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 - Prince_Lieven

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 333
The Tudors / Re: Mary Boleyn's children
« on: May 19, 2010, 02:52:02 PM »
Maybe I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've looked at this subject, but didn't Mary Boleyn only have two children - Catherine and Henry Carey?

The Windsors / Re: "English" branch?
« on: March 21, 2010, 06:12:33 PM »
I know plenty of Scots, Irish and  Welsh and none of them were taught  their native languages.

Any Irish person born after the 1940s or 50s would certainly have been taught Irish all through school, primary and secondary - it's obligatory. Most people fall out of practice after school though. There are still parts of the country where Irish is still spoken as the first language. In general - well, in my experience at least - people from Dublin tend to be worst at Irish, and the least interested in it.

The Tudors / Re: Elizabeth I and Henry VIII
« on: November 28, 2009, 03:24:56 PM »
When Elizabeth was born, although Henry was disappointed about her sex, he treated the birth as a triumph, and showed great public affection for Elizabeth. While Anne Boleyn was alive, Elizabeth was secure, but after Anne's execution Elizabeth was declared a bastard (like Mary had been before her). But Jane Seymour - and to a greater extent Katherine Parr - made a big effort to reconcile Henry to his two daughters, and by the time of his death Henry was fond of Elizabeth and proud of her intelligence and wit.  Of course, all his children - with the possible exception of Mary - viewed Henry more as a distant, terrifying figure than an affectionate, 'hands-on' dad.

When she became queen, Elizabeth delighted in referring to herself as 'Great Harry's Daughter'.

Incidentally, when her first cousin Anne Stuart, Queen of Great Britain (1665-1714) died, she left instructions that all her jewels were to be given to Anne-Marie, her closest surviving female relative. Perhaps Anne had fond memories of her - as a child, she'd suffered from terrible eyesight and had been sent to France in the hope of treatment there being better. After the death of her grandmother, Queen Henrietta Maria, Anne was moved to the household of her aunt, the Duchesse d'Orleans, and thus spent some time in the nursery with her cousins Marie-Louise and Anne-Marie. George I, Anne's successor, didn't honour her wish.

The Tudors / Re: Katherine Parr's First Husband
« on: July 31, 2009, 06:35:46 PM »
Well, according to this website Katherine's husband's grandfather was born in c.1464, which would make him about 65 when Katherine married his grandson in 1512. He married Anne Cobham in 1477 and Edward's father was born 'before 1488' apparently. Edward's parents married in 1496, so even if Edward was their first son he can't have been more than thirty-three in 1529, let alone in his sixties!

But another website;i=979399 says that Edward's father Thomas was born in 1494, which would indicate that Edward wasn't born till 1508-1510 at the earliest, which would make him quite young when he married Katherine.

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 12, 2009, 09:50:46 AM »
Well I made a mistake on that, but it would only make sense that Henry VIII murder his son (Henry Fritroy) if he had a legitimate heir according to the book on Fritzroy. Anyway, it seems like Henry wasn't too concerned about Fritroy's death, judging from his simple and rushed arrangement on his furneral. Especially since he was an Earl and natural son of the king.

This has already been thoroughly debunked in this thread.  But really.  Henry may not have been an especially nice guy, but nowhere has it been seriously written that he might go aroung murdering his own children, legitimate or not, just because he had a legitimate heir (which of course, he didn't  at the time of Richmond's death).  It does NOT make sense.  At ALL.

There may (or may not) have been a certain amount of pressure to "get rid" of Mary from the Boleyn faction- but there is no evidence that Henry ever considered this- he was fond of all his children, in his way.

I completely agree, jehan - in spite of her continued defiance over the course of the 'great matter' and her refusal to acknowlege Anne as queen, I don't think Henry ever considered 'getting rid' of Mary - after all, as a child she'd been his 'little pearl', and as an adult he remained fond of and proud of her. But we're straying a little from the topic here, sorry!

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 11, 2009, 03:40:59 PM »
In the new bio about Richmond. He sort of died after Edward VI was born. It was even suggested that he was poisoned.

Yes. It is interesting that Mary was fertile while Anne had such difficulty in having a child. That came to an end (finding an heir) when Edward was born, even though he was sickly. To think about it, all Henry VIII's children had some sort of aliment. From Richmond, Mary I, Edward VI to even Elizabeth I. That is not a healthy family, his sister Margaret Tudor's line was more robust in health.

Edward VI was not as sickly as is often suggested. Until his last years, there was no reason to think he wouldn't live to be as old as his father.

