Messages

1

The Tudors / Re: Was Elizabeth I a virgin when she died?

« on: November 13, 2006, 03:24:03 AM »

Well, hello to you all! I have not been here in a long time and wow has this thread grown. I hope you all are doing well, and was wondering if there is a thread here on Marie Antoinette? I just saw the movie and am curious to discuss....

And thank you for the movie recommendations, I've watched them all...

Also, I agree that who COULD she have married in her country that was of her rank, anyway, because I think she knew the consequences of marrying a foreign husband...xenophobia was rampant.  And what complicated matters is she was a royal woman...and women during that time were always pawns of political alliances, so it...in a way...complicated things

2

The Tudors / Re: Was Elizabeth I a virgin when she died?

« on: September 22, 2006, 02:52:45 AM »

i think a historical movie should draw your attention to something but should not be considered as historical truth. same for a historical novel. one of the first historical novels i read was 'la reigne margot' (when i was about 12 or so) and as a result of that i have always been interested in that period of time in france. but i have never taken for granted anything alexander dumas said.

however, there are people who use movies as historical sources. i'm sorry, aurora, i didn't mean to come off harsh, but i am sick and tired of people saying 'this must have happened, i saw it in the movie!'. geesh. i've seen it hundreds of times, how many lazy asses say a movie is historically accurate and don't feel the need to read anything else into the subject because they already know what happened. and then they're oh so cultured. but of course if i correct them i'm a geek who hasn't got anything better to do with her time than read historical books.

for that reason it's frustrating to see so many movies that are supposed to be historical and in fact they are only somewhat based on history. but they take the facts and they twist them in such way it's annoying. not to mention i would love to see an interpretation of a historical fact that fascinates me, but i would like the facts that we know are true, to stay true in the interpretation. yes, you can have an artistic license - there's enough we don't know about the period to be able to put in your own interpretation in there. but stick to the facts. the story is fascinating as it is - why should you change it?

I completely agree with you! And it is frustrating when people use entertainment movies as knowledge trivia. And I hate when they change things in movies as well. Just like when you read a really good book, and it comes out in the theaters and they mess up parts, leave out parts, or add things that didn't even happen.

3

The Tudors / Re: Alternative history: Henry VIII & Christina of Milan

« on: September 22, 2006, 02:47:26 AM »

Lol! 

4

The Tudors / Re: The Tower of London

« on: September 22, 2006, 02:43:32 AM »

Its interesting that Mary, Queen of Scots wasn't executed there...

5

The Tudors / Re: Alternative history: Henry VIII & Christina of Milan

« on: September 21, 2006, 01:33:53 AM »

I like the courage and wit of Christina to say that if she had two necks, etc,...makes me wonder at some women's courage during this time and some women's fears...

I hadn't heard of Christina before...can you tell me a little about her? Why would Henry be interested in her?

6

The Tudors / Re: The Tower of London

« on: September 21, 2006, 01:30:52 AM »

A Zoo!? That sounds preposterous...

And out of naive curiosity, were commoners allowed to watch the executions? And were there really mass hysteria and excitment when it occured? Several movies that depict traitors being executed show screaming crowds...

7

The Tudors / Re: Was Elizabeth I a virgin when she died?

« on: September 21, 2006, 01:26:16 AM »

Also, in side note to movies, American or elsewhere, a movie is made with countless people involved with an intended audience, and is made for profit. A book is written generally by one or more people and has a point and written to inform. A documentary is made with countless people and has a biographical agenda and scripted to explain.

My point? There are many media and literary routes to gather information. Hollywood was created to entertain, books are thoughts, interpretations, and informative, and lastly documentaries are facts, accounts, and has a topic of interest.

This is why they teach us critical thinking in school  We know how to educate ourselves properly, but we can still go out for a dinner and a movie...

(Eternal moviewatcher     )

8

The Tudors / Re: Was Elizabeth I a virgin when she died?

« on: September 21, 2006, 01:12:37 AM »

I just find it interesting that Elizabeth didn't try to secure an heir. She had choices all over Europe, she could have picked one, and still tried to maintain her soverignty...the hard part was she was a Queen and had to marry within her station (ie another King or a person of royal lineage). Yes she would have to marry and have sex and share some part of herself to her husband or king consort...but she would have an heir to pass on her lineage. Did this not mean anything to her?

It makes me wonder what else was really going on with our beloved Virgin Queen...

9

The Tudors / Re: Was Elizabeth I a virgin when she died?

« on: September 18, 2006, 10:11:59 PM »

Its interesting that her father Henry was obssessed with wanting a son, and she seemed to abhorr marriage...or make a child happen. You know, one in every two thousand people are born intersexed...the possibillity could be very real. And surely they didn't know THAT much about women anatomy...we'll never know for sure.

But why would someone like Elizabeth (regardless of Thomas Seymore, her mother, stepmothers, other women, Mary's experience, and her pride) not make it her policy as the headmistress of her country to bear a child? Especially with the threat of Mary, Queen of Scotts...

10

The Tudors / Re: Henry VIII and horses

« on: September 18, 2006, 10:02:23 PM »

Anyone been to the Grand National? Or watch the steeplechases? I think they're fascinating and intense compared to flat track racing...

11

The Tudors / Re: The Tower of London

« on: September 18, 2006, 10:00:40 PM »

Thank you for your responses. Was it a class thing to send only royalty to the Tower? A priveledge...almost? Especially considering the monarchs would stay the night there before their coronation. I wonder what made that place so special...its impenetrability? There should be a national Tower of London day in England 

12

The Tudors / Re: The Tower of London

« on: September 17, 2006, 10:14:44 PM »

I went to London when I was 18 and we didn't visit the Tower because the tour guide sucked. I would revisit of course, but that will be a long time from now...which is why I ask... 

I'm fascinated by the Tower...I wonder what else in other countries is comparable?

13

The Tudors / Re: The Tower of London

« on: September 17, 2006, 02:40:51 PM »

Was only royalty kept there? No peasants who didn't pay taxes, and such? And what about the different toture devices they used...what was the worst?

14

The Tudors / Re: Which of Henry VIII's wives...

« on: September 15, 2006, 02:40:50 PM »

I wonder if Henry VIII liked the name Catherine and Anne? Only one wife had a different name, Jane...I find that amusing, for it would be easy for him to remember their names! 

15

The Tudors / Re: The Tower of London

« on: September 15, 2006, 02:16:15 PM »

Also, how many rooms were there? How many prisoners could be held there at once?

And why is it called Tower, intead of Towers? I see four in the pictures...