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 - mcdnab

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16
61
The Tudors / Re: Edward VI and Jane Grey
« on: February 08, 2011, 04:07:34 PM »
Edward himself showed no great desire to marry his first cousin once removed though he admired her learning - everything he wrote that has survived and was reported during his lifetime show a young man growing into the character of his father - he had an absolute determination to forge a foreign dynastic alliance - unlike his sisters there was no taint of illegitimacy and he was already King.
The rough wooing delayed early betrothals with anyone else religion was no bar - in fact it was in Charles V's and his son's interests to ensure Edward married someone amenable to Spain and the Hapsburgs as a block on France - equally the French would have happily seen Edward married to a French princess to avoid an anglo spanish alliance - Edward's religious preferences might have made a protestant german or scandinavian princess more suitable but in erms of poltical and dynastic prestige (with the failure of the rough wooing) France and the Hapsburgs were still the best game in town.
Northumberland was keen on Elizabeth Valois (who later married Philip II of Spain) and an alliance with France (once it was generally accepted that Mary Stuart was lost to France and Elizabeth's brother Francis.)

On the marriages of the three senior descendants of Edwards Aunt Mary Tudor - Jane Grey, Catherine Grey and Margaret Clifford - there is evidence that Northumberland was working on these alliances before Edward's illness and before it became clear that the young King was dying - and given Northumberland's power it would have been sensible for him to have tied up these individuals - Jane in her own right would in time be a great heiress irrespective of her relationship to the throne and Margaret Cllifford was also her father's heir. The only descendant of Henry VII that would have suceeded under the intial semi salic succession that Edward VI seemed to favour would have been Henry Lord Darnley (excluded under Henry VIII's will) which is why the device initially left the throne to the heirs male of Lady Jane Grey (on the grounds her mother was unlikely to have further children) - it was changed when it became apparent how close to death Edward was to the Lady Jane Grey and her heirs male and then to the heirs male of Lady Catherine, Lady Mary and Margaret Clifford.

62
Having Fun! / Re: What Ifs or Alternate Histories
« on: February 07, 2011, 11:05:08 PM »
It is quite difficult to say (with the benefit of hindsight of course)
But a surviving Alexander II might well have introduced some slight move away from autocracy - but there were plenty of people at court and in the imperial family in the 1880s who were opposed to Alexander II moving any further. The pace of change had not and would never satisfy those groups opposed to the autocracy. His assassination was certainly 'proof' to his son and his grandson that liberalisation was not the answer - and whilst Alexander III was strong enough and hard-working enough to hold off disaster Nicholas II wasn't (though circumstances didn't help him).
Any assasination attempt that he survived could have derailed his plans - and to be fair Alexander II wasn't moving to a constitutional monarchy but rather moving to a form of liberal autocracy and a slight loosening of the reigns - had he succeeded Russia by the turn of the century might have moved peacefully to a semi-absolutist state (as she was forcibly moved to in 1905) which over time might have moved even further.
One problem is the way in which Nicholas II and his oldest siblings were educated - with this absolute blind obedience to the will of the Tsar their grandfather and later their father - one author has suggested that it smothered their ability to question authority making it hard for Nicholas in particular to accept or initiate political change.

