Author Topic: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal  (Read 20328 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #60 on: November 01, 2006, 02:29:17 AM »
i didn't say alix was not royal in blood. she obviously was. and i don't think anyone denied her blood and her ancestors. but this is not what we're judging here and i don't think minnie judged that either.

first of all you can't compare the throne of england with that of denmark in here. one - the comparisson is irrelevant because this was not what we were discussing. two - alix was a princess of hesse. if you want to discuss royal blood, we discuss the parents starting with the fathers - king of denmark and grand duke of hesse.

but that was not of relevance. i'm sure minnie was aware of her daughter in law's royal blood. what is of relevance however in this conversation is alix' behaviour. if she tried, she gave up way too fast. she took the easy way out. 'oh, my mother in law is not letting me be a proper empress. bugger. i'll just go to tsarkoe selo and sulk for the rest of my life.'

let's get real. i don't think any woman enjoys losing her position. and i think it was expected for minnie to try to hang on to whatever she had before. and i still think that's understandable and does not diminish her royal status. alix, on the other hand, simply gave up. how can you blame minnie for this? i'm sure it was entirely possible for both of them to fill a place at the russian court.

i'm not judging royals for failing. prince albert was not appreciated in his life but he tried - and tried - and tried again. that's why he's on my best royals list. vicky was rejected at the german court but tried and tried and tried. she might have not been an important empress as far as influence goes but she did the best she could in the situation she was in. she's also on my best royals list (i don't agree with someone who said in this thread - because she didn't have the chance to do anything she was a bad royal. being a good royal is something you are or you aren't - and it doesn't change with circumstances and with the fact that your husband died after three months' rule).

alix and nicky didn't try. alix tried once or twice for the sake of trying, didn't succeed so she gave up. nicky let himself be convinced by her to stop trying too. they both convinced themselves 'we're emperors, nothing wrong can happen'. i'm sorry, this is not royal. and this is not minnie's fault.

Offline ChristineM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #61 on: November 01, 2006, 03:17:55 AM »
OK Ilyala.   I guess you are not a native English speaker and I congratulate you on this robust debate.   However, I must caution against one word used in your last post.   This is a word which is not permitted on the Forum.

Thank you for the 'jousting' match.   I'm sure you will agree - we must agree to disagree.

tsaria

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #62 on: November 02, 2006, 02:11:37 AM »
no, i'm not a native english speaker. (is 'bugger' forbidden? i can't find any other world that might be offensive...  :-\). thank you back for this civilized debate and i agree to disagree :)...

any other best/worst royal lists?

Offline ChristineM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #63 on: November 02, 2006, 03:46:22 AM »
Hearty congratulations Ilyala.   I would find it absolutely impossible to conduct any sort of debate in a language other than English, especially a discussion so detailed and considered.   So, you have my, and I am sure all other native English speakers, respect for your work.   What is your native language?

To be honest, I don't really have lists of good or bad... best or worst.    But, if pushed, I have to say I cannot go beyond the trio of Queens - Elizabeth, Victoria, Elizabeth - for me they're the best.   The rest are not of significant importance, for me, to even consider.   

Of course their is another female.   A very, very remarkable female - Catherine the Great, but she is neither Windsor, British nor 'English'.   I think she is my Number 1.

I have to stress, it is purely coincidental these are all females.   I have not gone out of my way to find females, I just think they happen to stand head and shoulders above any male monarch I can think of.

tsaria

PS:  b..... is not allowed.   I cannot think of another word either.  I know you meant it inoffensively, but Forum Admin and Grandduchessella might disagree with me.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2006, 03:48:29 AM by tsaria »

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #64 on: November 02, 2006, 08:23:11 AM »
Is there anything to be said for Queen Adelaide? She was a wonderful queen consort - charitable, modest, kind hearted. She was also a very good influence on her husband William IV - in fact, I think she was the making of him.

And you're right, tsaria, it seems to always be women who spring to mind! There have of course been plenty of good kings - George VI especially and I think ilyala mentioned Henry VII?

"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."

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #65 on: November 03, 2006, 02:42:01 AM »
Hearty congratulations Ilyala.   I would find it absolutely impossible to conduct any sort of debate in a language other than English, especially a discussion so detailed and considered.   So, you have my, and I am sure all other native English speakers, respect for your work.   What is your native language?

