Who are your favourite Royals and why?

[tabitha2]

They want to add more Sex and make the characters more sexy.... An obese festering red haired Henry would not appeal to millennial viewers but dark lean smoldery Johnathan Rhys Myers sure does.

[JordynDarby5]

 

On 11/10/2018 at 5:21 PM, anjulibai said:

Yeah, I hate when historical movies/series make up weird stuff that is completely inaccurate. Why isn't the actual history interesting enough? If you want to make your own story that only sort of incorporates history, go the GRRM root and create another Game of Thrones. 

So do I. And that's really my question too. If they want to make stuff up then why not do just that? Take inspiration or parts from history or a specific king or queen and use it for a fictional king or queen. It makes more sense, give them more room to do whatever they want. Most historical movies/series don't need to do that. There's more then enough to make an exciting story. Does Henry VIII really need anything more? That story already has everything adultery, beheadings, divorces, multiple marriages, religion, what else does it need? Also, I don't really understand why in the Tudors they chose change Mary's name to Margaret when they already had sister named Margaret who they never mention and really should have since she played a big part. Married three times? First to James of Scotland who ended up dead in battle against England which was really Katherine of Aragon's victory since Henry was out of the country at the time. Later her son James also caused trouble and died after battling England also during Henry's reign.  Henry getting all mad at her for divorcing husband number two which was ironically a few years before he decided to get one himself at the time he horrified at the idea.  

[Seahorse Wrangler]

On 11/7/2018 at 7:52 AM, JordynDarby5 said:

Cleopatra's family although that might be way to much blood and gross (with the sibling marriages) but they were betraying and murdering each other like crazy,

There was this series form the 1980's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cleopatras

 

 

[louisa05]

My first reaction to this question is the ones in Kansas City. They had to earn their status. ?

I should probably put this in Unpopular Opinions, but increasingly, for current royals, I'm leaning toward Camilla. 

She is a resilient and strong women. She has gone through a lot of real stuff like caring for ailing parents, living through a scandal that she got the entire blame for without falling apart, gracefully living in a spotlight she never desired, having her entire life and personality distorted by media all over the world, and yet she remains poised and confident. 

She has proven herself to be a feminist, not on a blog or in magazine interviews, but in action. Her 90+ patronages include organizations that work on issues like rape, sexual abuse, domestic abuse and other women's issues. And she does it all without fanfare or the attention landing on her clothing and hairstyle. 

On the opposite end, I've never been enamored with Harry as so many people seem to be. I'm willing to let his rocky teen years slide particularly due to the trauma of losing his mother. But he made a lot of immature choices later, too. And reliable sources indicate that that didn't stop so much as that the Kensington Palace machine got better at keeping it under wraps. But bigger than that, he has ran his mouth off perhaps more than he should. There is a reason that the Queen has literally NEVER sat for an in-depth interview about her personal life or feelings. His mouth running about "nobody" in the family wanting to be king or queen is the stuff that could undo the monarchy. He has publicly gone off for years about not liking the life of being part of the royal family--if he truly feels that way, fine, but don't bite the hand that feeds you in public. If he truly hates it, he is free to renounce the title and the free housing from Granny and go work a day job like several of his cousins do (Peter and Zara in particular do not live in "royal housing" and do not do public engagements other than large traditional family ones--i.e. Trooping, church on Christmas...).  I am also not on the Meghan train. She seems to love the spotlight a bit too much and the relationship seemed rushed given that it was long distance and she had to give up a career, her own citizenship and her own culture for him. And their PDA is a bit too much. They don't need to hold hands constantly. But that's neither here nor there. His hands in her lap in Australia and her caressing his thigh on the same tour....ew....get a damn room. When you're at work, you just don't do that. 

Non-British royalty: Princess Mary is beautiful but real and seems approachable all at the same time. Not an easy thing to be. She isn't beautiful because she is done up; I suspect that she is amazing looking when she rolls out of bed. She dresses her age without being dowdy. She doesn't bite on trends just because they are trends...all things that the younger British royals haven't really mastered. She should start a Princess Lessons program for foreign royals. ?

On a related note about the "younger British royals"---the main four are all in their 30s, only one is younger than 36. It is a bit tiresome that the media writes about them like they all just left university last spring. 

 

 

 

 

 

[anjulibai]

On 11/11/2018 at 7:19 AM, tabitha2 said:

They want to add more Sex and make the characters more sexy.... An obese festering red haired Henry would not appeal to millennial viewers but dark lean smoldery Johnathan Rhys Myers sure does.

See, I sort of got Johnathan Rhys Myers for early in Henry's reign. Henry was supposed to have been incredibly handsome and athletic in his youth. The age was right too, for when he met Anne and began the divorce proceedings from Katherine. 

But they could have had him dye his hair red, which was one of his most prominent features. And they could have put him in a fat suit or even recast him for the later seasons which were set when Henry was failing in health. 

