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 - bell_the_cat

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 111
Yes, In succession Mary would have been behind any daughters born to Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard or Katherine Parr (but still ahead of Elizabeth! . She was never "relegitimised" by Henry, and in fact had to sign her agreement that her mother's marriage had been invalid. This happened shortly after the execution of Anne Boleyn, and was a precondition of her being able to return to court.

Even if Katherine howard had had a girl it would have been ahead of Mary in the succession. There were two reasons why she didn't have any children:

a) Henry was probably by this time impotent

b) She did not commit adultery with Culpeper (though they both admitted that they had planned this).

Hi Yseult!

Well she obviously was that kind of woman, as she was lady in waiting to both Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard. My guess is that she was regarded by Henry (or others) as potentially a good source of info.

in 1541 people must have been already wondering how long Henry would last and I can only see Viscountess Rochford's actions in this light, playing along with the Queen's schemes in case there was some reward, or waiting for a good moment to go running to Henry with the story (not an easy decision). Unfortunately the whole story came out prematurely, before (if we believe the story of Katherine and Culpeper) the affair had turned physical. This was because of the Dereham scandal which concerned goings on before the marriage.

So, I think la Rochford, probably was planning to tak a look at Henry's health at the end of 1542, and if it looked good, would have told him all about Culpeper, and reaped the rewards. Unfortunately she got the timing badly wrong and got caught on the wrong side.

French Royals / Re: Jeanne de Valois
« on: August 14, 2007, 06:39:53 PM »
You're welcome!  ;D

French Royals / Re: Jeanne de Valois
« on: August 12, 2007, 03:38:19 PM »
Jeanne de la Motte never impersonated the queen herself. It was a prostitute called Nicole d'Oliva who played the part of the queen during the famous encounter with the Cardinal de Rohan in the shrubberies of Versailles.

It is a confusing story though! :)

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Mary, Queen of Scots....was she really....
« on: August 10, 2007, 04:17:16 PM »

I completely agree.  Some historians have suggested that her chances of success as ruling Queen of Scotland were adversely affected by her growing up in France.  When she left Scotland she was a Scottish child but when she returned there she was a French woman who viewed Scotland much as the French did - with affection mixed with condescension.  Also, on the death of Mary Tudor, her father in law proclaimed Mary and her husband as King and Queen of England and Mary arrived back in Scotland eager to have her claim to the English throne acknowledged.  To her, I suspect, Scotland always seemed like a consolation prize compared to the English throne to which her French relatives had taught her was her right.

I'm probably in a minority of one on this, but I honestly don't see that her upbringing in France was necessarily a problem:

1) France was a difficult country to rule with the same religious problems, and possibly worse economic problems than Scotland.

2) Scotland was such a backward country as is portrayed in the Vanessa Redgrave movie. The Scottish nobility were well educated and many ahad spent time at the French court

3) Mary was always known by her title Queen of Scots at the French court (until she became Dauphine). She did not despise this title.

4) During the years of her personal rule Mary did a good job as Queen of Scots ( before she married Darnley). She did nothing to actively pursue her claim to the English throne. Nor did she moan on about how much better things were in France.

5) Mary was a catholic, it is true, but her policy was consistently  conciliatory. She did not persecute protestants. In this respects her rule can be compared to that of Catherine de Medici in France. I think Catherine's job in France was far more challenging, actually.

So where did Mary go so spectacularly wrong? It wasn't that she was really better fitted for ruling France. The basic problem was that she wasby nature a poor and, it must be said, a reckless decision maker. I think this was a basic character trait, which admittedly could have been nurtured by her cosseted upbringing. This aspect of her character would have brought her trouble in France or Scotland, or for that matter in any office job!

