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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16
Imperial Claimants Post Here / Re: Maria Marti
« on: January 30, 2009, 04:22:39 PM »
Tina you are concerned about the claimant?

Of course not! >:( Why would I be concerned about those liars? I just wonder if they still claim they are members of the IF, or they've stopped claiming...

I imagine that they aren't claiming much these days, as they would all be dead.

The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Kate Middleton
« on: January 16, 2009, 12:51:26 PM »
Well, Prince William will be 27 in June. Prince Charles back in the day was not allowed to wait past 30 to marry, as soon as he reached 30 he was supposed to be married.

Who made these supposed rules that Charles had to marry by 30?  There was and is no such rule.

In an interview when he was younger, Charles said that "around 30" was a good age to be married.  And there was growing amount of speculation in the press as he got older.  There  was probably  some pressure in the family for him to "settle down".  But there was no rule that he "Had to" any more than a couple of generations earlier with Edward Vlll.  Had he decided not to marry at all, he would still be heir to the throne.

« on: January 13, 2009, 11:42:11 AM »
While I'm sure that they would be flattered to be remembered, I'm sure that they would be horrified by the somewhat obsessive personal details that strangers are interested in-  their waist measurements, their lips, whether or not they had acne, their health etc.  I wouldn't like people talking about me in that way!

I realize that they are historical characters, and that those things are fair game, and people are interested in such things.  But despite what we may want to think- I don't think that they would like being discussed in such detail.  and that's what was asked here.  JMHO. of course. ;-)

Olga Nicholaievna / Re: Tsarina Olga!?!?
« on: January 13, 2009, 11:30:30 AM »
But as others have pointed out- "good" people don't necessarily make great rulers. Especially in Russia.   Neither do attractive people rule better than unattractive ones.

I would agree with others on this thread that she would have made a fine constitutional monarch.  But Empress of Russia?  That would need a firm hand, a certain amount of ruthlessness, and a strength that we don't not know if she possessed or not.  "Gentleness" would be detrimental, rather that an asset. Even if her task had been to guide Russia into a more democratic twentieth century- it would have been challenging for anybody. Olga was reasonably intelligent and averagely educated- probably a B+ student in today's terms.  There's no reason to believe she would have been an exceptional ruler, and that's what Russia would have required.

yeah but she cheat on him often.. and he ddint saw it..

and what thought VHM abo0ut Edwina ?

Well, yes.  Edwina did "cheat" on Louis.  But he was quite aware of this and had affairs of his own.  They had what would today be considered an "open marriage"- where fidelity wasn't much of an issue.  But the arrangement worked for them, and while they had their ups and downs, it could be considered a happy marriage.  Certainly he was devastated by her death.

The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn
« on: December 31, 2008, 09:46:42 AM »
I first read it in a book about Kings & Queens by Terry Deary. In it he states - " Anne Boleyn had an eating disorder. She would very often eat a meal...then be sick before she could leave the table. Her ladies-in -waiting became to this and would hold a sheet up whilst she was sick in a bowl.

Like you guys said this is the only account I've ever heard of, that mentions it

Given that Terry Deary's books, (The "Horrible Histories") , while fun to read, are not exactly scholarly or well researched, I would discount this unless you can find out his sources.  He  tends to exaggerate (And make up?)  all sorts of things to make a good story.  If one reads a fact such as this in a book, one should try to confirm the  source of it- check footnotes, bibliographies and such.  If it can't be confirmed somewhere more reliable- take it as a good story, but don't necessarily believe it.

And if the book doesn't HAVE any source notes - read it for entertainment, but not true information.  ;-)

The Windsors / Re: Princess Beatrice of York Pt II
« on: November 24, 2008, 02:33:47 PM »
I always view any new post on this thead with trepidation! Whatever will the girl get up to next?


Not much, I don't think, unless it involves her boyfriend, nightclubs, tasteless clothes and the London social set.

Well, when she's quietly minding her own business and NOT going out, or wearing nice clothes, the paparazzi don't seem interested, do they?  And nobody posts those pictures on this thread, as they aren't newsworthy.  Note that there were no posts here from July to November- perhaps she WASN'T out partying much during that time?  People seem very quick to judge the bad, but that's the only "news" that the tabloids want to print, isn't it?

The Windsors / Re: Grace and Favour residences
« on: October 22, 2008, 05:10:46 PM »
Royal Palaces.  If QEII or the "government" is giving them something then "they" would have a say and right to comment on their behavior and deportment.

I think one of the problems with the British Royal Family is that  QEII seems to have lost control or is not using her control. I do not see her exercising her right as head of the House of Windsor/Montbatten/Glucksburg as did say QV, GIV and Diamond/Emerald Drawers, GV and Cookie or Edward VI.

Every good Firm needs a strong and wise CEO.


But just when in history has the monarch really had control over the behaviour of the adult offspring of the dynasty?

George lll?  Victoria?  George V?

All of them had sons whose behaviour was no better or worse than what we see today.  Probably worse, in fact.  I think you are asking way to much of ERll- what you ask of her has never been achieved by any other monarch ( at least those who had children who did not want to "live the quiet life").  It's just that the modern paparazzi is only too ready to put any misdemeanors out there for all to see.  Doesn't mean the behaviour itself is anything new.

The Tudors / Re: Favourite Fictional Tudor based books?
« on: October 13, 2008, 09:13:42 AM »
Oooohhh, Elisabeth, stop it please,I have only just paid my Amazon bill(hidden from the lord and master of course) and now you list all these books ;D My goodness me I well remember reading Brief Gaudy Hour by Margaret Campbell Barnes ans she also wrote a lovely book-My Lady of Cleves.

