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] 5 6 ... 136
Balkan Royal Families / Re: Queen Maria of Romania, Part 2
« on: April 16, 2009, 11:32:57 AM »
carol and elisabeth were not raised by marie and nando. they were raised by royal nannies who - according to missy - were not very good. missy might of course have been just jealous of someone stealing her role as a mother, but still we must consider the fact that the two children that were entirely NOT raised by missy, turned out to be the worst of the bunch. that might be more than just a simple coincidence.

and growing up without your parents - when your parents are not psychopaths - has never been good for anyone.

Balkan Royal Families / Re: Queen Maria of Romania, Part 2
« on: April 13, 2009, 12:45:06 PM »
...and he's still better than carol :)

Balkan Royal Families / Re: Queen Maria of Romania, Part 2
« on: April 13, 2009, 06:41:43 AM »
Nicholas seem to be a kind of loser. Missy did not seem to favour him above Carol.

i wouldn't call him a loser. he just wasn't meant to be king - and wasn't educated to be one either.

but he was a nicer guy than carol, that's for sure :D

i fear he's only dragging monarchy through the mud. i'm disappointed in this and when i saw his announcement on tv, i saw margarita standing next to him - not looking extremely happy.

romanian politics is no place to be for a classy guy - but maybe he's just not a classy guy.

Balkan Royal Families / Re: Queen Maria of Romania, Part 2
« on: April 12, 2009, 11:56:40 AM »
i visited my boyfriend's grandmother yesterday. she was around 15 when queen maria died and - since she's quite old - she has a fuzzy memory of events. but she did remember that all the women dressed in violet in her honor and that she was touched by that.

she told me that there was a rumor going around at the time in her circles - it said that carol was fighting with nicolae and tried to shoot him. queen maria interfered and got shot instead - which led to her death. no historical basis whatsoever but i think it speaks volumes of carol and the reputation he had.

she also said that she always thought nicolae was a very nice man and that he should've been king instead of carol.

it was a very interesting conversation - rarely do i get the chance to speak with people who were actually alive when all that happened... :)

The Tudors / Re: Katherine Parr?
« on: April 11, 2009, 07:35:15 AM »
that's odd cause mary rose also had dark hair in the painting depicting her and charles brandon together.

i wonder why they kept painting their hair darker than it was.

The Tudors / Re: the children of henry 7th
« on: April 11, 2009, 07:32:49 AM »
well... if you wanna go that far you can count catherine of valois too. she, like her sister in law jacquetta, also married an insignificant guy after her husband, henry v, died.

it's interesting how the grandchildren of these two women (from their second marriages) ended up marrying each other and ruling england. just another proof on how one's personal life can affect thousands of other people. just imagine if just one of those two women had decided to make an equal marriage instead of marrying for love :).

you're right, it does seem like it ran in the blood rather than in the education lol.

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Relation to Alix
« on: April 10, 2009, 05:55:20 AM »
First of all, my apologies: Charles the Bald is not the son but grandson of Charlemagne (son of Louis the Pious).

Second of all, William the Conqueror's dad, Robert the Magnificent, was the son of Judith of Brittany. She was the daughter of Ermengarde of Anjou who was the daughter of Adele de Vermandois.  Adele de Vermandois was the daughter of Robert de Vermandois, son of Herbert II de Vermandois, son of Herbert I de Vermandois, son of Pepin de Vermandois. Pepin was the son of Bernard of Italy, who was Charlemagne's grandson through his son Pepin of Italy.

Just another link from Charlemagne to William the Conqueror.

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Relation to Alix
« on: April 08, 2009, 07:26:44 AM »
Every royal family would like to claim Charlemagne as an ancestor. Here is a wonderful site exploring the reality of these often found false    .,%20Kings.htm

Every royal family in Europe DOES have Charlemagne as ancestor. the descent comes through Judith of Flanders who was his granddaughter (daughter of his son, Charles the Bald). She married Baldwin of Flanders (after she married Ethelwulf of Wessex - no issue there). Their son was Baldwin II, whose son was Arnulf I, whose son was Baldwin III, whose son was Arnulf II, whose son was Baldwin IV, whose son was Baldwin V, whose daughter was.... Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror. So all monarchs of Britain, starting with Henry I, were descended from Charlemagne.

