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 ... 134 135 [136]
Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Empress Catherine II
« on: May 08, 2005, 09:19:14 AM »
didn't catherine also give birth to an orlov child?  :-/

i heard mignon was the only one happilly married out of missy's children? anyone know anything about the actual marriage or was the fact that she was the only one who never got a divorce the only reason for that statement?

The Stuarts of Scotland / james 4th and margaret tudor
« on: May 08, 2005, 09:13:41 AM »
i was always about this marriage and how well it actually worked out (as in was it purely political or did they actually end up caring about each other...)... can anyone clear it up for me?

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Did Mary Have Darnley Murdered?
« on: May 08, 2005, 09:12:17 AM »
i don't think darnley was intelligent enough to think about killing Mary himself  ;)

if this thing that you said is true, i don't think it was his idea.

but my opinion on the darnley murder is: mary did not actually do it, but approved of it. there's the theory that she was so much into bothwell that she just did whatever he said... could be true, who knows?

when mary was executed elizabeth first made sure that she wouldn't have any problems with james (she was already very uncertain about killing mary, maybe she was looking for an excuse, who knows?)

james didn't protest.

i think that says it all

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Mary Stuart and Catherine of Medici
« on: May 08, 2005, 09:04:38 AM »
henry needed children so he needed a new wife. why marie of medici was because he owed her uncle loads of money (the war with spain) and her uncle promissed to forget about it if he maried marie.

now about catherine: i think she was a politician. she did loads of things that today are condemnable but in those times she only did what she had to in order to have the power. everyone around her did the same she was just smarter at it.

also you have to remember she was subjected to a lot of angry propaganda from the french who didn't like the fact that they were ruled by an italian woman. you can't believe everything you hear.

i am not excusing her. she didn't have much of a conscience, but who of the politicians today does? (very very very few exceptions). at that time politicians killed and poisoned. today they lie. it's all a way to get the power :)

Maria Nicholaievna / Who would Maria marry?
« on: May 08, 2005, 08:21:07 AM »
i read somewhere that after the carol of romania and olga affair didn't work out,  he was interested in maria... and that maria showed some interest back but her parents said she was too young and didn't allow the marriage...

anyone know anything on that?

i don't think they would have delayed the wedding because of the war... the russians had every interest for romania to enter the war, maybe they would have even rushed the wedding to seal some sort of alliance...  ::)

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra and Ella - social climbers?
« on: May 08, 2005, 08:15:53 AM »
i don't think anyone doubts that alix loved nicholas... and i'm pretty sure ella loved serge too... maybe in a different way, but love nevertheless..  :-/

Nicholas II / Re: Nicholas II was Unprepared to Rule. Why?
« on: May 08, 2005, 08:08:25 AM »
i'm throwing in my two cents here...

no revolution happens because of one person. not even if that person is the ruler of the country. there are bad kings who get away with being bad kings because the country generally is doing good, even if it's going worse than it was before that specific bad king. (louis xv of france lived for a long time, ruled for most of his life and although people complained, they didn't rebell... and if anyone was a bad king that was him  :P).

but if we have a bad king in a bad time then we have rebellion. a good king in bad times can do things better or just leave the impression of doing things better, but some things cannot be delayed. i don't think an autocratic regime could last in the 20th century. some sort of change was supposed to happen in russia. the fact that people wanted change is not nicholas' fault. at some point some sort of revolution would have happened. the way it happened, though, is partly his fault.

a reasonably good king i think would have realized that constitutional monarchy is the only monarchy to survive in such times and would have tried to ease into it, convincing the people that he's listening to them, all the while still holding on to the power. it takes a lot of shrewdness to do such things, true, and probably most people would have failed at such a task. nicholas not only did not do that, he also made things worse by allowing guys like rasputin to have power.

basically what i'm saying is he probably would have been dethroned anyway. cause he didn't have the ability to do all the changes that i think were necessary in order for monarchy to survive. but maybe had he been just a tad more diplomatic, he and his family would have survived.

Having Fun! / Re: Favorites and Least Favorites
« on: May 07, 2005, 04:28:25 PM »
i am new here, this is my first post, so i'd just like to say hi....

i find it interesting that out of all romanovs most people pick on nicholas' family... i find the others much more interesting...

like serge, he seems like an interesting person, a bit mysterious...

and then there's kyrill and his torrid love affair with ducky, he risked a lot for that and then he turned a  bit cold-hearted towards the end...

let's not forget catherine the great... although i'm not sure she counts as a romanov,  but she sure was interesting :)

then there was alexander 2nd, the liberator tsar who had such a tragic death (had he not cared for the people around him and went on with his journey, he might have lived a bit more...) and he had the guts to actually marry a commoner...

...and the list goes on :)

Pages: 1 ... 134 135 [136]