Messages

211

The Windsors / Re: Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II

« on: July 25, 2008, 11:10:44 AM »

I think a few years ago i might have been more upset at the idea of her being crowned - to be honest i am not that bothered about it now.  I've seen her on a couple of public occassions and she actually appears rather nice - not the high glamour of Diana - but i don't believe she deserves the appalling press she's had. 

We don't have morganatic marriages in the UK thank goodness - and if she's good enough to be his wife then in my view she's good enough to be Queen Consort.  Apart from the most passionate fans of the late Diana I don't think people will be that bothered either way.  I find the compromise the Palace and Charles invented rather silly - legally she is HRH The Princess of Wales and in time legally she will HM Queen Camilla.  The idea of a Princess Consort is daft - what rank does it give her - will she still be first lady of the land (in which case she might as well be Queen) would she outrank her future step daughter in law etc - what happens on a state visit or banquet when Foreign Royals arrive is she required to curtsey to Europe's future and present Queens Regnant and Consort.  Silly and confusing and a sop to those people who hold her responsible for Diana's misery when the only persons to blame for their marriage collapsing are Charles and Diana themselves. 

(there is of course the possibility that she or Charles might predecease the present Queen in any case when the point will be rather moot)

212

Having Fun! / Re: Your Ten Most Disliked Royals and why Pt II

« on: July 25, 2008, 10:52:46 AM »

With you on the Pauline laws - an attempt to regulate the succession might have been needed but so much of it was spite and mysogeny directed at his mother.

213

Having Fun! / Re: Your Ten Most Disliked Royals and why Pt II

« on: July 24, 2008, 11:59:25 AM »

I think the suggested names are all quite interesting - because we all tend to concentrate on failings of character rather than anything else - and failings of character don't always make a bad monarch.

Not many of the ones mentioned would make my top ten - for what its worth here's a few of my top ten - i've only chosen Royal figures who actually exercised power or who had a significant influence on poltical events..

1) Mary Stuart - more sinned against than sinning perhaps, but a woman who put her own desires above those of her nation, despite a childhood dominated by her uncles and her french in laws did little after returning to Scotland to prove she could be a capable monarch,   her death might lie at English hands but the English didn't depose her, completely undeserving of her "martyr" status, a status she actively sought after her trial and condemnation.

2)  Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor) - and not because he married Mrs Simpson (who i believe was the real victim of the abdication), rather spoilt and difficult individual, who had little concept of duty or responsibility, who's rare good deeds were thrown away by his many attempts to steal the spotlight after his abdication, his consistant failure to appreciate the limitations of a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy, for me the one thing that shows his general shallowness is the comment at dinner after visiting poverty stricken Wales (the visit that has prompted many to suggest an establishment conspiracy to get rid of him) telling people he approved of "splendour" - the same day he ordered yet another trinket from Cartier for Wallis - i am sorry his many apologists haven't quite sold him to me.

3) Richard III - again despite his apologist his actions lead to the collapse of his family and dynasty - whatever we think his nephews vanished from view during his reign, his actions in the months following his brothers death - don't suggest a man who wasn't willing to usurp his nephew's throne and his relationships with his brother's wife seem to have been amicable until Edward IV's death so those actions shouldn't be considered an attempt to protect himself from her and her relations whose greed has also tended to be rather exagerated.

4) Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia (consort of Nicholas II) - whilst anyone would sympathise with her for her difficulties and the position she found herself in and particularly her son's illness - she was a rather foolish, selfish woman who made in my opinion a significant contribution to the collapse of Imperial Russia.

Just a few of mine rather than 10 which seems a high number to me!

