Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: tom_romanov on October 27, 2008, 01:29:32 PM

Title: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on October 27, 2008, 01:29:32 PM
I thought that we should open up another topic on one of my favorite royals - Queen Mary.

I'll start it off with a few of my favorite photos-

- "http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/tom_romanov/img114.jpg"

- "http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/tom_romanov/img120.jpg"

- "http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/tom_romanov/img118.jpg"

tom
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: betty87 on October 29, 2008, 06:08:29 AM
Fantastic...Queen Mary is my absolute favourite royal! Those pictues are great!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: betty87 on October 29, 2008, 06:17:16 AM
Her relationship with her husband and children has always interested me as I think she was far more human than biographers state. The letters she exchanged with GV are very touching...

'You cannot think how terribly I miss you here, your rooms seem so empty and desolate and make me feel quite sad and lonely.' QM wrote to GV from Sandringham
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on October 29, 2008, 11:14:02 AM
i agree with you betty87 many tv drama's about ( e.g the lost prince) show her as a cold heatred woman  :(
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: betty87 on October 29, 2008, 02:32:07 PM
I know it really is sad! I just feel that she has been given a hard time, perhaps mainly due to her shyness and the whole Duke of Windsor saga. Its important to look at the evidence left by those closest to her. They all say that she was a strong woman, perhaps a little stiff, but very kind hearted. The countess of Airlie especially talks of May as a very human person. The fact that Mabell wrote that May cried often after the death of GV shows that biographers have ignored certain deatails.

Does anyone have any information on May's relationship with her husband? Any pictures?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on December 02, 2008, 03:48:14 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/12281333767961141.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Marie-Mathilde on December 10, 2008, 04:38:44 PM
I do get confused by the conflicting reports on George and Mary's relationship. Having read some of the notes mentioned I do believe they love each other dearly and came to rely upon one another, but then you here what a strange man George was, his son the Duke of Windsor wrote of him, something along the lines of "sometimes I hardly believe he is a man, he is queer in so many ways". And of course I did find Miranda Richardson's portrayal of Mary in "The Lost Prince" very believable at the time, although now I am quite torn. Her diary entries regarding John's death, whilst sad are not devastated. Perhaps she was trying to conceal her grief, even to her own diary, but it breaks my heart to think that not even his mother was torn to pieces by his death. I wouldn't wish it upon her to feel that way but I felt so sorry for that poor boy that no one showed hardly any emotion at his passing and how it was forgotten so quickly. None of his brothers or his sister named any of there children after him, some say "John" to be an unlucky name within the family but they didn't even include it in the middle names; I thought George, his closest brother might have done, but alas he named his first son after the brother who was so horrid and disgusting when poor John died (I'm talking of Edward, Duke of Windsor, of course). Sorry for getting so off-topic but does anyone agree or disagree with me about Mary, George or the others?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on December 10, 2008, 06:22:07 PM
IMHO Queen Mary has laid the foundations of Britians monarchy today. One of the last true Queen Consorts, who knew what was expected, and how to set prescendent. She bridged the gap between the Victorian and modern era, showing how it should be done. I expect our current Queen has learnt a lot from her example. I fear we shall not witness the selfless devotion to duty and the country in future, that these two Queens have shown.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on December 11, 2008, 12:10:16 AM
I do get confused by the conflicting reports on George and Mary's relationship. Having read some of the notes mentioned I do believe they love each other dearly and came to rely upon one another, but then you here what a strange man George was, his son the Duke of Windsor wrote of him, something along the lines of "sometimes I hardly believe he is a man, he is queer in so many ways". And of course I did find Miranda Richardson's portrayal of Mary in "The Lost Prince" very believable at the time, although now I am quite torn. Her diary entries regarding John's death, whilst sad are not devastated. Perhaps she was trying to conceal her grief, even to her own diary, but it breaks my heart to think that not even his mother was torn to pieces by his death. I wouldn't wish it upon her to feel that way but I felt so sorry for that poor boy that no one showed hardly any emotion at his passing and how it was forgotten so quickly. None of his brothers or his sister named any of there children after him, some say "John" to be an unlucky name within the family but they didn't even include it in the middle names; I thought George, his closest brother might have done, but alas he named his first son after the brother who was so horrid and disgusting when poor John died (I'm talking of Edward, Duke of Windsor, of course). Sorry for getting so off-topic but does anyone agree or disagree with me about Mary, George or the others?

Personally I wouldn't put much credence on the Duke of Windsor's opinions on ANYONE, particularly at this time when he was openly rebelling against everything his father stood for and that included many long held royal duties which didn't take his fancy.

I also wouldn't put much faith in the character portrayals in "The Lost Prince" either.  There were things in that which were not factual as the writers have admitted - it was a docu-drama which contained both factual and fictional elements.

I think Queen Mary was deeply saddened by Prince John's death but perhaps not in the way a mother today would be losing a child.  To begin with, she grew up in an era where it was not a rare occurrence to lose a child to illness.  Secondly, her position meant that her children were raised by nannies and it's well known that although she cared very much for her children, she was not a particularly maternal woman.  Thirdly, she was a very dignified royal lady who never would have broken down in front of anyone if she could help it.  She also truly believed it was a blessed release for John, as the symptoms he had suffered for so long appeared to be getting even worse as he got older.

Just my opinions of course.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on December 11, 2008, 08:46:21 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with what Grace wrote. Queen Mary was seen to cry in public only once that I've read of (her brother Frank's funeral) but who is to know what went on behind closed doors. And John's funeral was very private.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: mcdnab on December 11, 2008, 09:24:07 AM
I've actually always thought that Miranda Richardson portrayal was rather good. A cauldron of restrained emotions and I don't think in that portrayal she is cold at all. The Lost Prince is largely about John and his nanny and their relationship so the portrayals of George V, Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary are not as central to the story.

She herself denied she was shy after George V became Prince of Wales and then King. She wasn't conventionally maternal and clearly found the whole business of pregnancy and childbirth distasteful which is partly why she was labelled as distant or cold by biographers and some members of her own family. However I don't believe that in an age of infant mortality parents somehow viewed the death of a child any differently to how we would today her diary entries about John's death I find quite touching and it is clear that she found the Duke of Windsor's comments at the time of John's death deeply hurtful.

The Countess of Airlie who knew her and George V well thought they were far more interested in their children than many of their contemporaries but just lacked that understanding.  To be fair the Duke of Windsor himself said that when the children were alone with Queen Mary she was a very different person.

She certainly allowed her husbands like and dislikes to dominate her home and family - but in that she wasn't that different to many other wives of her period, her own deep interest in family history and her devotion to the ideals of monarchy certainly meant that she saw her husband as a monarch first and put him first perhaps to the detriment of her children.

I've always thought that the biggest "victims" if you like of George and Mary's parental errors were actually their three eldest children - David, Bertie and Mary.


Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: imperial angel on December 16, 2008, 01:01:52 PM
I agree about their parenting errors with David, for sure. I can see your point about the ones with Bertie. I don't know much about Mary, the only daughter. Why do you see her as a victim of her parent's early parenting mistakes? I thought she turned out very well. I think all parents are inexperienced with the first children or child, and they generally are more lax with the youngest child or youngest children.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: OctoberLily on December 17, 2008, 04:08:47 AM
I've read that this photograph was taken in 1911 while QM was in mourning for EVII, but that's all the information I have on it.  Can anyone elaborate on this for me?   IMO this is one of the most stunning photos of QM. He regal bearing and dedication to the monarchy is written all over her face!

http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2352361620094285158yPNbqw


BTW, thank you to gogm for the marvelous webshots collections!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexander1917 on December 17, 2008, 05:13:01 AM
I've read that this photograph was taken in 1911 while QM was in mourning for EVII, but that's all the information I have on it.  Can anyone elaborate on this for me?   IMO this is one of the most stunning photos of QM. He regal bearing and dedication to the monarchy is written all over her face!

http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2352361620094285158yPNbqw


BTW, thank you to gogm for the marvelous webshots collections!


It's taken during to mark the first Opening of Parliament of the new reign (George V)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on December 17, 2008, 05:58:12 AM
I've read that this photograph was taken in 1911 while QM was in mourning for EVII, but that's all the information I have on it.  Can anyone elaborate on this for me?   IMO this is one of the most stunning photos of QM. He regal bearing and dedication to the monarchy is written all over her face!

http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2352361620094285158yPNbqw


BTW, thank you to gogm for the marvelous webshots collections!


A truly regal photograph of Queen Mary, but mis-titled. It should read 'Queen Mary wearing her own crown without the arches'.

R.I. 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on December 17, 2008, 06:58:22 AM
Queen Mary children:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/12281333775484931.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: OctoberLily on December 17, 2008, 01:04:10 PM
I am unable to find the original thread on QM, so if anyone can supply the link I'd appreciate it.

Also, and forgive me since I've not had the chance to read any of QM's bios yet (but my Christmas list is now rather lengthy........lol), it has been mentioned several times in this forum about GV and QM's exile.  Perhaps this was discussed in the original thread, and if so, I apologize for the redundancy.  But I have to admit.........I'm just dying to know!!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: imperial angel on December 17, 2008, 07:13:45 PM
Their exile? I didn't think they were ever exiled.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: OctoberLily on December 17, 2008, 11:49:03 PM
I didn't either, IA.  That's why I am baffled.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  I'll go back and reread the threads.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: imperial angel on December 18, 2008, 12:14:23 AM
Yes, as far as I know that never happened. Sometimes people say things on threads that aren't true, not everything posted on here is always factual. Maybe the poster meant when they went to India to be crowned- wasn't that a really long trip? Also, before they ascended the throne George and May went on a few long trips like Diana and Charles would years later. It wasn't exile though it did separate them from their kids for awhile.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on December 18, 2008, 04:00:41 AM
Here's Part III at least of Queen Mary's threads.  King George V and Queen Mary weren't in exile in any period of their reign.

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=3783.0 (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=3783.0)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: mcdnab on December 18, 2008, 05:45:59 AM
I suspect you mean the long Imperial Tours they took before George V became King or perhaps the tour to India (for the Durbar in 1911)
Mary and George undertook an 8 month imperial tour in 1901 as Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York (George didn't become Prince of Wales until their return to Britain), they undertook another 8 month tour to India in 1905.
In 1911 of course they travelled to India  again (Mary was very fond of the sub-continent) for the Durbar.
They also made a number of European trips during the reign of Victoria and Edward VII and after their own accession however after the war they rarely travelled abroad (the courts of May's youth were gone).
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: TampaBay on December 27, 2008, 07:45:59 PM

I think Queen Mary was deeply saddened by Prince John's death but perhaps not in the way a mother today would be losing a child.  To begin with, she grew up in an era where it was not a rare occurrence to lose a child to illness.  Secondly, her position meant that her children were raised by nannies and it's well known that although she cared very much for her children, she was not a particularly maternal woman.  Thirdly, she was a very dignified royal lady who never would have broken down in front of anyone if she could help it.  She also truly believed it was a blessed release for John, as the symptoms he had suffered for so long appeared to be getting even worse as he got older.

Just my opinions of course.

Grace,

I agree!! However, you cannot compare 1900  through  WWI to 2008!  The influences we are raised with and form our decisions from are just too different!

I always had the up most respect for "Old Diamond and Emerald Drawers" because she did her job

The younger Windsor Royals could take a good hard lesson from her.

TampaBay.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: lady on December 28, 2008, 02:21:40 PM
King George
(http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6221/jorgevpq3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Queen Mary
(http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/9761/maryteckcl1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Prince of Wales
(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6351/pricewaleskp6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on December 28, 2008, 04:01:01 PM
Queen Mary
(http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/9761/maryteckcl1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

I believe that the glass cabinet next to her is of her 'collections', the objects she was given (sometime reluctantly) by the owners of them who houses she visited. " Oh I simply can't leave without saying goodbye to that dear little.....  ;)

I have the un-coloured photo, which I will post tomorrow if anybody wants.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: lady on December 28, 2008, 04:36:16 PM
Sure Tom, it'd be a pleasute to see it.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Nikola on December 29, 2008, 01:22:06 PM
The Queen Mary at Music Room at Buckingham palace:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/qm1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Nikola on December 29, 2008, 01:23:12 PM
The King George V at Music Room at Buckingham palace:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/kgv1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on December 30, 2008, 10:02:55 AM
Great photos Nikola, they both look so majestic!

here is that photo I promised of Mary and the glass cabienet -
"http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/tom_romanov/mary1.jpg"

and here is a rare (well for me) that I found today -
"http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/tom_romanov/maypen.jpg"
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on January 05, 2009, 07:21:26 AM
I was watching a tribute video on Queen Mary on YouTube, and the most wonderfull thing passed by! In this video their is a voice recording of Queen Mary, during the launch of the RMS Queen Mary on September 26, 1934 in Glydeside Glasgow, Scotland. How wonderfull to hear her voice fore the very first time, and I thought it was just the voice you would expect Queen Mary to have. I could not let this be unshared and that's why I post you all the link towards HM Queen Mary's voice, it really completes her image fore me. Enjoy en let me know what you think of it!
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/372707142_29b2b9aebf_o.jpg)
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=gGExX4N5bAw ( at 6.47 you can watch and hear her launching to RMS Queen Mary)

with a smile from the Netherlands,

RN

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on January 05, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
thank- you x1000000 . it is so rare to hear her voice! how did you find this little gem? I think she sound like her grand daughter Elizabeth ,when she was younger.although I can't trace any hint ofa German acent

thanks again,

tom  :)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on January 05, 2009, 03:10:37 PM
She did not have a German accent.  She was born and raised (for the greater part) in England.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: imperial angel on January 05, 2009, 10:59:03 PM
She was pretty much a German princess only in name. Her mother was an English Princess, cousin of Queen Victoria, after all. Her father perhaps had a German accent- he was the morgantic offspring of a German royal house.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on January 06, 2009, 10:33:56 AM
oh yeah! thanks. its so confusing who was what nationality but grew up where e.t.c
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 13, 2009, 03:55:56 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/QMcharlestonNellie1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/QueenMarylaughs-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 14, 2009, 02:34:55 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/QM708RowsofdiamondsNellie1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Marystrangeeyes1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on January 14, 2009, 12:44:21 PM
Great photos Alexandre! it shows the two sides pf QM- one regal and majestic,every inch a Queen - the other side a fun-loving, similing, happy woman.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Russka Princess on January 14, 2009, 01:19:11 PM
yeah really  funny, is the second pic.

