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 ... 13 14 [15] 16

I believe Vicky did communicate in German the majority of time...can anyone confirm?

Her letters to her mother and the British family were all in English.
I would imagine that she wrote to any German family members in German, but have not seen any examples of such correspondance.

The Imperial Family / Re: Names, Patronymics, Nicknames and Name Days
« on: November 08, 2004, 01:07:14 PM »

IVAN   m
Usage: Russian, Czech, Croatian, Slovene
Pronounced: IE-van

 But of course, IE'-van is the English pronounciation of the Russian name.  In Russian it is ee-VAN'.

And HM Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip's closest relationship is 3rd cousin:

Victoria - Alice - Victoria Milford Haven - Alice of Greece - Philip

Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth

Yes, but through the Greek/Danish line it's

Christian IX- Willy(George 1 of Greece)- Andrew of Greece-Philip

Christian IX-Alexandra-George V- George VI- Elizabeth

That's 2nd cousins once removed.  Slightly closer than the English line you mentioned.


Are Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip first cousins or more distantly related?

Through the Danish/Greek Line, they are 2nd cousins, once removed.

Through the British/Hesse line, they are 3rd cousins.

Did Princess Beatrice and Henry of Prussia have any children and grandchildren?

Uh No ;)- But Princess Beatrice and Henry of Battenberg (her husband) did.  They had 3 sons and a daughter.  Alexander, Ena (later Queen of Spain), Maurice and Leopold.  They had several grandchildren through Ena, and a granddaughter  by Alexander,  The 2 youngest died as young men and did not marry.

I think that Waldemar was the first carrier of his generation. Although I may have read somewhere that Mossy and Fischy had a haemophiliac among their children. I will investigate.

I don't think any of Margaret's boys were haemophiliacs.  Vicky was not a carrier.  The disease among Henry's boys was inherited through their mother- the Hesse line.  I think Margaret lost a couple of sons in the war though?

Queen Elizabeth I employed the most ghastly techniques in an endeavour to retain a youthful appearance.   The concoctions applied to her, already pockmarked, face eventually completed ravaged it.

'Beauty bears no pain' is a truism especially for those who undergo intensive public scrutiny.


Ah yes- in medieval and renaissance times, they used a makeup composed of a paste made of white lead (!)  I imagine it did worse things for one's general health than just one's complexion! :o

The Windsors / Re: the windors claim to the throne
« on: September 19, 2004, 02:02:12 PM »
But, as Mr. Mayberry and I have both pointed out, Parliment has taken the authority to determine rights to the throne. Not birth alone, and not conquest have determined the succession since the Act of Settlement. The non-Catholic descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover in the established order of succession are it. Period, end of story, at least until they change their minds!

Umm... I was agreeing with you- just in a rather longwinded way,  and using other historical examples.  The "true" monarch of Britain is the one who is accepted and crowned, whether by birth, conquest or parliamentary settlement.  In this case it is Elizabeth ll, (and a fine job she is doing too!).  As I stated- genealogical "claim" doesn't matter- reality does!

The Windsors / Re: the windors claim to the throne
« on: September 19, 2004, 12:42:12 PM »
It hardly matters about the legitimacy of Edward IV, (And his daughter Elizabeth of York, who married Henry VII (Tudor)).  Henry Tudor, of dubious lineage himself, claimed the throne by right of conquest, not really by blood.  After all, the Lancastrian/York dispute began because the Lancastrians claimed that descent could not go through a woman, yet Henry's claim to the throne was through his mother.  So his real claim was that he won the battle of Bosworth, defeating Richard lll.  That he later married Elizabeth was a bonus, and a peacemaking gesture- but the legitimacy of her father would have had no bearing on his right to the throne- he was king regnant- she merely his consort.  Had he remarried after her death, and there is evidence that he considered it- his children by his second wife would have had equal claim to the throne as their elder siblings', regardless of their mother.

Likewise, whoever is the lineal claimant of the Stuarts, (someone on Lichtenstein, I believe?), it hardly matters, since parliament has called on and chosen the descendants of Sophia, grand-daughter of James l.  They have been accepted, crowned, and thus have been the true sovereigns for 300 years now. A few attempts to overthrow the Hanoverians failed- the pretenders did not have enough support among the British people. A "claim" doesn't matter, reality does.  Of course, tracking alternate lines of succession may be of interest to genealogists, and can be fascinating- but are  those marriages and parentages studied as closely as the ruling lines?  I'm sure that there are a few dubious marriages/offspring in those lines too- they just aren't studied as closely.

