Show Posts

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

Messages - Jane

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
I'm in full agreement with Silja on this one.  I found this book on the remainder table, and I wish I'd left it there.  It's the only Romanov-related book in my collection I have considered tossing out.

George was born in 1910, and his parents were married in Vienna the following year.  

I found this regarding the Nathalie Brasov;
Sergei Aleksandrovich Cheremetevsky ( from the counts Cheremeteff no? ) married Ulia Viatscheslavovna Sventitzkya, daughter of Alexander Pushkin. ( the poet no? ) They had a child ;
Nataliya Sergeievna Cheremetevskaya+ b. 27 Jun 1880, ¬ She married, firstly, Sergei Ivanovich Mamantov before 1910.3 She and Sergei Ivanovich Mamantov were divorced before 1911.3 She married, secondly, Captain Vladimir Vladimirovich Wuffert before 1911.3 She and Captain Vladimir Vladimirovich Wuffert were divorced before 1911.3 She married, thirdly, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Romanov, Grand Duke of Russia She died on 26 February 1952 at age 71 in Paris, France.3
 ¬  ¬ 

Sources ;

 ¬  ¬  ¬  ¬  ¬  ¬  ¬

Maximilan, I looked at that site.  It's a bit confusing.  However, Lisa Davidson is correct.  Nathalie Brassova's mother was not a daughter of the Aleksandr Pushkin.  His daughter, Natalia, however, married a prince of the House of Nassau, and one of the daughters of that marriage (considered morganatic), later married Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia.

Having Fun! / Re: Movie Game
« on: October 11, 2005, 02:18:30 PM »
John Hurt - Scandal

Forum Announcements / Re: Hurricane Katrina
« on: August 31, 2005, 02:36:08 PM »
Every time I see pictures or footage of the utter devastation, my heart breaks further.  I have been hoping and praying since yesterday that the levee breaches will be stopped before New Orleans is lost forever.  An old friend from school lives down there, and I hope like heck he and his family are safe.

It's so horrfying and yet so surreal.

Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about Orthodoxy (2)
« on: August 12, 2005, 04:08:06 PM »
Dear Jane,

Thank you very much for your kind help.  You are completely correct.

BTW, does your research indicate to you if any of the Ilyinskys in Cincinnati (a) speak any Russian at all, or (b) are Orthodox?  No one I know in Cincinnatti has ever seem any of them in an Orthodox Church.  What a shame!

Again, thank you for your help.


Alex, I am not sure whether any of the Ilyinskys speak Russian, nor whether they are observant Orthodox.  If I do become aware of any information to that effect I will be happy to let you know.

The Tudors / Re: The Virgin Queen?
« on: August 12, 2005, 01:51:37 PM »
Tsarfan, again I find myself in complete agreement with you.  Well-stated.

At any rate, I don't believe she ever seriously considered it.  Look at her two contemporaries, Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart.  Both women married and essentially were pawns at the hands of others.  Elizabeth never really considered seriously any of the many suitors who were broached to her--I think the closest may have been the Duc d'Anjou, the "Frog," but I believe the evidence supports she was really only enjoying the political maneuvering involved.

Marriage not only would have undermined Elizabeth's own power and sovereignty, but I should think the institution of marriage itself would have been suspect.  I think the fact of her mother's execution, and her father's marital record would have further soured her on the idea itself.  

As to whether she remained a virgin?  Well, we'll never know.  I think the only plausible lover may have been Thomas Seymour.  He was handsome, charismatic, powerful, and she harbored typical youthful feelings of "passion" towards him.  I don't know whether Seymour ever would have crossed the final frontier, so to speak.  It would have been a singularly stupid thing to do, but he was not always famous for his wisdom.

As far as other favorites?  I think Robert Dudley probably was the one man who Elizabeth loved, in the true sense of the word.  I don't believe that love ever was physically consumated, only because by that time,  having survived imprisonment, and still being fairly tenuously seated on her throne in the early years, Elizabeth was unlikely to risk it all, including pregnancy and possible death.  Besides, Dudley was married (firsy to Amy Robsart, then to Lettice Knollys, possiblly even a wife sandwiched in between if we are to believe the stories about his alleged marriage to Douglass Sheffield), and he was unpopular anmong many members of the Court.  It would have been political suicide.