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Queen Anne 1665-1714
« on: August 10, 2007, 03:57:37 PM »
Yes, I agree, though I found that the format was rather strained for the longer reigns (e.g. Henry VIII, Elizabeth .....George III!), and worked better for the shorter ones like Anne and Mary Tudor. I was dipping in to the William and Mary one recently, and it was very good on their life together. However, William's life after Mary's death was polished off in one chapter! I like a lot of illustrations but I think this series went overboard in that respect.  :)

The Tudors / Re: Name that Tudor era person...
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:56:29 PM »
This thread was the greatest ever, thanks to Helen A! I hope most of the pix are still up there!

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: New movie about Mary Stuart
« on: July 25, 2007, 05:10:23 PM »
Mary Queen of Scots
But with no comma!

Yes, no comma!

The Tudors / Re: Tudor Queens
« on: July 18, 2007, 01:21:02 AM »
.......I just mean that Anne wasn't the only Tudor Queen to be proud of her station. Maybe she got more stick because she wasn't of royal origin, which some people find a bad thing. :D

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: New movie about Mary Stuart
« on: July 17, 2007, 05:52:10 PM »
Sorry, off topic Kim ( I've just been watching Victoria Beckham's adventures in LA  :P). Is that Bamburgh Castle on your new Avatar?

The Tudors / Re: Tudor Queens
« on: July 17, 2007, 05:47:02 PM »
Yes, but of course Katherine's pride made her argue back! She was a very supercilious woman, and her daughter inherited that trait.  8)

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Margaret, Countess of Lennox,
« on: July 16, 2007, 03:25:08 PM »
A similar thing happened to Margaret's granddaughter, Arabella Stuart, who many thought should have inherited the Earldom of Lennox from her father. However, the title reverted to her cousin, King James, who proceeded to confer it on one of his favourites!

The Tudors / Re: Tudor Queens
« on: July 16, 2007, 01:52:52 PM »

Yah, Anne Boleyn was a very powerful Queen and remains the one of the most fascinating personalities in history, no doubt 'bout that, but the people hated her and called her "the Great Whore". Plus what she did to Mary Tudor and Katherine of Aragon was unaccepatable. Nevertheless, she was smart, persuasive, cunning and clever, the qualities of her i like best. But some of her qualities were used for the worse rather than the better on some . . .

I know that Francois I referred to Mary Boleyn as "the Great Whore" - this is quoted by Alison Weir in her Henry's wives book (not a great source, I know!). Mary was certainly much more of an easy catch than Anne, who waited six or seven years before she slept with Henry!

I wonder if Anne was really that unpopular - maybe if she had produced a son, Henry's first wife would have been forgotten. Most people wouldn't really have minded too much who the King's wife was as long as she did the job properly. This of course involved lots of charity work, so I suppose all of Henry's wives would have done their bit for "charidee". This wasn't in the same league as the big givers of the era, egocentrics like Cardinal Wolsey or Lady Margaret "Mags" Beaufort, however.

I don't think Anne was cunning, exactly. She was artless enough to allow herself to be completely out manoeuvred by mild-mannered Jane Seymour, for example. Not cunning enough!

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Margaret, Countess of Lennox,
« on: June 13, 2007, 05:07:42 PM »
It's a very good question why MD never became Countess of Angus - she was after all the Earl's only daughter. I think that Scottish succession was still abit vague on when daughters could inherit. After all, the issue had only really been settled in England by the Wars of the Roses. After 1603 I'm sure that in Scotland the only daughter would have succeeded automatically, but before that I suspect it happened only if there wasn't a close relative who was a better bet.

In this case the Earldom and the lands went to Archibald's nephew (who died a year later, leaving a two year old son, the eighth earl). I'm sure everyone went along with this, as noone wanted to see the Earl of Lennox made more powerful, especially not Archibald, who had been an enemy of the Lennoxes, and as a Douglas would have hated to see a Stewart get the family lands.

It seems unfair on his daughter, but they were certainly far from being close - I don't know if they met at all after  the early 1520s! What a family..... I agree with PL that Margaret never met James V or Mary Queen of Scots either. She journeyed north in the 1570s and got pretty close to where Mary was staying at the time, which was enough to earn her yet another spell in the Tower of London!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 111