Messages

151

Imperial Russian History / Re: Paul I and Catherine the Great

« on: April 20, 2009, 07:31:47 PM »

In fairness to Paul he had the most appalling set of circumstances from birth - his parents were deprived of him by Elizabeth from birth, his presumed father was deposed by his mother (who was also complicit in his murder) and he spent most of his life under his mother's thumb and was kept from a throne that many believed was rightfully his, his mother deprived him and his wife of custody of their children and he must have known that his ageing mother was seriously considering removing him from the succession and bequething the throne to his son Alexander instead. Also to be fair to Catherine she wasn't such a bad mother and intially after her coup treated Paul with fondness and certainly included him in the political structure of her court it was only later that she started to deliberately exclude him.
You can hardly blame the man for his subsequent actions even if some of them are particularly distasteful (particularly the reburial of his father with Catherine) regularising the succession rules was sensible and its hardly his fault if subsequent Emperors chose not to revise them as society changed.

152

The Windsors / Re: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

« on: April 20, 2009, 07:14:28 PM »

I think it is a little unfair to compare him to Albert - it was a different period and a different marriage.
Had he not married the then Princess Elizabeth then I suspect he would have had a rather good naval career and ended his life comfortably off  not rich (his family had no money at all) given his father's circumstances even after the various Greek restorations I doubt he would have returned to Greece permanantly.
The reality is that there is just less scope for a Royal to get involved in certain aspects of public life other than the merely ceremonial - which can in our ultra critical days look like they do nothing. In Britain only the reigning monarch has any vestige of actual function.
To be fair to the man he did try to do things but was thwarted by those opposed to a) change and b) him personally. In the 50's he was keen to modernise (in ways that granted look archaic perhaps today) but at every turn he faced opposition from courtiers who'd served George VI, a mother in law who's favourite phrase was "the King wouldn't have liked it!" and a wife who revered and adored her father and was trapped between a husband who wanted change and a mother who didn't see the point, added to that he had no function, a host of embarrassing relations and also faced a hostile government.
He's perhaps not the most sympathetic character to many people and he does tend to make the odd gaffe (largely made far worse in the reporting of them than they actually were) but as a consort he's made a bloody awful job bearable for himself.
I don't really think today they are expected to leave any kind of legacy.

153

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Mary, Queen of Scots....was she really....

« on: April 14, 2009, 05:53:41 AM »

The key difference though was she was not brought up to be a Queen Regnant but to be a French Queen Consort. Had she remained in Scotland arguably she would have been more aware of the peculiar and particular problems of the Scots Crown. It is generally agreed that she was the spoilt and petted darling of the French court from her arrival not her fault but a fact.

Whilst Henri II lived France's religious problems were kept more under control, she and her young husband after his accession were largely dominated by her Guise relations who were on the arch catholic side and responsible for really pushing the French into the first religious wars of the 1560's.

She wasn't such an innocent child when she signed the secret codicils to her marriage treaty when asked to by Henri II which in effect turned Scotland into a french vassal state and piggy bank.

Her essential problem was as a Queen from birth she was completely and utterly secure in her position - her pride would never let her lose face or caste that was why she was so determined to marry again as soon as possible and was very very keen that her new husband was at least as high in rank as the dead Francois II - it was purely a coup de foudre and his own Tudor blood that lead her to marry Darnley.

You are right to say that her main problem was her flair for the dramatic which lead her to take reckless decisions and her willingness to trust people she shouldn't have done.

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!

154

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children

« on: April 14, 2009, 05:34:11 AM »

By tradition monarchs did not attend funerals. Henry's grandparents Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV didn't attend their daughter Mary or son George's funerals, Henry didn't attend his mother Elizabeth of York's funeral. A chief mourner was usually present though and that may have been the origin now that sees members of the Royal Family being represented at funerals by a member of the household even now they tend only to attend in person for family or very close friends funerals.

Yes. He was so beloved that his father did not attend his furneral or nor was he given a proper furneral (with only two mouners).

Anyway, I think the Carey children (especially) Catherine, was born during Henry's affair with Mary Boleyn. The usual custom was that when the king favours a woman, the husband usually stand aside. That makes Catherine the strongest canidate for being Henry's natural daughter.

155

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: What are Maria Vladimirovna and her son doing?