she have very much humor like her husband.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 14, 2009, 02:21:13 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MayofTeckwonderful1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MayTeckwithfan1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 15, 2009, 09:32:17 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Maywithumbrellagreat1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/QueenMaryatthewindow1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 16, 2009, 07:07:39 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Treasurechest1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Windowshopping1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on January 16, 2009, 03:04:19 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Treasurechest1.jpg)

never seen this one before! looks like there was a set of photogrpahs taken around the cabinet, like the one i posted earlier.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 16, 2009, 03:12:07 PM
Mary and Eddie:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/EddiewithfianceeMay-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on January 16, 2009, 03:16:23 PM
new one for me!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on January 16, 2009, 03:43:47 PM
You should go back through the old Queen Mary threads then--there are a LOT of photos there including the existing ones of her with Eddy. Plus, we'd had some lively discussions back then.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 17, 2009, 07:21:59 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/2352361620094285158yPNbqw_ph1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/2747104810094285158CRkLuH_fs1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 17, 2009, 10:56:21 AM
An absolutely gorgeous picture. And, those jewels...oh my goodness!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 17, 2009, 03:36:48 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/reinamary16yl21.jpg)

Mary, Prince of Wales and the Duke and Duchess d'York:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/georgelv31.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on January 19, 2009, 11:39:21 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/img692.jpg)

The above photograph, it may be added, was taken outside Sandringham Church on the occasion of Queen Alexandra's funeral, as the group of royal mourners were leaving the church after the private service, on November 26, 1925. (Source: The Illustrated Londen News, Jan. 25, 1936)
I think the photograph has been retouched and probably Maud or Toria was walking next to Queen Mary. Would love to see the audentical photograph. Many of use say another picture of the royal mourners at Alexandra's funeral, the one were Maud is seen in her fashionable mourning outfit. Aldo Queen Mary's mourning ensemble was not the most fashionable one, I think she look inmensly dignified and regal. Mourning
really is impressive on royalty and ''normal'' people. An altough the circumstances aren't wishable fore anyone, mouring really suit some royalty.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on January 19, 2009, 11:42:22 AM
I too think its been retouched you can see the white 'glow' around her shoulders and arms
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on January 19, 2009, 11:58:31 AM
Yes thank you, I was thinking the same thing! I just remembered that I have posted a photograph of Alexandra's funeral in a earlier thread. It was from the Top Foto archive and showed the unretouched version of my above posted picture, the royal mourners are walking behind the coffin of Queen Alexandra. HM Queen Maud was walking next to Queen Mary and King George and Toria infront of them. Louise Fife is walking behind her sister Maud and sister-inlaw Queen Mary. Below is the picture is was refering to in my earlier post.

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/File0722a.jpg)

The Royal Mourners from left to right: HM Queen Mary, King George V, HM Queen Maud of Norway, H.R.H. Princess Louise the Duchess of Fife and H.R.H. Princess Victoria (Toria). But I'm not shore about the last two royal ladies in mourning. Does anyone have more photographs of the royal ladies at Alexandra's funeral (Maud, Mary,Toria and Louise)?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 19, 2009, 12:56:27 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/QueenMarybeingcrowned1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/370757336_596a8f0188_o1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on January 19, 2009, 02:32:24 PM
Yes thank you, I was thinking the same thing! I just remembered that I have posted a photograph of Alexandra's funeral in a earlier thread. It was from the Top Foto archive and showed the unretouched version of my above posted picture, the royal mourners are walking behind the coffin of Queen Alexandra. HM Queen Maud was walking next to Queen Mary and King George and Toria infront of them. Louise Fife is walking behind her sister Maud and sister-inlaw Queen Mary. Below is the picture is was refering to in my earlier post.

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/File0722a.jpg)

The Royal Mourners from left to right: HM Queen Mary, King George V, HM Queen Maud of Norway, H.R.H. Princess Louise the Duchess of Fife and H.R.H. Princess Victoria (Toria). But I'm not shore about the last two royal ladies in mourning. Does anyone have more photographs of the royal ladies at Alexandra's funeral (Maud, Mary,Toria and Louise)?

In the illustrated magazine I have with that photo it says the last 2 are Princess Marie of Greece (Grand Duchess George of Russia) and Princess Victoria.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 20, 2009, 09:36:18 AM
The family of the Queen Mary:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/2074540292_f564d40f54_b1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MayofTeckwithparentsandbrothers1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on January 20, 2009, 06:09:57 PM
Yes thank you, I was thinking the same thing! I just remembered that I have posted a photograph of Alexandra's funeral in a earlier thread. It was from the Top Foto archive and showed the unretouched version of my above posted picture, the royal mourners are walking behind the coffin of Queen Alexandra. HM Queen Maud was walking next to Queen Mary and King George and Toria infront of them. Louise Fife is walking behind her sister Maud and sister-inlaw Queen Mary. Below is the picture is was refering to in my earlier post.

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/File0722a.jpg)

The Royal Mourners from left to right: HM Queen Mary, King George V, HM Queen Maud of Norway, H.R.H. Princess Louise the Duchess of Fife and H.R.H. Princess Victoria (Toria). But I'm not shore about the last two royal ladies in mourning. Does anyone have more photographs of the royal ladies at Alexandra's funeral (Maud, Mary,Toria and Louise)?

In the illustrated magazine I have with that photo it says the last 2 are Princess Marie of Greece (Grand Duchess George of Russia) and Princess Victoria.

Thank you fore clearing that up gdella, I wasn't shore of my case. You are like a (respected) library that has and gives answers to almost everything! Have you ever say the unretouched photograph of the royal mourners behind Alexandra's coffin? Or are their any other photographs of the (female) royal mourners at Alexandra's funeral? I just found a most wonderfull photograph of the Royal mourners at Christian IX funeral in 1906, I will post it one of these days.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on January 20, 2009, 06:16:24 PM
Thanks so much, RN.  :) I will go back and check. It's been awhile since I looked at my old issues of the funeral. There were some really good funeral photographs published in some of the magazines of the CIX funeral.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 22, 2009, 02:49:27 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MayofTeckoldqueen1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexander1917 on January 22, 2009, 03:09:27 PM
Wasn't that brooch sold some months ago?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 23, 2009, 12:02:40 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MaryduchessYork-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Nikola on January 23, 2009, 04:47:29 PM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/img692.jpg)


Very interesting and soft photo of the Queen Mary.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on January 23, 2009, 05:38:48 PM
In the original photo, Queen Mary is walking next to Maud and it also shows GV walking with Victoria.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on January 24, 2009, 04:26:58 PM
Yes that is the original photo! I only say it from the Topphoto archive and too bad it wasn't that clear. I will dig it up agian and post it here very soon.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on January 24, 2009, 04:28:32 PM
Thank you RN, would love to see it!!! :)

It would be fascinating to know what members of the family attended QA's funeral.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on January 24, 2009, 07:52:14 PM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/royalty/pa0004886.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on January 25, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
Yes that's the one gdella, thank you fore posting the picture. You're always one step ahead of me! ;) If you watch closely you can see Queen Mary in the same position as in the retouched picture I have posted before. Except that Queen Maud is walking next to her in procession and her husband king George V and his sister Toria are walking infront. I believe Louise Fife is walking behind May and Maud, because I it is logical that all three daughters would follow the coffin of their late mother Queen Alexandra. It could be one of George and Mary's sons (Albert or Edward?) that can be seen at the far left.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on January 25, 2009, 02:14:50 PM
I studied this photo yesterday too, RN.  I think you are right.  That must be Louise behind and almost obscured by May.  She would have been with the rest of the family and it looks about right for her height.  I'm still wondering about the man on the left though.  Is he a bit heavily built to be David or Bertie?  And he doesn't look to me like Harry either?  It's a very moving photo anyway though. 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on January 25, 2009, 02:47:45 PM
It is a very moving photo indeed, Grace. Yes it must be Louise Fife behind May, can't imagine her as the oldest daughter wondering at the back of the funeral procession (she must have been walking together with the other close relatives of Queen Alexandra.). About the man at the left, it must be one of George and Mary's sons or it could be Maud's son crownprince Olav of Norway. Below are some pictures of George V, his sons and Olav of Norway walking in de funeral procession of their beloved mother and grandmother Queen Alexandra. So we can have a better look at them.

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/0987685.jpg)

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/0987687.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on January 25, 2009, 03:44:09 PM
It is a very moving photo indeed, Grace. Yes it must be Louise Fife behind May, can't imagine her as the oldest daughter wondering at the back of the funeral procession (she must have been walking together with the other close relatives of Queen Alexandra.). About the man at the left, it must be one of George and Mary's sons or it could be Maud's son crownprince Olav of Norway.

Louise isn't listed as being in the processions either at Sandringham or later in London according to detailed accounts in the Times. The woman could be Marie of Greece who was in both processions. At Sandringham, the princes listed were David, Bertie and Henry.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 31, 2009, 08:22:18 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MayandGeorge1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on January 31, 2009, 11:45:45 AM
It is a very moving photo indeed, Grace. Yes it must be Louise Fife behind May, can't imagine her as the oldest daughter wondering at the back of the funeral procession (she must have been walking together with the other close relatives of Queen Alexandra.). About the man at the left, it must be one of George and Mary's sons or it could be Maud's son crownprince Olav of Norway.

Louise isn't listed as being in the processions either at Sandringham or later in London according to detailed accounts in the Times. The woman could be Marie of Greece who was in both processions. At Sandringham, the princes listed were David, Bertie and Henry.


Mmm I really think that is strange, why wasn't Louise listed in one of the processions, she is the oldest daughter and that makes her a very close relative. I can't imagine that a child would miss the funeral of her mother. That's almost unbelievable, it is one of the most dramatic parts of you're life, loosing you're parents. She must have been their somewhere, are was their a reason fore her absence? Could it be that Louise was to alienated from her royal brother and sisters? That she visited the grave of her mother a other day than the official funeral day in Sandringham. I can't imagine this, but I'm just looking fore a explanation. I always thought Louise was a bit of an outsider in the British Royal Family, it looked like she choose her own path in life. Toria was close to Maud and her brother George, Maud was rather close to her sister in law Mary. And I just never read anything like that about Louise being particular close to one of her sisters, brother or in laws. It could be the were in their younger years as children and teenagers, but after that it looked like Louise took some distance.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: betty87 on January 31, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
I actually read 'Edward VII's children' by John Van Der Kiste and found it interesting as it gave info on Louise and the others. You might find this a helpful read.

I once saw a photograph of Queen Mary dated 1912 which features her in a wheel chair...does anyone know why this was? When I saw it I re-read JPH's biography and found nothing to explain it. Was she ill at this point??
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 01, 2009, 06:34:14 AM
Thanks for the piccies once again RN...always so generous!!! At the time of the death of her mother, Louise was certainly not 'officially' indisposed as far as I can tell, nor afterwards, during the period up to the funeral, thus her 'apparent' absence does raise questions. I note that in several photographs of Georgie and the male mourners , the gentleman on George's left looks very like Olaf, but according to GDElla's sources, he, Olaf that is, was not listed as being part of the group, which makes me wonder even more. Perhaps the gentleman in question next to Georgie, who looks very like Olaf was in fact someone else entirely, or perhaps, the press just didn't bother to report fully at the time. I guess the same oversight 'could' have occurred in Louise's case too, though I find that very hard to believe!

 I know she had been keeping a remarkably low profile for years to this date of 1925, but even so, it would be extraordinary to think that she was not at Sandringham or the funeral, than for any other reason than that she simply was not able to be there. If that was in fact the case....as we have yet to confirm!!!!

On another note, I have read in several different accounts, that Louise was not at Sandringham when Georgie, May, Toria and Maud went through Mother dear's jewels! This was obviously some time later, even Magpie May with her love of baubles would have restrained herself until after Christmas I am sure. Therefore, perhaps Louise really did not care to do 'eeny meeny miney mo' with her siblings and May over all those yummy things in Mother dear's 'Starter home in the Home Counties' sized jewelry closet , but she could have done it perhaps to get a few choice bits and bobs for her girls nonetheless. But from what I can understand, as is generally recorded, Louise did not go to Sandringham after her mother's death. That, I would love to clarify too, as it would make no sense unless once again, she was simply 'unable' to be there or there was some other more complicated dynamic at work!

Oooops......this should all be on Louise's thread really...sorrry! Very naughty of me to get carried away on the dear majestic magpie's thread! But someone mentioned Louise and I just couldn't help myself!!!!

Double oooops...I have used so many colloquialisms here, sorry for that too, but I shan't edit them out as this is May's thread,and she seems to brings out the naughty little rebel in me for some reason!
 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 01, 2009, 10:57:49 AM
I think there was a day or two between the 'church' picture and the latter processions. On the 2nd set of photos, that is indeed CP Olav. I hadn't mentioned him because we were trying to ID the prince in the earlier photo.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: ashdean on February 01, 2009, 01:20:53 PM
Thanks for the piccies once again RN...always so generous!!! At the time of the death of her mother, Louise was certainly not 'officially' indisposed as far as I can tell, nor afterwards, during the period up to the funeral, thus her 'apparent' absence does raise questions. I note that in several photographs of Georgie and the male mourners , the gentleman on George's left looks very like Olaf, but according to GDElla's sources, he, Olaf that is, was not listed as being part of the group, which makes me wonder even more. Perhaps the gentleman in question next to Georgie, who looks very like Olaf was in fact someone else entirely, or perhaps, the press just didn't bother to report fully at the time. I guess the same oversight 'could' have occurred in Louise's case too, though I find that very hard to believe!

 I know she had been keeping a remarkably low profile for years to this date of 1925, but even so, it would be extraordinary to think that she was not at Sandringham or the funeral, than for any other reason than that she simply was not able to be there. If that was in fact the case....as we have yet to confirm!!!!

On another note, I have read in several different accounts, that Louise was not at Sandringham when Georgie, May, Toria and Maud went through Mother dear's jewels! This was obviously some time later, even Magpie May with her love of baubles would have restrained herself until after Christmas I am sure. Therefore, perhaps Louise really did not care to do 'eeny meeny miney mo' with her siblings and May over all those yummy things in Mother dear's 'Starter home in the Home Counties' sized jewelry closet , but she could have done it perhaps to get a few choice bits and bobs for her girls nonetheless. But from what I can understand, as is generally recorded, Louise did not go to Sandringham after her mother's death. That, I would love to clarify too, as it would make no sense unless once again, she was simply 'unable' to be there or there was some other more complicated dynamic at work!

Oooops......this should all be on Louise's thread really...sorrry! Very naughty of me to get carried away on the dear majestic magpie's thread! But someone mentioned Louise and I just couldn't help myself!!!!

Double oooops...I have used so many colloquialisms here, sorry for that too, but I shan't edit them out as this is May's thread,and she seems to brings out the naughty little rebel in me for some reason!
 
For whatever reason Louise was not present when her mothers jewels were divided..she seems to have received her fair share...perhaps she had already discussed with her sisters about items she would like....
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 01, 2009, 05:09:49 PM
Thank you for confirming Ella re: Olaf in the piccies....I think I sort of misunderstood somewhere along the way!