214

Having Fun! / Re: Your Ten Most Disliked Royals and why Pt II

« on: July 24, 2008, 07:33:58 AM »

That's sadly how he has been portrayed but its not actually true - firstly a reading of the court circular would be enough to prove that he couldn't have been jack the ripper.  The suggestion relates to a number of 20th Century films and novels which were devised to imply the crimes were a cover up for a secret liaison between Eddy and an unkown woman.  As to the male brothel - the suggestion was that he visited Cleveland Street which was indeed a male brothel - however if he did make the visit it might have been in ignorance.  More likely it has been suggested recently that some of those involved in the scandal Lord Arthur Somerset (equerry to the future Edward VII - Eddy's father) for example may have tried to involve the Prince in the scandal to help ensure they evaded prosecution.  Whilst i don't think its possible to prove whether Eddy had any bisexual leanings - we certainly know that he was fairly interested in women. He was initially very keen on his cousin Alix of Hesse (the future Empress Alexandra Feodorovna) however she didn't return his affections as she was already smitten by the future Nicholas II, next he fell for Helene D'Orleans - which seems to have been a definite love match on both sides - in fact it was the romance of it that convinced Queen Victoria (a sentimentalist at heart) to approve the idea despite Helene's religion (her father and the Pope refused to countenance her conversion though) - finally he seems to have decided to please his grandmother and propose to May of Teck.  Much of the denigration of Eddy is late 20th Century (largely it seems to emphasise " a lucky escape" for the nation that we got George V instead of his brother).  Both boys had a poor education and in fairness it should be pointed out that their mother wasn't the sharpest or most intelligent of women although both of them along with the British public adored her!

215

The Tudors / Re: "The Other Boleyn Girl" dramatized?

« on: July 23, 2008, 06:24:07 AM »

As Eric said Mary was the eldest sister.  The standard most commonly accepted dates of birth are Mary C1499 Anne C1501 and George C1504 - some historians (particularly Retha Warnicke- whose book is very interesting if anyone fancies a read) have argued for a 1507 birth date for Anne however most now accept that Mary was the eldest surviving child.   

216

French Royals / Re: The restoration of Monarchy in France, pretenders and possibility

« on: July 02, 2008, 12:33:07 PM »

That's an intelligent question  i've never really considered that either marriage (and you could include his own as well making it three marriages) would have been considered by a French Bourbon in the 18th Century as a royal one - however my understanding that in France no such thing as a morganatic marriage really existed (rather like in Britain) although secret marriages did exist where the wife wasn't recognised by her husbands title.  So technically that shouldn't damage  his rights - his grandfather renounced his rights in Spain (and at the time his marriage would have been morganatic in Spain) - the arguement really rests on the validity of the renunciations in the treaty of utrecht and how they were subsequently treated and regarded.

217

Having Fun! / Re: Had they all survived, where/how would they live?

« on: July 02, 2008, 07:45:52 AM »

You make some interesting points - but and its quite important - Germany made several mistakes - she grossly underestimated the strength of Belgian Resistance which did slow them down considerable as did the French victory at Marne.  The troops Germany moved east didn't even reach east Prussia until after the Russians were defeated at Tannenburg.  The pressure of a two front war was always going to present a huge logistical problem for germany and its fair to argue that early Russian successes, a slightly speedier incursion into East Prussia than Germany had expected presented them with a problem, however Germany's dash for Paris however quick (they nearly made it) was already near failure.  You can argue this both ways to be honest - but i think its a mistake to assume what was true in the second world war (when the Allies were quite happy for the Soviet Union to carry on suffering whilst they continued planning the invasion of France) was entirely true in the first - the allies did send Russia supplies etc through the war in fact it was one reason the French, Americans and Canadians landed in Russia in 1918 to try and prevent them falling into the arms of germany and the

As to Nicholas II - as i said earlier the provisional government was forced to give guarantees that the former Imperial family would remain in Russia as early as late March (as mentioned in the French Ambassador's memoirs) - and certainly there was continual pressure on the Provisional Government from the Soviet throughout this time about the continued freedom of certain members of the Dynasty (including the Dowager Empress and various Grand Duke's). It was difficult for Lvov and then Kerensky to have given any approval to an offer of asylum.  The British offer failed partly because of domestic political reaction in the UK which George V found unpalatable (at a time domestically when George V was more concerned about the safety of his own throne - whilst his diary entries make it clear he was worried about "Nicky's" safety - he was also quite critical of both "Nicky" and "Alicky").  Incidentally the offer was only withdrawn in April after which the Provisional Government had already publically pledged to keep the family in Russia - had they acted on receipt of the formal invitation and given the Tsar safe conduct immediately then he might well have been out of Russia by the end of March which was when George V started getting cold feet.