I honestly believe there's no royal in Europe right now descending from Willaim the Conqueror, but feel free to prove me wrong :).

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: March 28, 2009, 08:44:59 AM »
i've always thought it was weird that until elizabeth's reign, court intrigues did not include the margaret tudor line. i read nothing of margaret douglas and her son being part of anything during mary 1st's reign, during edward 6th's reign...

and it's weird because i read somewhere that the tragedy of edward 6th's reign was that if he died young the next in line to the throne was a long series of women... but henry darnley was already born by the time edward (and even henry) died...

The Tudors / Re: What started your love of Tudor history?
« on: March 28, 2009, 08:14:16 AM »
in english class i had a nice teacher who taught us english through stories. and one of the stories she told us was the story of the wars of the roses. and what stuck with me was the story of a beautiful princess who married her servant and their grandchild became king. it was a sort of a backwards cinderella story.

i still have this desire to know more about the very early tudors - owen, edmund, catherine of valois, jasper... and henry 7th, as the odd guy out who became king (a very successful one, if you ask me), is still my favorite.

The Tudors / the children of henry 7th
« on: March 28, 2009, 08:09:16 AM »
i was just reading a very romanticized book on henry 8th... and as always for me the most interesting part was his youth - since my favorite king is henry 7th and all...

and i was just thinking there's a lot of similarities between the three tudor siblings that survived to adulthood (cause poor arthur did not quite reach adulthood imo) - if not in any other way but the way their personal life evolved.

all three of them married princes first - as arranged by others (henry 7th in the case of henry and margaret, henry 8th in the case of mary). margaret and henry managed to reach some kind of understanding with their spouses - probably mary would have too had she had the time. mary and margaret's husbands died. both of them then married in rather dubious circumstances people they shouldn't have married. henry did that too only much later and in a much more difficult manner. mary's marriage lasted (maybe because she died young...?) but both henry and margaret ended up divorcees, remarried and margaret was in the process of divorcing again when she died. not much different from her brother and his six marriages (again, maybe she would have remarried again had she had the time)...

it just strikes me as odd that these three siblings had the guts (i don't know how else to call it) to follow their hearts (not always in a wise way) in a time when marriages were supposed to be understandings between people of similar stations, more like business partnerships than personal relations.  we all know that henry might not have been the way he was had he had a son with catherine, but the truth is that when he divorced and remarried (which i think we agree he did to have a son) he didn't marry a princess, duchess or something (it wouldn't have been so unusual, had he remarried dynastically), he married anne bolleyn whose most noble relation was her uncle (but on her father's side she wasn't that much). and then jane seymour, catherine howard and catherine parr were not exactly queen material genealogy wise either.

not many princes did what they did - and the fact that they were siblings makes me think that a part of the reason why they were the way they were (and did not comply with the vision on marriage that was around at the time) was the way they were raised. but then... they were the children of henry 7th who doesn't strike me as the most romantic guy in the world. and i'm sure the nannies and governesses and tutors were different from child to child.

the common element i can think of is their grandfather, edward 4th, who did what they did when he married elizabeth woodville. but he died long before any of them were born - so the heritage should have been passed through his daughter - elizabeth of york. on the other hand, mary was very young when her mother died. and elizabeth has this image of a goody-two-shoes type of person... which fits her posture as henry 7th's wife... could she have been a romantic at heart? could she have inspired the desire for love in her children?

so, if any of you hasn't fallen asleep yet, reading my random musings... i'm wondering if we can find a common influence for these three non-conformist (as far as marriage was concerned, anyway) siblings... something that might have given them a different view on life and marriage and social status. or maybe they followed each other's lead? (margaret was the first to rebel, then mary, then henry...). you think at any time, when the whole catherine-anne story happened, henry thought to himself "i can do it, my sisters did it" (marry whomever he wants, that is)?