Ashdean, I will respond to your comments on Louise's thread.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 07, 2009, 04:59:06 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Mayhat1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: emeraldeyes on February 07, 2009, 01:56:15 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MayofTeckoldqueen1.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/1266lot104_bg.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/1266lot103_bg.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 08, 2009, 07:25:58 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/may81.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 08, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Abrigohorrendo19231.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: gogm on February 08, 2009, 09:14:11 PM
I think the abrigo horrendo was not lovely, but not horrendous either.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 09, 2009, 02:01:26 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/QueenMarycoronationrobes1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 09, 2009, 02:02:16 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/QueenMaryjewels1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 11, 2009, 02:35:07 AM
George, Mary and Queen Victoria:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/HoneymoonwithqueenVictoria18931.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 13, 2009, 01:51:59 AM
Young Mary:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Mayturningface1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 15, 2009, 02:14:19 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/GeorgeofYorkwithhiswifeMayofTeck-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 15, 2009, 02:15:06 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/GeorgieandMaywedding1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 16, 2009, 01:45:26 PM
courtesy of maridje on the RJOTWMB

Queen Mary possibly wearing her amethyst tiara

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a39/maridje/UK-Tiare/1-QnMaryprincessTeck1-28233.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 16, 2009, 01:50:25 PM
Is she wearing a cape thing of ermine? It looks a bit odd to me....cape cum stole like and is that a lace collar? It is so rare to see Queen Magpie..I mean Mary , wearing her amethysts, lovely to see...merci!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Thomas_Hesse on February 17, 2009, 05:34:18 AM
It always strikes me how much Queen Elizabeth resembles her grandmother - especially now at an old age. The features are almost identically as is the hairstyle. Even Queen Mary's vioce seems to be similar to her granddaughter's....
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 17, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Maryqueen21.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 17, 2009, 03:12:31 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Maryqueenasprincesswales1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on February 17, 2009, 04:46:41 PM
courtesy of maridje on the RJOTWMB

Queen Mary possibly wearing her amethyst tiara

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a39/maridje/UK-Tiare/1-QnMaryprincessTeck1-28233.jpg)

Not that it's really relevant fore the thread, but I have posted that picture on the RJOTWMB. I have adapted the picture, it was in a list and Queen Mary was facing the camera a bit awry, but that is still a bit visible. I can't exactly remember where I got it, but I have the original picture unadapted in my files. Not that is really matters, I just wanted to tell....sometimes I'm just a bit proud of rare images I have found.:P

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 17, 2009, 06:04:25 PM
That's why I try to give credit when I post a photo that isn't mine. I hadn't seen you post it RN so I went by the last person to post it (this week) on RJOTWMB. You should be proud of your collection.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: emeraldeyes on February 17, 2009, 09:40:15 PM
RN you should take a great deal  of pride in your contributions to this and other boards/forums!  I  for one am very grateful for all the info and pics!  :  )

I'm not sold on this tiara being the amethyst one - there just aren't enough dark spots to add up to all the amethysts in the tiara.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/1-QnMaryprincessTeck1-28233.jpg)(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/BouclesoreillesTiare.jpg)

Maybe, just maybe this is one of QEII's never seen sapphire tiaras that were mentioned in Field?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 18, 2009, 01:32:44 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Maryqueen31.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on February 18, 2009, 05:11:48 PM
This might be a wee off topic but, what does it mean "RJOTWMB."?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 18, 2009, 06:06:28 PM
Sorry, we mention things so often we thing everybody knows them even if they're mentioned on other threads or months prior! It stands for Royal Jewels of the World Message Board.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on February 18, 2009, 06:12:52 PM
ohh i see! Thanks so much GdElla!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 18, 2009, 11:20:21 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Maryqueen31.jpg)

Firstly thank you for sharing this picture Alexandre64,most generous of you>

Secondly, I am sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere, but I wonder about the necklace May is wearing here. It looks as though it could have been convertible to a tiara, and I was curious if it has ever been seen as such in other pictures. I may be completely wrong about this, and it may be a well known piece, though I do no think I recognize it from other sittings.


Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 19, 2009, 01:33:04 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MayprincessWales1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 19, 2009, 09:24:57 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/Maryqueen31.jpg)

Firstly thank you for sharing this picture Alexandre64,most generous of you>

Secondly, I am sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere, but I wonder about the necklace May is wearing here. It looks as though it could have been convertible to a tiara, and I was curious if it has ever been seen as such in other pictures. I may be completely wrong about this, and it may be a well known piece, though I do no think I recognize it from other sittings.




I believe it's the Teck Turquoise tiara she received as a wedding present from her parents. It could be worn as a necklace. I'm at work so I don't have my records to check for sure.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: emeraldeyes on February 19, 2009, 12:57:36 PM
Isn't it this one?

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/tiaranecklacediamondandpearlmaryast.jpg)

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 19, 2009, 01:16:08 PM
Eagle eyed Emeraldeyes you are clever! It does look like the same thing to me!

I haven't got my copy of Geoffrey Munn's book as it packed away in a 'moving' box unfortunately, but I do not recall seeing it being written about in there, though it has been ages since I last drawled over the pages of that ravishing book!

I would love to know more about this tiara cum necklace...! I shall scour the Jewel thread again and have a really thorough look!

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 19, 2009, 02:22:35 PM
And isn't that one the Teck tiara in its pre-modified form? At least that's where I have it listed on the index:


http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/jewels/windsor%20jewels/may19001.jpg
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 19, 2009, 04:09:49 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/pmay1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: betty87 on February 19, 2009, 04:49:09 PM
I found a recording of George V and Queen Mary's Empire message 1923. It was rather nice to hear both voices. Sorry if this has already been posted...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JyC6qw2D_s
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 19, 2009, 04:57:18 PM
And isn't that one the Teck tiara in its pre-modified form? At least that's where I have it listed on the index:


http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/jewels/windsor%20jewels/may19001.jpg

On the lovely royal-magazin.de website it has a blurb about the Teck turquoise parure and what appears to be a quite detailed drawing of the parure which looks like it was drawn before the tiara was altered by Wolff. It looks very different to the one in question here, but then I was wondering whether the central motif may not be the same in both pieces? It is rather hard to make out the design of the motif in our pictures of May wearing the piece, but I guess it could be the same as the one in Teck parure, although from what is said on the royal-magazine.de website, Queen Mary had it lowered, which is different from having the entire thing completely reset, which is what may have actually happened...I am now a bit confused though, and think I may have misunderstood somewhere along the line....doh!

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 19, 2009, 05:06:04 PM
Thank you Betty87 how lovely!

I found Georgie's voice rather 'sing song' like, in the way it rose and fell in timbre, and he spoke much more slowly then May. She seemed to hurry through her speech as though she was racing to finish before the recording disc ran out!!!

Quite fascinating!
 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: emeraldeyes on February 19, 2009, 06:33:56 PM
Here's the page from Munn showing the Teck turquoise tiara.  The sketch is the original form in which it was given as a wedding present; the colour pic is the modified version.  Currently with the Gloucesters. 
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/teckturqtiara.jpg)(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/duchessofkentturquoiseparure.jpg)


Here are a few more of the other tiara - pearl and diamonds - as would make sense with the other jewels being worn in the first picture.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/Trajerosa.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/queenmary0220small.jpg)


And for the Devonshire House ball, the necklace is worn as a bodice ornament along the neckline of her gown.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/QM6016.jpg)

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 19, 2009, 07:39:54 PM
So I am right in thinking that they are different pieces? Many thanks for sharing the pictures emeraldeyes...I thought I was being really dippy...sorry!


Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: emeraldeyes on February 19, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
Yup.  Different.  Not dippy.  ;  ) 

I've had many dippy moments myself as GDella among others could testify to - mercifully many but not all are on the inaccessible threads from the olden days.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 19, 2009, 09:19:49 PM
Thank you Betty87 how lovely!

I found Georgie's voice rather 'sing song' like, in the way it rose and fell in timbre, and he spoke much more slowly then May. She seemed to hurry through her speech as though she was racing to finish before the recording disc ran out!!!

Quite fascinating!
 

Those around him who'd encouraged him to start the tradition of the Christmas radio message were supposedly thrilled with how his voice came out over the radio. I think it had roughened a little bit in the decade between this recording and the radio broadcasts if I remember the description.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 19, 2009, 09:56:06 PM
Yes Ella I too wondered about the change in his voice over the years.....on youtube there is a recording he made in 1935 for the silver jubilee and although I do not think he sounded 'gruff' his voice seems to have become lower and more resonant.... it's rather poignant when he begins to cough and clears his throat very quietly too! I think he had a rather nice voice actually. To me May doesn't look like her voice! Sounds silly I know, but I always imagined her voice to be lower and more Lady Bracknell -ish!!!! I don't know why...but I just thought she would have a low, rich 'Handbag' type voice!

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexander1917 on February 20, 2009, 08:41:16 AM
I found a recording of George V and Queen Mary's Empire message 1923. It was rather nice to hear both voices. Sorry if this has already been posted...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JyC6qw2D_s

I never heard this before.. I only knew the launching Queen Mary tapes.....
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on February 20, 2009, 01:32:35 PM
I found a recording of George V and Queen Mary's Empire message 1923. It was rather nice to hear both voices. Sorry if this has already been posted...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JyC6qw2D_s

Awesome!  I hadn't heard this before.  George's voice doesn't sound as gruff and deep as it did 10 or so years later (probably the smoking) and, unlike alixaannencova, May (whose voice I had heard briefly before) sounds EXACTLY like I imagined her to!

Thanks for posting this, betty87.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 21, 2009, 05:57:44 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/GeorgieandMay1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 22, 2009, 02:54:56 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MaryMayofTeck1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 24, 2009, 09:21:42 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/LouiseFifeandsisterinlawMary1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 24, 2009, 01:16:20 PM
Never seen that piccie before....thank you very much Alexandre64 and it looks as though the photograph was taken at Mar Lodge too! Nice to see May and Bertie smiling, actually they all look rather happy to me!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 24, 2009, 03:51:30 PM
If I remember the larger group shot that was also taken on this occasion, the setting was Balmoral.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 24, 2009, 07:08:39 PM
Ella I am rather curious about this!

 I always assumed that Balmoral did not have such distinctive verandahs supported by painted tree trunks. I think I first noticed the tree trunks in another photograph with painted tree trunk pillars in Georgina Battiscombe's bio, which I thought mentioned the location as being Mar Lodge. I am not absolutely certain, but feel pretty sure of this. (You know what I am like about all things Louise related even when it comes to painted tree trunk Pillars!!!!) It probably seems a little ironic....but I, like Eric do not have access to my precious books, as they too are in storage awaiting new shelves to rest on....odd eh? So I can not check the Battiscombe book myself...sorry!

 I have just checked on the Getty images website and there is another photograph called 'Alexandra and family' which also shows the painted pillars and verandah like space, and the location is stated to be Mar Lodge. Just to muddy the waters further, there is another photograph of Bertie, Louise et al in a picture called  'Prince's fishing party' where the party is seen in front of a little porch also supported by shiny painted tree trunk pillars of a building described as Derry Lodge! This lodge is also within the Mar Lodge estate. Now I am getting more confused, and wonder whether perhaps there may have been some confusion over the location of photographs, as the family must have been backwards and forwards all the time between Balmoral and Mar!

But, now I am intrigued to clarify whether Balmoral has or had painted tree trunk verandahs too.

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on February 24, 2009, 07:40:41 PM
If you have all that corrobrating evidence AA, and I know you are a big Louise expert, than I would lay odds that you are correct and I am mistaken.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on February 24, 2009, 07:50:33 PM
Well I am going to have a jolly good trawl just to make sure! It is a mystery until then....! I must sound a bit obsessed going on about shiny painted tree trunk pillars!!!! But you know what I am like!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 25, 2009, 01:54:35 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/MaywithlittleJohn1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 27, 2009, 03:40:53 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/sr61191.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on March 07, 2009, 09:04:43 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/miniaturash31.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on March 07, 2009, 09:05:27 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/looptiaraT1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on March 13, 2009, 06:49:40 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/qmloop1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on March 13, 2009, 06:50:31 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/2ltoj87hz2sp41.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on March 27, 2009, 11:13:56 PM
More from the Channon diaries...I did giggle when I read this one about our beloved Queen Magp...Mary I mean!

4th April 1945

'Paul and I joined the Wavells at Midsummer Night's Dream'.....During the interval H.E. remarked that the first time he had appeared on the stage, was when he had acted Cobweb....We repeated this to John Gielgud whom we visited in the next interval, who capped it by telling us that Queen Mary, the only time he had ever met her, had confessed that her only Shakespearean role had been 'Wall'.

 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Russka Princess on March 31, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JyC6qw2D_s

a original voices of Geroge and Mary !!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on March 31, 2009, 03:17:03 PM
Thank you, but if you read the previous page, this has already been posted.

Unfortunately, the thread has been marred by the removal of the many photos Alexandre64 previously posted.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: alixaannencova on March 31, 2009, 05:07:49 PM
Yes, I have wondered about the vanishing of Alexandre64's wonderful picture posts! The collection was quite astounding! Does anyone know if they will be re-instated or is it a problem at the French end?

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on March 31, 2009, 06:44:46 PM
The pictures haven't been removed, they've exceeded their bandwith and can't be readily seen. If you right-click on photo and select 'properties' you can copy that URL into a separate window and view the phots.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 13, 2009, 09:59:18 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WphQ72_j5Gs&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

Wonderful footage of Majestic Mary!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on April 13, 2009, 11:41:27 AM
wow great link thanks for posting! She looks very regal in her furs
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: TampaBay on April 13, 2009, 12:19:06 PM
wow great link thanks for posting! She looks very regal in her furs

I think the nickname "Old Diamond and Emerald Drawers" fits nicely!  LOL! LOL!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: LadyTudorRose on April 13, 2009, 01:08:09 PM
wow great link thanks for posting! She looks very regal in her furs

Agreed. It's a good thing they didn't have PETA types throwing blood back in those days. Though I'd pay to see how Queen Mary, being the tough lady she was, would've responded to some college student throwing blood all over her nice coat.

Does anyone know if her furs are still in the family? A good fur coat can last for ages if you have a good furrier clean and restore it every decade or so(we have some in my family from when my grandmother was young), but I don't recall ever seeing Queen Elizabeth wearing any that date back more than a few years.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on April 13, 2009, 02:46:05 PM
I'd imagine that they would still be in the family, though they may be spread out. After her death certain family members would probably have taken favorite pieces. But some of the furs must have 'disappeared' to the back of the royal wardrobe.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on April 13, 2009, 03:20:34 PM
Wearing fur today is controversial so that is probably why the royals avoid it, but the Queen and others did wear it years ago.  Diana was seen in a fur jacket once that I remember in 1981 or 82.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on April 13, 2009, 03:44:11 PM
I'm guessing that this is probably faux fur then  ( it doesn't look real) -"http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/tom_romanov/queenelizabeth2_narrowweb__300x4300.jpg" - HM in 2007
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Marie-Mathilde on April 14, 2009, 07:09:26 PM
I think the fur is too much on her - spoils the outfit almost. Though it is nice to see her smiling  :)
Although I understand why people don't like the wearing of fur, I think it is acceptable if the fur garment is second hand.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on April 15, 2009, 08:11:54 AM
I agree with you Marie-Mathilde, the fur stole makes her look silly, its too much. Also I'm sure wearing fur is acceptable in those climates such as the Polar scientists/explorers, although as some others would argue other substitutes could be found.

