Seewalds 30: No new baby, but with more recipe thread-drift

[eleanora3]

Sorry if this has been posted already, can't wade through all the thread drift, but how cute!

[singsingsing]

8 minutes ago, JordynDarby5 said:

I've been interested in her ever since I watched the movie on her years ago.  Until then I never heard anything about her except she was crazy. The movie made me want to learn more about her especially the scene where she makes her case at the court assembly was really good. She completely got screwed over. She still kind of does. Other women in history have had people rethink them or look at their position in different light. But hers is still pretty much the same.  I love the idea of her killing everyone and taking over Europe. I'd be happy with her imprisoning her husband and father and taking their power from them.      

My personal theory is that she did not have mental health issues at all, or if she did, it was garden variety depression and/or anxiety (or if it was something more serious, it was brought on later in life by the sustained mental abuse and trauma she suffered). Not that that's not bad enough, but I don't think she was "mad". Outside observers who met her said she seemed normal. Apparently even people at the time thought that her husband was exaggerating or making things up in order to control her. And I know from personal experience dealing with severe anxiety and depression myself, how easy it would be, in a 16th century patriarchal society, for a husband or father who wanted control over my money and land, to take that and twist it into "she's insane, she literally can't function, I guess I'll just have to take over."

I have a similar theory about Henry VI (the king of England whose ineptitude basically started the Wars of the Roses). People have speculated for ages that he might have been schizophrenic, psychotic, or otherwise 'insane'. Honestly, I think he just did not have the personality to rule, did not like it, and probably had severe anxiety (WHO THE FUCK WOULDN'T?! lol) and his response was to shut down completely and let other people deal with it. The only way he could dodge the crippling responsibilities and expectations heaped upon him was to take leave of his senses. 

Okay, I'm done psychoanalyzing historical figures for now. Tune in next episode as I re-start the 'Princes in the Tower' debate for the fifth time on FJ! 

[JordynDarby5]

4 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

My personal theory is that she did not have mental health issues at all, or if she did, it was garden variety depression and/or anxiety (or if it was something more serious, it was brought on later in life by the sustained mental abuse and trauma she suffered). Not that that's not bad enough, but I don't think she was "mad". Outside observers who met her said she seemed normal. Apparently even people at the time thought that her husband was exaggerating or making things up in order to control her. And I know from personal experience dealing with severe anxiety and depression myself, how easy it would be, in a 16th century patriarchal society, for a husband or father who wanted control over my money and land, to take that and twist it into "she's insane, she literally can't function, I guess I'll just have to take over."

I have a similar theory about Henry VI (the king of England whose ineptitude basically started the Wars of the Roses). People have speculated for ages that he might have been schizophrenic, psychotic, or otherwise 'insane'. Honestly, I think he just did not have the personality to rule, did not like it, and probably had severe anxiety (WHO THE FUCK WOULDN'T?! lol) and his response was to shut down completely and let other people deal with it. The only way he could dodge the crippling responsibilities and expectations heaped upon him was to take leave of his senses. ! 

I agree. When I started reading about her. It was just so convenient that her husband, father, and son kept saying she was mad. The three who ended up with her power. If she wasn't crazy well there wasn't any reason why she couldn't rule. She was the heir after her brother died. And since her mother had ruled in her own right without issue they couldn't use her being a woman.  So they had to find another excuse.  She probably had depression and anxiety. The crappy way she was treated its no wonder. The poor girl ended up confined to a castle for most of her life. 

As for the Princes in the Tower, I'll never give up on it being Richard. And Pluto is still a planet! 

 

[Glasgowghirl]

37 minutes ago, JordynDarby5 said:

As for the Princes in the Tower, I'll never give up on it being Richard. And Pluto is still a planet! 

Yes on both points, Richard or someone acting for him killed those boys, I wish they had just left him buried in the car park and not given him a funeral. 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

8 minutes ago, Glasgowghirl said:

Yes on both points, Richard or someone acting for him killed those boys, I wish they had just left him buried in the car park and not given him a funeral. 

He'd already been buried on the orders of the new king Henry VII. Without the honours due to an anointed  king of England.

His remains had been disturbed during the reformation, why shouldn't he have been reburied?

 

 

[singsingsing]

I'm glad Richard got a proper burial. He was no saint, but most of them weren't. And I say this as someone generally biased in favour of the other side and definitely side-eyeing the revisionist Ricardians. Also, despite all the circumstantial evidence, it was never actually proven that he killed his nephews.*

This does remind me of something that made me laugh recently, though. I was just telling someone about how crazy it is that, even after so many hundreds of years, people are still really emotionally invested in this stuff! They get angry, they cry, they get into bitter, bitter arguments. Like, come on, people - these guys have been dead for centuries. They're not your family or your friends or your lovers. Relax!