« on: April 10, 2009, 10:44:38 AM »

Yes because she's very fond of her father - but she shouldn't have done and she didn't need to - HRH The Princess Anne of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would have done or simply Anne
To give you an example Prince William's birth certificate gives no surname for himself, his father or his mother (only her maiden name Spencer)
they are described respectively as HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, HRH Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Prince of Wales and HRH The Princess of Wales (maiden name Spencer) and the Prince of Wales signed the birth certificate just Charles.

156

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: What are Maria Vladimirovna and her son doing?

« on: April 09, 2009, 10:50:11 PM »

I think the correct terminology is that a royal family has a "House Name!" which is usual based on their dynastic origins, some who are mere branches of the house have added others to it but that arguably a Royal doesn't have or need a surname. It's only really become an issue for deposed royals and for the still reigning families who've limited the use of royal titles and styles and have been presented with the issue.
So arguably they are within their rights to choose whichever surname they like rather like most of today's reigning houses who've been presented with a similar issue.
As Maria Vladimirovna is a claimant to the throne of Russia she rightly choses to use a style of pretension (and i mean no insult here) in the same way that many others who claim a now defunct throne do. Whether she uses a surname on her passport or legal documents is up to her - but it may be that her passport is issued in her style of pretension - Maria Vladimirovna Grand Duchess of Russia etc...
In Britain the Royal House of Saxe Coburg Gotha became the House of Windsor (with limits on the Royal style to the third generation and those descendants needing a surname using Windsor) changed again by the present Queen to enable her descendants needing a surname to link two made up names Mountbatten Windsor - the first to legally need to use that surname will be the first born son of HRH Prince James of Wessex Viscount Severn although he will not technically need it as from birth he will be entitled to use a courtesy title

157

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Relation to Alix

« on: April 09, 2009, 10:28:13 PM »

And you could add the deposed ones to that list as well.

158

The Windsors / Re: Dukedoms of the United Kingdom

« on: April 09, 2009, 10:07:00 PM »

I think its a sensible point - but much depends on the style of monarchy and the nature of the country. The trouble is when you have people who are effectively the grandchildren of a reigning monarch who have, because they have no title and no royal duties and no civil list allowance,  the freedom to earn a living but being so closely related to the monarch they have virtually the same restrictions on the type of career they might pursue as their titled cousins. Particulary if you look at the flack some members of the Brtiish Royal family have faced because of their chosen career.

159

The Tudors / Re: the children of henry 7th

« on: April 09, 2009, 10:01:07 PM »

You could at a push go even further - after the death of the Duke of Bedford his widow Jacquetta de St Pol married a certain gentleman of the household called Richard Woodville or Wydeville as a love match that scandalised the English courts and her own family in France. Their eldest daughter a widow in her twenties repeated the trick when she married Edward IV of course.

160

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children

« on: April 09, 2009, 09:58:02 PM »

I take your point but would add that the issue was already complicated given that the his relationship with Mary was known and proveable and that in itself would have presented an impediment to any subsequent marriage with any close relative of Mary Boleyn (which is why his emmisaries to Rome were required to get not only an annulment of his marriage but to also gain him a dispensation in order to marry a woman who was technically related to him on the grounds of his sexual relationship with a close relative - a huge bare faced cheek given that was essentially the same grounds upon which he was calling for his marriage to Katherine of Aragon to be annulled).
Incidentally I don't think he needed any psychological proof to discard Katherine - i tend to agree with his cousin Cardinal Pole and with a number of recent writers that he was largely motivated by desire for Anne..though concerns over his lack of an heir and Mary's legitimacy (raised as early as 1521) were a significant additional fact.
Given that he took great pride in all his children's achievements even after discarding their mothers and even when he was seeing little of them I still find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have acknowledged Henry or Katherine as his if they were despite his new relationship with their aunt after all it was already something of a court joke that he'd moved from one sister to the other. He continued to treat Richmond well even when he was widely expecting Anne to deliver him his long awaited legitimate son.

