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 4 ... 333
The Windsors / Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« on: April 03, 2009, 06:54:01 PM »
Dukedoms are one of my absolutely favourite subjects...both Royal and non Royal! They are an anachronism in this day and age, but I do find them fascinating! That is why I thought of starting a non royal Dukes thread in the 'Their World and Culture' thread, as I have heaps of stuff I could share here. In some instances, 'British' Dukes and their families lived lives just as fascinating as there Royal born contemporaries!


Toots, you've probably read it, but if not I'd highly recommend a book called 'the Dukes' by Brian Masters (I hope I've remembered the right name!). It's a history of all the non-royal dukedoms still extant in the UK, and several that recently became extinct. It's wittily written and full of fascinating information, if you're interested in dukedoms you'd love it!

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 03, 2009, 06:47:31 PM »
Lettice couldn't have been her full niece - to be Elizabeth's full niece she would've had to have been the daughter of Elizabeth's full sister, which Catherine Carey was not, as Anne Boleyn was not her mother. I'm sure Elizabeth saw any uprising by a subject treasonabe and unpardonable, particularly if they were high born.

Having Fun! / Re: 10 Royals You Would Invite to a Dinner Party
« on: April 03, 2009, 03:55:48 PM »
If it was a real dinner party, the problem with inviting so many big personalities would be that they'd clash and vie for attention and domination of the conversation - imagine Queen Victoria and Elizabeth I at the same table! Or Diana, Princess of Wales and Empress Elisabeth of Austria for that matter!

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 03, 2009, 03:48:54 PM »
You're very welcome! Hmm, if Catherine and Henry were *not* Henry's children, then they were Elizabeth's first cousins, by virtue of being the children of her maternal aunt, which would make Lettice her first cousin once removed. If they were Henry's children, then they were her half-siblings, and Lettice was her half-niece.

If you're interested in the Greys, you should have a look at the 'The Sisters who Would be Queen' thread - we've been discussing Leanda de Lisle's new book about Jane, Katherine and Mary Grey.

The Windsors / Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom
« on: April 02, 2009, 06:00:05 PM »
I have a feeling that William and Harry won't be given titles until their father becomes king (whereupon William will, of course, be Prince of Wales, and a suitable dukedom will be found for Harry). For now, I think that their identity as 'Prince William' and 'Prince Harry' is too firmly entrenched in the public mind (via the media) to consider calling them something else. Although it was usually traditional to grant princes a dukedom upon their marriage, I just don't think it'll happen with them (during Elizabeth II's reign anyway) - their wives will be 'Princess William/Henry of Wales', but will no doubt be referred to as 'Princess N' by the media.

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 02, 2009, 05:53:37 PM »
Which, of course, they were, through Mary Boleyn, even if Henry was not Catherine's father. It's an interesting debate though - Elizabeth's favour of them could just have been down to their relationship to her through Mary, and of course even if she did believe them (or one of them) to be her father's child, that doesn't neccessarily mean they were. Lettice certainly greatly resembles Elizabeth in portraits.

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: April 02, 2009, 05:49:18 PM »
Yes, Northumberland was behind the idea to make Jane queen, and initially she was highly reluctant, saying 'the crown is not my right and pleaseth me not; the Lady Mary is the rightful heir' or words to that effect. But once she accepted the fact that she was queen, she had no qualms about asserting her authority - when Mary's rebellion broke out, Northumberland wanted Suffolk sent to confront the rebels, but Jane insisted that he go himself. She also (if I remember right) ordered that the gates to the Tower be locked every night at 10pm and that the keys be given to her personally, and she told her husband that she wouldn't make him king. I think her initial reluctance gave way to a sort of martyred acceptance, and a belief that it was 'God's will', that she be queen.

The Tudors / Re: Favourite Fictional Tudor based books?
« on: April 02, 2009, 05:41:19 PM »
Welcome to the forum charmstar! I love 'When Christ and His Saints Slept' too, especially the character of Maude, and the fact that Penman manages to make both Maude and Stephen sympathetic (don't worry, the Tudors and all their Plantagenet and Norman predecessors can be discussed on this board).

I've read Legacy too, and quite enjoyed it, although I found it a bit long-winded. It's been quite a while since I read it though, it's not very fresh in my mind.

There was a series of novels written about Henry VIII's wives recently (all of them might not be published yet) - I can't call the author's name to mind but the one about Katherine of Aragon was called 'the Spanish Bride', and the one about Anne Boleyn was 'A Lady Raised High'. Has anyone read them? I bought them both, and started reading the one about Katherine, but gave up half way through. The style of writing is quite dry and boring, and the whole thng is told through the eyes of one of Katherine's Spanish ladies, who simply isn't a very interesting character. I should really try the Anne Boleyn one sometime, but so far I've not bothered!

