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 4 ... 16
Nicholas II / Re: How Would History Have Rated Nicholas II if....?
« on: March 03, 2012, 07:16:30 PM »
I know we are getting way off topic, but all this nostalgia for the "good old days" when people were polite to one another and everyone respected their elders and had a sense of selfless service is a very narrow view of the past.

It must be remembered that the doors would not have been held for black people (if they were even allowed in the same doors).  That Jews were not allowed in certain clubs or organizations.  That Asians were not allowed in certain universities (and that there were quotas for them and other minorities).  That being homosexual was a crime.  Catholics were discriminated against too in certain areas.

This surface politeness- such as it was- hid a darker and far less tolerant society than we have today.  

And I know plenty of kids who volunteer for all sorts of charities- including building schools in third world countries and helping out in their communities.  If anything- it might be a higher percentage than was the case a generation ago.  And they seem to be more tolerant too-nobody looks twice at an interracial couple, or a gay couple among my kids' circles of friends.

The Finns refer to World War 11 as "The Continuation War"- at least the part after 1941. Before that was the Winter War against the USSR.

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alix and her aunt Beatrice?
« on: January 16, 2012, 10:25:35 PM »
Couldn't Beatrice have just lived with the family and taken care of the children, without having to marry Ludwig?

Despite the possible machinations of her mother and brother, is there any evidence that Beatrice was ever consulted in this?  And that she approved of the idea of marrying Ludwig (or that he had any desire to marry her? ) Or did she even know about the plot?

And while we don't know how she felt about this- I doubt that being essentially an unpaid nanny to her nieces and nephew (the eldest of whom was only 8 years her junior) would have been all that appealing to her, although I am sure she loved them very much.

The Tudors / Re: The Crimes of Richard III
« on: December 06, 2011, 05:40:11 PM »
Richard III has really gotten a bad rep.  A lot of people judge him by the Shakespeare play, even though said play was written a century after his death.

If you hauled Richard III into a modern court room and charged him with the crime of murdering the two Princes In The Tower, the case would be quickly thrown out.  All the evidence against Richard would be hearsay, there would be no witnesses for the prosecution to question, and the case falls apart.

Some think Henry Tudor, who took the Crown after beating Richard at Botworth, killed them.  Motive, to solidify his hold on the Crown, the Princes would have had a stronger claim than he would. 

Of course, this is all theory, but when you break it down Henry is just as easily guilty.

I wonder if they'll ever do a DNA test on those bones that are thought to be the two Princes (which were found about a century or so after Richard's time).

Yes but with Henry Tudor (who was certainly capable of such a thing, just as Richard was) you have to prove opportunity ie evidence that the Princes were alive after 1483.  Without that- Henry cannot be guilty.  Richard had opportunity and motive- and certainly the means to do it. Henry certainly had the motive and would have had theopportunity if the boys were still alive.  But to my knowledge there is no evidence of the boys after 1483- that, to me, puts Richard as the more likely candidate.

Now that is one of the weirdest theories I have ever seen.
Just to make sure, are those books true?

Of course the books are not true.  The people on the board know that well and are just "having fun".  I don't for a minute think that anyone there really believes any of it!

Maude ? Well, it was fairly radical then.  Now, it would not raise an eyebrow. And a VCR.  Wow, I bought one of the first to come out and yep, it was costly.  Think I still have the thing somewhere  stacked in the garage. No one wants them now. When I look at all the electronics we have now, many of which I do not even know how to use,  life seemed so simple then. Of course, our parents said the same about their generation.

I'm not so sure about Maude not raising an eyebrow today.  Could a character on a sitcom today have an abortion without raising a major controversy?  I don't think the networks would risk it today.

IMO, Queen Victoria was a bit of a  hypocrite and snob when it came to royal marriages.  Did she not utter the famous "we do NOT have morganatic" ?  Yet was against marriages into the most plush RF in Europe- the Romanovs?

I thought that she didn't want her granddaughters marrying into Russia not because the family wasn't "good enough", but because Russia was a very dangerous and difficult country for royalty in the late 19th century.  The assassination of Alexander ll and various government officials must have reinforced this feeling. She certainly liked Nicholas ll personally (and had had a bit of a "crush" on Alexander '' in her youth).

And of course, she was right.  Her granddaughters did not fare well there.  I don't see the hypocrisy, just worrying about the welfare of her family.


There was also Margaret's relationship with Group Captain Townsend.  Wasn't Townsend married and needed a divorce to marry Margaret?

Poor Elizabeth what a normal abnormal dysfunctional family she has surrounding her.

No, Townshend was already divorced (in 1952)  when he and Margaret became interested in one another.  And he had been the "innocent party" too- his first wife left him for another man.

This makes their position all that much more tragic- I wouldn't call it dysfunctional at that point.

The useage of "Fitz" did not always/automatically denote the illegitimacy of a male.  Its origin is quite early, probably the Norman language.      Regards,  AP.

You are correct that the origins are Norman.  "Fitz" is derived from the Latin "filius" meaning "son".  And it did not necessarily denote illegitimacy early on - it was just a surname (not necessarily hereditary).  King Henry ll was known as "Henry FitzEmpress", after his mother Mathilda, through whom he derived his claim to the English crown.  She was the widow of Henry the Holy Roman Emperor-  interesting that she kept the title during her second marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou.

I'm not sure who was the first illegitimate person to be granted the "Fitz" surname, but Henry Vlll's son the Duke of Richmond was known as "Henry Fitzroy".