161

The Tudors / Re: The Carey Children

« on: April 06, 2009, 02:09:30 AM »

Couple of points:
Henry VII claimed the throne by right of conquest - he won at Bosworth and was with the death of Richard III de facto King. He deliberately delayed marrying Elizabeth of York so that parliament wouldn't imply he owed his throne to either his own dubious genetic claim or his future wife's rather stronger one.
Secondly The Earl of Essex didn't need a spurious claim through the Carey line - he was like numerous members of the nobility descended legitimately from the Royal house of Plantagenet - most directly through Isabella of York sister of Richard Duke of York.
Thirdly bastardy was widely held to mean that you couldn't inherit real property from your putative father - it had been standard practice within the peerage that bastardy didn't necessarily mean you couldn't be helped up in the world but it did mean you wouldn't inherit your fathers styles or titles.  No bastard has ever sat on the English or later British Throne since William the 1st with the exception of Mary I and Elizabeth I who arguably had been born legitimate in the eyes of the law at the point of their birth.
Fourthly it has always struck me that if Henry Carey was Henry VIII's son he would have been likely to acknowledge him as further proof that his lack of a male heir was not his fault as he did with the Duke of Richmond. His relationship with Mary was well known hence his request for a dispensation to cover his marriage to someone who'se relation he'd had sexual relations with.

162

The Windsors / Re: Dukedomes of the United Kingdom

« on: April 02, 2009, 06:16:00 PM »

I suspect you are right about that. Firstly in the 20th and 21st Century the Royal Family have veered towards the more traditional Dukedoms (Gloucester Kent York etc) and most of those are still in existance apart from the tragic aberration that is the earldom of wessex - that Clarence must be regarded as unlucky despite being one of the oldest and the fact that York the traditional title of the second son (apart from under Victoria) is going to fall vacant at some point in the next twenty years or so. I do sometimes wonder that if William ever does marry before the death of the Queen then to avoid the Princess William issue would if not be more sensible for him to use one of his father's junior titles as a courtesy title like to eldest sons of any other British Peer - HRH The Earl and Countess of Chester anyone?

163

The Tudors / Re: Lady Jane Grey

« on: April 02, 2009, 06:04:46 PM »

Under a strict interpretation of the law both Mary and Elizabeth were technically illiegitimate - both on the grounds that their parents marriage was invalid.
Mary due to the English view that the papal dispensation of her parents marriage was illegal and Ellizabeth on the ground that her parents marriage was declared invalid shortly before the murder of her motherl.
However in law their legitimacy was irrelevant as their claims relied on the third Henrician Act of Succession not on the simple fact that they were the King's daughters.

I don't quite know whether I understand what you mean to say. Northumberland deliberately married his son to Jane precisely because of her claim to the throne - of course. Part of the scheme was to thus put his son on the throne as co-ruler.

So you assume Northumberland would have wanted Elizabeth as queen and that Jane was only his second best option simply because he knew Elizabeth wouldn't be "available" so to speak?

I don't actually think he ignored Elizabeth  because she would not have endorsed his scheme but rather because only by excluding both Mary and Elizabeth could he give his coup some sort of legality, arguing that Jane was the rightful successor because both of Henry's daughters had been pronounced illegitimate. But I'd have to check the evidence again.

both mary's and elizabeth's legitimacy was debatable. an unscrupulous man like northumberland could willingly eliminate mary and keep elizabeth in line - mary was illegitimate because her mother's marriage was not valid (due to her marriage to arthur tudor) and therefor elizabeth was legitimate because anne boleyn married a single man (his marriage was not valid). i'm sure that would have been more believable than the stretch that was to put jane on the throne (although it might not have worked anyway). however elizabeth already showed herself quite immune at such tricks with thomas seymour (even if record shows that she did like thomas seymour - he probably stood a better chance of manipulating her than northumberland) and was probably already quite prudent as a person. also she had no parents to influence her one way or the other (jane was constantly being beaten by hers - i believe i read that's how they got her to marry guildford dudley)... also she was a little older - at that age three years matter in maturity.

164

The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn

« on: March 21, 2009, 02:17:13 AM »

By all accounts she had a miniature of Anne in either a ring or broach that she always wore. Also during Elizabeth's lifetime fervent Protestants idolized Anne Boleyn as a great heroine of the English Reformation (at the same time Catholic writers held her up as a whore and worse). There were depictions of Anne during Elizabeth's coronation procession aswell. She didnt ignore her mothers memory but naturally she preferred to make more of her father whose memory was highly regarded by his subjects .

165

The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Relation to Alix

« on: March 21, 2009, 02:09:15 AM »

Every British Monarch from James VI and I and their descendants which include both Alexandra and Nicholas II *he was descended from James through both his parents as well* have to line of descent from Henry VII and his wife Elizabeth of York.
Line 1 - Henry VII - Margaret Tudor - James V of Scots - Mary of Scots - James VI and I
Line 2 - Henry VII - Margaret Tudor - Lady Margaret Douglas - Henry Lord Darnley - James VI and I
##