63
The Windsors / Re: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)
« on: February 02, 2011, 02:59:49 AM »
RichC
I think that your initial point about the portrayal of Churchill and Edward VIII in the movie is a perfectly valid one and I wasn't having a go so to speak.
I think part of the problem is Churchill, George VI, Queen Elizabeth and Edward and Mrs Simpson have been so mythologized by the events of the late thirties that portraying any story about them accurately is virtually impossible. In many people's minds the three - Churchill, George and Elizabeth have become so intrinsically linked by those wartime images (and in many case propoganda) that to portray the mistrust that existed between the three of them on Churchill's elevation to the premiership is really hard.
I think also the mystique around Churchill (who was a pretty awful peacetime prime minister) has made it hard to show him in anything less than a favourable light and he doesn't come out of the abdication crisis particularly well (he was the only leading politician who refused to give Baldwin a guarantee that if the Government resigned over the issue he, Churchill, wouldn't be willing to try and form a government). It was in part not helped by his closeness to Beaverbrook's whose papers were very pro-Edward and anti-Baldwin.
By 1936 the good relationship between Edward and his siblings and in-laws had virtually collapsed due to his passion for Mrs Simpson - his family simply didn't understand how he could behave like this and they were willing then and in the following decades to heap all the blame on her - again it is hard to treat Edward fairly in film because the public, particularly in Britain, still think of his pro-german reputation as being pro-Nazi and many equate him with the fascism of Moseley and his followers (who were all very pro-Edward) whether that is fair is harder to say but it makes difficult drama when he is not the leading character, which he isn't in this film.
As to the other stuff I think dramatic licence is fine - but I would prefer drama's that masquarade as fact to at least try and stick to the known facts about certain individuals - it is dramatic enough without embellishing it.

64
The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Kate Middleton
« on: February 01, 2011, 05:01:33 AM »
Actually it wouldn't be that incorrect lol - A Queen consort is usually just referred to as HM The Queen - in widowhood she is usually Queen (Forename) to distinguish her from the current Queen Consort or Regnant. So during the Queen Mother's widowhood the Household referred to her as Queen Elizabeth and the current monarch was correctly The Queen. However during the reign it is fairly common for the Queen's forename to be used in conversation or in print.


I wonder, when Katherine becomes queen, will people nitpick about how it presumably is technically incorrect to refer to her as Queen Katherine instead of The Queen?

65
The Windsors / Re: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)
« on: February 01, 2011, 04:38:48 AM »
In common with the vast majority of people King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were entirely pro-appeasement in the thirties (as were most of their friends and aquaintances). For anyone who'd lived through the First War trying to avoid another one is hardly a crime - Edward VIII was certainly more pro-german he spoke it better than his brother (dating to a visit to his mother's great aunt in Mecklenburg Strelitz before the First War) and saw himself as committed to peace hence his misguided visit to Germany after his abdication - it is still debatable whether he was misguided, plain stupid or desperate to find some kind of role. His actions during his short reign with regard foreign policy would at a push be regarded as unconstitutional but then so would the blatant support that George VI and most of the Royal Family gave Chamberlain right up until his resignation and ultimate death.

In part that was because Chamberlain was utterly on their side (he was determined that Edward VIII be kept away, had never fallen for his charm and had told his sister that the Duchess of York was the 'only royalty' he could get along with, he was a very loyal friend during protracted negotiations over the new civil list for the new King and Queen) - to them he was the politician who was committed to peace, and perhaps more importantly wasn't Churchill who they saw as very pro-Edward VIII (unlike his wife who was less charmed by Edward and his american consort) - Churchill's views changed over time and certainly he and the King became close (but it took a lot of work on both sides in the early days of Churchill's premiership). It is perhaps staggering that the great opponent of Nazism was so romantically attached to Edward VIII - but then many people were.

It is so easy 70 years after the event that we find it staggering that anyone didn't want to fight Hitler and his vile regime - but it is a mistake whilst there were many people in many countries who were convinced that war was inevitable and something had to be done - the vast majority of people certainly in France and Britain would have done anything and sacrificed anyone to prevent war.

I also dislike the snide tone of articles like Hitchens which in effect boils down to oh of course they were pro-german they are german...well dynastically that is so but at its heart it is just a less than subtle form of racism that is acceptable because it attacks the institution. If one attacked an Irish, Jewish or Asian emigree on those grounds one would quite rightly be castigated for it.


66
The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Kate Middleton
« on: January 19, 2011, 11:00:41 AM »

I agree Windsor is extremely unlikely -  has no tradition at all and unpleasent memories for the Queen in particular.
Personally if it wasn't the awkwardness of Catherine becoming Princess William i think William would have happily waited until his father's accession and with it his elevation to the Dukedom of Cornwall and probably fairly quickly his creation as Prince of Wales.
The public and press will almost certainlyrefer to her as Princess Catherine despite its innacuracy as they did with the late Diana the advantage of a title is that it tend to prevents it from happening as it did with the Duchess of York and has done with the Countess of Wessex.
 