Your right hindsight is a wonderful thing - but i think you can argue that 1) Nicholas wasn't really betrayed by his allies 2) That Kerensky, a committed republican who used Michael Alexandrovitch's manifesto as a tool to proclaim a Russian Republic didn't do much to ensure the safety of the Imperial Family however much he tried to absolve himself of it (moving them Eastwards might have saved them from any baying Petrograd mob but it meant rescue would be even harder) 3) The First World War speeded up the collapse largely through the ever changing parade of incompetant ministers appointed, Nicholas' consistant refusal to reform (despite his own family begging him to do something), and the ever increasing misery of ordinary Russians.

We'll probably never agree but it is a real interesting debate - personally i think its too easy to ascribe the revolution and the Romanov Tragedy that followed on certain decisions made in London - i mentioned in an earlier post that the relationship between Russia and Britain was mutual distrust and mutual suspicion - if in doubt read some of Nicholas' comments during the boer war - the families might have been close but the countries never were - they were in fact accidental allies. 

218

Having Fun! / Re: Had they all survived, where/how would they live?

« on: July 01, 2008, 02:03:12 PM »

To be fair that isn't quite the case - Britain was rather dragged into a war not of its making and we did it to honour an absolutely aged treaty - The origins of the First World War are slightly more complex and Russia's early mobilization in defence of Serbia was closer to the actual spark of world war - to put it simply - ethnic Serbians stuck under austro hungarian control in Bosnia were desperate to be free in turn this lead "serb nationalists" to assasinate the Archduke Franz Ferdinand - Austria issued an ultimatum to independent Serbia that they would never have been able to accept - Austria was sure that Russia wouldn't mobilize in defence of Serbia if it came to war but to insure themselves Austria asked the Germans for guarantees that they would meet their treaty obligations if Russia did declare war.
Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th 1914, Russia then announced mobilization (the pan slavic movement and the general popularity of the idea of Russia supporting the orthodox slavs living in the Balkans was deeply embedded and remained strong).  Germany deeply militaristic viewed the long process of Russian Mobilization as a declaration of war on Austria Hungary and promptly declared war on Russia on the 1st August.  France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and Austria-Hungary on the 3rd of August.  Germany in accordance with plans laid down years below had already decided in the event of war against France invasion through Belgium (the quickest route to Paris) it was their invasion of neutral Belgium that caused Britain to entire the war.  Under treaty Britain had a very loose but certainly moral reason to defend France - but her declaration of war on Germany on the 4th August was primarily prompted by german troops crossing into Belgium and the Kings appeal to Britain under a 70 odd year old treaty guaranteeing Belgium's independence. German war planning had always assumed that Britain wouldn't go to war for France or for Russia even if they did find themselves in a war on two fronts.


Russian action in 1914 did little to bog down the divisions in the west  because of the variety of war planning conducted by all sides long before the conflict began.  Germany wanted six weeks (the time it would take the Russians to mobilize) to knock the French out of the war and then concentrate their army on supporting Austria in the east.  They very nearly achieved it and perhaps would have done if their top brass had been nearer their front, if communications had been better and they'd been better enabled to supply their troops at speed.  The Allies (britain and France) were better able to supply their front lines.

