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 - jehan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
The Windsors / Re: Prince Henry/Prince Harry of Wales
« on: August 14, 2018, 08:27:03 PM »
I am going to add my two cents worth here. I have given this a lot of thought. I am going to go with the Duke and Duchess of Clarence for Prince Harry and Meghan. My second choice is the Duke and Duchess of Connaught. Either one rounds out the C’s for the Wales men. The Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Cambridge.

That was never going to be an option.  Both Clarence (for County Clare) and Connaught are in the Republic of Ireland- and are no longer part of the UK, so will not be able to be reused for the British royal family.

The Tudors / Re: Wolf Hall
« on: January 08, 2016, 10:21:52 AM »
Yes, I struggled with the book too, not keen on the first person narrative to be honest.

I have no problem with first person narrative- what bothers me is that it is written in the present tense.  That really annoys me, as I find it affected- I just couldn't read it for that reason.

The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« on: August 13, 2014, 06:04:44 PM »
I agree with you.  I used to be an ardent Ricardian, but the facts just don't add up to it being anyone other than Richard (or someone in his circle).  The whole "illegitimacy" thing is a bit off anyways- everyone involved was conveniently dead, Richard and his army controlled London, the boys were already in the tower.  I don't know why it is accepted without question nowadays,- it sounds pretty trumped up to me. And apart from Stillington's word (and he had interests in doing Richard's will), there isn't a shred of evidence for an earlier marriage.  Eleanore Butler lived for 4 years into the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth.  Why did she not say anything?  Or anyone in her family?  Her family was the Earls of Shrewsbury (not commoners or minor nobility, but a powerful family) and she would have been Queen of England!  And she was dead by the time the boys were born anyway- Edward was only a "bigamist" ,if that he was, for the birth of his first 2 children- both girls.

And if the boys were "illegitimate"- then there were still and always would be a threat to Richard.  A 10 and 12 year old, maybe not, but 16 and 18 year olds with an army behind them in a disaffected kingdom a few years down the road?  You bet they would have been a threat while they were alive.  Henry Vll himself came from a line of dubious legitimacy, but it made no difference once his army won at Bosworth.  The imposters Warbeck and Simnel during the Tudor reign  shows the trouble that other claimants can cause- even if they aren't the real thing.

And once again I pose the question that is met with resounding silence from those who don't believe Richard did it- where is the evidence that they were alive after the summer of 1483?

The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« on: March 02, 2014, 10:20:30 PM »
It's possible the Princes were alive when Henry Tudor assumed the throne.  He had them killed because their claim would have been better than his.  Clear motive there folks.

I'm not saying for sure he did it, but he would have the motive for it.

Of course he would have, but it comes down to- is there ANY evidence that the boys were alive after 1483?  A motive means little if there was no opportunity.

Books about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia / Re: The Coburgs of Europe!
« on: January 22, 2014, 11:08:56 PM »
Is this still available at Eurohistory?  I couldn't find it in the bookshop section.

Hoogstratten has it, but I don't know how much the shipping  costs would be from Europe, and I'm reluctant to give my info to them without knowing.

The Danish Royal Family / Re: Queen Margarethe II & Prince Henrik
« on: November 22, 2013, 03:37:24 PM »
Not sure if this is the right thread, but not sure if it should have its own thread either.  Are there any opinions on the new family portrait?

It's certainly ...... interesting.  The likenesses aren't bad, but it certainly has a creepy vibe to it, which I am certain is intentional.

I have no more knowledge of this than anyone else here, but IMHO the surname alone makes it unlikely that this child descends from the Romanovs.  Possibly the child was an offshoot of the Sheremetevs? They were a very large, old and wealthy noble family after all, and it would be easy enough for "grandpa was a Russian Count" to become "grandpa was a Russian Grand Duke", and then claim the highest GD possible? Especially when people had only the vaguest of notions of how the Russian nobility system worked, Europe was crawling with Russian noble refugees and there was no internet for people to try to check up on such things?

The Tudors / Re: The White Queen
« on: June 21, 2013, 08:08:44 PM »
I had my doubts about this one- as I dislike Philippa Gregory's writing intensely due to her historical innacuracies.  I also disliked "The Tudors" for the same reason- I couldn't watch it after the first episode.

