Author Topic: Re: Physical Appearance of the Stuarts  (Read 107066 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kimberly

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #90 on: January 28, 2007, 06:04:37 AM »
What about poor old James II "Fiery face". SO called due to a large port- wine stain birth mark covering the side of his face?
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline bell_the_cat

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • I am he, who will bell the cat
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #91 on: January 28, 2007, 06:16:00 PM »
Sometimes people with large birthmarks can be quite attractive! It doesn't seem to have been aproblem for James II. I don't know if it's fair to judge James I of Scotland. He didn't bother to comb his hair or shave for the only portrait we have of him - so who knows?

James and Mary of Gelderland's children: James III was quite runtish, admittedly, but his brothers Albany and Mar were considered very good looking - Mar was so good looking and athletic that James arranged for him to be drowned in his bath. :'(

I agree that MB was the most beautiful Stuart. Mary Queen of Scots was good looking, but possessed also an incredible charm, a sort of inner sparkle! I don't think MB had this sort of charisma but she was physically very beautiful, and had a kind of goodness that augmented her beauty.

Certainly most of the Stuarts were ugly by todays standards. James I, Charles I and William III I would call ugly. Charles II was "ugly handsome". James II was handsomish but, sorry folks, not very exciting. The Duke of Monmouth was very handsome in my opinion!
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain)

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #92 on: January 28, 2007, 08:29:04 PM »
Yes, he had the best of his father's and his mother's looks ( the Duke of Monmouth).

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #93 on: January 29, 2007, 09:35:48 AM »
I don't think Monmouth resembles his father at all - he was far more conventionally handsome. I think he looks more like his uncle James, but with more charm and sparkle. Mary Beatrice's daughter Louise-Marie was also considered beautiful, and wasn't Bonnie Prince Charlie meant to be handsome?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #94 on: January 29, 2007, 10:07:24 AM »
Well, he had enough of his father's looks to look like a Stuart. I think he resembled his mother, Lucy Walter a bit as well, perhaps more than a bit.He always wished to prove he was a legitimate Stuart by saying that his father and mother were married, even though that wasn't true, there was no evidence. At any rate, he did have the true attitude of a Stuart.

Offline ivanushka

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #95 on: March 21, 2007, 01:00:11 PM »
I don't think most of the portraits of Mary, Queen of Scots really do her justice.   Look at her death mask- she was really stunning! 



I completely agree!  I've always found the portraits of Mary Queen of Scots as rather disappointing as she was clearly such a beautiful woman - something which all her friends AND enemies agreed on.  I'd always wondered what the fuss was about but then I stumbled across the death mask and it all made sense.  It's a fantastic face.  There's something really alluring about it.  Apparently she had amazing hazel eyes too which would only have added to the appeal.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #96 on: March 21, 2007, 02:30:12 PM »
Indeed, I don't think contemporary portrait painters did her justice. Maybe she didn't suit the style of painting or fashion popular then?

Offline ivanushka

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #97 on: March 22, 2007, 11:11:06 AM »
I think that must be right.  I guess it's like today with some people being more photogenic than others.  Apparently Madame de Pompadour had the same trouble.  In the flesh she was an incredibly attractive woman but painters just couldn't capture what it was that made her so special.

Offline Kimberly

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 3143
  • Loyaulte me lie
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #98 on: March 22, 2007, 11:46:49 AM »
But we see this with a lot of the portraits of that time. Supposed great beauties don't look anything of the kind to our eyes. Weren't there rigid conventions that had to be adhered too? Particularly around Elizabethan times.
Member of the Richard III Society

Offline bell_the_cat

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • I am he, who will bell the cat
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #99 on: March 22, 2007, 07:18:08 PM »
I beg to differ here...

 I think that the Clouet drawings of Mary as a young woman, show that not only was she physically very attractive, they also capture her great charm. However I'm maybe not a great judge - I also like Rachel out of "Friends"! ;D ;D
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. (Mark Twain)

Offline ivanushka

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #100 on: March 22, 2007, 08:17:53 PM »
No, I agree - the Clouet drawings are lovely.  It's the more adult ones that don't seem to "get it" so to speak.  I think part of the problem is that though Mary was very physically attractive, an important part of her allure was her personality.  Apparently she had an absolutely beautiful speaking voice and incredible charm - qualities that no painter could capture.

Offline LenelorMiksi

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #101 on: January 05, 2008, 06:04:04 PM »


Okay, I kept wondering about this portrait and the symbolism in it.  Palatine already said the white horse was the symbol for the House of Hanover.  The red lion she's holding was on the coat. Half of her skirt is red because she was executed wearing a red petticoat- which I think was very spirited.  She surrounded by the red and white roses of the Tudors.  What the red glove means is beyond me.  The other side of her skirt is decorated with the fleur-de-lis because she was Dowager Queen of France.  Queen Elizabeth is peering out of half of her bodice. The Knight on her side has a bunch of men quarreling in his head- maybe they are the Scottish lords fighting with themselves.  The woman being chased down by a man on horseback may be Bothwell abducting her.  The Knight's sword is in some kind of fruit- I'm not sure what that's all about.  She has the arches of a cathedral above her, surely a reference to Catholicism.
Grand Duchess Alice of Hesse:  "Each year brings us nearer to the Wiedersehen [reunion with the dead], though it is sad to think how one's glass is running out, & how little good goes with it, compared to the numberless blessings we receive.  Time goes incredibly fast."

Offline Mari

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
    • View Profile
Re: Best Looking Stuarts
« Reply #102 on: January 06, 2008, 08:05:46 AM »

Quote
Mary Queen of Scots removed her gloves (then considered a Royal symbol) when she went to the scaffold to prevent them from rudely being stripped from her.
Quote


from this site:  http://www.gloveassociation.org/aboutBGA/gloves.php?page_id=63

The Lion is the symbol of England and you note the glove (royal Symbol) and the Lion are all red....

Offline Glastonbury

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Physical Appearance of the Stuarts
« Reply #103 on: December 07, 2009, 11:52:20 AM »
I recall that both James I (VI) and Charles I were tongue-tied the piece of skin under the tongue extending all the way to the tip. James aked that the string under his son's tonue be cut 'for he hath not yet said a word'. Was this genetic signiture the same for al or most of the Stuarts does any one know? There are a couple of other family signs. I think that there was something to do with the little finger having only one (a double) joint with one or two of them, I think, and something to do with the back of the head? Does anyone know more?

aleksandr pavlovich

  • Guest
Re: Physical Appearance of the Stuarts
« Reply #104 on: December 07, 2009, 12:26:09 PM »
Regarding Reply # 101 of this topic:  I had never read this section until today, but I do have one observation/correction on the "symbolism" in the painting:  The forum member in #101 refers to "The knight's sword is in some kind of fruit..."  In actuality the pierced object is a musical instrument, the lute. Allegorically, it could be interpreted in a number of ways given the situation, such as a voice being stilled, etc.   AP.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 12:30:04 PM by aleksandr pavlovich »