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 5 ... 16
The Tudors / Re: Edward VI and Jane Grey
« on: September 16, 2010, 08:56:47 AM »
Actually, Edward was only 15 when he died, and for the last year or so of his life was mortally ill.  That doesn't leave much energy or thought to marriage. 

And while it is true that Catherine Grey was 13 when she married, the marriage wasn't consummated and was later annulled (even Jane's wasn't consummated immediately).  As for Margaret Clifford- her children weren't born until several years after her marriage, so it is likely that it too was not consummated for at least a couple of years.  So this "rush" to Protestant heirs wasn't quite as desperate as it first appears.

As for the king's marriage- well we know it was  discussed at the time, so the powers that be at least considered it.  But it didn't happen, so no doubt they thought is wasn't a good idea at the time for political/personal/whatever reasons.

I agree, Holly. If one of them had survived, surely would carry this huge scar for life. Would be a traumatized and depressed person, always with those horrible scenes in mind.

Plenty of people have survived similar or worse situations, and while it certainly would have been traumatic and scarring- many have gone on to live fulfilled lives.  And they do manage to cope with life- have families and jobs and even happy times.  Many people can be very resilient.  Think of Holocaust survivors, Rwandan genocide survivors- almost every war has its victims who have seen their families (or whole villages) slaughtered.  You can't make generalizations about how people might or might not react- it's just not that simple.

People are survivors by nature- any true Romanov survivor would have had support from friends and family and probably gone on to live a life in honour and memory of her lost family.

The Tudors / Re: Tudor costumes
« on: July 30, 2010, 11:48:14 PM »
Ever since Christianity took over from healthy Roman values, bathing was seen as sinful so the church developed arguments  to argue against bathing dailly.  Society in general had a viceral and robust smell to it then.

the truth is, as usual, complicated.  The church mainly spoke out against the bathhouses, which were seen as dens of sin (and they were in many cases!).

The main problem was practicality.  Bathing was difficult for the poorer classes, as heating water was expensive and time consuming, and bathtubs were expensive and rarely found in poorer homes.  Standards of cleanliness varied over times and countries- medieval people may have been cleaner than Renaissance people.  But hot (or warm) water was used- the surviving pictures often show fires in the background where water would have been heated.

Here are some contemporary pictures that show that bathing was not all that rare.  (sorry for the URL length- I don't know how to shorten them),r:9,s:0&tx=78&ty=54&biw=1280&bih=799,r:0,s:0&tx=113&ty=43,r:4,s:0&tx=59&ty=51

The Windsors / Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II
« on: June 28, 2010, 10:37:40 PM »
Well then let me let CBC do the speaking
Two polls of Canadians ahead of their arrival suggested the popularity of both Charles and the monarchy were low in the country.

A Harris-Decima poll released Nov. 2 found only 31 per cent of respondents believed Charles should be the next king, while a poll commissioned by Canadian friends of the Royal Family in October found 60 per cent of Canadians felt a constitutional monarchy was outdated.

And a lot of this is due to Camilla

Please provide some evidence that this is due to Camilla, and not to the general trend away from the British heritage, as Canada becomes a country with more and more people from other heritages and traditions.  It is more a general trend here and in other Commonwealth countries that has been going on since long before Camiilla appeared on the scene.

And you don't speak for this Canadian ( or for most others that I know).

The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn
« on: June 24, 2010, 12:38:20 AM »
They are romanticised and not contemporary

Exactly- very Victorian in style. I would say 1860s or so, but that's a guess- could be 20 years either side.

The cost of the Queen visiting is signficantly higher than a non British royal visit as the Canadian or Australian government pays for everything from hotel rooms, transportation and it is not pennies.  The last visit of Charles and Camilla cost Canadians $2.6 million.  The visit of the Queen in 1964 cost $1,000,000 and that is in 1964 dollars, so these tours are not cheap.  When a foreign head of state visits, the visit is usually just a day or two and the only cost is minor police protection and a state dinner (maybe).

Well Obama came to Ottawa for 6 hours last year, and it cost us 2 million.  That's the price of visits from heads of State.


Australia in the past HAS accused the Queen of the dollars it's cost US (Australian's) when she comes here. It's ALWAYS in the news about how much we as the taxpayers fork out for it. It's a thing I resent. So in reality, what is costing us now for the Queen and PP to visit us, PW and his future wife, will be no different for Charles to bring Camilla.

