Messages

136

Tatiana Nicholaievna / Re: Tatiana's Necklace

« on: November 20, 2005, 04:45:50 AM »

Don't forget there were many other occasions on which the girls may have received jewels as gifts. Not only their birthdays but also Christmas and possibly Easter. And don't forget, as devout members of the Russian Orthodox Church, each member of the Royal Family would also celebrate, once every year, his or her appropriate "name day"--the feast day of the saint after which each was named. In fact I have heard that in religions which recognize "name days", the name day at least in a religious sense is regarded as more significant than even the person's birthday. For sure each girl would have had a party and received beautiful gifts on her name day. Actually one of the last jewelry-gifts from Alexandra to any of the girls was a gold charm bracelet she gave to Marie in, I think it was 1917. It was a bracelet that had belonged to Alexandra herself and in her "jewelry book" she wrote that she had given this bracelet as a gift to Marie. I checked the date of the gift and the date of Marie's name day (she was named after Saint Mary Magdalene). I was not surprised to realize that Alexandra had given the bracelet to Marie on the feast day of St. Mary Magdalene, i.e. Grand Duchess Marie's name day! So clearly the girls were known to receive gifts of jewelry on their name days too.

137

Tatiana Nicholaievna / Re: Question about and/or Help with a Picture

« on: November 20, 2005, 04:13:38 AM »

I'm not certain that they were in formal mourning at that time. I've seen that photo before and if I remember correctly (never a sure thing!) each girl was dressed in the uniform of the branch of Imperial Service of which she was a kind of Honorary Commander. That might explain why Anastasia is not pictured, since she might have been considered too young for that kind of honor. Somebody do correct me if I'm wrong--but I do think these were some kind of military uniforms.

138

Tatiana Nicholaievna / Re: About that wig!

« on: November 20, 2005, 03:03:01 AM »

Wow, the things I thought I knew but didn't!   I knew of course that all four of the girls lost their hair in 1917 due to measles and afterwards wore wigs, but somehow I totally was unaware that Tatiana had developed typhoid (typhus, whatever--I get them confused too!) and lost her hair then too. I'll have to get out my books and look up pictures of Tatiana from that time and play a little game of "spot the wig"! I DID wonder how she ended up getting Alexandra to agree to letting her bob her hair!! And why she was the only one with bobbed hair! I guess this answers my questions! And I think Tatiana looked gorgeous with long hair or short--but that bob really did suit her!!

139

The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

« on: November 03, 2005, 10:02:37 AM »

OOOHHHH I would love to see that! But I live thousands of miles from Australia--think if I hopped a plane right this minute I could make it in time to see the show?!   Yeah, well, probably not...*sigh* will you good kind Aussies on the board please please watch it for us and tell us all about it right away? I would love to know what everyone on the show said and thought--and also what your own reactions to it are!! *sob* I never get to watch any really interesting stuff on TV *Stacey wanders off in tears*    

140

The Tudors / Re: Catherine of Aragon

« on: October 25, 2005, 01:26:11 AM »

I guess that's one of the things that makes old Harry so intriguing! I suspect that a lot of his popularity goes back to people's "fond memories" of him as a young prince and his early years as king. In the early days, he was often described as this "ideal Renaissance prince" and apparently at that time he DID have a lot going for him--he was young, handsome, gifted, very athletic, besides being a talented musician and quite an intellectual apparently--also at that time he seemed happily married to Katherine of Aragon, who was ALWAYS beloved by the English people. And obviously when he wanted, Henry could be very charming. Also his huge ego and vile temper seemed to have been much less evident in his early years--I don't think anyone feared him then as in his later years when he became such a tyrant. Certainly I think (MHO here!!) that THAT is why Katherine never seemed to realize what a monster he could be--she too still saw him essentially as the charming, appealing young man she first fell in love with. Talk about love being blind!   Poor Katherine--in love with him to the bitter end!!

141

The Tudors / Re: Elizabeth I and Henry VIII

« on: October 24, 2005, 11:53:10 PM »

I'm still wondering about everyone's assumption that Elizabeth would have had no realization of her mother's death (until years later when it was "explained" to her). Yes, she was a very young child, but extremely precocious, and I believe that Anne had been a loving mother to her. I have always thought that Elizabeth WOULD have had some memory of her mother and of her mother's death (if only thru palace gossip or whatever--I also wonder what Kat Ashley said about it if anything!!) As for her relationship to her father--how about the word "complicated"?? I think she admired him in many ways and definitely wanted to be seen as a "true Tudor", certainly she wanted to please him--but going back to what I just said about Anne's execution, I think Elizabeth KNEW her father had killed her mother, and on trumped-up charges at that. Surely on some level she must have felt a great anger towards him--I just don't think she was able to admit it, even to herself. Talk about a dysfunctional family!!!! Elizabeth must have had ENORMOUS inner resources to survive such a childhood and adolescence--much less end up the magnificent Queen she finally became!!

142

The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

« on: October 24, 2005, 11:34:00 PM »

Okay, well....I'm still trying to work on a really devastating comback, you guys...

143

The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn

« on: October 24, 2005, 06:30:03 AM »

WONDERFUL pictures of Hever Castle and environs. I would so love to go there someday and look around and try to see what Anne saw. Thank you SO MUCH for posting them!!!