As for Essex and Raleigh and Sidney and Hatton and the others?  Courtly love paid by young men to their Queen.  No more.

Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about Orthodoxy (2)
« on: August 11, 2005, 07:36:54 PM »
Thanks Jane! :)
I love it too! And the Liturgy is really magnificent [I know I shouldn't be too proud of it ;D]

On the contrary, I think it's quite right to take some pride in a tradition that, in addition to being empirically beautiful, serves as sustenance for the soul.  :)

Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about Orthodoxy (2)
« on: August 11, 2005, 07:02:37 PM »
Also, this is a branch of the Romanovs living in Cincinnati, the Romanov-Emerys-Kulivoskys.  They are rather assimilated into American life and I am not sure that they are even Orthodox -- I would venture to say Roman Catholic or Protestant.  If that is true, what a real shame....I wonder if any of them even know about their origins.  I met one of them and he looked very much like the Grand Duchess Olga but he spoke NO Russian at all, or truly, very, very little with quite the accent and I know that they were not invited to attend the Imperial Reburial many years ago.

A small point of clarification, if I may.  It is the Romanovsky-Ilyinsky branch that is based in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.  They, of course, are the descendants of Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich and Audrey Emery.  I would venture a guess that they are aware of their lineage, as newspaper articles or magazine articles occasionally appear about them.  I recall reading about them from time to time.  I did a quick search and have attached a link to one such article that may be of some interest.

The Kulikovskys, descended, as I am sure you know, from Grand Duchess Olga and Colonel Kulikovsky, lived and died in Ontario, Canada.  Xenia Kulikovsky moved to Denmark some years back, according to a recent documentary on the Danish Royal Family.  I don't believe any of the Kulikovskys lived in the United States.

Palimpsest, your church in Romania is very beautiful.

The Tudors / Re: Which of Henry VIII's wives...
« on: August 10, 2005, 07:14:06 PM »
Well, from a personal standpoint, I don't think he'd really have lit my fire either, if you understand my meaning.   ;)

As an old man he was, nevertheless, still the king, and an extraordinarily charismatic and powerful man.  That itself can be enough of a draw for some.  And apparently was.

The Tudors / Re: Which of Henry VIII's wives...
« on: August 10, 2005, 05:00:35 PM »
Anne Boleyn gets my vote.

As some earlier posts mentioned, Henry's pursuit of her bordered on what, in modern terms, we would call sexual harassment.  I think Anne was pressured into a relationship she felt was unsafe to refuse.  And I think much of her subsequent demanding and self-aggrandizing behavior was anchored in her conviction that, if she was going to have to accept the importunities of a man she did not love, she at least had a right to get something from the bargain.

And what a foul bargain it turned out to be, after all.  Her survival came to depend on something over which she had no control -- having a male child.  And the cost she paid for failing was to go to her death, knowing her brother was suffering the same fate under the same false calumny of incest, and probably assuming her daughter had little chance of ultimately surviving.

Excellent points, tsarfan.  For all the reasons you've stated, I think Anne had it "the worst" and consequently I'd have not liked to endure the same level of what must have been the constant, unending, overwhelming stress of trying to outwit her enemies and placate the King at the same time.  Especially since, unlike Catherine Howard, Anne was innocent of the charges brought against her.

Catherine Howard was a knowing player in the game which brought her downfall.  I feel sorry for her because she was an immature little thing raised to dazzling heights by a lecherous old man, and lacked the wisdom and guidance allowing her conduct herself in accordance with her station.  But, at the risk of sounding brash, her time in the sun was short, her death quick.  She ranks second as the wife I'd have least like to have been.

Jane Seymour.  I think she's much more clever and calculating than generally given credit.  It takes a cold woman to wed a man a day after he's beheaded his previous wife.  Had she not given birth to a son before dying shortly after childbirth, I doubt Henry's memories of her would have been so "rose-colored."  Third in line only because the idea of dying as she did seems horrible, given the primtive state of medicine then.

Catherine of Aragon, although the wrongly maligned first wife, still maintained some shreds of her dignity and retained the affection of many (if not most) of the King's subjects.  Life with chilblains cannot have been plesant, though.  ;) Fourth.

Now to the last two....