I've always wondered why people begrudge the cost of paying for a royal visit.  It's about as much as one would pay for a visit from the president of the USA or Russia or any other country.  And she would probably visit, as she does,  whether she were your Queen or just a visiting foreign head of state.  The cost for state dinners, security etc remains the same, more or less.  And it's probably just pennies per person anyway.  (I think the cost of maintaining the monarchy in Canada worked out to less than a dollar per person).

And is a presidential system any cheaper? With inaugurations every 4 years, several residences to maintain, security,  foreign visitors to entertain and foreign visits to make, - I would think it costs the taxpayers  as much or more than the monarchy does in the UK.

The Windsors / Re: Princess Diana - Part 2
« on: April 18, 2010, 03:32:20 PM »
I don't think it was the royal dress code which decided the length of Diana's skirts, she just wore what was in fashion at the time.  This was the length most women's skirts were then.

True, just look at the skirts worn by the women above her on the ladder.  Also, it would appear she is visiting a middle eastern nation, where longer more modest skirts would have been more appropriate attire.

Having Fun! / Re: Your secret
« on: March 24, 2010, 11:14:48 PM »
OK. My favorite "junk food TV" program, the one I enjoy watching but hate to admit it to anyone, is "Judge Judy"....

Me too.  It's not something I admit to my closest friends either.

The main harm that is being done here, (apart from the harm to the truth and to historical facts, which we should always be striving for) is to the claimants themselves.  Unless these claims are proven, and none of them have been, then they are lies and fabrications at worst, or fairy tales at best.  Don't these people owe it to their real ancestors to find out about them and honour their memories- not to make up claims about bogus relationships to real people?  What are they ashamed of in their own pasts, or what is lacking in their lives that they have to make themselves seem more important or interesting because of some fictional genealogy?

  Most of us come from humble origins.  These ancestors can be just as interesting- maybe even more so in their daily struggles and the real obstacles they faced than any prince or monarch. Researching one's real genealogy and family history will reveal more secrets and surprises than one would think possible.

I have always wondered if the Egyptian blood line lineage was connected to the Royal Houses of Europe.
Anyone care to share what they know?

I started doing a family genealogy about 4 months ago and what I've discovered has challenged many of my beliefs. I think that unless the lines from the Pharaohs has died out, there is every reason to expect that many families in Europe, including the royal ones, may have a line or two of descent.

However, the problem with their breeding was all the brother and sister breedings, which weaken the blood lines. So I consider it as likely that they died out completely.

That and the fact that they often tended to kill each other and/or each other's children in order to claim or secure their claim to the throne.

Imperial Claimants Post Here / Re: Anastasia's BFF??
« on: January 18, 2010, 04:58:57 PM »
A ribbon that is nearly 100 years old would not be bright white- it would have faded/yellowed with age, no matter how well preserved it was.  Regardless of what colour ribbons the GDss were wearing in the photos, that particular ribbon is probably not genuine.

I doubt that there is any relationship.  The executioners were hardly privileged- can you name any other families that might have profited from the executions nearly a hundred years later?  I don't think Medvedev's family has a histoy of privilege- why start now?
Medvedev is about number 30 in the most common surnames in Russia.  It literally means "Bear".  Many of the most common Russian surnames that are not patronyms (ie Ivanov, Petrov etc) are animal names- Voronov (Crow), Sokolov (falcon), Volkov (wolf), Lebedev (swan) etc.

Iberian Royal Families / Re: Jaime and Elena,Duke and Duchess of Lugo
« on: November 28, 2009, 02:21:30 PM »

The Spanish royal house declined the offer of the Spanish parliament, to change the succession, so that girls become queens, also they have a brother. So Letizia has to be bear a boy.
I don´t think that Sophia or Juan Carlos didn´t like her, but  Jaime looked down one's nose at Letizia.

I don't think so- Spain has allowed female succession for centuries.  In the 19th century Spain had a Queen regnant (Isabella 11), and of course there was Isabella l back in the 15th century.

I believe that they still have the male-preference succession (unless that has changed)- the same as the UK.  If Letizia has no son- her eldest daughter will inherit.  If she does, he will come first- before his elder sisters.

The Windsors / Re: Queen Victoria & Prince Albert--Photos and Information
« on: November 25, 2009, 05:34:11 PM »
Well, at least in that one she keeps some of the "hannover" facial features , thing it doesnt happen in the portrait we were talking about, cause if you look at it you cant see those facial features at all. Totally idealized
Indeed true ;-) Many paintings (even of other royals) don't look completely like they were really,
it was a little bit common on those days

Just like a lot of photos are "touched up" nowadays!!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16