Then I came across people chatting about Richard on some internet forum, and this one woman said, "Richard III is my sweetheart. My life motto is FUCK THE TUDORS! I hope Henry is burning in hell!"

And I instantly thought, "Oh yeah? Well, FUCK YOU TOO, lady! And guess what, your precious Richard was a complete piece of - "

And then I thought, "Oh my God. I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE." 

 

*The Princes in the Tower (my God, I've done it again) - the one thing I've always found really weird/suspicious is that, not long after the princes went into the Tower and stopped being seen, all the power players began operating as though they were dead. It was like they were all convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and began to act accordingly. But why? What information did they have? Why were Richard III, the Woodvilles, Margaret Beaufort, Henry, etc. all so convinced? It's made weirder by the fact that apparently none of them could credibly accuse anyone else of the murders. How were they so sure they were dead unless they had substantial information, which should have pointed to the cause/perpetrator? If they had died of natural causes, why didn't Richard brandish that in his defence? If they were murdered by Richard, why didn't the other side push that? If someone else did it - same question.

It almost makes you wonder if they were all covering for someone. But who? I admit this is one of my favourite and kind of silliest historical conspiracy theories. All of these feuding parties knew exactly what happened to the princes and who did it, but for some reason that information being made public would have hurt all of them, so there was, insanely enough, a conspiracy of silence on all sides. Yep. Totally writing that fan fiction.

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

I never got past programming using BASIC in 1983 and 1985. 

I was using Cobol in the mid 80s, but I never was good at Basic. Go figure.

[Bethella]

2 hours ago, singsingsing said:

*The Princes in the Tower (my God, I've done it again) - the one thing I've always found really weird/suspicious is that, not long after the princes went into the Tower and stopped being seen, all the power players began operating as though they were dead. It was like they were all convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and began to act accordingly. But why? What information did they have? Why were Richard III, the Woodvilles, Margaret Beaufort, Henry, etc. all so convinced? It's made weirder by the fact that apparently none of them could credibly accuse anyone else of the murders. How were they so sure they were dead unless they had substantial information, which should have pointed to the cause/perpetrator? If they had died of natural causes, why didn't Richard brandish that in his defence? If they were murdered by Richard, why didn't the other side push that? If someone else did it - same question.

It almost makes you wonder if they were all covering for someone. But who? I admit this is one of my favourite and kind of silliest historical conspiracy theories. All of these feuding parties knew exactly what happened to the princes and who did it, but for some reason that information being made public would have hurt all of them, so there was, insanely enough, a conspiracy of silence on all sides. Yep. Totally writing that fan fiction.

You can't just leave us hanging like that! Who's your suspect? Was it Colonel Mustard in the Bloody Tower, Rev. Green in the Chapel or Mrs. White in the White Tower?  

[Chewing Gum]

I just watched the congrats video of Jessa and Ben to Kendra and Joe and Jessa is trying really hard not to fundie-stare. It’s hilarious. But, they seem really comfortable with eachother so as always, I’m liking her more and more. 

[Jenn The Heathen]

I think they’re just needs to be a thread for the princes in the tower, @singsingsing.

I tend to believe that it was Richard’s doing, but no one outed him because it benefited most of the parties involved (except for the Woodvilles).  With the princes out of the way, only Richard stood in Henry and Margaret Beaufort’s way to the throne.  I definitely think this is one of those things that we’ll never know for sure.  If concrete proof hasn’t been found yet, it’s not out there.  

[SnazzyNazzy]

Hahaha. Granted I only read page 7 and haven't went back yet, BUT I clicked because it said recipe thread drift. It looks like said recipe thread drift turned into "old timey England royalty" thread drift. My nana told me about the two princes when I was a kid. Her theory was that is was Richard III that did it. She went on and on about the throne succession bit, but I blocked that out (because it was boring). 

[viii]

Can we have a history subforum or something?!?!

[Italiangirl]

@singsingsing i have a new theory for you ready? it was the ancient alien!!!   

I'm obsessed lately with that show, i enjoy it too much snark on it with my mom especially on some ep. I prefer to watch that than Duggars even if we don't have counting on in Italy (luckily)

[tabitha2]

If you are looking for people in royal history that didn’t kill or contemplate killing or send others to kill children or who were obstacles in their way to the throne you will be sorely disappointed. These people were cruel and absolutely pragmatic and it was a kill or be killed world. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

6 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

If you are looking for people in royal history that didn’t kill or contemplate killing or send others to kill children or who were obstacles in their way to the throne you will be sorely disappointed. These people were cruel and absolutely pragmatic and it was a kill or be killed world. 

Some say it still is a kill-or-be-killed royal world.