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: April 01, 2009, 05:14:20 PM »
I'm almost certain Alison Plowden wrote a biography of her, I've not read it though. I'm inclinced towards the belief that although it certainly wasn't her idea to take the throne, but that once she did take it, she took on the role with a certain degree of enthusiasm, and probably would have become quite an autocratic monarch if she'd been given the chance. It's often forgotten that Mary had Jane sentenced to death without ever intending to have her executed, and it was only the Wyatt Rebellion (especially the involvement of the Duke of Suffolk) and the increasing influence of Simon Renard that eventually made her reluctantly sign the death warrant. Jane must have known when she took the throne that the price of failure was death.

The Tudors / Re: Katherine Parr?
« on: March 31, 2009, 04:58:37 PM »
An often forgotten fact about Katherine Parr is that she was a highly sensuous, attractive woman - one author (I can't remember exactly who, possibly Linda Porter) refers to her as the most attractive of Henry's wives by modern standards, and I'm inclined to agree. She spent vast amounts on clothes and perfumes and obviously liked to look queenly. I find her the most human of Henry's wives, as well as perhaps the most likeable.

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: March 30, 2009, 06:48:25 PM »
Maybe I'm jumping the gun a little, but looks like it'll be another pro-Jane/anti-Mary book. I'd take issue with the statement from the little blurb - I woudn't call Jane 'one of the least studied figures of English history'. Plenty has been written about her (although most has been rubbish).  Also, I'd be interested to read his argument that Jane had 'strong legal grounds' for her claim to the throne - Edward VI's will could not overturn an act of parliament (in this case the 1544 Act of Succession) and in any case, as a minor, any will he made would have no validity in law. I know Northumberland wanted to change the law so Edward would achieve his majority at 15 (or 16?) but I'm not sure if this ever actually happened.

The Tudors / Re: Katherine Parr?
« on: March 30, 2009, 06:39:15 PM »
And correct me if I'm wrong Kim, but isn't the identity of the sitter in that first portrait disputed? Or at least it used to be?

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: March 28, 2009, 03:24:16 PM »
i've always thought it was weird that until elizabeth's reign, court intrigues did not include the margaret tudor line. i read nothing of margaret douglas and her son being part of anything during mary 1st's reign, during edward 6th's reign...

and it's weird because i read somewhere that the tragedy of edward 6th's reign was that if he died young the next in line to the throne was a long series of women... but henry darnley was already born by the time edward (and even henry) died...

Lady Lennox and her family were in high favour during Mary I's reign and many people speculated that Mary would name Margaret as her heir. If my memory serves, I think Margaret was given precedence over Elizabeth at court.

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey
« on: March 27, 2009, 02:25:39 PM »
Yes, Henry's daughters were both counted as "illegitimate". There were, however four people ahead of Jane in the (strict) line of succession:

Mary Queen of Scots
Margaret, Countess of Lennox
Henry, Lord Darnley
Frances, Duchess of Suffolk (Jane's mum!)

If memory serves, though, Henry officially put his sister Mary's children ahead of Margaret's.  He was close to Mary and thought Margaret's marital history an embarrassment.

I think his fear of a Scottish king becoming King of England was greater than anything to do with personal feelings for his sisters. I’ve always been curious as to why Lady Margaret Douglas – or, even more curiously, why her son, Lord Darnley – were excluded from the succession by Henry. In her biography of Mary I, Linda Porter says that Margaret quarrelled with Henry shortly before his death, about religion, and he was so enraged by her continued allegiance to the Pope that he cut her out of the succession, but I’ve never read it anywhere else. Darnley would’ve been an obvious successor to Henry’s own children – born in England, Catholic (as Henry considered himself, till death) and of impeccable lineage, even with a claim to the Scottish throne through his father.

The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn
« on: March 27, 2009, 02:21:48 PM »
What interests me is that Mary married Henry Carey before becoming Henry VIII's mistress (unlike, for example, Bessie Blount, who was 'married off' to the obliging Gilbert Tailboys after her affair with Henry had run its course). I wonder if there’s any record of Mary becoming pregnant after marrying Carey, but before her affair with the King. If not, the fact that she was married to him for 5 years without conceiving, but upon becoming Henry’s mistress became pregnant the following year would seem to indicate that Henry Carey was indeed the king’s son. This doesn’t necessarily follow with Catherine, and of course it’s quite possible that Mary did conceive with Carey before her association with the king, but it wasn’t remarked upon because she didn’t achieve “fame” till her affair with the king.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 333