The Tudors / Re: Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?
« on: February 10, 2009, 06:35:08 AM »
I think Henry 8 had an image of his mother very similar to what we have: a very quiet, meek woman, beautiful, understanding but generally insignificant. There for moral support but in no way her husband's equal. I also think that's what he sought for all his life. As a result, his most appreciated wives were Catherine of Aragon and Jane Seymour, who were exactly that. Yes, he treated Catherine badly but in his own messed up way he loved her. And I honestly believe that had she given him a male heir, Anne Boleyn wouldn't have stood a chance.

I don't think infidelity was considered by Henry as a lack of respect. Even nowadays when men cheat, one of the most used arguments is "It didn't mean anything", "It's just sex". Henry respected Catherine but she was getting old and she was probably not very adventurous sexually, so he craved for more in that respect. So he slept with women who were giving him that. As he was the king, no-one thought anything unusual of it. He didn't have time to cheat Jane Seymour (or at least I don't think he ever did) but he probably would have had she lived. It was just the way things were.

Does that come from his parents' relationship? I don't know. Henry 7th is not known for his many mistresses, and I dare say that he probably didn't have any. Not necessarily because of his huge love for Elizabeth but because I don't think he was that much of a sexual being as his son. He probably fulfilled all his sexual needs with his wife and did not crave fire and passion like his son. However, it is true that one of Henry 7th's goals was proving that the throne was his and not his wife's - which means that keeping her in a small insignificant role was crucial. I'd say that's what Henry 8th learned from his father - respect your wife, but in the end you're the boss, not her. He took it much further than his father, though. And I must say that Elizabeth of York was much different from Anne Boleyn, for example, much more willing to be "put in her place" so, that also changes things.

If you want, I'd say Elizabeth of York was a willing victim. And Catherine of Aragon - up until the point she got driven away - was also quite willing to be the quiet submissive wife. And Jane Seymour would have been that too. However, when Henry married Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard he wasn't exactly thinking with his brain. They didn't fit what he truly wanted in a wife. And so they went :)

The Tudors / Re: Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?
« on: February 08, 2009, 01:55:12 PM »
exactly my point, eric. she was forced to retire and judging by what i know of her she wasn't really a nun kind of person so i'm sure she didn't enjoy it at all.

i wonder how her daughter, the queen felt about that. i've read nothing of that upsetting her relationship with her kingly husband. which might mean that:

a. elizabeth woodville HAD done something naughty (other involving simnel or something else) and elizabeth of york believed the punishment fit the crime
b. elizabeth of york was completely under henry's influence (fear, love, respect, all of the above) and not very close to her mother (how close were they, really?)
c. elizabeth of york did not want to compromise her position as queen so she kept her opinions to herself, even if she might have had sympathy for her mother.


The Tudors / Re: Edward VI
« on: February 08, 2009, 01:48:30 PM »
i think he had good intentions. but then again so did his sister mary, and we all know how well that turned out.

of course that's speculative, but i tend to think he wouldn't have been as tolerant as elizabeth and that might have ruined the protestant cause in england, as mary's catholic enthusiasm ruined the catholic cause.

i have heard different accounts on his health. the general impression was that he was sickly but i have also read that he was actually very healthy and that he insisted on participating on council meetings. until he simply fell sick and died.

of course, his diary was for political purposes and he must have felt a bit like big brother contestants are feeling today - watched all the time. after all, a long line of women were to inherit the throne after him and we know from his father's desperation to have a son that that idea didn't sit well with most people. so, yeah, people watched him all the time from the time he was born. so maybe in his way he was being honest - because his diary was as private as anything he ever had.

he did manifest coldness when his uncle edward was executed. but then, since the executor was now lord protector, one might argue that he was controlling the boy's thoughts even in his diaries... so he had to watch what he was writing.

so yeah, we'll never know. as a person, it's a shame he died so young. on the other hand i have this cynical sensation that for england it might have been a blessing in disguise.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 136