67
The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Kate Middleton
« on: January 19, 2011, 07:11:42 AM »
On her marriage she becomes automatically Princess William of Wales and Royal Highness. It is usual in recent history for Prince's of The Blood with no other title to be granted a title to avoid the confusion over their wives styles. The Queen doesn't request a title to be granted she simply grants it.
One other option that few people have pointed out is that William could simply use a courtesy title (one of his father's lesser one's - for example Earl of Chester).
The Wales style issue is a silly one - we've had Princesses of Wales for centuries. Camilla is legally Princess of Wales but doesn't use it because of sensitivities over the late Diana which is understandable if rather daft. In due course i have no doubt Catherine will be Princess of Wales (on Charles accession to the throne). She certainly will become Duchess of Cornwall at the moment Charles becomes King (the title is automatic to the male heir to the throne whilst Wales has to be created).
One current problem is the lack of traditional royal titles - Victoria avoided the traditional ones for her children because of the associations with her own Hannoverian Uncles - but used traditional titles for her grandsons - Duke of Clarence for Prince Eddie (first used for the second son of Edward III and again for the eldest brother of Edward IV - fell out of useage and York became the preferred title for a second son) and Duke of York for the the future George V.
George V reverted to tradition - using York, Gloucester and Kent for his second, third and fourth surviving sons. The present Queen used tradition for her second son but respected the wishes of her youngest son with regard his wish to have his father's Dukedom which he can only have on the death of the Queen and Prince Philip (as a new creation).
The only really vacant ones are Clarence and Cambridge (Clarence has dodgy associations - the murder of George Duke of Clarence in the 1470s and the early death of Prince Eddie - Edward VII's eldest son) - Cambridge is a relatively recent royal dukedom (first used in the 17th century for sons of the Duke of York who was heir presumptive as the brother of Charles II)  but has strong associations for the Queen as Queen Mary's mother was the sister of the last Hannoverian Duke of Cambridge (who married in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act and couldn't pass the title to his descendants) - Queen Mary's brother Adolphus was created Marquess of Cambridge in 1917 when he relinquished his German styles the title is now extinct though.
Most of the traditional titles aren't extinct and not likely to be - Kent and Gloucester have plenty of heirs and spares, York won't fall vacant again until the death of Prince Andrew (his daughters can't inherit it). Of the titles used by the Hannoverians and for Queen Victoria's sons - Albany is suspended (but belongs to the descendants of the Duke of Saxe Cogurg Gotha), Cumberland is also suspended (would by rights belong to Prince Ernst of Hannover), Edinburgh is held by the Queen's husband, and Connaught is extinct but unlikely because it is an Irish province.

There is of course nothing to stop the Queen (and William) choosing any title though!

68
The Tudors / Re: Could Catherine of Aragon have lied?
« on: January 05, 2011, 05:49:56 AM »
Absolutely - there is little in the surviving evidence that suggests there was much wrong with Prince Arthur - and certainly the level of distress exhibited by his parents at his death suggests that it wasn't an end to a lifetime of suffering or a long expected event.
His health is one reason i believe that some attempt at consummation was attempted whether successfully or not - i tend to think that given Catherine's relative innocence and the interests of those around her she was at that time unsure herself or allowed herself to commit to a 'truth' that she stuck with for the rest of her life.