144

The Tudors / Re: Is this an accurate image of Anne Boleyn

« on: October 24, 2005, 06:09:36 AM »

This lady in the portrait may well be a Spanish princess but I will never believe she is Anne Boleyn. Just doesn't look like her. Plus the coloring is all wrong. Anne DID have sallow skin, but her hair is described as very thick and long and black, and her eyes, according to a contemporary source, were "black and beautiful". The lady in the portrait has HAZEL eyes--definitely not black!!!

145

The Tudors / Re: Catherine of Aragon

« on: October 24, 2005, 02:57:36 AM »

Yes, like I said it's such a different mindset--but as someone else pointed out, the one that's REALLY to blame in all this mess is Henry--he was so determined to have his own way that he was willing to sacrifice anything or anybody--and in a lot of ways I think his ultimate victim was his daughter Mary--she never got over all the trauma and I think that's why she ended up being such a totally messed-up human being!! (Of course Anne Boleyn didn't fare too well either--what with the beheading and all   )

146

The Tudors / Re: Catherine of Aragon

« on: October 24, 2005, 01:31:16 AM »

We are basically a secular people (even the religiously inclined among us!) and living in the 21st century we just do not have the worldview that people had in the 16th century. So it's very hard for us to understand or even sympathize with their way of thinking. I agree that TO US Katherine's stand seemed waaay too rigid and that she should have given in if only for Mary's sake...but I firmly believe that the question in Katherine's mind was neither "what is best for Mary's future" nor "what is best for my own position" but "What of our immortal souls? Mine, Mary's AND Henry's?"  It's clear that she worried about even Henry's soul--she still loved him, yes, but as a devout Christian she was honestly afraid that if he divorced her and married Anne Boleyn (and defied the Pope!) he was seriously jeapordizing his own salvation.  This may sound utterly foreign, even foolish, to us, but to Katherine a person's soul mattered far more than anything else--worldly position, pride, honor, even life itself. It sounds harsh to today's ears but as much as Katherine loved Mary--and she loved her with all her heart--if she had had to choose between Mary's life and Mary's soul, she would without hesitation--well, maybe a little hesitation--still, she would without QUESTION have opted for Mary's soul. Because in Katherine's deeply held beliefs, life is short and always uncertain--all you can count on is the immortality of the soul, and what happens to your soul after death? It may sound strange to a lot of us now, but Katherine had a profound belief in the reality of heaven and hell, and the thought of anyone she loved being barred from heaven forever was absolutely intolerable.  She never made any secret of the fact that she obeyed the law of God (as she saw it) above any other. THAT is why her position was so absolutely rigid. She felt that the fate of her own soul, and that of the two people she most loved, Mary and Henry, were dependent on how they dealt with this situation. To Katherine it was more than a matter of life or death--it was a matter of eternal salvation.

147

The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

« on: October 24, 2005, 12:55:59 AM »

What, do I give that impression???   LOL   I must admit I have a love/hate relationship with that whole family--I find them totally fascinating (well, Henry VII more CREEPY actually   ) but also absolutely maddening! But I can almost forgive them--after all, we got Elizabeth I out of that crowd and she's one of my all-time heroes!!  

148

The Tudors / Re: Questions re Jane Grey

« on: October 24, 2005, 12:50:17 AM »

Thanks, I am going to--should be fascinating--I always have felt so bad for that poor girl!!  

149

The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

« on: October 24, 2005, 12:19:22 AM »

Henry Tudor, Henry Tudor, Henry Tudor--I already mentioned on another thread just what I think of the "character" of Henry VII--NOT MUCH!!! As someone already mentioned, no one knows for sure WHOSE bodies were found, much less has done any decent modern research on them. Even what little we know leaves a lot IMHO up in the air--like their exact ages. The "time lines" that I have seen are extremely narrow and to me unconvincing as far as "proof" pointing to the killer. Seems to me as far as all that goes it COULD be a lot of people--including Richard III and Henry Tudor. But I'm betting on Henry. He wanted that throne so bad he could taste it, and he could be viciously ruthless--just like his son whenever a wife or friend crossed him!! And after all--yes, I know about the famous battle and all that--still, just looky who ended up with that throne--yep, our old conniving Henry!! I don't think he would have flinched at offing a couple of inconvenient kids to get the big prize, that nice glittery crown--and his victims' sister as his wife! I personally think Henry's DNA was more reptilian than mammalian. (Sorry--you guys really should NOT get me started on this subject!!!   ) So--go ahead and TRY telling me why I'm wrong!  

150

The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..

« on: October 23, 2005, 11:59:27 PM »

Well, if I HAD to make a bet--it would be that Perkin Warbeck was an imposter. But the resemblance between Warbeck and the general run of Plantagenet kings is indeed striking--so who knows...MY real question is that old one: What really DID happen to those two little princes in the tower? Or perhaps instead of saying "what" I should say "Who ordered their murders?" In that case my money is on Henry Tudor. I never liked that guy! Sneaky, manipulative, impossibly greedy, squinty-eyed--I don't think he would have hesitated a second to condone (or overlook) the murder of two innocent children if it meant he could grab the throne for himself....and after all it did turn out very nicely for Henry in the end, didn't it?!