Russia's war planning was less well conceived - and Grand Duke Nicholas had actually played no part in their creation which might explain why disaster at Tannenburg happened - the second incursion into East Prussia and Galcia was of course more successfull and by the end of 1914 Russia controlled much of Galicia forcing Germany to provide more troops to assist the Austrians.  However Russia with the worlds largest army had a poorly equipped, poorly supplied one which was why she suffered such heavy losses.  The German high commands decision to make its main focus the eastern front was just as much to do with the fact that their troops were bogged down in trenches in France with little chance of movement than the idea that Russia was sending wave after wave of men to the eastern front keeping the pressure on to aid her western allies

Nor in fairness can you blame the war entirely for the disaster that followed - Russia was in a state of semi permanent revolution or revolt since the disaster of the Japanese War and the aborted revolution of 1905.  Strikes were rife in her industries in fact many members of Nicholas' government thought war might reaffirm the social order - it might have done had they had a decent infrastructure to enable them to supply the millions of men they were sending to die.  Had Nicholas made his seperate peace with Germany it would have been as politically disastrous for him as carrying on - particularly after his decision to appoint himself commander in 1915 which made every defeat the personal responsibility of the Dynasty as many of his family had realised when they begged him not to do it.  Its also debatable to use the arguement that had he made peace with Germany german divisions in Russia would have turned the tide on the eastern front - without Nicholas its highly likely that America might have joined the war earlier which would have made a significant difference. 
Nicholas II lost his Empire and tragically his life for a great many reasons - the war might have speeded up the collapse - but his "loyalty" to the allied cause is a very small part of that.
Whilst i am aware that around 20,000 russians (Who later mutinied) fought in France (which given the size of the russian army wasn't that many at all) i don't have full figures so i won't argue that point. 
To offer some one asylum is one thing - the other side have to let them go and despite kerensky's later comments by the end of march 1917 it was clear that it would have been difficult for the provisional government to have achieved that.

219

Books about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia / Re: Michael Gray - Blood Relative - The Tsars grandson?

« on: June 19, 2008, 09:06:58 AM »

From memory but i think it is extremely rare for Haemophilia to pass from Father to son - it is always passed through the mother I believe.

However I believe that daughters of haemophiliac fathers always inherit the gene.  Leopold Duke of Albany did not pass the disease to his son Charles Edward DUke of Saxe Coburg Gotha however his daughter Alice Countess of Athlone was a carrier and her son did have the disease whilst her daughter wasn't a carrier.

220

The Tudors / Re: Are there any good books on Henry VIII,his wives,and children?

« on: June 19, 2008, 08:35:01 AM »

Yes it was the Dunn the minute you mentioned the name i remembered - i didn't find it that dry i must be honest - but different tastes and all that!  I thought it rather good - to be honest i find anything on Mary a bit frustrating cos she is so irritating!!  The Fraser is very good i'd be interested how you find the perry cos the reviews were mixed i found it interesting though as so little has been done on the two sisters outisde the realms of romantic fiction.


tim

221

The Tudors / Re: Are there any good books on Henry VIII,his wives,and children?

« on: June 18, 2008, 10:28:57 AM »

For me of the ones mentioned Starkey is my personal favourite ( but that's probably coloured by the fact its a more recent read than the Fraser - i have to say that i am not too fond of the weir although i quite enjoyed her book on the children the name of which escapes me).  Starkey is particularly good on Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn which given that those two marriages account for 27 years of Henry's reign is what you'd expect - but its a heavy read if you've no knowledge at all of the subject!

I have to say i quite enjoyed Maria Perry's book on Henry's two sisters - though i think she captures Margaret of Scotland far better than Mary but that might be simply that after her marriage to Charles Brandon Mary's life is slightly less fascinating to me!  Although i might have enjoyed it because it was a welcome antidote to the numerous and never ending "new" biographies of Henry VIII, (his wives) and ELizabeth I - of all the most recent i most enjoyed the one that compares Elizabeth and Mary Stuart (sisters queens in one isle or some such is the title) - though not perhaps for those who like to romanticise that fake Royal Martyr Mary of Scots! (g)

Because unusually the Tudor left a plethora of state papers and correspondence that has survived they are perhaps the most written about Royal Family in English  - so you shouldn't have any problem finding decent stuff on them....though most authors are desperate to find some missing little details very few do!  You shouldn't have many problems getting hold of any of them whereever you are in the world!
 
tim

222

Having Fun! / Re: Had they all survived, where/how would they live?