I am sure others have noticed and mentioned this before but doesn't HM look and awful lot like Queen Mary, especially in her older age.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on April 15, 2009, 10:31:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WphQ72_j5Gs&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

Wonderful footage of Majestic Mary!

Wonderful, EddieBoy. I have to say, I like the outfit when looking at it of its era. Now, it would not only be overdone but, yes, the fur issue.

I've collected all the issues of the Illustrated London News from the WW1 period and this visit is not unusual for the couple. Every single week (when the issues were published) there were several events carried out related to the War and often dealing with the wounded. QM was much more approachable and 'smiley' than her reputation would lead one to believe. She and George V were particularly interested in the wounded. Some of the saddest photos showed the couple at presentations of posthumous medals to the family members of the fallen.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: TampaBay on April 15, 2009, 12:12:10 PM
How old was QM in 1917?  She looked 70 years old in the You-Tube video.

It may be do to the style of the clothes that looked like museum pieces from the 1880's.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 15, 2009, 01:09:05 PM
Glad you liked it! I think the fur looks very glamorous.

I was at Queen Mary's Hsopital a few weeks ago and they had a lovely picture of Queen Mary on her last visit to the hospital around 1952, still looking wonderful, would love to have got a copy of it...
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 15, 2009, 01:12:06 PM
Hi,

In 1917, she was 50...  Born in 1867....
Queen Mary never dressed modern or it seems to me, in anything flattering to her figure.  She always looked like something out of the 19th century - this may have been her husband's fault, as he seems to have been shocked once to see her ankles!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 15, 2009, 01:14:45 PM
I think the clothes suited her noble bearing!

There was  a lovely picture posted a while back of Queen Mary in a beautiful white fur coat taken from behind...
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on April 15, 2009, 01:43:33 PM

Queen Mary never dressed modern or it seems to me, in anything flattering to her figure.  She always looked like something out of the 19th century - this may have been her husband's fault, as he seems to have been shocked once to see her ankles!!

Larry

Her fashion style got stuck in the 1910's (toque, parasol and dress raised enough to see her shoes. Until then she was fairly fashionable, London magazines printed pages and pages of pictures of her trousseau. After George died her skirts seem to have risen a little bit  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on April 15, 2009, 03:43:16 PM
I recall reading somewhere (possibly in Lady Airlie's memoirs) that Queen Mary thought she had rather nice ankles and experimented with raising her skirts a few inches - but George V was so disagreeable about the matter she reverted to her longer skirts and never tried that again in his lifetime.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on April 15, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
Hi,

In 1917, she was 50...  Born in 1867....
Queen Mary never dressed modern or it seems to me, in anything flattering to her figure.  She always looked like something out of the 19th century - this may have been her husband's fault, as he seems to have been shocked once to see her ankles!!

Larry

Well, she didn't change her clothes in the almost 20 years of her widowhood either.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 15, 2009, 05:54:33 PM
Hi Ella,

Yes, I agree with you;  but around 1950, I saw a movie clip of her opening something and her dress was mid-calf.  The dress was the same as 1890 but it was hiked up a tad!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on April 15, 2009, 06:23:47 PM
Shocking!  ;) :o

I once saw a photo of her during her 'exile' to Badminton House during WW2 where she was seated rather casually on the ground with some fliers/soldiers. It looked like her skirt might have been shorter then as well.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Rani on May 16, 2009, 09:04:05 AM
(http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo319/DonaIsabella/knig.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on May 18, 2009, 08:04:30 PM
Well look at that...a playful picture featuring HM King George V. I cannot recall ever seeing a picture of him having fun! Wonderful picture...thank you for posting it, Rani.

Interesting, HM is holding what appears to be a pug...all dressed up! Perhaps that's where the Duke of Windsor's love of pugs began...in his youth. And, here I thought, he and his father had nothing in common. I guess they did after all.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: tom_romanov on May 19, 2009, 11:43:14 AM
This picture of George V was taken in 1892 (at that time he was the Duke of York).
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on May 19, 2009, 06:46:33 PM
Well look at that...a playful picture featuring HM King George V. I cannot recall ever seeing a picture of him having fun! Wonderful picture...thank you for posting it, Rani.

Interesting, HM is holding what appears to be a pug...all dressed up! Perhaps that's where the Duke of Windsor's love of pugs began...in his youth. And, here I thought, he and his father had nothing in common. I guess they did after all.

There are a number of him being playful or laughing, especially candid ones. They just don't seem to be published much nowadays--ones more in line with his 'image' seem to be the norm. Much like how people are often surprised to see QM laughing--there are a good number of her doing so that were published at the time.

GV seems to have been a semi-enthusiastic dog lover. QM was reported to not be overly fond of dogs and the York family doesn't seem to have  had the pack of hounds following that QA did. It may be one of the areas QM got her way in. GV did have a few dogs in his life though and pugs were a big favorite with the royal family.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on May 19, 2009, 07:45:37 PM
Hi grandduchessella,

Thank you so much for the information. It's much appreciated  =  ).

Regards,

=RoyalWatcher=
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on May 19, 2009, 08:14:30 PM
George has his own thread here as well:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=3173.0

It's 12 pages long and has some good info as well as some of those smiling photos.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on May 19, 2009, 11:24:57 PM
Many thanks. I just popped over there and am having a blast!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Rani on May 20, 2009, 02:38:34 PM
George has his own thread here as well:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=3173.0

It's 12 pages long and has some good info as well as some of those smiling photos.  :)

Thanks! I didin´t find this thread.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on June 05, 2009, 02:08:30 AM
(http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww139/Romanov_06/nsd/queenMary_unknown1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: betty87 on June 08, 2009, 03:34:21 PM
Take a look on ebay..Queen Mary's Photograph album by Christopher Warwick is for sale :0)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rare-Queen-Mary-Photograph-Album-Signed-by-author_W0QQitemZ270405312146QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Royalty?hash=item3ef5699e92&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1684%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A2%7C294%3A50
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on June 15, 2009, 10:42:48 AM
(http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww139/Romanov_06/histoire/2177877810094285158S600x600Q851.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on June 15, 2009, 09:45:26 PM
(http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww139/Romanov_06/histoire/2177877810094285158S600x600Q851.jpg)

Could someone please identify the diamonds? Many thanks

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on June 16, 2009, 11:45:56 AM
I'm not sure of the jewel--perhaps it's in the Windsor Jewels index?

I think that this was the photo that Nellie on Glittering Royal Events/Royal Jewels of the World Message Boards photoshopped the tiara on.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 16, 2009, 04:22:34 PM
The Palmette Tiara.. now worn by the Duchess of Glochester
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: ashdean on June 17, 2009, 05:15:22 AM
(http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww139/Romanov_06/histoire/2177877810094285158S600x600Q851.jpg)
The tiara (scince slightly altered) is now worn by the Duchess of Gloucester with a variety of centre peices (all diamond,kunzite,emerald)yet another centre..a very large sapphire set in diamonds was given to Princess Margaret who wore it as a brooch.As it was not in her sale it presumably still belongs to her children.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on June 21, 2009, 07:22:35 AM
(http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww139/Romanov_06/tiarafringemaryzm6qh61.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on August 10, 2009, 11:28:35 AM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/260973452_o.jpg)(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/264623772_o.jpg)

HM Queen Mary in all her glory!

RN
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexandre64 on August 17, 2009, 01:08:36 AM
(http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww139/Romanov_06/histoire/ING-mary1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: ashdean on August 17, 2009, 03:44:58 PM
(http://i713.photobucket.com/albums/ww139/Romanov_06/histoire/ING-mary1.jpg)
QM here is wearing a selection of sapphire.diamond and pearl jewels.The tiara (with other centre peices) is now worn by the Duchess of Gloucester.The sapphire centre was worn as a brooch by Princess Margaret & as it was not in her sale is presumably owned by one of her children.The dogcollar bought in 1929 for £6000 from the estate of the Dowager Empress passed to our current Queen and now is worn by Princess Anne.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 02, 2009, 11:48:18 AM
Here is a question for the Queen Mary experts: if Georgie had never proposed to her, who would have been May’s groom?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on September 02, 2009, 02:04:56 PM
She was in a difficult position. Too royal for the nobility--though that had weakened with the marriages of the 2 Princess Louise's, her parents supposedly were against a noble marriage, though her brother married Lady Margaret Grosvenor--but her morganatic blood doomed her for many continental royals. She apparently had a proposal from GD Michael (Miche-Miche) as discussed elsewhere but then he proposed a lot! Her Aunt Augusta might have tried to find her a nice minor German prince but, feeling so English, QM might have rejected this. If both her parents had passed away at the ages they did anyway, she might have settled for a high-ranking member of the nobility once they were gone. She was already 26 when she married George and would've been about 33 when her father died (her mother having preceded him). All speculation though.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: mcdnab on September 03, 2009, 07:17:17 AM
Victoria recommended a number of matches through German relations but the morganatic blood was a serious problem for her. It almost certainly ruled out a foreign(german) match - even a decade later there was considerable disapproval for the marriage of Victoria's granddaugther to the King of Spain due to her morganatic Battenburg blood (as well as the religious problems). She may well have remained unmarried rather like Princess Victoria.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 03, 2009, 10:44:16 AM
Thank you both for your insight on the question I posed. I just obtained a book called Queen Mary by James Pope-Hennessy. I’m anxious to dive into it. I’ve done a brief scan and it looks fantastic.

For whatever reason, Queen Mary completely fascinates me.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: carl fraley on September 04, 2009, 03:30:48 AM
the book by Hennessey is one of my all time favorite.. he explores HM QM from All aspects/sides, from childhood until death, from personal to Public.... IMO one of the best books out there... HM QM was Truly one Class Act.... IMO.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on September 04, 2009, 08:52:56 PM
Yes, you are in for a real treat with that book. It is one of the best royal bios ever in my opinion. Of course, it doesn't delve into some of the more controversial aspects of her character as it was written just a few years after her death and with royal cooperation. I wish more could have been written on such things as her son John for example. Still, there might not be much written down. What I love about the bio is that it doesn't just assume its subject became interesting at a particular point (ie her marriage or becoming Queen) but rather had life experience beyond that. The parts written about her life pre-marriage are of great interest and help to understand her full character. It seems many books just 'skip ahead' to the high points and don't allow the reader to understand their life in its full context.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: ashdean on September 05, 2009, 11:32:47 AM
Thank you both for your insight on the question I posed. I just obtained a book called Queen Mary by James Pope-Hennessy. I’m anxious to dive into it. I’ve done a brief scan and it looks fantastic.

For whatever reason, Queen Mary completely fascinates me.

You will love every minute of it!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: bednayaliza on November 01, 2009, 04:55:00 AM
"http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu120/bednayaliza/mayofteck.jpg"
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on November 01, 2009, 12:28:19 PM
That sold on ebay a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: katmaxoz on November 29, 2009, 02:44:28 AM

I hope this isn't a repeat

(http://i50.tinypic.com/2z6cep5.jpg)

Queen Mary and Prince Albert (later George VI)

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on November 29, 2009, 04:29:17 AM
Lovely photo, but I think it's little George (Kent).
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on March 11, 2010, 01:24:21 PM
So, over on the Henry & Alice, Duke & Duchess of Gloucester thread, the most recent discussion included the jewelry that Princess Alice was wearing in a set of five lovely photos that had just been posted. Most all of her significant pieces were given to her by Queen Mary (and George V).

This got me to thinking…who enriched the royal jewel collection the most Queen Mary or Queen Alexandra?

Both loved to adorn themselves with massive amounts of unbelievable gems of all sorts as well as pearls. But, I’m thinking that it was Queen Mary by leaps and bounds. I’ve done quite a bit of research on the web and it seems that Queen Mary received an unbelievable amount of jewels through the course of her life…from her parents, her future in-laws, her husband, friends and through her own purchases. Her spending budget on gems must have been enormous! I wonder where all of these funds came from. Do you think that she went overboard knowing that with four sons and one daughter that she would be expected to impart large amounts of jewels to her children and their future spouses? Or, do you think she was indulging her passion for jewels?

By comparison, HM Queen Elizabeth has added to the collection, but nothing like what Queen Mary was able to accomplish!

Are there any other opinions out there regarding this? Does anyone disagree with me and think it was Queen Alexandra enriched the royal collection more so?

I truly love talking about these royal jewels. Truly I do.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on March 11, 2010, 08:32:06 PM
I guess part of it depends on what defines the royal collection. Certainly it's nowhere near what it was during Queen Mary's time since many of the pieces she possessed have passed out of the immediate family into the Kent, Harewood and Gloucester lines. I would say that during Queen Mary's lifetime she possessed some of the finest jewels ever in modern British royal history. However, it's significantly diluted now and many of her pieces, including many historic and valuable pieces now don't belong to the monarch.

Perhaps this might be a discussion for the Windsor jewels thread since it's bound to lead off of Queen Mary?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 02, 2010, 05:44:09 AM
A beautiful picture of May.....

http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/Queen-mary-aigrette.htm (ftp://http://www.royal-magazin.de/england/Queen-mary-aigrette.htm)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: ashdean on April 03, 2010, 11:14:44 AM
I guess part of it depends on what defines the royal collection. Certainly it's nowhere near what it was during Queen Mary's time since many of the pieces she possessed have passed out of the immediate family into the Kent, Harewood and Gloucester lines. I would say that during Queen Mary's lifetime she possessed some of the finest jewels ever in modern British royal history. However, it's significantly diluted now and many of her pieces, including many historic and valuable pieces now don't belong to the monarch.

Perhaps this might be a discussion for the Windsor jewels thread since it's bound to lead off of Queen Mary?
Personally I would disagree.The current queens collection is far bigger than her grandmothers collection although perhaps not in the number of HISTORICL items.Gifts from middle eastern potentates etc have considerably swelled the collection and then there is her mothers collection with Mrs Grevilles hoarde....
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Michael HR on April 03, 2010, 02:45:24 PM
Many of the items are the property of the Crown and not the monarch personally. Gifts form other heads of state and so on, and one wonders what lies in the collection that never sees the light of day for what ever reason? Even if they belong to the Queen personally I assume many will remain for the next monarch and their spouses etc.

