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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16
The Tudors / Re: Katherine Parr?
« on: May 31, 2009, 11:21:54 AM »
They weren't written for children/young adults, but I read them when I was about 12, and had no problem with them that I remember.  They certainly weren't as good as some I have read since, but they were okay.

Are these for young girls, Kimberly? They look lovely and I'm interested in trying them!


Where did you find this? Olga said that she wanted to marry someone Russian once, so I would assume she meant Orthodox.

Olga may have said that (I remember reading it too).  But I don't think you can assume that something one states at the age of 18 will hold for the rest of their lives.  She probably meant it at the time, but who knows what would have happened had she met and fallen in love with a foreign prince?  And if I remember correctly, it was said after the Romanian episode, and may have been said to save face and possibly to avoid international/diplomatic hurt feelings.

After all, her mother at 18 (and older) stated she would never change her religion either!

Imperial Russian History / Re: Myths, Legends & Tales of Old Russia
« on: April 18, 2009, 08:04:17 PM »
Haven't you ever wondered if Nicholas II  actually ate a piece of the cross upon which Jesus Christ died?  

If I remember correctly, he was very young and very hungry and had around his neck a chain with a locket which held in wax a splinter of the cross so as children do when hungry,  he ate,  and this time, as the story tells us,  it was  the wax and  splinter. 

Was the splinter really from the cross or was it a symbolic splinter?

Do we know what the Romanov's believed?


This is very late, but the thread was just bumped.

I'm quite sure that the Romanovs believed that it was a fragment of the true cross.

 However...... if all the fragments and pieces that were claimed to be genuine were put together, I think it was once calculated that the cross must have been large enough to fill a ship!  Most  relics from the time of Christ have  proved not to be genuine (and if you think about it- at the time of Christ nobody would have thought such things worth saving, and they only "reappeared" hundreds or more than a thousand  years later) ,  so I have my doubts that it was genuine.

Maria Nicholaievna / Re: Madame Becker's Visit
« on: April 14, 2009, 12:23:35 AM »
My grandmother was given gin by her mother, as was my mother by her mother (and me by mine).  It works- as does most strong alcohol.  Many women who don't actually drink have used it "for medicinal purposes'.  I don't know if the Imperial Family would have used it or not- but my grandmother was growing up at around the same time.

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 11, 2009, 09:26:19 PM »
Well I made a mistake on that, but it would only make sense that Henry VIII murder his son (Henry Fritroy) if he had a legitimate heir according to the book on Fritzroy. Anyway, it seems like Henry wasn't too concerned about Fritroy's death, judging from his simple and rushed arrangement on his furneral. Especially since he was an Earl and natural son of the king.

This has already been thoroughly debunked in this thread.  But really.  Henry may not have been an especially nice guy, but nowhere has it been seriously written that he might go aroung murdering his own children, legitimate or not, just because he had a legitimate heir (which of course, he didn't  at the time of Richmond's death).  It does NOT make sense.  At ALL.

There may (or may not) have been a certain amount of pressure to "get rid" of Mary from the Boleyn faction- but there is no evidence that Henry ever considered this- he was fond of all his children, in his way.

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children
« on: April 04, 2009, 12:07:23 AM »
I believe Lettice was her full niece, and therefore her son had a claim to the throne. That made his uprising teason and unpardonable. Like the Duke of Monmouth years later...

She wasn't.  And even if she was- how could she claim the throne, when the relationship was on the Boleyn and not the Tudor side.  And IF the Careys were the illegitimate children of Henry- well they were illegitimate and had no claim to the throne.  They were never even recognized by Henry as his children, and there was never a claim that he had married Mary Boleyn at any point.

The Windsors / Re: Movies about the British Royal family
« on: March 03, 2009, 11:30:33 PM »

Crapola.  For one thing, Victoria and ALbert were born to parents who were married.  For another,  Victoria is a spitting of her father, the duke of Kent -- she's got Hanover coming out all over her.  There have been questions for years that Albert was not fathered by the Duke - but again, no real evidence ... AN Wilson should know better, but we are talking about the Daily Mail, which would not know a fact checker or an editor who actually checked facts, even if the fact checker was standing right in front of them.

I really look forward to hearing opinions on this film by fellow posters!  I just came across this article which suggests that Victoria and Albert were illegitimate.  What do you all think of this?

You are right of course- it's nonsense.  A lot of people say that Conroy must have been her real father because of the hemophilia gene.  But has anybody found any traces of the disease in Conroy's family?  I've never seen any proof of it there either.

And another error on the article states that had Victoria died before she had a child the monarchy would have collapsed as there were no other heirs.  This may have been the case in 1817 when Charlotte died, but by 1840 there were George of Cumberland, and the Cambridge children George, Augusta and Mary- all her first cousins.

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Re: Did the Tzar Cry?
« on: March 01, 2009, 01:12:06 PM »
And he also kept getting rather unhelpful letters from relatives who 'regretted the birth of another girl for the country,' such as George and Queen Victoria. It's not that he was unhappy at the birth of another girl, just that it was so expected he would have boys. And everytime it was another girl, everyone sort of went 'sigh...'