« on: May 20, 2008, 11:45:15 AM »

I appreciate your coments and I think on the surface most people would agree - but it is because we have the benefit of hindsight - by the 1920's George was sitting on the most stable throne in Europe and we knew of the horrific fate of many of the Romanov family who hadn't escaped Russia, George may have had an inkling that Nicholas and Alexandra were in a dangerous position in 1917 when he expressed his concerns over the government's decision to offer asylum but he couldn't have foreseen the Bolshevik revolution of October - he wasn't a very forward thinking individual.

The British offer was made by the UK Government of Lloyd George AT THE REQUEST of the Provisional Government - Lloyd George believed that he was acting in the best interests of the allies and the King, who had already expressed his concerns, and it was motivated by his view that the Provisional Government was committed to the war - which was a naive hope when you consider the massive anti war demonstrations in Petrograd when news of the foreign ministers letter to the allied governments about their commitment to the war was leaked. 

Most allied governments welcomed the Czar's abdication - his poor credentials to the "liberal" governments of Western Europe as a "despot" had been compounded as he failed to control his rapidly collapsing government.  (they never really understood how much the war was contributing to that of course).  Ironically the Republican French press was kinder to him after his fall than the British.  Though the French didn't rush forward to offer asylum very much - though it was suggested at one point later in 1917 before the Bolshevik's took control.

Britain was fiercely anti Russian throughout the 19th Century - despite the personal family ties between the two royal families - British politicians had a notoriously anti russian streak - mainly because Russia was seen as a threat to British interests in the Eastern Med and to her Indian Empire many welcomed the collapse of the Russian Empire because it removed a stumbling block to Britain's imperial interests.  That made the offer of sanctuary politically even more sensitive.

In addition to that In Britain in 1917 George V was facing a press and left wing politicians that widely welcomed his cousin's abdication - the Labour Party and the trade unions were celebrating the fall of "bloody Nicholas" and his "german Empress" and were protesting at any offer of asylum - in fact the Coalition Government had to deny that any offer had been made in Parliament.  The timing was appalling for George on a personal level - he and his government were aware that events in Russia had given hope to numerous groups in the UK who wanted to see more radical change in British political and social life.  Because the British Throne is always seen as relatively safe we tend to assume that George might have worried unnecessarily about the threat to his own position of being too closely linked to his cousin but he had to do so.

Kerensky's own comments on the offer made in exile have always had the air of a man equally keen to absolve himself of any guilt for their ultimate fate preferring instead to blame Lloyd George and George V.  If he'd been that desperate he could have sent them to Finland where they could have. To be fair he was also desperate for his "glorious february" revolution to be seen as a bloodless democratic change - the Czar's survival was linked to that too.

The first mention of asylum is an enquiry to British Government from the Russian Foreign Minister on the 18th March 1917, Kings telegram offering asylum went on the 21st,war cabinet approval was made on 22nd, 23 March Telegram concerning the provisional invitation to the Tsar to come to England, 24 March  Telegram concerning request to Russian government to give Tsar safe conduct for departure to England, 26th March Foreign Office learnt that  King's telegram not delivered to Tsar through fear of misinterpretation, 28th March thanks conveyed from Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs at being asked to cancel King's telegram. 
Letters from the King expressing concern at the invitation begin at the end of March by the 17th April he was expressing a strong view the invitation to the Czar Not be taken up, by the 22nd of April there is relief from the King that the offer has been dropped. All the King's comments were based on public opinion despite his own strong and warm personal feelings for the ex Czar.

Lets also remember that the Provisional Government were also under pressure to keep Nicholas in Russia as Maurice Paleologue noted in his diary...

Saturday, March 24, 1917.
The Soviet has heard that the King of England is offering the Emperor and Empress the hospitality of British territory. At the bidding of the "Maximalists" the Provisional Government has had to pledge its word to keep the fallen sovereigns in Russia. The Soviet has gone further and appointed a commissary to "supervise the detention of the imperial family."