Anyone claiming to be the "true Monarch" has to remember that since 1066, the line of England/Britain has been descended from a conqueror too- surely one has to go back farther than that and find the true monarch through the Saxon line!  If one can't accept Henry Vll's claim, one can hardly accept William l's! ;)  


what about how it's okay to beat your wife with a stick no bigger around than your thumb, that's in there too. It's also a sin for a girl to cut her hair, better let it grow down to your knees. While I am a believer, I think maybe a lot of stuff in the Bible is not exactly all God's word but a history of the culture, lifestyle, ways and beliefs of a time thousands of years in the past? ??? (hopes not to be stoned or go to hell for posting this)

Uhh, I don't think that the "rule of thumb" is in the Bible- can you provide a chapter and verse?    However, I do agree with the rest of what you have to say  in principle.  :)

And I am looking forward to Greg King's book.  It will be good to have a well-researched book on a very interesting man.

Oh, no, jehan.  It's not just you--otherwise I'd be disagreeing with you LOL ;)  Yes, Marie Feodorovna was VERY pretty.  MUCH prettier IMO than Ella (or Alix for that matter).  I don't remember seeing many pictures--if at all--of Dagmar's sister Alexandra. :-/  So I'm not sure if I can comment on that one.  But Dagmar was definitely beautiful!  Infact, I think she aged remarkably well!   :o  You know, compared to Alix and a lot of other women of that time.

I'm sure you have seen pictures of Alix- she was wife of Edward V11 and longtime Pss of Wales.  She was considered a great beauty in her time, but as I said, I think Dagmar was prettier, at least in photographs.

I don't know, maybe I'm just blind, but Ella doesn't strike me as a great beauty.  I think her four neices eternally outdid her on that one.  She was pretty, but I think Alix was much prettier(when she was a young adult).        Ella always looks like a matronly lady to me.   :-/  I think I've only seen a small few pictures where she appears young and pretty.  I know I just said I think Alix was a lot prettier (totally discounting those years once she started having kids cause IMO she didn't age well at all), but her and Ella look FREAKISHLY the same!!!!! :o :o :o  They look like twins!

I agree with you- I don't see any great beauty in Ella- it must have been something the camera doesn't quite capture, or the standards of beauty have changed.  Similarily, I think that Dagmar (Marie Fedorovna) was much prettier in pictures than her sister Alix (Queen Alexandra)- she seems to have more life and personality to her. Alix seems rather vacant and her poodle-y hairstyle doesn't suit her.  But the contemporary sources all have Alix as the beauty of the family, so it must just be me> :)

And not to throw cold water on it all, but HAD they married- how would it have ended up if she and Willie had been unable to have children- we don't know whose"fault" it was that she and Sergei had no children, after all- it wasn't neccessarily Sergei's.  Or perhaps worse- how would Willie have reacted had haemophilia come into the German royal line, as it would have had a good chance of doing?  Better that things turned out the way they did, I think!

Imperial Claimants Post Here / Re: Imperial Family Claimants Post Here . . .
« on: September 02, 2004, 03:26:48 PM »
Hello  Jehan and all Imperial members of the Court:

From your vivid description of your Husky doggy we can only come to the logical conclusion that she is a direct descendant of the pooches around and about Ekaterinburg in 1918!  Please let us know her name so that we can add her to the Imperial Roster of Palace Pooches.  This is better known as the IRPP.  

Our kitty cat Coal is also a direct link to the kitchen staff of the Alexander Palace.  In 1916 the kitty that used to hang about the milk  cow barn gave birth to Felix Bourbon Rostov, a beautiful Russian Black.  We can actually trace our dear Coal, who is a Russian Black,  directly to this cat from the Imperial Kitchens.  Tell that to - "D"

Of course she must be so descended-  from of a doggy witness to the doings in Siberia in 1918.  Her name is Koira.  She is proud to join the IRPP. In the movie, (or the remake, I suppose) she could be played by one of the stars of "Snow Dogs", of course.

The Windsors / Re: Queen Victoria & Prince Albert--Photos and Information
« on: September 02, 2004, 03:21:39 PM »
Edward Duke of Kent's mistress was called Mme de Saint Laurent, was she not?
I believe that he was sincerely attached to her; however this did not stop him from ditching her when the royal marriage race began.
Does anyone know if there were children from this relationship?

I do not believe that there were any children- none are recorded anyway.  Occasionally someone comes forward claiming to be a descendant of the relationship (one "Robert Wood" comes to mind, among others).  But if there were any, surely they would be mentioned in contemporary sources?  After all his brothers had illegitimate children, and they were not objects of shame and secrecy (re the FitzClarences and FitzGeorges).  Some say that Victoria had any mention of a child expunged from records once she succeeded to the throne, in case her legitimacy was questioned, but again this is highly unlikely- first of all there is no record of of a marriage, and if there were one, it would be in contravention of the royal marriages act anyways, so not legal.  Secondly, in a 27 year relationship, surely there would be a reference in a letter  or a court document somewhere which would mention a child of the Duke of Kent- the arm of a nineteenth century monarch could not reach everywhere!  And Mme St Laurent survived the Duke for years- if she had had a child, surely she would have mentioned it!  So any claim of a child, I would greet with skepticism.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16