I remember reading that one of the finest collections in the world belongs to HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands  but can not now recall where I read this as it was may years ago.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on April 04, 2010, 09:44:59 AM
I guess part of it depends on what defines the royal collection. Certainly it's nowhere near what it was during Queen Mary's time since many of the pieces she possessed have passed out of the immediate family into the Kent, Harewood and Gloucester lines. I would say that during Queen Mary's lifetime she possessed some of the finest jewels ever in modern British royal history. However, it's significantly diluted now and many of her pieces, including many historic and valuable pieces now don't belong to the monarch.

Perhaps this might be a discussion for the Windsor jewels thread since it's bound to lead off of Queen Mary?
Personally I would disagree.The current queens collection is far bigger than her grandmothers collection although perhaps not in the number of HISTORICL items.Gifts from middle eastern potentates etc have considerably swelled the collection and then there is her mothers collection with Mrs Grevilles hoarde....

I was only responding to the question of Queen Alexandra vs Queen Mary, not involving the current Queen. Otherwise I'd be inclined to agree.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on April 05, 2010, 12:30:23 PM
King George V and Queen Mary together with their daughter Mary, the Princess Royal, their (later) daughter in-law Marina, Duchess of Kent (far left and then still a Princess of Greece and Denmark) and her sister Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark nee Princess Olga of Yugolsavia (between King George V and Queen Mary) in the Royal Box at 11 May 1934

.(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/2KingGeorgeVandQueenMarywithPrinces.jpg)

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/KingGeorgeVandQueenMarywithPrincess.jpg)

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/ingGeorgeVandQueenMarywithPrincessR.jpg)

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on April 14, 2010, 12:46:24 PM
Who s the gent beside Mary? Thanks in advanced

(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk70/Stella_sabata/rf_68.jpg)

BTW, even tho i dont like May, i loved this one!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 14, 2010, 01:30:50 PM
Lovely photo! Thank you.

Aw, what's not to like? Mary was an incredible lady & Queen!!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on April 14, 2010, 03:32:30 PM
I dont know why,  but im not fond of her
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexander1917 on April 14, 2010, 05:23:27 PM
with the words of Churchill:" she looked like a Queen, and acted like a Queen."
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on April 15, 2010, 07:59:42 PM


Mary's  mother.... the Duchess of Teck.... was the grand daughter of King George 3rd  !
As these pictures show, she was not the most attractive middle aged lady.....
in fact , it begs the question... how did she produce such a lovely and attractive daughter
as  Mary proved to be
go here

http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=130&p=651#p651
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on April 16, 2010, 04:47:32 AM
Quote
Mary's  mother.... the Duchess of Teck.... was the grand daughter of King George 3rd  !
As these pictures show, she was not the most attractive middle aged lady.....
in fact , it begs the question... how did she produce such a lovely and attractive daughter
as  Mary proved to be
go here

As a child Mary Adelaide of Cambridge was considered to be quite pretty, and her main problem as a young woman was her weight, which was a major factor in her failure to marry at a level appropriate to her rank, rather than her features.  Childbearing, lack of exercise and heavy diets tended to age Victorian women badly, and Mary Adelaide was no exception, particularly as she was very large to begin with.  However, she and her husband Francis of Teck were considered to be handsome types and Queen Victoria commented several times to her daughter the Crown Princess of Prussia that it was surprising that Mary of Teck was not exceptionally good looking as a child - in other words, she should have inherited greater looks from her parents.  Mary of Teck was not considered especially beautiful as a young woman (and Queen Victoria thought her a plain child) although it was generally agreed she was attractive.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on April 16, 2010, 03:44:23 PM
QUOTE
Mary of Teck was not considered especially beautiful as a young woman
END QUOTE

The camera does nt lie, Id say she was an exceptionally good looking
young lady ............

(http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2009/12/18-1835492948M.jpg) (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=3192315)


.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 16, 2010, 03:50:17 PM
Especially after airbrushing and lighting enhancements.. Makeup adjustments,  etc.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on April 16, 2010, 04:07:15 PM
There was no air brushing back in Victorian days... what you see is what you get !
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 16, 2010, 04:12:33 PM
There was no air brushing back in Victorian days... what you see is what you get !

You are so in for having your illusions shattered! I leave the details to our experts on 19th century photography.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 16, 2010, 04:27:39 PM
Nonsense, of course there was.  Do your research,  do not believe in illusions as reality.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Margot on April 16, 2010, 04:44:55 PM
Here is a link about retouching! Queen Victoria used retouching a great deal as did Alexandra and I am sure Mary would have had some photographs retouched! It was quite common if one could afford it!

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b8HVrM5LES0C&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=queen+victoria+and+retouched+photographs&source=bl&ots=K54PGZJowI&sig=S0aCU5Ex5VmifEAFMNq7BE-CT7I&hl=en&ei=DNjIS4SsAoH8tAOjvtSXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=queen%20victoria%20and%20retouched%20photographs&f=false

Personally I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and May of Teck was no beauty in this eye! I think she was more of a 'handsome' woman than a beautiful woman! Personally I think her brothers were all better looking than May! Rather unfair with the gentic lottery so to speak....but that is nature!

If one compares beautiful mothers and their daughters...to assume that beautiful mothers always produce beautiful daughters is rather shallow IMHO! Just look at the Wales girls! Hardly comparable to their mother! Where as Mary Adelaide produced three very handsome sons! Personally I think May resembled Queen Charlotte and no one would ever consider Queen Charlotte beautiful would they? Gosh...this is all beginning to sound a tad vacuous! Anyway going back to airbrushing as it is now called, was used in the Victorian era and even the most beautiful Princess in England, Alexandra was guilty of having her photographs retouched regularly! It is common knowledge!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: kmerov on April 16, 2010, 06:09:39 PM
A part of the reason why Mary of Cambridge was considered pretty in her younger days, I think could be that she was a coquette.

I don't think Mary of Teck was a "beauty" either, more stately and regal.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on April 17, 2010, 03:31:33 AM
I never realised that Mary of Teck was the great grand daughter of King George 3rd !
... and then she marries   George 5th  !
this is all beginning to look very incestuous !
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on April 17, 2010, 08:34:59 AM

I never realised that Mary of Teck was the great grand daughter of King George 3rd !
... and then she marries   George 5th  !
this is all beginning to look very incestuous !

Their relationship - second cousins once removed, I believe - was relatively inocuous, for the times.  George's parents Edward and Alexandra were fourth cousins, his mother Alexandra's parents were second cousins, and his grandparents Victoria and Albert were first cousins (would the genealogists in the Forum please correct any inexactitudes - but the connections were certainly there).  No one was very clued up on the potential dangers of inbreeding although too many first cousin marriages were starting to be thought of as possibly not a good thing, but it was pretty inescapable for royalty at that date (and worse for Catholic royals where there was an even smaller gene pool).  Mary of Teck was very proud of her descent from George III, it was her major claim to genuine royal ancestry since her Wurttemburg ancestry was 'tainted' by morganatic marriage.  She was fortunate to have been born, educated and brought up in England, which was pretty relaxed about royal blood lines, and where her half-royal descent was an asset rather than a disadvantage compared to her situation on the continent (especially Germany).  In time her 'Britishness' became particularly useful given the increasing insularity of Great Britain where a German bride would probably have found herself in a difficult position.  So she could be considered by the public as a genuine British princess who was connected, but not too closely, to the throne.  But she wasn't considered a top class royal bride, with queues of princes at her door, and indeed she was not the first choice of either her first fiancée or her second.  Though it all worked out in the end.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Kimberly on April 17, 2010, 09:27:16 AM
Hey Margot, you are in good company ....May herself, thought she resembled Queen Charlotte too.
( I think Charlotte had quite an arresting face...not beautiful but there is an indefinable something there IMHO).
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: kmerov on April 17, 2010, 09:35:34 AM

I never realised that Mary of Teck was the great grand daughter of King George 3rd !
... and then she marries   George 5th  !
this is all beginning to look very incestuous !

Their relationship - second cousins once removed, I believe - was relatively inocuous, for the times.  George's parents Edward and Alexandra were fourth cousins, his mother Alexandra's parents were second cousins, and his grandparents Victoria and Albert were first cousins (would the genealogists in the Forum please correct any inexactitudes - but the connections were certainly there).  No one was very clued up on the potential dangers of inbreeding although too many first cousin marriages were starting to be thought of as possibly not a good thing, but it was pretty inescapable for royalty at that date (and worse for Catholic royals where there was an even smaller gene pool).  Mary of Teck was very proud of her descent from George III, it was her major claim to genuine royal ancestry since her Wurttemburg ancestry was 'tainted' by morganatic marriage.  She was fortunate to have been born, educated and brought up in England, which was pretty relaxed about royal blood lines, and where her half-royal descent was an asset rather than a disadvantage compared to her situation on the continent (especially Germany).  In time her 'Britishness' became particularly useful given the increasing insularity of Great Britain where a German bride would probably have found herself in a difficult position.  So she could be considered by the public as a genuine British princess who was connected, but not too closely, to the throne.  But she wasn't considered a top class royal bride, with queues of princes at her door, and indeed she was not the first choice of either her first fiancée or her second.  Though it all worked out in the end.

And Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Wales were second cousins thru the Hesse line aswell.

Friedrich of Hesse-Cassel- Augusta-Mary- Queen Mary.

Friedrich of Hesse-Cassel- Wilhelm-Louise-Queen Alexandra.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: kmerov on April 17, 2010, 09:40:21 AM
I never realised that Mary of Teck was the great grand daughter of King George 3rd !
... and then she marries   George 5th  !
this is all beginning to look very incestuous !

It's not incest to marry a second cousin, not now not then, but the cultural acceptance is probably more negative today than in the 19th century. QEII and Prince Philip are also related.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on April 17, 2010, 11:46:27 AM
Well I think Mary of Teck   looks very lovely in the above pic,
I cant see how on earth that photo  is either airbrushed or touched up.
George the 5th too  was  a very handsome man...
they make a very handsome couple...  perhaps the most glamorous of  European monarchs
of the time.
eg  this photo at the time of their wedding

(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8240/princegeorgeandprincess.jpg) (http://img89.imageshack.us/i/princegeorgeandprincess.jpg/)

Now in recent  photos of  Queen Elizabeth 2nd  , she is looking more and more like her
glamorous grandmother  Queen Mary.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on April 17, 2010, 11:50:58 AM
Photographers had very curious and "avant garde" ways to retouch picturesd back then. I recomend you to do a little research online. I bet there s a plenty of material about it.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Margot on April 17, 2010, 06:02:33 PM
Heavensent...the phtotograph taken of George and Mary on their wedding day does not appear to have retouched although by the 1890s, retouching techniques had become so sophisticated that it would probably take Photogrpahic expert eye to detect any 'tidying up', if there had been any! I would say though, that there were probably many 'official' portrait photographs including some of Mary that did not escape the 'retouching' process! Frances Dimond, the former Curator of the Royal Photographic Collection housed at Windsor, discussed the use of retouching in some detail on a documentary some years ago!

Downey, one the leading Photographic studios of the Victorian era often resorted to retouching to create 'perfect' images for clients. Here is a quote about Downey from the The Newcastle Arts Centre regarding Downey:-

'Photographers made printing paper by using egg white as a binder for the Silver Nitrate and pictures were made on paper by contact printing the negatives by exposure to the sky. They often hand coloured photographs and extensively retouched images to please their clients. The Downeys were keen to experiment with every new innovation as can be witnessed in the article we reproduce from the Pall Mall Gazette.'

The quote is lifted from this link:-

http://www.newcastle-arts-centre.co.uk/downeys_photography.htm

This will hopefully show you that 'retouching' was quite common for so called Victorian 'celebrities'. The primarily difference in attitudes to those of today, where Retouching/airbrushing is regarded with a greater degree of disdain and suspicion, is that during the Victorian Era there was still a great divide in opinion as to whether Photography was an artistic genre or a scientific process! Retouching was seen by many as a way of 'perfecting' the process and giving it an 'artistic' finish, as studio lighting was at the time still very much in it's infancy and thus untouched images sometimes resulted in unflattering and unsatisfactory images! As studio sessions with a professional photographer were not cheap and required appointments and schedules to be arranged, if a sitting produced less than satisfactory resulting images, it was probably also deemed acceptable and practical to 'retouch' rather than have to arrange 'another' sitting, in some cases!

I do not know whether you read through the google book I provided at post #201, as that does contain much useful and relevant information about retouching! It may be quite detailed but it certainly does include some very pertinent and interesting information about 'retouching' processes and why and by whom these techniques were used during the Victorian Era!
 

  
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on April 17, 2010, 06:14:36 PM
thanks, that google link was very interesting,
I tried to cut and paste the book...... without much success !
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on April 18, 2010, 06:05:26 AM
The retouching process had been invented by Franz Hampfstängl, a Munich photographer, who sensationally displayed a retouched photographic 'portrait' at the 1855 World Exhibition in Paris.  The retouching process was pretty universal, at least for posed photographs - for example, Madame Proust's photo was retouched and she was by no means a celebrity or a socialite.  This is known because of the existence (among other evidence) of photographic studio collections such as that of Paul Nadar, which belong to the French national collections, where untouched photographs can be seen beside the retouched ones.  Photographs of Mary where retouching can most clearly be seen to have taken place are those taken after she was married and began having children, and her waist started to thicken - though even the waist of Comtesse Greffulhe, one of the great Edwardian beauties, was retouched by the photographers, and she was pretty slim.  Bags under the eyes, spots or freckles, loose or bagging skin, or just too much flesh, was regularly eliminated by the photographers.  After all, they had a living to earn - there was no point in going to Mr Downey or M. Nadar time after time if he continued to make you look like a hag, and other photographers smoothed all the lines or wrinkles away.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: kmerov on April 18, 2010, 10:18:15 AM
A picture I'm sure is not retocuhed.
George (V) and May with I'm guessing little Edward (VIII).
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/kmerov/Alexandra/GeogeMaychild.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 21, 2010, 03:11:20 PM
An interesting clip...

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=51162

I love Queen Marys smile on this one!

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=51270
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on April 23, 2010, 07:58:38 AM
Mary and brothr Alexander

(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk70/Stella_sabata/RF_82.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on April 26, 2010, 05:22:46 PM
Thank you Eddie for those wonderfull video-clips of Queen Mary. The last picture of 'May' with her brother Alexander (who married Alice of Albany nee Countess of Athlone in 1904) was also present in the biography of James Pope-Hennessy.

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/51420.jpg)

A Christmas-card signed by Princess Mary Adelaide nee Duchess of Teck and her daughter Princess 'May' of Teck nee Queen Mary, consort of King George V. Written in 1888, it were still the years at White Lodge when 'May' was still a wonderfull right-hand of her mother and the role of Queen-Consort seemed very far away.

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on April 26, 2010, 06:02:54 PM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/queenmary.jpg)

But when the time came of being a regal Queen-Consort, she did it with great devotion, true grace and with massive splendour!