Catherine Parr, a woman whose character I admire, certainly had the unfortunate luck to be the primary nurse for Henry's horrible oozing leg.  However, he seems to have been much more mellow with age, and they appeared to have been fairly companionable.  She was a bit of an old hand at dealing with older husbands, of course, before she married the King.  Her strong religious beliefs could easily have resulted in her own arrest.  Where I feel sorry for her is the whole scandal involving Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour years later.

Thus, by elimination, the wife I'd have most liked to be?  Anne of Cleves, obviously.  Marriage gets her out of her dull brother's pumpernickel court; she has the singular good fortune not to arouse the king's ardor and thereby gets a pass on having to perform her marital duty with the old lout.  By being smart enough to be acquiescent to his wish to divorce, Anne earns the King's friendship as a "sister", a couple of manor houses, a nice fat allowance, and lives contentedly as a woman of means in a country of which she has grown fond.

The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn's Downfall
« on: August 10, 2005, 04:32:05 PM »
The old adage "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" seems to have been well-illustrated by Lady Rochford.  Clearly, she and Lord Rochford had an unhappy marriage, although the exact causes for their mutual antipathy are unclear.

She testified to an incestuous relationship between her husband and his sister (which appears more motivated by her desire to bring down her husband than Queen Anne, although surely she must have known of the possible consequences for both).  Lady Rochford was later "rewarded" by Henry with a position in Anne of Cleves' household.  She again served as a material witness, this time in the King's divorce proceeding, testifying as to her conversations with the Queen and the apparent lack of marital relations.

As noted earlier, she then became the go-between for that silly and tragic Queen Catherine Howard and Thomas Culpeper.  Tossed in the Tower in 1541, she went insane during her imprisonment before she was ultimately executed.  She is reported to have spoken words of regret for the lies she told about her husband before she died.

All in all, a conniving woman who was reponsible for a great deal of pain, death, and suffering.

Imperial Russian History / Re: discussion about Orthodoxy (2)
« on: August 10, 2005, 01:36:47 PM »
While the rituals of a religion are interesting and play a role in the development of our spirituality, they are simply tools, not the creation itself.


As a "recovering" Catholic, I agree with this point, Finelly.

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra's Russian.
« on: August 02, 2005, 10:16:50 PM »


At this point I am not about to set out ANY MORE family details on this that members like Helen and Thomas can sit back in their lederhosen and make cheap, petit bourgeois potshots at respectable family members.  Had I know that this Board was so full of such lowlife, I would have never, ever, ever joined it.  It is a Board for anonymous Internet trolls who gratuituously sit back, for some depraved reason, and maim and hurt innocent posters who have something to contribute.  Some of the postings are toilet postings and should be flushed.  For one, I am quite "lesé".

I do not participate in group psychotherapy sessions for Internet trolls.  I had truly thought that this Board served a higher purpose, a more intellectual forum, a forum where serious memories could be exchanged and cultivated.  Instead, I find it to be a hijacked Board full of snide, depricatory, provincial Eurotrolls.  And that is enough for me.

Je peux fort bien rentrer dans mon silence et n'en dire plus rien.

In any case, both Thomas and Helen owe me a direct, public apology for their rudeness and baseness.  Their troll-like Internet behaviour is not acceptable.

What a nasty, defensive, self-serving and low-class post, AlexP.  If anyone is owed an apology, it is owed by you to Thomas and Helen, both of whom are long-standing and valued members of this forum. Your use of personal insults is unacceptable.  If this board is too "petit bourgeois" for you to participate, then I doubt your absence will be mourned.

The Yussupovs / Re: The Yusupov fortune - what happened after 1917 ?
« on: August 02, 2005, 10:05:58 PM »
Allow me to correct your French.  You should have written "je ne suis pas impressionnée" because since you claim to be a female, you should add the proper ending to the verb. Unless you of course are transgender. Additionally, please check the spelling of the word "cemetery".  It is  NOT "cemetary" as you incorrectly write, but "cemetery".

Ahhh...Nothing like having to stoop to pointing out an opponent's  typographical error in an argument.  There's no finer indicator of adversial prowess.  Very well done.

Although you are quite right on my's been years since I've had occasion to speak it.  Tant pis.

As for the continuing "importance" as you claim, of le bon ton...well...we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18