Fascinating information Toots, you really could write a book! Not only do you have all the knowlege, but you also express it very fluidly and approachably (if that's a word!).

I also found the posts about ducal 'stats' extremely interesting! At the risk of completely upsetting the apple cart, perhaps when you've finished about the 4t duke of Norfolk, maybe it would be an idea to jump to something else, perhaps discussing a duke of a completely differnt era?? Since you're the expert here Toots, anyone with any questions about the Norfolks, or anyone who wishes to initiate a new discussion on them - or any other dukedom - can do so, without us being confined to doing things chronologically. Does this sound ok or am I insane??

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Relation to Alix
« on: April 08, 2009, 05:48:15 PM »
Ilyala, as far as I know, the current reigning houses of Europe -  Liechtenstein, Denmark, Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Belgium, Monaco and the UK (obviously) -  are descended from William the Conqueror.

Some wonderful informaion there Toots, thanks so much! Interesting that both the 2nd and 3rd dukes lived to such a great age, perhaps it was in the blood! It is indeed fascinating to think that the 3rd duke presided over the coronation of Mary I, having once been married to her great-grand-aunt, Anne of York! I eagerly await some info about the later Howards, since I don't know much about them!

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 05, 2009, 06:34:28 PM »
No Prince Lieven was right. I did mean Charles II's bastard. In history bastardy does not always debar one from the throne or succession. The Beauforts were legitimized bastards, but Henry VII's weak claim to the throne came from his mother Margaret Beaufort. That Elizabeth I must brought into mind, when she refused to pardon Essex. Also William the Conquerer was a bastard too. Now is actually easier, a strand of the Carey's children 's hair or DNA and compared that to Henry VIII or Mary I can solve the mystery.

Eric, it's just my opinon, but I don't think Elizabeth executing Essex had anything to do with any possible claim to the throne he may or may not have had. Elizabeth was known to be ruthless where her own security was concerned, even with people who'd formerly been part of her circle - like the duke of Norfolk. Even assuming that Essex was indeed the great-grandson of Henry VIII, any claim to the throne this entailed would've been extremely weak. Henry VII's claim to the throne was always more about his marriage to Elizabeth of York, heirss to Edward IV, and even more so through 'right of conquest', just like William the Conqueror. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Essex's kinship with Elizabeth was much remarked upon at the time. He was a distant descendant of Edward III, through both his parents, but I don't think that was ever talked about either.

Fascinating stuff, Toots! Am I right in thinking they're also the only ducal family to remain Catholic? I think they've been nominally Anglican in the past, for political purposes, but have aways been regarded as an old, Catholic family. They were definitely a family of limitless ambition - as you mention, they've produced two queens of England (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, nieces of the 3rd duke) and there were even plots to marry the 4th duke to Mary, Queen of Scots, and put them both on the throne of England. The duke remains Earl Marshall to this day, I believe? Nowadays they have the double-barrel surname of 'Fitzalan-Howard', reflecting their acquisition of the earldom of Arundel, one of the oldest in England.

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 04, 2009, 12:18:45 PM »
Nor was the Duke of Monmouth as you would remember. He was Henry VIII's natural grandson by Mary Boleyn.

I'm guessing you don't mean that Monmouth was Henry VIII's grandson by Mary Boleyn? Anyway, you can't compare the case of an illegitimate son of Charles II to that of a (possible) illegitimate son to Henry VIII - Charles acknowleged Monmouth, it was common knowlege that he was the king's bastard son. Henry did not acknowlege the Careys. Therefore, from a legal and official point of view, they remained the children of Mary Boleyn and William Carey, with no more claim to the throne than anyone else.

It's definitely an interesting subject Toots! Norfolk is the oldest one, if I remember right, followed by Somerset and then . . . . one of the one's created by Charles II? Grafton or Beaufort or St Albans? The dukedoms of England come first in precedence, followed by Scotland, Great Britain, the UK, then Ireland, I think . . .correct me if I'm wrong Toots. There's only two Irish dukedoms left - Leinster and Abercorn.

There's a new book about the Howard family (dukes of Norfolk) at the moment called 'House of Treason' (I think). They definitely had quite a chequered history, especially with the Tudors . . . the dukedom was attainted and re-instated several times I think! The Dukes of Norfolk  of Tudor times seemed to personify the 'over mighty subject' that was so abhorrent to the Tudors, especially once they'd gained a strain of Plantagenet blood (through Eleanor Stafford, wife of the 3rd duke [I think!] and descendant of Edward III). Great family to start the discussion with!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 333