Messages

46

The Windsors / Re: Carl Edward (Karl Eduard) Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Duke of Albany & family

« on: April 30, 2007, 06:10:52 PM »

If there had been no  WWI , Charles Edward's descendants would still be the very respected Dukes of Albany, no doubt.

47

The Hohenzollern / Re: Princess Alexandra of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

« on: April 30, 2007, 05:41:30 PM »

Sandra wasn't bad looking.  I reckon she suffered in comparison with her sisters. She was better looking than the Wales girls or the daughters of the Empress Frederick, which may be some consolation!

The Kaiser's son August Wilhelm and his daughter in law Crown Princess Cecilie fled from Potsdam at the end of WWII and ended up in Langenburg. "Auwi" is actually buried in the Hohenlohe family cemetery in Langenburg.

48

The Tudors / Re: Yorkist Princesses

« on: April 24, 2007, 06:04:45 PM »

That's what's good about history!

49

The Hohenzollern / Re: Princess Alexandra of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

« on: April 22, 2007, 04:01:43 PM »

that makes sense, but I think joining in when it starts to look advantageous is even more of an indictment of passively or actively endorsing the party's agenda. 'jumping on the band wagon' are enablers who are often times the force and power behind a movement.

That said, this was the same period when many world notables thought this national socialist invention had something going for it. Ford, Kennedy, of course the Windsors, Lindberg, Brundage and others said some fairly positive things about what was going on at that time.

Sorry, folks,  the date was actually May 1 1937. It was the same day that many other royals joined the party (e.g. "Mossy", Georg Donatus of Hesse, his wife Cecile and brother Ludwig). According to "The Royals and the Reich" certain people were not able to be members up till then, and this was the first day they were allowed to join. Alexandra's daughter Alexandra had already joined in 1933, so maybe she was a more enthusiastic  Nazi.

Otherwise I agree with you, Herr Kaiser, that a passive endorsement of the Nazi agenda is every bit as bad as an active one...

50

The Tudors / Re: Katherine Parr?

« on: April 21, 2007, 03:18:40 AM »

or a Spanish woman! 

51

The Hohenzollern / Re: Princess Alexandra of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

« on: April 21, 2007, 03:13:39 AM »

Alexandra and her children all joined up on the same day in May 1938 (according to the "Royals and the Reich" book  - Ernst had joined the previous year) and as this was five years after Hitler came to power so it might be that they joined to gain some favour. For example, such an action would ease the way for a promotion for one of the sons. It seems to me to be rather late to join, if they were indeed "enthusiastic supporters".

In 1933 many people (even their supporters) thought that the Nazis would not last long in power. By 1938, they looked much more like a permanent fixture, especially after the annexation of Austria that year. So it might have seemed like a wise move to sign up. I wonder what they thought of the Kristallnacht in November that year, though..........

52

The Hohenzollern / Re: Princess Alexandra of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

« on: April 20, 2007, 04:49:17 PM »

What was Alexandra's involvement with the nazi regime up until her death? Did she and her children not join the party early on?

They joined the party in May 1938 (Ernst, I think, a year earlier).... not very good timing!

53

The Tudors / Re: Janis Joplin's Plantagenet ancestry

« on: April 18, 2007, 05:27:17 PM »

Actually, Americans are more likely to be descended from Edward I / Robert the Bruce. Their ancestors were the mobile, affluent sort, unlike the people who stayed and married in their own villages, and were less likely to mingle with the royal descendants.

54

Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Empress Anna Ioannovna

« on: April 18, 2007, 05:16:36 PM »

I don't believe that Anna I was the mother of Biron's children. In any case the  (legitimate) children of her niece, Anna Leopoldovna, had a better claim to the throne.

55

The Windsors / Re: Bagshot Park

« on: April 12, 2007, 04:21:56 PM »

I think it's a very ugly house!

56

The Tudors / Re: Catherine of Aragon

« on: April 10, 2007, 06:13:34 PM »

Hi FaithWhiteRose!

David Starkey thinks that she wasn't the submissive type - sounds quite convincing to me! H equotes the letters she sent to Henry while he was invading France in 1514, quite the opposite to the usual submissive Katherine!

57

The Windsors / Re: favourite grand child of Queen Victoria?

« on: April 10, 2007, 05:53:44 PM »

Yes, I agree that she may have become disenchanted with his traits of character - she was all too well aware of the Crown Princess's early inexperience as a mother , which soured her relationship with her elder children. I think that the early favourite never quite loses that palce in his grandmother's heart. The deathbed scene confirms this in my opinion.

Victoria was very fond of her younger grandchildren, the sons of Princess Beatrice. I was at Balmoral (a tourist!) a couple of years ago. Ther is a small bungalow in the grounds which was used by Alexander (Drino) of Battenburg when he was on holiday from school. I had the idea that this boy was a particular pet of the old queen. 

58

The Windsors / Re: favourite grand child of Queen Victoria?

« on: April 09, 2007, 02:14:17 PM »

The first grandchild is often a special favourite - often against the better judgement of the grandparent, so my bet is that the Kaiser always had first place in Victoria's heart. Wilhelm and Charlotte were the only grandchildren who met the Prince Consort. Surely this would have made a difference (I'm a first grandchild myself, so I know this!). So I agree with Guinastasia.

I think there is a difference between the "favourite" grandchild and the ones that she got on with on a personal level like Victoria of Battenberg and "Thora". She was fond of them but they were not the favourite. I also have the feeling that the queen was not quite as keen on Alix after her marriage to the Russian Tsar as she had been before. As Alix burnt their correspondence we can't really be sure of this, however.

59

The Windsors / Re: The Mitfords

« on: April 09, 2007, 02:00:03 PM »

Thanks, GD Ella for all the photos. I particularly like the last one of the duchess! I agree they were all a bit awful really. There are a lot of very amusing stories about them though. I was laughing recently at an account by Jessica of their schooldays. They didn't go to school, of course, but were educated by a succession of governesses. One of the less successful choices took the girls up to London for the day and taught them how to shoplift! 

60

The Windsors / Re: The Mitfords

« on: April 09, 2007, 07:04:42 AM »

I can't think of much good to say about Diana and Unity. Diana was on "Desert Island Discs" a few years ago and was totally unrepentant about her support for Hitler.....

The Duchess of Devonshire. I'm not sure she's exactly Britain's Martha Stewart (unlike Diana she has never seen the inside of a prison), however, she did publish a cookery book. It contained helpful tips for preparing game ("get the gamekeeper to fetch a brace of fine pheasants...). There was also a fascinating book on gardening at Chatsworth.

Jessica Mitford had an interesting life, fighting with the Republicans in Spain during the Civil War. She and her husband had to fill in their occupations before joining up. So they wrote down "Labrador" because that was her favourite kind of dog. Luckily it was the right answer. She was a memeber of the Communist Party in the US.

I enjoyed Nancy Mitfords books, especially "Love in a Cold Climate", with it's array of appalling characters, worst of which must surely be the abominable Lady Mountdore. Talking about her time as Vicereine of India:

"Well, actually they (the Indians) worshipped us.... and we deserved it too. I can honestly say we put India on the map. Before we went there none of our friends had even heard of it!"

Nancy's humour has a bitter (and snobbish) edge to it though.

So maybe Pam was the best of the bunch (I think there was a brother too).