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 - James1941

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27
French Royals / Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« on: February 27, 2007, 11:42:01 AM »
I am probably going to show my complete ignorance about DNA now, but...It is my understanding that the DNA of the prince came from shavings taken from his petrified heart and this was compared to DNA taken from hair samples of Marie Antoinette. Are there no hair samples of Louis XVI available? Or can paternal DNA not be obtained that way?
I think Eric_Lowe is probably correct in that the authorities didn't want to open up this can of worms. It was supposed to be a time of healing old wounds and making amends for the treatment of the boy, so just prove he was the little prince and leave it at that.
Still, it would be nice to have this mystery cleared up, or at least as much as can be cleared up.

Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 26, 2007, 05:39:45 PM »
Five days after Bloody Sunday the empress wrote a letter to her sister, Pricness Victoria of Battenburg. In it she wrote: "Petersburg is a rotten town, not one atom Russian." As she stood on the balcony of the Winter Palace that day on August 2, 1914, and looked out over that sea of faces as they cheered so loud and long that the emperor could not make himself heard, then saw them fall to their knees to sing the imperial anthem if she remembered this. Hopefully she revised her opinion that day of patriotic union between people and ruler.

The Tudors / Re: Titles,rank and style of former wives of Henry VIII
« on: February 26, 2007, 05:31:47 PM »
There is some discussion on just how Boleyn is spelled also.

French Royals / Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« on: February 26, 2007, 12:30:32 PM »
Thanks. I would like to see the material that you have on this subject. So I will indeed await your posting of the documentation. It should be interesting, so I appreciate your response.

Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 26, 2007, 11:04:12 AM »
The people did take responsibility for their choices that day. They rose up in anger and hatred and came very close to toppling Nicholas from his throne. It would never again be the sinecure that the Romanovs thought it was. And, when Nicholas continued to make some bad choices the people rose up again, and this time they toppled him from his throne.
Supporters of Nicholas can't have it both ways. Either he was autocrat and thus responsible for what happens under his watch, even for those who failed him, OR he was a bad autocrat and couldn't do his job and deserved the contempt people came to hold for him.
And, yes Michael, Lvov, Kerensky did fail, but they failed to large extent because they were trying desperately to build on the sand that the imperial system had left them. And, as the Bible says, a house built on sand will fall. The Soviet that was born directly out of Bloody Sunday was to be a primary reason for their failure. And the Soviet was made up the men whom Nicholas II had refused to compromise with in the aftermath of that day. Yes, consequences have a habit of catching up with us.

French Royals / Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« on: February 26, 2007, 10:37:53 AM »
The testing of DNA from the heart of the young king was in the news quite a bit last year. Anyone know why they only tested for maternal DNA from hairs of Marie Antoinette? Were there no DNA samples available from Louis XVI that could be tested for paternal DNA? I tried to follow the story but I admit I didn't follow it as closely as all that. Anyone have some good insights on this testing and controversy?

French Royals / Re: Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur
« on: February 26, 2007, 10:33:27 AM »
Actually I believe that the Spanish Bourbons allied themselves to Napoleon and his France. At the battle fo Trafalgar it was the British against the Spanish and French fleets. So, I don't think Napoleon had anything against the family. It wasn't until the heir, Ferdinand, and his father and mother, along with Godoy began fighting with one another that Napoleon decided to intervene.

Imperial Russian History / Re: Why did Russia go to war in WW1?
« on: February 25, 2007, 07:58:00 PM »
Anyone who wants to understand how the war began just when it did, and who was responsible, should read an excellent book entitled:
Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914    by David Fromkin.
It is very readable. It takes the events on a day by day basis and breaks down how the people in each country involved reacted to events.

Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 25, 2007, 07:52:27 PM »
Yes, that the dowager empress and the grand duchess thought that is very interesting. I believe that the Grand Duke Paul, and also the Grand Duke Vladimir also believed he should have met with the delegation.
Several of his ministers probably thought that also, but because of the nature of the imperial government Nicholas did not see all the various opinions and options open to him. There was no cabinet government in Russia. By that I mean that the tsar appointed ministers to the council of ministers based on his own wishes rather than having a cabinet in which the prime ministers appoints the ministers. There was a Chairman of the Council of Ministers, or prime minister. In Feb. 1905 this was Witte. He was not informed of the meetings prior to the march in which measures were taken to deal with the matter, and he did not make the report to the tsar the night before. In a true cabinet government, Nicholas would have appointed the prime minister of his choice, then that person would have appointed all the ministers of state. In this way he would have a cabinet that would act in unison rather than against one another. Stolypin, for all his faults, was a good prime minister, but he complained that he spent most of his time fighting against the other ministers in the cabinet, trying to get a unified direction of policy, and it wore him out. Had there been a true cabinet government before Bloody Sunday, they would have debated, discussed, argued, but in the end settled on a unifed response to the crisis. Instead, each ministry, the military, and the city authorities all acted in independent ways and only tangentally together. Here is a part of the tragedy.

Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 25, 2007, 02:34:27 PM »
Indeed, we will never know.
But we can make some educated guesses. I believe Nicholas II should have had the meeting. But, I don't think it would have altered anything unless he was also prepared to make concessions to the "petition" and to institute the reforms asked for. And, from the many posts here arguing for Nicholas, it would appear he was not prepared to make any concessions or institute any reforms. Thus, the agitation and revolutionary movement would have continued. The only thing he would have escaped is the ephitet  of "Bloody Nicholas", and that would have meant something for him personally.

I am not exactly sure what Vasa is referring to when saying that "they" destroyed many beautiful jewels and other things. In fact, the Soviets destroyed very little of the imperial past but tried to preserve it and use it.
With the exception of statues to Alexander II and Alexander III and Nicholas II, the Soviets destroyed very little of the past. And one might argue these statues weren't very good to begin with. And, they actually didn't destroyed them, just removed them from sight. The palaces were turned into museums, wedding chapels, offices, and sanitoriums. That is why we can visit them today. The destruction was during World War II and the Germans are to blame. Then, after the war the Soviets carefully restored these palaces. The jewels were also preserved. A good many were sold to gather foreign currency and today these adorn the heads of royalty and the rich. The rest are preserved in the Diamond Fund and visitors can go and see and admire them today. On the whole the Soviets record here is quite good. They can be blamed for may horrible things, but wanton destruction of the past is not one of them. With one exception, that of churches. Stalin did order the desecration and destruction of churches, although even many of these survived and are being restored today.

Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 24, 2007, 08:56:23 AM »
Yes, the scenarios I advanced are fictional.
The point was that in every case if it had happened governments would have fallen and thrones would have been shaken. Roosevelt would have probably been impeached in the U.S. and in Britain and France the government of the day would have fallen and there would have been commission after commission to investigate why it happened. In Germany the Reichstag would have been in an uproar and probably the chancellor would have been dismissed if for no other reason than to try and save face.
 And, in the real case, Russia, it happened. Bloody Sunday wasn't accepted passively by the people. It led to the Revolution of 1905 that shook the very autocracy of Nicholas II out of its tree and smashed it. For the first time the Russian autocrat had to agree to share his powers, however grudgingly. He had two choices, as he himself wrote: appoint a military dictator and put the revolution down by bloody force or agree to a manifesto granting concessions. Either way he lost his autocratic powers. Regardless of what Roosevelt wrote, regardless of Wilhelm II's assertion his guards would have to shoot workers down, regardless of Nicholas II's mindset, this kind of act would have detonated a bomb with bloody consequences. Regardless of the excuses made or the legal nitpicking, a governmemy just does not shoot down peaceful citizens in the steets of its own capital and get away with it.

Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 24, 2007, 12:10:59 AM »
I'll play this game:
1. Feb. 1905, Washington, D. C. A large crowd of citizens, 120,000 strong, composed of members of the labor organizations, party politicians, writers, women, children, and just on-lookers out to see the fun, begin marching on the Capitol bldg. Pres. Roosevelt has stationed infantry and cavalry units along the boulevards and avenues, with order to prevent the marchers from congregating in front of the capitol. The crowd is waving American flags, pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic and God Bless America. Police officers stand in front of the various groups and order them to disperse, the crowd opens their coats to show they are unarmed, the people behind press forward. The army units fire into the air but the crowd keeps coming, so the army lowers their rifles and fires into the crowd, then the cavalry charges into the fleeing and confused ranks slashing with their sabres. One army units turns and fires into the trees along Pennyslvania Ave. and shoot boys who had climbed up into them.  Between 130 and 200 are killed outright or die later of their wounds, and maybe 300 to 600 are wounded.
Do you honestly think that the Congress would have shrugged this off and said, oh well, they were warned and this was an illegal march, and it was full of revolutionaries so the army had every right to shoot them to maintain order. They should have put their petition in the correct form and presented it thorugh channels.
2. Feb. 1905, London, Great Britain, same scenario, except the marchers are trying to reach Buckingham Palace and they sing God Save the King and wave Union Jacks. A unit of Grenadier Guards fires into the trees in St. James' Park and shoots young boys out who had climbed them to get a better view. Do you honestly think that Parliament would have voted that the marchers were disturbing the public peace and were a danger to the public order so the army had to shoot them down to prevent them from tearing down the railing around the palace.
3. Feb. 1905: Paris, France. Etc. Etc. "The Marseillaise and pictures of Joan of Arc and the tricolor. Do you honestly think the Chamber of Deputies would have sat there and debated and then announced that since the marchers didn't have a permit and they might have been a danger in such large numbers to themselves the army had to shoot them down to prevent this so the marchers brought it on themselves and should ask the government for forgiveness for being so naughty.
4. Feb. 1905 Berlin, German Empire. The crowd marches toward the Lustgarten to present a petition to the Kaiser. The carry his portrait, wave the red-white-black flag, and sing Deutschland Uber Alles and Heir Dir Im Siegerkranz. At the Brandenburg Gate, within sight of the Reichstag, the guards regiments line up and fire into the marchers. Then the Hussar charge down the allee sabering the scattering, screaming marchers. Do you honestly think the Landstag and the Reichstag would have said that the Kaiser wasn't in Berlin but in Potsdam so the marchers should have known this and disperesed, besides they were marching on the grass in the median and this was illegal. The Kaiser then orders a delegation of workers brought to the Stadt Schloss to ask his pardon for being so troublesome and questioning his divine right.
I could go on and on, but I think the picture is clear.

French Royals / Re: Queen Marie Antoinette
« on: February 23, 2007, 11:35:22 AM »
Yes, that will be one of history's great mysteries.
I just found it strange that Louis XVIII went to so much trouble to exhume the "supposed" remains of his brother and sister-in-law and rebury them in the royal crypt at St. Denis, and had a chapel expiatoire built over the site of their graves (a lovey little monument in Paris today) but did absolutely nothing similiar for his nephew. Why? It would seem to me that reburial of the little boy's body would have been a great "photo op" for the restored monarchy, and confirmed the continuation of the royal line. Possible reasons:

1. the rumor that the child wasn't the king's (Louis XVI)
2. pique that the child got on the stand and accused his mother and aunt of deviant practices. This was a way to "punish" him.
3. that the body in the grave wasn't the real Louis Charles. Madame Royale and King Louis XVIII knew he had been spirited away. They feared that any mention of him might possibly bring out the real dauphin who would claim the throne.
4. just sheer indifference to the child. I don't think that in 1816/1817 he had become the iconic figure he was to become later in history.

Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 22, 2007, 01:07:08 PM »
The elected representatives that refused to meet with Senator Shidlovskii's Commission were recognized as new leaders of the workers. This was to have consequences. In the months that followed these would form a new organizational framework that would become famous in history. In October of 1905 they heled form The Soviet, or the Council of Workers' Representatives of St. Petersburg.
It might have been wise of the government to have compromised a little with them in light of what would come. One step backward (from absolute autocracy), two steps forward (to representational government and stability) might have become the monarchy's mantra instead of the Bolsheviks.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27