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 26, 2010, 07:39:50 PM
The miniature is absolutely lovely, and the setting is breathtaking being a huge fan of enameled objet d'art pieces (a la Faberge).
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on April 26, 2010, 07:44:50 PM
STUNNING....  must be worth a King's ransome !
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on April 30, 2010, 05:46:35 PM
Eddie and I were just discussing that photographs (of royalty) can make you're imagination go wild, when I discovered the photo's below. I was thrilled to see so many members of the British Royal Family in one of the pictures. So enjoy!

(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/BeatifullphotographofBeatriceLouise.jpg)
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/BeatifullphotographofBeatriceLouise.jpg
A big part of the British Royal Family, from left to right: Princess Henry of Battenberg nee Princess Beatrice, Duchess of Argyll nee Princess Louise, Queen Mary, behind them Princess (Vic)Toria, Queen Alexandra, Duchess of Fife nee Princess Louise, Princess Royal Mary, probably one of Louise Fife's daughters (Alexandra?), Princess Helena Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein, Lady Patricia Ramsay nee Princess of Connaught.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/PrincessVicToriaPrincessMaryDukeofC.jpg)
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/PrincessVicToriaPrincessMaryDukeofC.jpg
Another Royal line-up from left to right: Princess (Vic)toria (she looks lovely in this photograph), Princess Royal Mary, The Duke of Connaught, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, King George V and more.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/QueenAlexandraandQueenMary.jpg)
Queen Mary with her Mother-inlaw Queen Alexandra. Notice the lovely way 'May' is holding 'Motherdears' hand.
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/QueenMarySummerStroll.jpg)
Queen Mary making a stroll in the sun.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on April 30, 2010, 06:49:46 PM
Thank you so much for the IDs, RN! I had gotten the 1st 2 photos from the ILN but they had no IDs! I could spot some of the royals but without blowing the photo up, it was hard to conclusively identify all of them--especially in the 1st photo with its double rows! I could only manage the 1st row on that one. You're the best!

If I remember the issue correctly, the 2nd photo was at a sporting match--polo, perhaps? :-\

Yes, the 'hand holding' photos is very sweet.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on May 01, 2010, 09:27:58 AM
a pleasant picture of an smiling May

(http://i44.tinypic.com/e18aia.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on May 09, 2010, 04:07:37 AM
Thank you so much for the IDs, RN! I had gotten the 1st 2 photos from the ILN but they had no IDs! I could spot some of the royals but without blowing the photo up, it was hard to conclusively identify all of them--especially in the 1st photo with its double rows! I could only manage the 1st row on that one. You're the best!

If I remember the issue correctly, the 2nd photo was at a sporting match--polo, perhaps? :-\

Yes, the 'hand holding' photos is very sweet.  :)

Great I could help you! It's good to do something for someone who does so many for others. So it was my pleasure!
It is really a great image of the Royal Family in those days. You can imagine how thrilled I was when I found the photographs so clear. My eye becomes more 'trained' to spot the various members of the family after seeing so many photographs of them around the years. You must experience the same thing.

Yes I thought of a sporting match too, but I'm not sure what kind of match. I love Toria's profile and outfit in the second one. Great to see Beatrice and Louise in the first one too. For a minute I thought that Helena (Lenchen) could be behind Alexandra, next to Toria, but the only thing you see is a part of a hat so you can't tell. And giving second thoughts, it would be strange that Helena would be seated second row, when her sisters would be on first row. There is also a empty chair next to Louise Argyll, so maybe Helena was suppose to sit there (it is offcourse possible she allready died by then, but this picture seems to me before 1923).

After seeing Helena Victoria in the first picture and after reading more about her, I thought that she really was a very active member of the family. She was really everywhere!

Yes the one of 'Alix' and 'May' is really touching!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Keith on May 11, 2010, 05:09:57 PM
If I remember the issue correctly, the 2nd photo was at a sporting match--polo, perhaps? :-\

According to the article I have, it was for Empire Day on May 24, 1919. It doesn't say exactly what they were watching.

Next to King George is Lady Patricia Ramsay and Prince Henry.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on June 06, 2010, 11:34:35 AM
Queen Mary & King George

(http://i48.tinypic.com/2ng6iog.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: LadyCathy on June 06, 2010, 07:14:57 PM
Queen Mary had a very complex personality.  It is interesting that Queen Victoria's daughter said that she was "unnatural" as a mother.  I believe she was.  There was something lacking in her when it came to her children.  She behaved with them more like a strict nursery school teacher than a mother, but natural biology did play into it and she tried instinctually to do her best.  Her husband was completely impossible when it came to the children, but Queen Mary saw to it that they did go to parties and mixed with other children.  I personally believe that she was so terrified of doing the wrong thing where they were concerned that she did very little, not because she did not love them but because she feared making a mistake.  This is interesting because she was very much a mother figure to her own brothers.  I have tried very hard to understand her over the years but she is a puzzlement to me.  If I ever got the opportunity to meet with Her Majesty, I would ask her just one question which is whether or not her grandmother was ever "fun" to be with?  I have a feeling I already know the answer but perhaps I am wrong.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: mcdnab on June 09, 2010, 11:58:46 AM
I think it was Queen Mary's friend Lady Airlie who said that both the King and Queen deeply cared for their children but just had no understanding of a child's mind. On the unnatural mother bit from Empress Frederick - unlike Queen Victoria and her eldest daughter it seems Mary found the whole business of pregnancy embarrassing and didn't wallow in it or appear to enjoy it quite as much as  as some other members of the family I don't thiink it necessarily impacted on her affection for her children though.
Interestingly both her and George V doted on their grandchildren and begged to have them with them more often (particularly the York's daughters Elizabeth and Margaret) in part I suspect that George V found girls easier to deal with. There is a note in her diary and a photo i think of Queen Mary building sandcastles with the young Princess Elizabeth. The present Queen seems to have been exceptionally fond of both her grandparents although her cousin Lord Lascelles I think is on record as saying he was rather in awe of his grandfather the King (but unlike the York children who were often with the King and the Queen the Lascelles boys spent less time with them)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on June 09, 2010, 12:53:17 PM
I also think Queen Mary was like Queen Victoria in that she had no particular interest in babies per se - unlike the Empress Frederick.  Indeed, Queen Victoria frequently teased her daughter about her love of babies and wrote, in 1880 "As regards the baby [whose is not absolutely clear from the text, but probably the Princess Charlotte's baby Feodora, born in 1879] I think you are hardly a fair judge.  Hardly anyone I know has such a culte for little babies as you have, and young people are generally not so much wrapped up in them.  I know dear Grandmama went into such extasies over them, so that I felt the reverse".  While Queen Victoria in her turn was sometimes inclined to overstate the case, there wasn't any modern expectation of involvement in babies and children for women of Queen Mary's generation and social status.  If she wasn't particularly interested in babies, and had no special feeling for children, she would take a conventional approach which was firmly disciplinary and fairly remote - but not in any way different from that of other mothers of her time and class.  But her genuine distress over the premature death of her son Prince John, must surely absolve her from the charges of a lack of affection for her children generally.  As they grew older they became more companions to their parents and I believe she and George V were very much bereft when Princess Mary married.  Princess Elizabeth was their favorite grandchild - the others really didn't come close - but as mcdnab says, they were much more relaxed with her at least and the quote he mentions from Queen Mary's diary refers to the visit of the three-year old Princess Elizabeth to her grandparents in Bognor, where George V was recovering from a severe illness, where she recorded "G. delighted to see her", and the next day "I played with Lilibet in the garden making sand pies!"  It's not uncommon for grandparents to relax and be more natural with their grandchildren - after all, they don't have the primary responsibility and can do a bit of spoiling.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Kalafrana on June 09, 2010, 02:01:48 PM
According to Philip Ziegler in King Edward VIII, George V was a doting parent when his children were small, but much stricter with them from when they were 5 or 6.

I think we have to remember that we are talking of a period when discipline was treated as a priority and spoiling the great terror. We also have to remember that nowadays a woman who was not all that keen on babies would not have six children (Queen Mary) or nine children (Queen Victoria).

From what my mother told me, her mother was fairly strict with her and had high expectations of her, whereas she was not at all like that with me, though she did not beat about the bush when she decided that I had no ear for music (my grandmother had been a music teacher).

Ann

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on June 09, 2010, 02:41:55 PM
According to Philip Ziegler in King Edward VIII, George V was a doting parent when his children were small, but much stricter with them from when they were 5 or 6.

I think we have to remember that we are talking of a period when discipline was treated as a priority and spoiling the great terror. We also have to remember that nowadays a woman who was not all that keen on babies would not have six children (Queen Mary) or nine children (Queen Victoria).

From what my mother told me, her mother was fairly strict with her and had high expectations of her, whereas she was not at all like that with me, though she did not beat about the bush when she decided that I had no ear for music (my grandmother had been a music teacher).

Ann



I think that's absolutely right - effectively, having children was Queen Mary's job, part of her genuine vocation which was being a successful consort to the future sovereign.  And she did this part of it thoroughly and conscientiously, but not with special flair or imagination. 

Quote
This is interesting because she was very much a mother figure to her own brothers. 

There were certain maternal qualities in her relationships with her brothers, but to my mind these are commensurate with her position of the oldest child and only daughter, rather than as a sort of surrogate for her own mother, who, with all her faults, was in certain ways a more ‘maternal’ figure to her children than Mary was to hers.  Mary’s situation in the family developed into her being the sensible one, who as she got older put a brake (or attempted to) on the excesses of her parents, particularly in financial matters, and in directing and helping her younger brothers’ careers – and it’s very true that she was deeply fond of them.  In this way she assumed a quasi-maternal role to her entire family, parents included; but it had little to do with the more sentimental qualities of love of babies or small children which I think we all agree was not her forte.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Kalafrana on June 10, 2010, 03:20:50 AM
CountessKate

I agree entirely on your analysis of Queen Mary's relationship with her parents and brothers. The brothers were, of course, teenagers if not young men by the time she assumed a role of responsibility towards them - very different from babies.

I find it quite interesting that three of the four Teck children turned out to be admirably sensible and dutiful, in contrast to their charming but spendthrift parents.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on June 10, 2010, 06:40:33 AM
Quote
I find it quite interesting that three of the four Teck children turned out to be admirably sensible and dutiful, in contrast to their charming but spendthrift parents.

A different way of rebelling against parental values, perhaps! 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Kalafrana on June 10, 2010, 07:15:43 AM
Quite possibly. The classic example is one of the sons of Augustus John, who after a childhood spent wandering about in a gipsy caravan, insisted on joining the Navy and rose to become First Sea Lord as Admiral of the Fleet Sir Caspar John.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Lindelle on June 10, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
In the Queen Mother's Biography, it was noted how much joy baby Elizabeth gave her grandparents when her parents were away.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on July 11, 2010, 05:32:07 PM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/PrincessElizabethandhergrandmotherQ.jpg)

And that joy can be seen in the above picture.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: RoyalWatcher on July 11, 2010, 07:35:07 PM
Precious, absolutely precious. Thank you, royal_netherlands. =  )

For me, I think that Queen Mary and HM The Queen were/are kindred spirits. Look at Queen Mary's expression...a loving grandmother holding the hand of her mini-me! She would be so proud of her Lilibet...in every-single-way.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: katmaxoz on July 11, 2010, 08:18:15 PM
I watched this DVD "Elizabeth: from Princess to Queen" on the weekend

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Young-Elizabeth-Princess-Queen-NEW-DVD-/190412744615

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Queen-Elizabeth-Special-Double-Box/dp/B000VI86TI

It contained a lot of archival footage of Queen Mary and the young Queen Elizabeth. There is an obvious fondness between both women.  The documentry made a point that from Queen Mary, Elizabeth learnt that she should not show emotion in public, that duty comes first and her parents reinforced that after the abdication when her father became King and did everything he could for the British public, even at the cost of his health.


Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Lindelle on July 12, 2010, 01:07:50 AM
I watched that two weekends ago.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 13, 2010, 01:17:21 PM
Over on the Queen Alexandra thread Eric Lowe (The name alone causes me to shudder) reported that Queen Mary cut David off following the abdication. I don't think this is accruate.

Following Edward VIII's departure for exile Queen Mary wrote "And then came the dreadful good bye as he was leaving that evening for Austria. The whole thing was too pathetic for words"

In autumn 1945 "The Duke wrote an affectionate letter to his mother" asking to see her and if he could stay with her "Queen Mary was delighted"

"Queen Mary was happy to have her "dear eldest son" with her for a week. "Very nice he was, quite like old times; very well informed, knew everything that was going on"

Queen Mary wrote to Queen Elizabeth to "beg & beseech of you & the girls  to see him [DoW] & to bury the hatchet after 15 whole years..I gather D is awfully upset.." following the deathe of GVI.
(Shawcross, 2009)

"My feelings for you as your mother remain the same, and out being parted and the cause of it, grieve me beyond words" July 1938 (Bradford, 1989).

 I hope Eric can now explain how Queen Mary cut the DoW off exactly and include references. :):)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on July 13, 2010, 01:34:52 PM
In my opinion your right about the fact that Queen Mary did not cut off David because of the abdication crisis. Maybe in the spotlight she behaved like the Queen she had always been - regal and dutifully - but behind the scenes her mother instinct got the upper hand I believe. Offcourse she struggled between royal duty and family matters, but that she banned David from her live is one thing I don't believe. She and her son kept writing letters to each other and I believe she also sent a nice letter when the Duchess of Windsor was in the hospital or something. I'm not sure about the last, but I remember reading something like that.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 13, 2010, 02:19:36 PM
I think the consensus is that QM did indeed remain on  loving terms with her son.  This has been noted in bios of both parties concerned. It is just ignorance or imagination to think otherwise.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 13, 2010, 02:30:16 PM
Well that's what I thought. But when Eric, a "noted author" as he describes himself and "friends" with other excellent authors (so he says), I of course read and absorb everything, because I am so keen to learn, I take him at his word and start doubting what I previously thought. I think it's dangerous to quote "facts" which, with a little research, show they are nothing more than false & lies....

I'm so keen to know what everyone else thinks?????? It would be so sad if this forum (such a wondeful learning resource) turned into the likes of Wikipedia!!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on July 13, 2010, 02:51:28 PM
Over on the Queen Alexandra thread Eric Lowe (The name alone causes me to shudder)

I respect the sentiment of desiring (even demanding) citations and proof. However, please no personal attacks on fellow Forum members. Both (proof and politeness) are Forum rules.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on July 13, 2010, 02:53:44 PM
In my opinion your right about the fact that Queen Mary did not cut off David because of the abdication crisis. Maybe in the spotlight she behaved like the Queen she had always been - regal and dutifully - but behind the scenes her mother instinct got the upper hand I believe. Offcourse she struggled between royal duty and family matters, but that she banned David from her live is one thing I don't believe. She and her son kept writing letters to each other and I believe she also sent a nice letter when the Duchess of Windsor was in the hospital or something. I'm not sure about the last, but I remember reading something like that.