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Re: Anastasia - A Haemophilia Carrier?
« on: June 05, 2011, 11:01:57 PM »
I agree with saruska; do you remember Olga A writing in her memories about Maria when in 1914 she had a surgeon operation to her tonsils? She ad un unexplainable hemorrage and the doctor was shocked. I really don't thing Dr. Botkin wasn't able to operate properly; at the contrary i'm quite sure this was a symptom of Haemophilia carrier.
About the other girls, i thinks we can say nothing sure - unless the other corpses were analyzed for this. I don't like forensic medicine (my stomach, alas, is not strong enough to bear it, even if talking about my darling romanovs!) so i don't know much about it, but i knew about the corpse identified as a haemophilia carrier, and i'm pretty sure it was Maria. Poor darling.

I was five when I had my tonsils out.  I also hemorrhaged and nearly died.  I am not a hemophilia carrier.  The doctors were shocked.  (I also occasionally suffer from severe nosebleeds).  While these things may or may not be symptoms of a Hemophilia carrier- they also might just be coincidental and have nothing to do with it.

I tend to think it was Maria who had the gene.

The Windsors / Re: Princess Royal, Princess Anne
« on: May 10, 2011, 09:49:57 PM »
'You should remember that Mary II was instrumental in the instigation of the Glorious Revolution in Britain, and as Joint Sovereign with William III, constitutional Monarchy.'

The real point about Mary II as a ruler is that she never did anything! She insisted on reigning jointly with William and left everything to him.


Just as some kings have left things to their stronger wives (Henry V1 comes to mind).

Could that be why it was rejected.  Okay, both stories have time travel, but aside from that, they are very different.

Just from my limited experience, I'm thinking it wasn't the title.  Titles, after all, can be changed (and often are).  There are lots of reasons why books are rejected that really don't have anything to do with the story - such as, it wasn't a good fit for the publisher, or the publisher has recently accepted a very similar story.

Many publishers (especially the larger ones) will reject any work not submitted by a literary agent, rather than directly by the author.

As I have read about Olga. She said that she "was born in Russian, she's remain Russian"
Maybe you have read too...

That's true that she said it at 18, after rejecting Carol of Romania.  No doubt she meant it at the time.  And she never really had another opportunity to marry, (apart from Boris's proposal in 1916), mainly due to the war, which broke out months after the Romanian visit.

But Alexandra at 18 also said that she would never change her religion. No doubt she meant it at the time.  Had her circumstances been similar to her daughters (ie an intervening war and an early death), we might still be saying that she would never have married Nicholas.  

I don't think that we can take as gospel the words of an 18 year old.  It might have been a lifetime vow- or she might have fallen in love with a foreigner and gone to be with him.  We will never know, as she never had the chance.  She rejected a man she didn't like.   Would she have rejected a man she loved?   (At 18 I said I would never marry too.  I meant it at the time.  It's been 25 years and 2 lovely children ;-)  )

The Hesse-Darmstadts (Hesse and by Rhine) / Re: The Curse of Hesse
« on: October 18, 2010, 11:51:31 PM »
'Perhaps because they were royals people decided it must be a curse like you said, bluetoria, but on the other hand their share of tragedies was uncommon to say the least. Just take look at empress Alexandra's life: she lost two siblings and her mother when she was 6 years old, she was hated by her husband's family, she was hated by most of her subjects, she gave birth to an haemophiliac son, she was very ill, she lost her throne, and finally she was executed with her husband and children. Now if you also take into account the tragedies of Ernie, Ella, Irene, etc. it's too much to say it's just a coincidence! I don't know if there was a curse, but they were too tragic to say it was a mere coincidence.'

I think we have to bear in mind that in the 19th century it was the rule rather than the exception for individuals to lose at least one sibling in childhood, and the loss of a parent was all too common. My maternal grandmother, born in 1891, was the only survivor of four (two died in a scarlet fever epidemic and a third as an infant). An old friend told me that when his father was 11, in 1886, the entire family of six went down with scarlet fever (a disease which has now just about disappeared) and the two youngest died. My maternal grandfather, born in 1885, lost his mother at the age of four (from a stillbirth). My paternal grandmother, also born in 1885, was one of ten, two of whom died in childhood, and another in childbirth as a young adult. My paternal grandfather, born in 1878, lost his father at 16 and one of his four sisters as an infant.


I would agree with this- many families have has as much or more tragedy- they are just not famous.  My grandmother's first cousin was one of ten children in a family in Finland.  Eight of his siblings died of TB in their teens and early 20s (this was in the first 2 decades of the 20th century).  Imagine losing so many children, or if you were one of them- wondering who would be next.   My grandmother's sister died in childbirth (with her 3rd)- and the sister's daughter died at the age of 10. She lost her brother at 14.
 I could name dozens of other examples just from my own family.  My aunt lost her husband and her little daughter within 6 months of each other. My mother lost a husband young, and then lost  both of her sons- one at 19 the other in young adulthood ( a month before his wedding).  She's one of the most positive people I know.

I would say that in Victorian times- it was more unusual to be in a family that DIDN'T lose a parent or one or more siblings in childhood.  Of QV's children, only Arthur's family could claim that. (Well, Louise had no children, but that was a tragedy (for her) in its own way)

Nicholas II / Re: "fateful number" 17 for Nicholas II
« on: September 16, 2010, 09:30:11 AM »
Well, given that there are only 28-31 days in a month, and we can play with 2 different calendars to get the results we want, I don't think it's any more coincidental than any other number you could pick.  What about his birth, Alexei's birth,  his father's death, Khodynka field,  the Spala incident. that actual dates of the revolutions (only one of which was in 1917 btw), Rasputin's death, family assassinations and deaths,  any relevant dates for WW1 (battles, beginning, taking command of the army)- all fateful dates, but were any on the 17th in either calendar?  Possibly .  But there are hundreds -possibly thousands-  of events that happen in the life of an monarch and his country during his lifetime.  It would be statistically impossible for some of them NOT to have the same date.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16