch.

So the only problem is whether or not Camilla should receive the title - since no other person (besides her husband) will be affected.

I personally see no problem with her being Queen. In the end, English monarchs do not have the influence they used to, it's not like Camilla will influence politics or anything like that. I find her dignified and fit enough to do her duty (in many ways more than Diana - who was a bit impulsive) so I really don't see why not.

I find her the ugliest of Missy's daughters - and I'm not even using character in that judgment (although she did have an ugly character too). She was pretty when she was young (child/teenager) but as she reached maturity I found her quite ugly.


it's very difficult then to discuss about something nobody has ever seen

god, this discussion is getting tiresome.

let's put mignon's paternity discussions to a halt till we all see those letters. it's kind of hard to discuss when only one of us has seen what it's in them.

The Tudors / Re: Katherine Parr's First Husband
« on: September 16, 2009, 01:48:52 PM »
she was actually married TWICE before being queen. and once again afterwards.


The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: September 10, 2009, 02:11:49 PM »
He's my favorite king ever because:

a) in my book, he was very successful as a king. the country was broke when he got there and rich when he left. also hardly any wars - and all when he couldn't avoid them.
b) he is very mysterious, you hardly read about him in history books (in general history books the story usually stops with "he married Elizabeth of York and ended the wars of the roses... their son..."). You have to dig very deep to find something about his personality other than "he was cheap" - which btw he wasn't.
c) he was also rather successful in his private life - amazingly his marriage went well (despite a rather rocky start with him refusing to crown his wife...) and he had intelligent (albeit rather spoilt) children.

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: September 09, 2009, 04:15:08 PM »
... which is why he's my favorite king :)

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: September 06, 2009, 02:27:34 AM »
I think it also helped that Henry's father was the half-brother of the last Lancastrian king (Henry VI). Henry VII was perceived as Lancastrian.

The fact that he married the Yorkist princess was like a fairytale - a successful Romeo and Juliet type of thing, where the love of the two manages to melt down the hatred between the two families. Or at least that is how it was presented to me in the fourth grade when I first heard about the Wars of the Roses. The reason the Tudors were a new dynasty and not presented as a Lancastrian branch was exactly this: their image was supposed to be a blend of both families (reflected in the pink Tudor rose). That's how Henry hoped to get rid of any animosity - he tried to present himself as the heir (by right and marriage) of BOTH families.

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: September 02, 2009, 01:32:19 PM »
even if Richard was dead, Henry wouldn't have been the heir - Elizabeth would have been. And I agree that a woman ruler would have been rather unbelievable at the time, however whoever she married would have been a strong contender.

So, maybe Henry was generous because he knew that even if he did everything he could to make sure that everyone knew that HE was the monarch, not his wife, he should stay on his wife's good side (or her family's for that matter) because in the end he wouldn't have been half as strong without her presence at his side.

I doubt Elizabeth Woodville would have supported Henry'ss claim instead of her son's... no matter how generous he was.

And, on the other hand, Henry was really not that generous to Elizabeth Woodville - she died in total obscurity.

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: September 01, 2009, 09:52:54 AM »
i was on a riccardian list once. they all believed richard of york survived - they believed perkin was richard. they mentioned that edward v was a sickly boy and died young, but richard was sent by his "good uncle richard" somewhere up north to be safe (cause of course at that point many people wanted to kill him).

richard iii of course took his nephew's throne to protect him and then sent him into obscurity for the same reason.

*eye roll*

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: August 31, 2009, 01:15:48 PM »
it would explain his looking like edward iv and having a certain regal persona.... of course there is no proof, but then again there's no proof that he was richard of york either - actually it's most likely that he wasn't...

we're just here to discuss the possibility

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: August 27, 2009, 12:19:02 PM »
The fact that both boys hadn't been since 1483 means that it is extremely difficult to assume, however much one might wish to, that they'd escaped.

The rumours of their disappearance were highly damaging for Richard III the fact he didn't produce them alive is in itself suggestive. There is also the fact that if he had produced them they would provide a fresh focus for rebellion at home and abroad. He was as the saying goes between a rock and a hard place - even if one of the boys died of natural causes he couldn't escape the suggestion that the boy had been murdered.

Others have suggested one or both of them might have died in an attempted rescue attempt or that in fact both fell ill and died during their captivity again explaining Richard's failure to produce them to counter the claims against him.

The candidates for murder range from Richard himself to Henry Tudor (though the idea they could have remained prisoners for nearly two years with no-one seeing them stretches my imagination a bit too far).

Recently Philippa Gregory's latest fiction book the White Queen suggests that Elizabeth Wydeville planted a changeling in the tower and smuggled her youngest son abroad - but she was in sanctuary at Westminster at the time and it was guarded so again a bit of a stretch of the imagination however entertaining it might be.

Recognition by Margaret of Burgundy is hardly surprising and given his success at other courts during the 1490's she certainly taught him well. Margaret's beef wasn't so much about the deposition of her brother Richard III (she certainly didn't seem to have such a problem with him deposing and bastardising her nephew) but about her long standing arguement with Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII about her English dower lands supporting would-be pretenders gave her a stick to continue beating Henry with.

The fact that Henry didn't put his wife through meeting with Warbeck isn't that surprising - she would naturally denounce him as a fraud and those who supported him would say she'd failed to acknowledge him under pressure from her husband or to safeguard her own and her children's position. It had no advantage to Henry VII after all Warbeck was defeated and a prisoner and now presented no threat.

The mystery haunted much of Henry's reign and despite the image of security the regular appearances of pretenders and his reaction to them have always suggested to me that he really wasn't sure what happened to Edward V and Richard Duke of York and Norfolk which in turn suggests that his mother in law Elizabeth Wydeville and his wife Elizabeth of York were also pretty much in the dark with only guesswork to go on or had decided not to tell him the truth. (which might support the theory that Elizabeth Wydeville had been involved or had knowledge of a rescue attempt that went wrong and that ended in one of the boys dying and the other perhaps been murdered as a reaction to the failed rescue).
I've never been convinced myself by Warbeck despite some very good research on the matter and some interesting possibilities

i agree with everything you said here - as far as i'm concerned it's a rational explanation for all the warbeck mysteries.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 136