69
The Tudors / Re: Could Catherine of Aragon have lied?
« on: January 03, 2011, 03:01:32 AM »
A few points to add to this interesting discussion:
Firstly the question has no bearing on the legality of Catherine's second marriage.
As Starkey showed the dispensation covered all eventualities to satifsy both parties (the English were insisting the marriage had been consumated whilst the Spanish court was saying it hadn't been). Henry's main arguement was that the Pope had no right to dispense what was a biblical ban irrespective of whether Catherine and Arthur's marriage had been consummated.
Catherine was a teenage girl alone in a foreign country with arguing attendants and a dowery that was only part paid and entirely dependent on the charity of her father in law. According to her own attendants comments at the time of the dispensation it is entirely possible that she herself wasn't entirely sure what had happened but as with many people however devout and honest memories fade and change - and by the late 1520's it absolutely suited her purpose to insist on her viriginity at the time of her second marriage.
I for one find it hard to believe that two attractive teenagers thrown together with the eyes of their small court upon them and the hope of their respective families resting on them didn't do something.
As to the motivations - the french raised questions over Mary's legitimacy in the early 1520's but it is clear as Reginald Pole wrote at the time that the King's desire for Anne Boleyn was the engine behind his wish to declare his first marriage invalid which was his only route to his desire for a new wife.
I for one have no doubt that Henry hadn't tired of her by the time of their marriage and the birth of Elizabeth - though I think Anne's strong temperament and increasing stress (after failing to produce the much promised son) ultimately turned their passion sour.

70
The Windsors / Re: "The King's Speech" film
« on: January 03, 2011, 02:35:52 AM »
Am off to see the picture later this week - but to many in the thirties the Duchess of Windsor was indeed regarded as a charming and witty woman - just one of many reasons that the Duke fell so hard for her. However to others particularly many of the Duke's family she was regarded as hard. Given the film is principally about George VI I am hardly surprised if she is portrayed without much sympathy.
She had been largely blackened in the British publics eyes over the year - largely unfairly - because of two reasons 1) the Royal Family simply couldn't bear to blame Edward VIII for his behaviour during and after the abdication blaming it all on his wife suited them and 2) many of the establishment who had happily entertained her as the King's 'friend' shall we say were exceptionally quick to attack her after the abdication in order to curry favour with the new regime.
In recent years many of the documents about her held by the British Government have been released and don't show her in a particularly favourable light whether you believe them to be accurate or invention designed to put the King off although it is likely he was never shown them.
Personally i think much of the difficulties lay at the Duke's door and i think it is all credit to her that she stuck with him for the remainder of his life.

71
I think that the personal relationships between Marie Feodorovna and her sister Queen Alexandra has often clouded the real politik of British Russian relations. Russia and Britain were strong imperial rivals particularly in the Middle-East and had been for much of the 19th century - Britain's continuing support for Turkey was a particular issue because propping Turkey up had an impact on the emerging Balkan states which tied in strongly with the emerging pan-slavism and pan-orthodox movement. Nicholas, despite his affection for Uncle Bertie, celebrated British defeats during the Boer War for example.
It was ironic that in society there was a spurt of anglophilia in Russia during the last decades of the Tsarist regime.

The growing left wing political movements in Britain had a particular loathing for Russia as one of the last bastions of absolutism, many Russian revolutionaries and jewish emigrees fleeing persecution had ended up in Britain. It was one of the reasons why Nicholas II visited Queen Victoria at Balmoral and made no official visit to London because of fears over his security.

There was a strong anti-german view that grew in the Russian and British courts both Marie and Alexandra never forgave the Danish Prussian war and the humiliation it had heaped on their father that fed into the existing views of Alexander III, Nicholas II and Edward VII and the families almost universal dislike of the Kaiser. The Kaiser of course believed he had an excellent relationship with Nicholas and allowed treaties to fall in the 1890s the effectively forced Nicholas into the treaty with France. It was of course ironic that his pro-french uncle Edward VII was equally pushing his government into a treaty with France, that would result in the most unlikely of allies.

Britain could and probably should have kept out of the war in August 1914 and may well have done so if Germany hadn't invaded Belgium.