But this wasn't bad- it more or less followed the events as they were historically.  The witchcraft part isn't actually farfetched, as Jacquetta was  indeed tried for witchcraft (and acquitted) historically, and did claim descent from Melusine.  The costuming is not far off either- although as always in these things there is too much unbound/uncovered hair.  A couple of Elizabeth's sisters should be a bit older (mid twenties), rather than the teens they are shown as, but that's a minor quibble- at least they showed the whole gaggles of Woodville kids and didn't narrow the family down to 2 or 3 kids. ("the Tudors" couldn't even handle the fact that Henry had 2 (surviving) sisters and combined them into one!)
I liked the very brief portrayal of Margaret Beaufort/Tudor, and the Woodville parents.

I will probably watch this, at least for a while- it seems well done.

The Windsors / Re: Princess Royal, Princess Anne
« on: January 25, 2013, 12:55:08 AM »
It's hard to tell, but I don't think it's a cutout.  I think there are two pieces here- a dress with shoulder straps (and hardly a low cleavage!) and a separate little shoulder wrap that buttons at the neck.  At any rate, it's lovely.

Forum Announcements / Re: +Robert (Bobby) Hall
« on: December 13, 2012, 09:11:12 AM »
He will be much missed around here, and I am sure in many other places.  I always enjoyed his intelligent and reasoned posts.  My condolences to his family and friends.

There is a difference here.  The prank on Sarah Palin was a prank on a public figure who had put herself in the public eye and knew that she would get both positive and negative attacks and knew she would have to handle press attention.

While this prank has been termed a prank on the Royal Family- it wasn't.  It was a prank on two (the receptionist and the nurse) hardworking private individuals who were just doing their jobs.  Did they follow procedure?  Obviously not, and there would and should have been repercussions though the workplace.  What they were not in a position to handle and what they never would have anticipated was the press attention and ridicule and criticism.  Few of us would be in a position to do well with that much publicity that they never asked for or wanted.  None of us know what other problems they had in their lives, but it was all too much for one of them . Sad.

The Tudors / Re: The Crimes of Richard III
« on: October 15, 2012, 08:17:21 PM »
Well, Henry VII had a better motive for wanting the two princes dead, they stood between him and the throne.

When Shakespeare wrote his play about Richard III, which most people take as fact, the Tudors were still in power.  So obviously he had to be careful with what he wrote.

Richard had just as much a motive as Henry- they posed a threat to the stability of both of their thrones.  But again- if you want to condemn Henry, you have to prove opportunity.

Those who want to do so must produce evidence that the boys were alive after 1483.  If there isn't any, they must have died during Richard's watch.

Rosie, Chris and Ann, you're all too good to be true!

William has had first hand experience of the media, including the way it treated his late mother, for his entire 30 years.  Surely that knowledge and experience should have warned him to protect his wife so that she could not be exploited by the media in the way that she has been?  The Cambridges cannot have it both ways.  If they want to protect their personal image and the prestige of the royal family then they are very careful, it's as simple as that.  It's the big drawback of who they are.  I fully accept that if they were any other young married couple, what they did was not wrong.  But they aren't and their decision has now ensured that the future Queen Consort can be publicly viewed topless for eternity. 

In the meantime, it's a bit more tarnish on the monarchy for the Queen to polish off.  HM has worked hard for over sixty years now with nothing like this ever touching her and she must wonder what on earth is going to happen after she is gone if her family continue to lapse so spectacularly and so often in ways that are so completely avoidable. 

I don't see any tarnish on the monarchy at all from this.  The only tarnish is on the photographer and the press who published the pictures.  They were in private, doing nothing wrong, immoral or criminal.  The fact that she was topless in a private situation was no reflection on her.  Had the pics been taken through a window while she was changing would it be any different?

The Queen was lucky to have grown up at a time when the press was not so intrusive.  Had the press been the same in her youth there would have been a lot more scandals (with the family, if not the queen herself) with the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Windsor, Princess Margaret in her youth and others.  All were involved in things with which the  press today would have a field day.

It was recorded in many books. It was Miechen & Kaiser Wilhelm that spoke to Alicky and finally she said yes.

I know that .  It's just MP's motivations I was wondering about,  Did she ever tell anyone (verbally or in writing) that that was the reason she wanted the marriage, or is it just others projecting possible motivations on to her?

One must not forget Miechen was one of those who persuaded Alix of Hesse to marry Nicholas. She did it for sinister reasons (Alix's family has the dreaded "family" disease, and that will increase the chances of her sons to move closer to the throne). Nonetheless she was successful. She also played matchmaker for "Foxy" Ferdinand of Bulgaria.

What is your source for this?  I have read a great deal about the Romanovs and have never heard this before.  And if there is a source, I wonder how accurate it is? 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16