To be honest, I don't really have lists of good or bad... best or worst.    But, if pushed, I have to say I cannot go beyond the trio of Queens - Elizabeth, Victoria, Elizabeth - for me they're the best.   The rest are not of significant importance, for me, to even consider.   

Of course their is another female.   A very, very remarkable female - Catherine the Great, but she is neither Windsor, British nor 'English'.   I think she is my Number 1.

I have to stress, it is purely coincidental these are all females.   I have not gone out of my way to find females, I just think they happen to stand head and shoulders above any male monarch I can think of.

tsaria

PS:  b..... is not allowed.   I cannot think of another word either.  I know you meant it inoffensively, but Forum Admin and Grandduchessella might disagree with me.

my native language is romanian but i've been studying english since i was 7 intensively so it's become more of a second mother tongue.

another poster was kind enough to privately inform me what "b..." means. i must apologize and say that i picked it up from english movies where i understood it meant something like 'damn'. that's what i meant. hopefully i didn't offend anyone, no english course teaches english bad language  ;D

as for the female versus male thing... females stuck more to the public's mind because they were special and because they were more careful with their public image. males care less about this sort of thing. but i can think of many royal kings - yes, i did mention henry 7th... george 6th also, and i must say i would vote for george the 5th and edward 7th also (edward's reign was short but extremely important for the future european history).

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13039
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #66 on: November 03, 2006, 09:16:20 AM »
I had to look up what the word meant. Like ilyala, I'd mostly heard it in movies and in George V's famous comment about Bognor. It seems the modern usage (from what I could find online) is less offensive and more 'slangy' (the online dictionary used it to mean disappointment or react to a very bad occurence) and this is the version I'm more familiar with. I wouldn't have found it offensive but I'm not British and wouldn't know all the connotation to the word and its usage.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

boffer

  • Guest
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #67 on: November 03, 2006, 10:44:18 AM »
There is also a story of when George V used the word in more serious and offensive terms. He once flatly denied to knight a man after finding out he was homosexual and said "I do not knight b..."

Sorry if this inappropiate but i would like to point out that people use it in both meanings, but nearly always the more lighthearted "damn" way.

Offline ChristineM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #68 on: November 03, 2006, 11:45:47 AM »
Interesting, the different connotations of the same English word in differing English-speaking cultures.   In th UK, this word is very much frowned upon.   In terms of profane language it would be placed immediate beneath the most offensive of all.

To read Ilyala's facility with the English language along with the extent of historical knowledge make me, for one, have a very high respect for educational standards in Romania.   This bodes well for the extension of Europe in the New Year.

Sorry to be off topic, but I feel it only fair to highlight the remarkable endeavours of Ilyala and many others who take part in this Forum.

tsaria

ibelong2me

  • Guest
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #69 on: November 05, 2006, 11:22:13 AM »
Was a bit lost at first reading this topic...at first I thought the list would be narrowed down to just the windsors but it seems that isn't the case, and that you can pick from outside Britain. I've narrowed my answer down to just english/british as that is my more knowledgeable area!

This question sounds easier that it is, I mean can you really compare fairly a monach from 1066 or so to those of the 19th Century? The role and requirements that make a good monarch have changed greatly over time, what made a bad monarch back in medieval England may well make a good one today!

My top contender for 'worst monarch' would have to go to Richard I (aka The Lion Heart)...though many argue that it did us a favour that he didn't hang around England for long!

Am unsure as to 'best monarch'...Elizabeth I would definately be a top-ranker. Shall have to have a longer think!

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: Royals who were the best/worst at being royal
« Reply #70 on: November 05, 2006, 11:40:13 AM »


This question sounds easier that it is, I mean can you really compare fairly a monach from 1066 or so to those of the 19th Century? The role and requirements that make a good monarch have changed greatly over time, what made a bad monarch back in medieval England may well make a good one today!


That's a very good point. The only way I can think of sorting monarchs out is by pre-Glorious Revolution and post-Glorious Revoltion, when the monarch's role changed from someone who ruled to someone who reigned.
"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."