The Czar's family went to the Urals in August 1917 on Kerensky's orders to try and ensure their safety (or so he always maintained)
 - in April and May 1918 the family are moved to Ekaterinburg where they were killed in the July. 

After the October Revolution there are a couple of interesting suggestions that the British Government did instruct its agents to look at ways of freeing the Imperial Family amongst the papers and letters of some agents - some appear fallacy but some do appear to have the ring of truth about them. I think that issue is open to further exploration.

George V was a constitutional or more correctly a parliamentary monarch (something incidentally derided by both his autocratic cousins Nicholas II and William of Germany).  He decided in 1917 without the benefit of hindsight to stick to his own coronation oath and put the safety of his own country and own throne before any other personal considerations.  Its that decision that lead him in the same year to reject his german names and titles and also more reluctantly to sign the Titles Deprivation Act which he personally wasn't that happy about.

You said he should have sent a strong message to the Bolsheviks - what though - invade? - the british army was so overstretched when they did intervene after the Germans signed peace with the Bolsheviks - that very few British Troops landed in Russia during the early civil war.  Far more French, and American troops arrived in the july august of 1918.  And the Allied Military intervention in the Russian situation (largely over concerns about allied supplies sent to the Russians falling into German hands)  didn't begin until the July of 1918 which was really too late to have aided the Imperial Family.


The Bolsheviks were quite frankly not bothered what other imperial nations or monarchs thought any more than the french revolutionary tribunal was concerned about Austria's reaction when they sent Marie Antoinette to the guillotine.

223

Having Fun! / Re: Had they all survived, where/how would they live?

« on: May 19, 2008, 11:37:00 AM »

Given the political ramifications i doubt very much that George V would have been willing initially to give them sanctuary - perhaps at a push he would have offered a home to Alexandra and the children but not Nicholas.  I do have some sympathy for George V - its clear from his diary that he did fear for "nicky's" safety i think initially he probably was less worried for "Alicky" and the children - but his position was difficult.  1917 was the height of anti german feeling in Britain - he's already thinking about changing his family name, dropping his families german titles and styles.  Taking in a man that many democrats saw as a tyrant and emphasising the family connection wasn't ideal in any circumstances - and no matter being Queen Victoria's granddaughter Alexandra was still a german born princess as demonstrated by the unpopularity that engulfed her in Russia after war broke out.

Even had Nicholas and his family escaped and their only real chance after the October Revolution was if they'd been rescued by the whites had they survived long enough i don't think before peace in Europe Britain would have been an option in the King's view. 

I doubt by 1918/19  offering sanctuary to the ex czar would have appealed to the Government either as it had in 1917 when it was seen as offering a hand of friendship to the provisional government whom they were desperate to keep in the war.

George V was extremely generous to his "Aunt Minny" (her pension from the UK was considerable and far more than she ever received from her Danish Nephew - it was her choice to return to Denmark rather than stay in England) he also granted Xenia Alexandrovna a grace and favour home and an allowance - and she lived for another four decades.  From Queen Mary's diary Xenia was with them on some occassions and was included in Royal life and Minny was one of the main guests at the Duke of York's wedding dining with the immediate family at the wedding breakfast.  In due course he along with his sisters waived their rights to a proportion of Hvidore - allowing Xenia and Olga to share the full proceeds (apart from the proportion that was granted to George Brassov).  Politically it would have been much harder for him to have been so generous to Nicholas and Alexandra
 
I think we all tend to think rather unkindly of George V for not taking them in 1917 - but even after the war he remained very nervous and sceptical about the future of the British Monarchy - he was essentially not going to take risks with his throne for anyone.  He had a strong and firm view that his "job" if you like was the preservation of his own crown and family whether distant or close should come second to his constitutional responsibilities.