An illustrated article on the Windsors--I think perhaps in conjunction with his autobiography--once showed the inside of the Paris apartment. One of the few family photos to be seen was a large one of Queen Mary in a fairly prominent position. One can speculation that it was there for good form or from sentiment but it was there nonetheless.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 13, 2010, 03:01:20 PM
Thank you grandduchessella, I apologise, it was not intended as a personal attack, just the person mentioned has been very rude to me and all I did was ask for proof relating to several of his remarks. That' why I can't help but cringe.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on July 13, 2010, 03:03:33 PM
I think both 'a loving relationship' and 'banning' are extremes of behaviour, neither of which was Queen Mary's way.  I'm not aware that after the abdication Queen Mary ever received the Duchess of Windsor, even privately, which created a certain distance between herself and her son which made things a little strained and awkward and contributed to the Duke's continuing resentment against the royal family.  However, she did keep up a regular correspondence with her son and met the Duke in 1945 and Pope-Hennessy quotes her writing "David arrived by plane from Paris on a visit to me-I had not seen him for nearly 9 years!  it was a great joy meeting again, he looked very well".  Pope-Hennessy also quotes the letter to which I think royal netherlands refers, which she wrote to the Duke when the Duchess was ill in New York in 1951 to say "I feel so sorry for your great anxiety about your wife, and am thankful that so far you are able to send a fair account so we must hope the improvement will continue.  Do write me a short account of what has really happened".  She certainly continued to love him as her son, but her unrelenting stance against the Duchess was interpreted - and not only by the Duke - as cold and unforgiving.  In fact I think the shock of the abdication was so great she simply could not bring herself to actually meet the Duchess, who no doubt she with her Victorian upbringing placed most of the blame upon for the whole business.  In that attitude she wasn't being fair, of course, but then she wasn't being cold either.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Keith on July 13, 2010, 04:27:02 PM
The Duchess of Windsor wrote a letter to Queen Mary while the Windsors were in the Bahamas, which she gave to the Bishop Dauglish to give to Queen Mary when he was in England. The Bishop wrote the Duchess that Queen Mary showed a keen interest in the Duke's work in the Bahamas and asked many questions. The next letter the Duke had from his mother she wrote "I send a kind message to your wife." The Duke was quite bewildered until years later when the Duchess told him what happened. 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on July 13, 2010, 06:12:04 PM
I think Robert has hit the nail on the head. And Eddie has done a similar thing.

Because telling history without referring to the right sources or to any source at all is like re writting history for those who have are unknown to the facts. Not everyone or every member of this forum digs into the books and researches every 'fact' or story that is presented to them. So they assume it is the truth. I'm not an expert on every royal or imperial family or person either. So I hope I'm reading the facts at the threads that are not so familiar to me. Offcourse we can suggest the 'what if' question sometimes - but only between the lines - for the simple reason it just never happened. Presenting so many errors and false stories without referring to the rights sources can indeed be ''dangerous'' for the historical sense of people and the image of the person referred to.

Thank you gdella. I remember seeing that photograph too containing Queen Mary's portrait, and I truly believe it wasn't there only for the photoshoot - but more for sentimental reasons. One can think what he likes offcourse.

And thank you too CountessKate for giving the right quote from the Pope-Hennessy biography and your sharp views. I agree. Most of the time I get my books from the library so I don't have them standing in a bookcase to grape. It is almost the academy awards thanking speech I know, but I just like discussing thinks and I don't want to forget anyone. So I must thank Keith too for the anecdote.

I was wondering the following. Was Wallis in England for the funeral of her brother-inlaw George VI in 1952? Wasn't the famous photograph taken of her peeking out of the window in black wearing Queen Mary's pearls? Could it be she met Queen Mary somewhere during these days? If not, I'm also not aware of a other occasion the two could have met. At least after the abdication crisis in 1937 until the War in 1939 there could have been no occasion - not to mention the wounds were to fresh. During the War the Windsor stayed at the Bahamas and the Royal Family had other things on their mind - so if their ever was a meeting it must have been between 1946 and 1953 I think?

CountessKate is definitely right that Queen Mary was in shock after the abdication. I've read in Queen Wilhelmina's official biography that Queen Mary could not understand why Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948, just because she was only 68 (!). Aldo Queen Mary and Queen Wilhelmina were fond of each other - and even banned during the War - the abdication of Wilhelmina in 1948 reminded her again of the forced abdication of her son eleven years earlier - aside was offcourse also the British tradition of staying on the throne until death. But it proved it still was a weak point in Queen Mary's system.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 13, 2010, 07:20:03 PM
RN, I think that famous  picture of her at the window  with the pearls was for the funeral of the Duke of Windsor, 1973. This according to  Jewels of the Duchess of Windsor byCulme/Rayner, 1987 Sotheby's I do not know how reliable this is, though. [Should be, the  book cost  $50 !]
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on July 13, 2010, 07:40:55 PM
Yes offcourse! Thank you very much Robert for clearing that out. I wasn't sure anymore which funeral it was. I got the one of Queen Mary looking at her sons funeral from a balcony mixed up with the one of Wallis looking at her husbands funeral in the same sort of way. Offcourse Wallis was allready quit old in this photograph so I could have known.

I suppose the Duchess of Windsor got Queen Mary's pearls after she died in 1953? If so, it could have been Queen Mary's ultimate way of showing she approved of the Duchess of Windsor her status as wife of her son; the former crownprince? We all know how much Queen Mary adored her jewelry - so it must have been a huge gesture leaving some of her precious pearls to a woman that played with her believes. If she really had been so cold, she easly could have left nothing for the Duchess of Windsor.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 13, 2010, 07:49:19 PM
Nice sentiment, RN, but somehow, IMO, I doubt "approve" would be the right word. "accept" might be better. The majority of her collection of jewels went to the present Queen, of  course.  As I read it, without going back through all these books were individual  gifts of not much historical import or value other than  sentiment. These are mentioned in the many bios of QM  and her immediate descendants.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on July 13, 2010, 07:54:41 PM
Yes ''accept'' is indeed a better choice! But historical importance or not it was atleast something for the Duchess of Windsor. Good night! ;)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 13, 2010, 08:38:25 PM
Yes, I agree, RN.  It gave  the acceptance that the Duke always wanted, in one way or another. Even if a private gesture. And if I have this right, the actual gift/bequest was to the Duke, who, of course was not likely towear them himself so were to be then to be  given to his  wife, by him.
 Complicated way to do things, but, that is the way they were.... I think that was in the Times,  and I have  long lost that collection of  clips & articles.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Olga Maria on July 15, 2010, 01:53:48 AM
I looked through Parts II and III (where is part I?) of her threads but didn't see these:
(http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_queenmary.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/queenmary.jpg)  (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_queenmmary.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/queenmmary.jpg) 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: THERRY on July 15, 2010, 08:55:55 AM
New photos for me ! Thank You I'd like to see those in better definition
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Rani on July 16, 2010, 10:51:47 AM
She wasn´t really beautiful. But tall.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Olga Maria on July 19, 2010, 12:43:02 AM
(http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_TheFamily.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/TheFamily.jpg)
Georgie and May with baby Edward

(http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_GeorgieandMary.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/GeorgieandMary.jpg)
Georgie and May

(http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_prettyMaryofTeck.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/prettyMaryofTeck.jpg)
Posted before but this is bigger.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Olga Maria on July 27, 2010, 04:00:15 AM
(http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/th_mary-f.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/mary-f.jpg)
with her sons
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on September 06, 2010, 08:53:21 PM
A remarkable portrait of Queen Mary
go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=130&p=1029#p1029
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on September 07, 2010, 07:47:16 AM
i dont want to be rude but could you stop spamming with your forum?. I mean, post a link a couple of times its ok but you do ALL THE TIME and thats considered SPAMMING. What happens with spammers? they re usually BANNED so please, stop doing that . Thanks.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on September 07, 2010, 08:07:09 AM
WELL that's gratitude, I go to the trouble of scanning the picture
uploading it , posting it  and then showing the people on this thread
and that is all the thanks I get...

That forum is merely a safe place to keep my work  and I go to a lot of trouble
to put big.. quality pics in there.
Im not trying to advertise it in any way... its not an active forum... just  storage.
 Besides,   Katenka, you are not a mod on this forum so please keep your opinions to yourself.
If my posts  upset you .... then simply ignore my posts.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on September 07, 2010, 08:09:52 AM
You know how to upload pictures (AKA use Imageshack) .Why  just dont upload here instead spamming at your forum?. Really its getting upsetting and for your sake, i d stop spamming cause YOU will be banned, not me. Im just friendly warning you.

Sadly  we dont have an "ignore button" if we had, i d put you right now on ignore cause  i hate spammers and spamming
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on September 07, 2010, 08:26:30 AM
I fail to see the issue here. If heavensent is sending a link to a forum they run that contains photos, that is not spamming. It would only be a problem if a) they were repeating the same link (ie this one with Queen Mary) on multiple threads or b) they are selling something on that forum. Otherwise, it is a link to a forum with photos. We do it all the time with various boards such as royal jewels of the world, etc...
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on September 07, 2010, 08:34:26 AM
I wonder if this person knows how to upload pictures on imageshack WHY  he/she doesnt post the image HERE?. For what i see and seeing mostly of her/his messsages is spam to that forum. i`d understand if he/she doesnt know how to post images and post the link to show us the images but he/she KNOWS.

If that  isnt spam (check her/his messages, 97% of them are links of his/her forum) i dont know what it is.

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: katmaxoz on September 07, 2010, 08:56:04 AM
1935 Queen Mary  - This looks like it is a colour photo taken of her. During this period more widescale colour photographs started being made ...if you could afford them... I'm afraid I don't have it in better quality..

(http://i51.tinypic.com/33eh3io.jpg)

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on September 07, 2010, 11:50:49 AM
I wonder if this person knows how to upload pictures on imageshack WHY  he/she doesnt post the image HERE?. For what i see and seeing mostly of her/his messsages is spam to that forum. i`d understand if he/she doesnt know how to post images and post the link to show us the images but he/she KNOWS.

If that  isnt spam (check her/his messages, 97% of them are links of his/her forum) i dont know what it is.



I don't see posting links to forums as spam--it's been common practice for years. As I said, if nothing is being sold.... There's nothing saying that photos must be uploaded and then posted--a link is sufficient and always has been.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Olga Maria on September 07, 2010, 11:07:33 PM
(http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/dapat%20isave%20sa%20com/th_MES33948.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/dapat%20isave%20sa%20com/MES33948.jpg)
A charming portrait of Queen Mary

(http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/dapat%20isave%20sa%20com/th_MES12031.jpg) (http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq126/olga_maria1993/dapat%20isave%20sa%20com/MES12031.jpg)
And something I want to have without the watermark but in the same quality...

Courtesy of Picture History : )

1935 Queen Mary  - This looks like it is a colour photo taken of her. During this period more widescale colour photographs started being made ..
Thank you for that photo! Looking at her in that, I could imagine how very pretty she looked like when she was younger.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on September 08, 2010, 10:06:28 AM
I believe the 2nd photo is from when she was a bridesmaid for Princess Louise of Wales.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Lindelle on September 08, 2010, 11:07:39 PM
I for one, appreciate everyone's pics being posted here.
It's a lovely way to show us history.

Katenka, sorry but, other forums do this all the time and it's very much appreciated.
Spamming is something that's is vulgar and sent time and time again, repetively disrespecting members.

In this case however, I post pics from lots of different sites and I don't think I'm spamming.
xx
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on October 20, 2010, 01:52:28 PM
Queen Mary  with a future Queen of England

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9747/queenmaryandprincesseli.jpg) (http://img217.imageshack.us/i/queenmaryandprincesseli.jpg/)


see full size
go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=130&p=1092#p1092
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on November 01, 2010, 08:26:13 AM
Can someone explain me the context of this image?. Was taken in some amusement park? Thanks in advanced!

(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/312/58956601.jpg) (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/58956601.jpg/)

 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on November 01, 2010, 09:58:37 AM
Can someone explain me the context of this image?. Was taken in some amusement park? Thanks in advanced!

(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/312/58956601.jpg) (http://img839.imageshack.us/i/58956601.jpg/)

 

I believe this photo was taken at the British Empire Exhibition in 1925, where the Canadian Pacific Railway had created a minature replica of a ride through the Canadian Rockies - passing through the 'Connaught Tunnel' which you can see written above the entrance in the picture.  You can't see it in the photo. but there's a miniature engine which pulls the carriages in which the royal family and attendants are riding.  It was extremely popular, and was recreated on a bigger scale for other exhibitions, including in the US.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: violetta on December 11, 2010, 11:29:46 AM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/qmary1.jpg)

(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/qmary2.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/Mary_of_Teck_.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Keith on January 17, 2011, 05:16:37 PM
Queen Mary and Queen Maud at King George V funeral.