Is Brief Gaudy Hour any good? I saw it at B&N but never had a chance to purchase it. I liked the cover lol, but my weakness for nice covers has more than once made me buy and read bad books :-)

I would agree with Kim here.  I read it as a teenager and loved it then- I would still say it's a good read.  But re-reading it more recently, I find MCB's books are somewhat dated and simplistic in their plotting and characterization.   Still enjoyable, though.

Having Fun! / Re: Like or Dislike?
« on: October 09, 2008, 11:00:05 AM »

X-files ?

Liked the earlier years.  Stopped watching after it got too paranoid.

John Stewart?

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Young Alix - Before her Marriage
« on: October 09, 2008, 09:59:04 AM »
About Alix always looking sad (or at least serious), The Life and Tragedy of Alexandra Feodorovna by Sophie Buxhoevden says in chapter three:

"...It was this sad expression, and not her ready smile, that was always seen in her photographs."

It doesn't really say why, but maybe she was just just generally serious-minded, and then there's also the thing about it not being fashionable to smile.  Also remember that she had a very sad life in general, what with her mother and sister dying when she was so young, then her father dying when she was in her teens (?) and Alexei having hemophilia.  Not to mention that many of Russian "high" society disliked her, feelings which turned to hatred during WWII since she was born in Germany.   

I still say that Alix's early life wasn't all that much sadder than most of her generation.  Many children lost a parent young- look at QV (father) Albert (mother), all of QV's children (father) Vicky's  children (father), Leo and Beatrice's children (father), Alix's siblings (mother).  And it was a rare family indeed that did NOT lose at least one child in infancy or childhood.  And many foreign princes and princesses have had to deal with dislike in their adopted countries (Albert, Vicky etc.)

It's true it was not considered fashionable to smile in photos, and also that the photographic process did not necessarily lead to smiling, but Alix is the one with the reputation of being serious and sad, and not just in photos.  I'm sure shyness was a factor in this.  But she also didn't really try to connect with people that weren't in her immediate circle.  And that was a serious failing for someone in her position.

Olga Nicholaievna / Re: Did the Dowager Empress Call Olga Ugly?
« on: September 27, 2008, 08:35:19 PM »
Queen Victoria was no beauty herself  she was a short and had poor hair  and no chin     I am amazed that the ones saying she was ugly or had a big head where hideous themselves

Queen Victoria was no beauty (and she would be the first to admit it), but she was hardly hideous.  Besides, are we only able to criticize those who are uglier (or stupider, or poorer etc.) than ourselves?

What QV was was very outspoken and frank in her opinions.  She was quick to recognize beauty in both sexes (without jealousy really- she was a great admirer of Empress Eugenie's beauty, for example).  She was also very frank in opinions of her own appearance, and of those she loved.  She called her herself,  daughters, sons  and various grandchildren ugly at various times in their lives- but I don't think she meant anything truly nasty by it- it was more a descriptive thing than anything else.  And she was quick to change her mind when they "improved".  It didn't mean she loved them any more or less.  Besides, she though ALL babies were ugly in the early months.

But Olga, although she grew into delightful person, I am sure, DID have an extraordinarily large head as a baby- it really did look odd at the time.  Fortunately she grew into it.  Some may think it was cute, but probably more would think it not so much.

Having Fun! / Re: Your Ten Most Disliked Royals and why Pt II
« on: July 18, 2008, 01:07:12 PM »
1. King Leopold II of Belgium: because he had a lot of relationships with several women and was a sex maniac.

I find it a bit odd that he would be more disliked for his unfaithfulness than for the fact that he personally allowed the torture, killing and enslavement of thousands of people in the Congo!  But YMMV.  (He's top of my list too!) ;-)

The Tudors / Re: "The Other Boleyn Girl" dramatized?
« on: July 09, 2008, 09:22:34 PM »

P.S. I also noticed that they changed Mary from being the youngest sister to being the oldest sister, and Anne was the youngest... I wonder why.

Perhaps to keep it more historically accurate?  Most historians believe Mary to have been the elder sister.

Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich / Re: Alexei's wife?
« on: June 22, 2008, 09:31:35 PM »

I wouldn't have been surprised to see Alexei married at 15 or 16 to a girl of 16 to 18.  It was not at all unusual for royalty to marry that young. 

It may have been common in previous centuries for royal males to marry very young, but surely things had changed in that regard by the beginning of the 20th. century? While royal females remained fairly young at time of marriage, males tended to have reached the so-called "age of majority" before they married, thus my impression is that while still young by the standards of today, Alexei would definitely have been over 18 and probably over 20 before any marriage took place. If memory serves me correctly, King George V was 28 years old at the time of his marriage in 1893, Kaiser Wilhelm II was 22 years old when he married for the first time in 1881, Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria was 23 years old at the time of his ill-fated marriage to the admittedly 16 year old Princess Stephanie of Belgium, while Kaiser Karl of Austria was 24 years old at the time of his marriage to Kaiserin Zita in 1911, thus I don't think that Nicholas and Alix were an exception to the rule or have I missed something?

I would agree with you Greenowl- I can't think of any princes even in the 19th century who would have married that young, and certainly not in the twentieth century.  I think even when girls married at 16 or so (and it did occasionally happen, although it wasn't especially common) it was often commented on that they were very young. (I think when Stephanie married Rudolf Queen Victoria commented that she was too young in a letter to Vicky).  Olga of Greece is another who married vary young.   But most royal girls married in their late teens or early twenties.  Of QV's daughters, Vicky was 17- but the others were all at least 19.  Her daughters-in law were all at least 18.

That said, I'm sure someone who knows more than I do will come up with a few examples of princes who married at 15 or 16 after 1800 or so, but it would still have been extremely rare.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16