Had they survived then I think it more likely they would have ended up perhaps in Denmark (but given the reaction of the King to  his aunt being there i doubt they'd have been generously treated) or if the British Government was willing to help them perhaps further afield in Canada or perhaps South Africa at a push.

As to marriages - i think its difficult to speculate - i doubt very much they'd have married well - as daughters of an ex Czar their market value (to be crude) was considerably less than it would have been a decade earlier.  (there is also the fact that in exile Alexei's illness would have probably been more well known over time which in itself might have affected his sisters marriagability)

224

Having Fun! / Re: Why do people love Monarchy and the Aristocracy?

« on: May 19, 2008, 10:49:21 AM »

Probably a good idea to change your subject.

I don't know that the European Aristocracy at the end of the 19th Century/early 20th century was that convinced life would go on as it had forever.  If anything in much of europe it was their swan song and many of them seem to have known it.   If you think of the growth in assassination attempts on Royalty in this period there was an underlying tension even in the most stable nations.

The writing of the period, the press reaction to the political changes in many characters is more descriptive of a society trying to hold its position in a rapidly changing world and not sure they would survive.   I won't go on as you wanted us to try and keep things brief.

As to your question for your essay.

Romantics -

These are people for whom the past is a wonderful romance - the stuff of fairy tales - a world long gone of which we only get a hint.  They don't long for its return but they like to read about it. If you remember that before the birth of mass media (film, television and radio) - Royalty and the Aristocracy were real celebrities - what they wore and did filled the gossip columns of most newspapers.  Most popular biography of these people concentrates on their actual lives far more than their political role.  For example the endless discussion about the imperial children wouldn't necessarily interest a historian because their impact on their world was minimal - they didn't cause the Revolution, they didn't govern and make mistakes etc - but their appalling end occupies the romantic with endless questions of what might have been. 

For these people you usually find they are more interested in the clothing, the jewels, the art, the homes, and the way people actually lived and related to each other.  (you could also call them social historians but only really interested in one narrow section of society).  They are far more likely to be interested in the personal than the political. Although that's a bit of a generalisation.

there are also:

History Buffs:

Who are fascinated with how the world has developed full stop - nothing to stop them being interested in individuals - but they're as equally interested in the political as to what motivated characters to behave in such a way etc.  Their interests tend to concern only individuals who had or exercised political authority usually.

The two aren't mutually exclusive because they have so many cross overs often you find someone who started being interested in one particular character develops their interest and becomes as knowledgeable as the most well informed amateur historian and often the amateur historian will become so interested in the political events of a reign they will end up knowing loads about the individuals involved.

There are others whose interest is motivated by the political and religious but they are  i think a minority.

225

The Windsors / Re: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)

« on: May 12, 2008, 10:37:30 AM »

Her name choice effectively was designed to double "Queen" her - Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother" - Both Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra had on occassion been styled Queen Mother - though both continued to be known simply as Queen Mary or Queen Alexandra - the idea that she would be confused with her daughter wasn't really a reason for the new style since a monarch is always simply "The King" or "The Queen".

British Queen Consorts weren't often styled as "Dowager" in address.

She had an absolute gift for presenting an image that best suited herself and those around her throughout her life.  She was a consummate actress and was very clever about not letting the daylight in.

Its always been quite amusing to me that The Windsor families dislike of the Duchess of Windsor was based on their perception of her dominance of David particularly in the years building up to the abdication and afterwards.  The King and Queen's views were that whilst "dear david" wouldn't do anything bad "she might make him".  It was largely the view that the Duke and Duchess had of the King's relationship with the Queen. In essence both men adored their wives and trusted them above anyone else.

Queen Elizabeth was essentially a product of her time - she came from a generation where women of her background were not expected to be any thing more than good wives and mothers and that was the image she presented to the world at large.  However genuinely she hadn't wanted to be Queen up to 1936 she would have minded very much not been Queen after her husband's accession.  There is plenty of evidence that she had strong ideas, firmly held views and was very conservative (with a small c) - a complete aristocrat and not as apolitical as her husband or daughter.