72
The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn
« on: November 10, 2010, 06:10:16 AM »
I'd read another review of it - personally i'll stick with the views of Ives and Starkey who at least give a fair interpretation based on historical fact than assume - but i am sure it will be welcomed by some

73
The Windsors / Re: King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)
« on: October 11, 2010, 07:28:54 AM »
 I think there is always going to be a problem with portraying Queen Elizabeth in film and television for the next few years as there is still a very wide gap between the general perception of her by the public and the perception given in many biographies (and the differneces within those biographies)

It is rare that a script and an actress can present a portrait of a near contemporary that is as moving for example as that of Helen Mirren in the Queen.

Helena Bonham Carter has been excellent in several recent things she's done (i am thinking of her portrayal of Enid Blyton for BBC 4 most recently) and I suspect that she is going to be rather good in the King's Speech but naturally we have to wait until we've seen the film to be able to comment.

The only previous attempt on tv and in film recently was ITV's Bertie and Elizabeth (produced about five years or so ago) - highly romanticised and not particularly good although the leads did a pretty good job with a rotten script.

What I am saying here is that I am not convinced yet that she could play The Queen Mum and convince us that she was her.

Perhaps once you've actually seen the film and her whole performance, you'll have a different opinion. At the very least, you will then be able to make an informed opinion.

74
The Stuarts of Scotland / Re: Lady Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox
« on: September 16, 2010, 08:12:42 AM »
Henry VII was very aware that in default of his son's line that Margaret's descendants might inherit - he said it didn't matter because the "greater would swallow the smaller" - ie England being richer and more populous would be the dominant partner in any personal union.

Henry VIII's relationship with Margaret's mother was in permanent strain - he continually failed to head her requests for help to retain and regain the regency of Scotland, he preffered instead to listen to both her second and third husbands, failed to understand he reasons for coming to terms with Hamilton (who was seen as pro-french and anti-english), he also ironically believed that her marital traumas were shaming to the whole family. Margaret Tudor was a living example of the adage marry in haste and repent at leisure (something her granddaughter Mary Stuart should have remembered !)
It is hardly surprising that Henry did exclude her descendants from the succession - whilst the young Margaret Douglas was popular with her Uncle her early amorous adventures helped put an end to that and probably contributed to her exclusion from his will. Her eventual marriage was a political one but was seen as a reward to Lennox for his pro-english stance following the death of James V.
Margaret should have at least inherited a portion of her father's estate and she was still making a deal of it decades later.
The Lennox Hamilton rivalry dominates 16th Century Scotland - their claims had nothing to do with unequal marriages many Scots Queen's up to the 16th Century were not of Royal Birth.

Hamilton line:
James II - Mary Stewart married secondly James 1st Lord Hamilton - James Hamilton 1st Earl of Arran - marred 1) Elizabeth Home (divorced 1506 when it was discovered that her first husband was still living) 2) Janet Beaton - James Second Earl of Arran and Duke of Chatelherault. Heir to the throne of Scotland 1542.
Lennox line: James II - Mary Stewart married secondly James 1st Lord Hamilton - Elizabeth Hamilton married Mathew Stewart Earl of Lennox - John 3rd Earl of Lennox - Matthew 4th Earl of Lennox  married Lady Margaret Douglas.

The dispute centred on the legality of the 1st Earl of Arran's marriage to Janet Beaton. They were also rivals in the Clydesdale area and Glasgow which made matters worse.

Margaret remained close to Mary Tudor, her cousin throughout her life and indeed she was well treated by her and often given precedent over Elizabeth Tudor during Mary's reign. At Elizabeth's accession she retired from court to her home in Yorkshire - she was an intelligent woman and doted on her sons - in fact many people believe that had Elizabeth allowed her to travel north to join her husband she might have been able to keep Darnley in check.
Darnley in fairness was a teenager when he went North and Mary fell for him - not surprising that at his first taste of real freedom he went off the rails.
Margaret was pretty well treated by Elizabeth, despite her religion, and incarceration in the tower was a bit of an occupational hazard for people of her rank and closeness to the throne and she wasn't above intrigue

75
The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna
« on: September 16, 2010, 07:23:46 AM »
I thought this had been discussed before -
The Queen invariably stands to greet guests she has excellent manners - but it means nothing in terms of recognition and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16