(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c256/fajack/MaryandMaud1936.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: violetta on January 17, 2011, 05:52:09 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/qmary1-1.jpg)


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/maryofteck1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on January 17, 2011, 06:04:07 PM
Queen Mary in wheelchair

(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3533/untiawetled9.jpg) (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/untiawetled9.jpg/)

 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Lindelle on January 18, 2011, 09:26:51 PM
I'd love to know how old she was in this one
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f91/booboogbs4/May_of_Teck_by_BooBooGBs.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: ashdean on January 19, 2011, 05:18:20 AM
I'd love to know how old she was in this one
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f91/booboogbs4/May_of_Teck_by_BooBooGBs.jpg)
She looks to be wearing the diamond and pearl pendant given her on her 21st birthday hanging from the necklace which earlier was a debut present from her mother.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on January 19, 2011, 09:19:38 AM
I think it was her coming out/presentation at court photo.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on January 19, 2011, 01:43:16 PM
BTW  the color credits goes for Angie_H ;-D
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Lindelle on January 19, 2011, 07:26:39 PM
Thanks guys and thanks Angie for the colours.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: violetta on January 21, 2011, 02:51:09 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/maryeliabeth.jpg)


queen Mary and her daughter-in-law Elizabeth


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/maryofteckmother1.jpg)


queen mary & her mother


(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/maryofteck2.jpg)


Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on January 21, 2011, 02:57:22 PM
Is that really her mother ? 
they just dont look like  mother and daughter !
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on January 21, 2011, 03:12:31 PM
Mary had more resemblance with her father, Francis of Teck

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/908/113803a010113801.jpg) (http://img214.imageshack.us/i/113803a010113801.jpg/)

 

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: HerrKaiser on January 21, 2011, 05:57:24 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/maryeliabeth.jpg)


queen Mary and her daughter-in-law Elizabeth


Very strange looking proportion. The immense size difference almost looks like a carnival show funny mirror image.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 17, 2011, 03:34:34 AM
Can it really be true that at the outbreak of WWII Queen Mary went to Badminton House with 55 servants!! That seems an incredible number!!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on February 17, 2011, 07:28:52 AM
QUOTE
Very strange looking proportion. The immense size difference almost looks like a carnival show funny mirror image
END QUOTE

Because Eliz of Glamis was tiny  !
result  .. the Queen and Prince Charles must look up to their subjects.....!
luckily Diana restored the height genes to the Royal  Line ...
Looks like  William is   6 ft  2 "   !
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Kalafrana on February 17, 2011, 10:51:31 AM
Bear in mind that Queen Victoria was under 5ft, and so pulled down the height of her descendants.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: ashdean on February 17, 2011, 11:48:20 AM
Can it really be true that at the outbreak of WWII Queen Mary went to Badminton House with 55 servants!! That seems an incredible number!!
I think the number included the families of some of these servants ..
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexander1917 on February 17, 2011, 12:11:42 PM
Can it really be true that at the outbreak of WWII Queen Mary went to Badminton House with 55 servants!! That seems an incredible number!!
I think the number included the families of some of these servants ..

but it semms as the number is right. I just reraid a statement of the Duchess od Beaufort were she mentioned the conditions of her home :" The Queen lives EVERYWERE and needs 7 towels every day." so why not 55 servants? (maybe it's a bit smaller od changing (temporal rotination) lady-in-waitings during the stay at Badminton.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 17, 2011, 01:40:30 PM
Thank you shdan I never thought of that & Alexander, that is a good point. Seems an incredible number! I guess the head servants had there own servants too! :)

Where did you read that statement Alexander?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Tdora1 on February 17, 2011, 02:17:52 PM
I could be very wrong here but I always thought that the big numbers re QM's WWII Badminton was to do with the amount of luggage she took. I guess it wasn't quite up to the scale of self-indulgence set by QV who always took her bed and writing desk along with her on trips to France and Switzerland but even so, I seem to recall reading somewhere that QM arrived at Badminton with an outstandingly comprehensive quantity of personal items.

Of course, the dozens of truckloads could have just been bringing along the stuff that she'd "acquired" from hosts and visits enroute ;)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Alexander1917 on February 17, 2011, 06:57:17 PM
Thank you shdan I never thought of that & Alexander, that is a good point. Seems an incredible number! I guess the head servants had there own servants too! :)

Where did you read that statement Alexander?

here a source from wiki badminton house
"Queen Mary stayed at Badminton House for much of the Second World War. Her staff occupied most of the building, to the Duke and Duchess of Beaufort's inconvenience." I know I read it printed. it was a biography. or an article in Majesty. not sure which one. later I put it into my QM anecdotes file.

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 18, 2011, 01:27:46 AM
Ok thanks!

Osbert Sitwells's small book "Queen Mary & Others" has some great anecdotes !!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: mcdnab on February 19, 2011, 03:49:31 AM
None of the Royal Family were particularly tall - not helped by Victoria's tiny height.Also it is worth bearing in mind that Edward VII's descendants had a double height handicap as Alexandra of Denmark's family weren't particularly tall something Marie Feodorovna of Russia passed to her children (though Michael took after the Romanov's in height)


Bear in mind that Queen Victoria was under 5ft, and so pulled down the height of her descendants.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Grace on February 19, 2011, 03:23:42 PM
Alexandra of Denmark's family members were certainly not short.  Her brothers would likely not have been considered overly tall by today's standards but certainly were much taller than Victoria's sons.  Alix's son Eddy and her daughter Victoria were above average height for the family and that came from her side.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: royal_netherlands on April 02, 2011, 06:07:32 PM
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f78/opzich/KingGeorgePrincessToriaQueenAlexandraMariaFeodorovnaQueenMary.jpg)

One of my favorit photographs: HM King George, HRH Princess Victoria (Toria), HM Queen Alexandra, her sister Maria Feodorovna, HM Queen Mary.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on April 03, 2011, 09:32:59 AM
A super image of Mary

(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7781/sldihfzksh.jpg) (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/sldihfzksh.jpg/)

 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Douglas on April 03, 2011, 08:37:02 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Douglas606/queenmary.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Kalafrana on April 04, 2011, 03:45:07 AM
Msge 297

Interesting that Queen Mary is noticeably taller than George V, even after allowing for her wearing heels.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on April 04, 2011, 07:47:25 AM
Here the difference is more noticeable

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj3u49qX5P1qzjmo0o1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: heavensent on April 04, 2011, 10:47:11 AM
wonderful Doug ,  thanks
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on April 04, 2011, 02:23:39 PM
I believe they were both 5'7" or therebouts. Given heels, high-piled hair and her erect carriage it probably added a few extra inches to her.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 13, 2011, 12:16:28 PM
Beautiful May! I hope not posted before..

(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3267/edmund1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/13/edmund1.jpg/)

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 13, 2011, 12:39:00 PM

I believe that the glass cabinet next to her is of her 'collections', the objects she was given (sometime reluctantly) by the owners of them who houses she visited. " Oh I simply can't leave without saying goodbye to that dear little.....  ;)


I personally think these stories are exaggerated. What Queen Mary did do very well and quite rightly was track down all the items from the Royal Collection that had gone AWOL over the generations and demanded they be returned, she then catalogued them and preserved them for the nation! Wonderful!  8)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on June 13, 2011, 01:21:38 PM

I believe that the glass cabinet next to her is of her 'collections', the objects she was given (sometime reluctantly) by the owners of them who houses she visited. " Oh I simply can't leave without saying goodbye to that dear little.....  ;)

I personally think these stories are exaggerated. What Queen Mary did do very well and quite rightly was track down all the items from the Royal Collection that had gone AWOL over the generations and demanded they be returned, she then catalogued them and preserved them for the nation! Wonderful!  8)
I think there is supposed to be a difference between the objects which went walkies from Windsor, Buckingham Palace et al (James Pope-Hennessey said it was a case of female relatives on their marriages asking Queen Victoria or Queen Alexandra "I'd love to have that dear little chair/chest of drawers/table in my bedroom/sitting room" etc. and therewith being given permission to remove the object) which Queen Mary thereafter retrieved, and pressure being exerted on helpless hosts to donate the odd Faberge dog or painting of George III to which neither she nor the royal houses had any actual claim.  However, although I've heard highly detailed accounts of how she was supposed to have extracted various desired objects in the second category from reluctant owners ("I am caressing it with my eyes..." and so on and on until target was achieved), I've never actually heard the name of a single disgruntled person whose belongings were wrested away in this fashion.  Was it perhaps a single occurrence which became mythologised, or was it a genuine prolonged programme?  Or as Eddie UK suggests, neither?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 13, 2011, 01:36:12 PM
Interesting points Countesskate! I did not realise they where objects given to marrying princesses, that is interesting!

Maybe will never know for sure and the story has been repeated so many times (including on the BBC's Antiques Roadshow recently!!) But I find it hard to believe, we know Queen Mary paid over the odds for the Dowager Empresses Jewels and Queen Mary was always kind, thoughtful & generous when it came to helping her relations who had fallen on hard times - her brother Frank, Grand Duchess Xenia & Princess Victoria of Hesse to name a few!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: ashdean on June 15, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
Interesting points Countesskate! I did not realise they where objects given to marrying princesses, that is interesting!

Maybe will never know for sure and the story has been repeated so many times (including on the BBC's Antiques Roadshow recently!!) But I find it hard to believe, we know Queen Mary paid over the odds for the Dowager Empresses Jewels and Queen Mary was always kind, thoughtful & generous when it came to helping her relations who had fallen on hard times - her brother Frank, Grand Duchess Xenia & Princess Victoria of Hesse to name a few!
I have never heard she helped Victoria of Hesse...I thought Victoria lived comfortablyon money inherited from her grandmother etc and lucklily wisely invested in UK.
I do know that QM bought various items of historical interest (british orders etc) from the widowed Grand Duchess Elizabeth of Mecklenberg Strelitz and her daughters Marie and Jutta in the 1920's....
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 15, 2011, 02:13:01 PM
Yes I only discovered that recently too, Queen Marys kindness & generosity to Victoria of Hesse was mentioned in The Four Graces book. :)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 26, 2011, 07:12:20 AM
I have just received the most wonderful book "Queen Mary's Photograph Albums" I never knew it existed! is crammed full of lovely photographs, a must have IMO!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: grandduchessella on August 26, 2011, 11:13:57 AM
It is a great book, Eddie. I bought it when it first came out--now that's awhile back. It was such an interesting book full of snapshots. One associates Alexandra and her daughters with the camera more than QM and it does seem she wasn't as huge a photography buff as those ladies but did her share. It seems she really was an early 'scrapbooker' though. Like antiques and other royal memorabilia, she liked to catalogue photographs and properly annotate them. Her albums in their entirety must be fascinating! The photos in this book often show a softer, more fun-loving side to QM than is often portrayed.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 26, 2011, 11:45:39 AM
I couldn't agree more grandduchessella!  Apparently there are 33 volumes of her photos in the archives! They reveal a very humorous side to Queen Marys character! :)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 19, 2011, 01:28:30 AM
A lovely family photo.

(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4944/picture2001i.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/picture2001i.jpg/)

Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: THERRY on October 19, 2011, 06:12:31 AM
Thank YOU ! This photo is precious for me. The birth of George the future Duke of Kent in 1902. Never seen before as well defined  ;) :D
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 19, 2011, 08:01:09 AM
hehe, your welcome Therry. It didn't appear to scan very well for some reason.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: GrandDuchessIsabelle on January 04, 2012, 11:25:09 AM
Did anyone else watch the wonderful documentary on Mary and George last night on BBC2? I understand that many people aren't from England on here, so here is the link to it on iplayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0195qtj/King_George_and_Queen_Mary_The_Royals_Who_Rescued_the_Monarchy_Episode_1/
It is really worth a watch because it was beautifully done and there were even hand-tinted photographs. Of course it wouldn't be a documentary without at least one mistake, although I only noticed one. While referring to the deaths of the Romanov family, it was said that they died on the 16th of July 1918, not the 17th. However this is a very easy mistake and researchers may have just gotten confused.
Even my dad managed to get into it and even learnt something new!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Eddie_uk on January 04, 2012, 01:18:57 PM
Though I don't like the BBC it was quite interesting. George V's bad parenting skills came up again, apparently he once caused Prince Henry too faint just by glaring at him! And of course the asylum issue came up again too!
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: darius on January 04, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
Yes, it was rather good - am looking forward to tonight episode about Mary.  One other item of info which I think may have been wrong, despite film which seemed to prove otherwise - I didn´t think that the future George VI was a factory inspector ... that was George Kent wasn´t it?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Kalafrana on January 05, 2012, 01:25:20 AM
George VI took a keen interest in industry, to the extent that his brothers called him 'the Foreman'.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: CountessKate on January 05, 2012, 04:37:52 AM
There was also a lot in both programmes about the 'scandalous' nature of the poor old duke of Clarence - accused of a louche lifestyle without any actual evidence being produced, as usual.  I felt the programme's makers thought that no one would watch if they didn't throw in the obligatory titillating gossip!  But yes, I thought the photos and especially the films, were rivetting.  I have to say I was astonished at how large Queen Mary became at one stage, basically before WW1 - in the static photos it doesn't seem so obvious, but when she is meeting and greeting, moving through a crowd etc., she looks pretty hefty.  Not quite her mother, but clearly going that way. 
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: feodorovna on January 06, 2012, 01:47:12 AM
It seems right and proper that Mary was so well endowed. A lesser personage (and bosom) would not have created a fitting backdrop for those magnificent jewels!!! I found it interesting, but not wholly surprising that she underwent a personality change after George died although it would have been difficult after a life time of self imposed restraint.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: darius on January 12, 2012, 01:34:55 PM
It was a rather glaring omission in an otherwise good documentary that they failed to metion Prince John and his secluded life in Norfolk...
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 12, 2012, 02:35:17 PM
A very good point, Darius. Perhaps it may have been because the producers thought the subject had been covered in fairly recent docu drama on Prince Jon. Lost Prince, was it ?
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: darius on January 12, 2012, 11:33:16 PM
I know that the main pupose of the documentary was to show George & Mary as innovtive monarchs however, I think that Prince John should have somehow been covered in this.  Perhaps the producers didn´t really know quite what angle to take on the issue.  Was it a case of another sacrifice to duty, putting the Crown above self or was it a case of parental desire to protect this young Prince from the public spotlight.  At this distance I guess we will never know for certain what the King & Queen´s motive were for John´s seclusion, how ill he really was etc...
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: feodorovna on January 13, 2012, 01:16:45 AM
One of the points raised was how George and Mary made better monarchs than parents. It went at some lengths to outline the poor relationship he had with David. It also quoted a letter he had written Bertie in which he says how easy he finds it to work with him because "you are always so ready to agree with me." I don't recall that anything was said about the other children. Modernizing monarch, perhaps, but as a parent, pedantic, bombastic, tyrannical with the message "My way or no way." Having looked very hard at the personalities of his parents, I find myself wondering if George was a throwback or maybe a man who would have been infinately happier to have had a naval career and resented the position he had been elevated to.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Olga Maria on June 13, 2012, 03:13:13 AM
Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, 1887 by Lord George Montague of Bennet (from the Royal Collection)
(http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/3889/1887bylordgeorgemontagu.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/804/1887bylordgeorgemontagu.jpg/)
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on June 13, 2012, 11:52:31 AM
It's easy to see the resemblance between Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth II, particularly as the present Queen gets older. Those Teck genes must be very strong.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Jen_94 on June 13, 2012, 04:45:14 PM
It's easy to see the resemblance between Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth II, particularly as the present Queen gets older. Those Teck genes must be very strong.

R.I.

I was just about to say this! I agree, our Queen does look like Queen Mary.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: DNAgenie on June 13, 2012, 08:21:00 PM
I don't think they are Teck genes coming through, but from the Hanovererian line via Queen Mary's mother (one of the Cambridge girls). The original Duke of Cambridge was the younger brother of the Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father) so Queen Mary was George V's second cousin once removed, as well as his wife.
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Kalafrana on June 14, 2012, 03:45:40 AM
Every time my mother (who died in 2004) saw the Queen on TV, she would say, 'She's getting to look awfully like Queen Mary'.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Mary- part 4
Post by: Olga Maria on June 14, 2012, 06:44:33 AM
Queen Mary surely is very happy about what all of you are saying... Grandma and grandchild are two of the best-looking queens who graced the throne of United Kingdom certainly~

Source: Royal Collection

May as Duchess of York
(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/941/vm2zr.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/vm2zr.jpg/) (http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9391/vm1ge.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/vm1ge.jpg/)

May and George at York Cottage
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6756/77921600.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/77921600.jpg/)