Queen Victoria died 6 months before Anastasia was born.  I highly doubt she was writing letters of any sort!  ;-)

But there must have been a general air of disappointment within and outside the Russian court, however much the birth of another daughter brought personal happiness to the immediate family.  As long as the succession was uncertain, there was a certain amount of instability around the throne.  I agree- a "sigh" was probably the general reaction.

The Tudors / Re: Books/Movies on the Tudors and Plantagenets
« on: March 01, 2009, 01:07:14 PM »

I think Al Pacino is now too old to play Richard III.
And please, let's get a British actor to play him.  There aren't many good American actors anymore...


I don't agree that there aren't many good American actors, but much I like Al Pacino, I agree he's too old.  Richard was 32 when he died-  Pacino is nearly 70.  I think a relatively unknown Brit would be the best.

The Imperial Family / Re: Question
« on: February 28, 2009, 01:52:10 PM »

i agree. if olga did marry i think she would marry a soldger.

if the war hadn't started i'm shure she would have looked a bit harder. and would she become a nurse if the war hadn't started?

Olga couldn't marry a soldier unless she wanted him to not be accepted into her family and for her to renounce her name. As in the cases of Olga Alexandrovna and Michael Alexandrovich, marrying commoners didn't work out too well. Both their spouses were generally rejected for their non-royal blood.

 Well, what use would there be for a nurse if there wasn't a war?

Okay, it's 3 1/2 years on since the OP, but -

Marrying a commoner, especially in Olga A's case worked out VERY well for her- she had a happy marriage that lasted over 40 years and she had the children she wanted.  Michael's marriage was happy too.  Surely being rejected for lack of royal blood is far less important then personal happiness in marriage?  Olga's first marriage was "equal", but she was miserable.  Michael's case was a little different, as he was heir for a time, close to the throne, and perhaps should have had more regard for duty, but in the end it didn't matter much.  And I'm sure neither one ever regretted their marriages.

You are right about the nursing- it was part of their war work and service to the country.  I don't think any of them had a calling to be nurse had there not been a war.  And in other circumstances it would have been frowned upon.

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Re: Suitors, crushes, boyfriends, marriage, etc.
« on: February 19, 2009, 11:14:42 AM »
Remember how Olga wanted to remain a "Russian"? Maybe she didn't want to leave Russia, so he decided that Tatiana was the next "best".

I don't think that we can hold Olga forever to words she said at 18, after a proposed match for her didn't work out.  At that time, she probably meant what she said, or she may have been being diplomatic- not wanting to offend Romania too much.

Of course we will never know, as she had no other chance to meet eligible young foreign princes, due to the war and revolution,but she might well have married a foreign prince had she had the chance to fall in love.  Because she died so young she is forever "frozen" in time to us as a very young woman, but she would have grown, changed and matured had she had the chance.

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Re: Suitors, crushes, boyfriends, marriage, etc.
« on: February 19, 2009, 11:08:15 AM »
Correct -- but I remember Tatiana once was shocked when someone called her 'Your Majesty.....'. Jennifer is right.

Well of course she would be, as she was not a "Majesty" (Only Monarchs are that).  She was an "Imperial Highness".

Well, I'm not sure, but Nicholas' first cousins are supposed to be called Olga's uncles, right? Undecided Or is there another word? Or people just say: Boris and Dimitri are first cousins of Olga's father?

Nicholas's first cousins would be Olga's second cousins, at least where I'm from.

Lots of people think this, but they are wrong, as others have pointed out.  The children of first cousins are second cousins to each other.  Your first cousin's children are your first cousins, once removed (your cousin's grandchildren are first cousins twice removed.)  See the chart here (there might be better ones out there).

Some cultures do consider their cousin's children as "nephews and nieces", especially if there is an age difference, so the uncle/aunt title is used, but of course your cousin's children are actually more distantly related to you by a generation than your cousins are.  So it is a cultural term rather than a precise one.

The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: Photos of Claimants
« on: February 02, 2009, 03:00:14 PM »
. IMO, daughters of male hemophiliac are not hemophilia carriers.

Sigh.  It doesn't matter what your opinion is, what matters are the facts.  Check out this site.  It's easy to follow.


"All the daughters will be obligate carriers of hemophilia since they must inherit the X chromosome which carries hemophilia from the father. All sons will be unaffected by hemophilia since they inherit the father's normal Y chromosome."

Now back to topic.

The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: Photos of Claimants
« on: February 02, 2009, 02:42:23 PM »
I wonder how Leopold, duke of albany `s  children hadnt haemophilia or were carriers of the disease (if im wrong about this, please let me know, because, as far as i know, none of their children and their offspring had haemophilia or were carriers of the gen )

It's getting OT for this thread, but yes, his daughter Alice was a carrier.   Her son Rupert bled to death after a car accident at 20 years of age.  He was known to be haemophiliac.  Another son died in infancy- we don't know of what.  Her daughter was not a carrier, fortunately.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16