[SnazzyNazzy]

Skip the English royalty, and go to Spanish Royalty. The Spanish Habsburg royal family, pretty much inbred itself into oblivion. Look at this foxy minx aka Charles II the last Habsburg King of Spain. He was rumored to be all kinds of phically and mentally disabled.

Spoiler

 

[tabitha2]

That’s why Queen Victoria didn’t want her kids marrying in the Hapsburg line. Not only the scandals but she considered them just too sickly and unstable to breed with. Bad blood.  Not that her own family totally avoided inbred diseases but marrying a cousin or second cousin is not the same as automatically planning to marry your 10 yr old daughter to her 20 year old uncle or some combination year after year , century after century with absolutely no new genes.  

[BigTushieLady]

1 hour ago, SnazzyNazzy said:

Skip the English royalty, and go to Spanish Royalty. The Spanish Habsburg royal family, pretty much inbred itself into oblivion. Look at this foxy minx aka Charles II the last Habsburg King of Spain. He was rumored to be all kinds of phically and mentally disabled.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

And this is the foxy minx's family tree. I've boxed the only ones who *aren't* related to him more than once.

[SnazzyNazzy]

20 minutes ago, BigTushieLady said:

And this is the foxy minx's family tree. I've boxed the only ones who *aren't* related to him more than once.

By the looks of it, it probably took less time to box those names, than it took to search google images to find the family tree...lol.

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

That’s why Queen Victoria didn’t want her kids marrying in the Hapsburg line. Not only the scandals but she considered them just too sickly and unstable to breed with. Bad blood.  

The Hapsburgs were Catholic. Why would the Windsors have seen them as potential marriage partners anyway since they are forbidden from marrying Catholics? 

I thought this was the major reason why the Hapsburgs were inbred; they could only marry other Catholic royalty and there weren't many to choose from. So Spanish Hapsburgs married Austrian Hapsburgs and vice versa, with maybe a Bourbon-Parma thrown in every once in a while to lighten the inbred load.

[libgirl2]

1 hour ago, SnazzyNazzy said:

Skip the English royalty, and go to Spanish Royalty. The Spanish Habsburg royal family, pretty much inbred itself into oblivion. Look at this foxy minx aka Charles II the last Habsburg King of Spain. He was rumored to be all kinds of phically and mentally disabled.

  Hide contents

 

Yes, he was a big slice of deliciousness, wasn't he? 

[singsingsing]

10 hours ago, Bethella said:

You can't just leave us hanging like that! Who's your suspect? Was it Colonel Mustard in the Bloody Tower, Rev. Green in the Chapel or Mrs. White in the White Tower?  

That's the stupidest part. I HAVE NO IDEA. 

Sometimes I wonder if they really did just disappear and no one wanted to own up to it because that was an even bigger issue than them being definitely dead. But again, they all acted as though they were definitely dead. So who knows.

Plus, they did find those bones under the stairwell(?) in the Tower, which really seem to have belonged to the princes. I believe Thomas More mentioned that they were thought to be there, so obviously there were rumours at the time - and then a couple centuries later they found them pretty much exactly where he said they were. (Conspiracy theory: Thomas More, despite being approximately five years old at the time, was in fact the one who murdered the princes.)

It's really a shame that the royal family won't let the bones be tested. I think if they could analyze them and do DNA testing they could probably pretty conclusively prove whether they are or are not the princes. It wouldn't completely solve the mystery, but it would be something. It would prove that they didn't get out of the Tower alive, anyway.

[justoneoftwo]

People have mentioned Henry 8 having ED with Anne Boleyn, is that known?  I thought only Anne of Cleves seemed to be facing that issue (and maybe those after her?  Why did Catherine Parr never have kids with him?).  

As for the Princes, I don't know who could have killed them and not been outed by someone.   

[CharlieInCharge]

I love you, @singsingsing, but how many times are you going to start the Princes in the Tower discussion? I get it, you’re crazed, but I think it’s time (over 500 years isn’t enough for you?!) to let it go. I’m worried about you. Hugs. 

 

PS - I’m totally down to start a history group or thread, but it needs to come with a ban on the Princes. This would only apply to Sing, but it would keep the crazy down  

[tabitha2]

43 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

The Hapsburgs were Catholic. Why would the Windsors have seen them as potential marriage partners anyway since they are forbidden from marrying Catholics? 

I thought this was the major reason why the Hapsburgs were inbred; they could only marry other Catholic royalty and there weren't many to choose from. So Spanish Hapsburgs married Austrian Hapsburgs and vice versa, with maybe a Bourbon-Parma thrown in every once in a while to lighten the inbred load.

One of Victoria’s granddaughters married. The very Catholic Spanish heir and eventually became the Queen of Spain so it was not esp encouraged but not absolutely forbidden either unless you were the heir. 

 

But I just need to add...