On 11/15/2018 at 6:45 PM, JordynDarby5 said:

 

So do I. And that's really my question too. If they want to make stuff up then why not do just that? Take inspiration or parts from history or a specific king or queen and use it for a fictional king or queen. It makes more sense, give them more room to do whatever they want. Most historical movies/series don't need to do that. There's more then enough to make an exciting story. Does Henry VIII really need anything more? That story already has everything adultery, beheadings, divorces, multiple marriages, religion, what else does it need? Also, I don't really understand why in the Tudors they chose change Mary's name to Margaret when they already had sister named Margaret who they never mention and really should have since she played a big part. Married three times? First to James of Scotland who ended up dead in battle against England which was really Katherine of Aragon's victory since Henry was out of the country at the time. Later her son James also caused trouble and died after battling England also during Henry's reign.  Henry getting all mad at her for divorcing husband number two which was ironically a few years before he decided to get one himself at the time he horrified at the idea.  

Yeah, that was all weird to me, too. Supposedly it had to do with not confusing the two Mary's (Henry's sister and his daughter) but that's still rather dumb because there were lots of people with the same names back then. Both Mary and Margaret lead interesting lives, and would have made for great story telling. 

On 11/10/2018 at 10:43 PM, viii said:

The Tudor times and War of the Roses were fascinating enough. I don’t know why people feel the need to embellish them. 

Right? The times were dramatic enough without changing anything. 

The one treatment of that time that bothers me the most is The Other Boleyn Girl. Why they had to make Anne worse than she was just to make Mary better is beyond me. Plus, with making the incest rumors true - that's disgusting and horrible considering that Anne was innocent and was murdered for not giving Henry a son. 

[viii]

35 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

The one treatment of that time that bothers me the most is The Other Boleyn Girl. Why they had to make Anne worse than she was just to make Mary better is beyond me. Plus, with making the incest rumors true - that's disgusting and horrible considering that Anne was innocent and was murdered for not giving Henry a son. 

I mean, I am guilty of loving The Other Boleyn Girl, but simply because I find it fun. I don't take it as fact at all. The only thing that does bother me is what you said, the fact that she pushed the incest rumor. So many people take that as fact. I have so much sympathy for Anne Boleyn and the way she was treated. 

I'm currently reading The Boleyn King series, which is basically historical fanfiction (it revolves around instead of Anne miscarrying her savior, she gives birth to a healthy son). It's actually pretty interesting, because I've always wondered how life would have gone if Anne had given him a son. 

[singsingsing]

The Stuarts descend through Margaret Tudor, Henry's older sister. You know, the one The Tudors decided didn't need to be in the show. Thus eliminating the entire Stuart dynasty and radically altering the course of British history. 

And yes, Jonathan Rhys Meyers was totally wrong for the role of Henry VIII, but The Tudors made no secret of the fact that it was a soap opera/bodice ripper loosely inspired by actual history, so whatever. If he's missing an entire sister I suppose he can also be (comparatively) short and brunet. 

If you haven't watched the Wolf Hall mini series yet, seriously, do it. Henry is perfect. I've never seen a better Henry VIII. 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

3 hours ago, viii said:

 

Anne miscarrying her savior

Ye gods but I hate that phrase..

 

It seems to be everywhere in modern Tudor fiction regardless of whom the main character is.

[viii]

I think it’s used so much because it provokes such a sad imagery for people. 

[singsingsing]

1 minute ago, viii said:

I think it’s used so much because it provokes such a sad imagery for people. 

And it's probably pretty accurate, sadly enough. Who honestly thinks that Henry would have turned on Anne and had her executed if she had given him a healthy son? The charges against her were trumped up at best. I think a son would have at the very least bought her a lot of time.

[Seahorse Wrangler]

For sure, Henry would and did idolize the wife that produced the Sacred Boy Child(tm).  Had Anne  given  birth to her son, Jane and the rest of the faction backing her would have lost big time.

 

Jane may well have become Henry's mistress, a role I suspect she was being groomed for in late 1535 to early 1536. Once Anne miscarried, then Jane was suddenly thrust out as a prospective virtuous bride.

 

Anne had to die so there was no impediment to the new marriage and Elizabeth had to be illegitimate to ensure Jane's potential sons had no stain on their legitimacy. That's why Henry doubled down on Mary, increasing the pressure on her to repudiate her parent's marriage.

 

Had Jane not died following Edward's birth, then a future of more child-bearing until one of them died. Had Henry died first, I could see Jane being regent for her son. Something the far more capable Catherine Parr didn't achieve.

[Lyle Lanley]

On 10/25/2018 at 2:39 PM, JordynDarby5 said:

So do I. From Catherine the Great pulling a coup on her own husband, her son Paul who despite having the lesson of what happened to his daddy (well possibly his daddy) decides to ignore and make a lot of decisions that maybe isn't smart for his health he also banned women from ruling which seriously became a problem for Nicholas II with males dropping like flies or making morganatic marriages, Peter the Great transforming the country and randomly shaving his nobles beards (he forced most to do so but some of the old nobles or religious order were allowed to keep them for a tax or something but that didn't mean much if Peter spotted one and was in the mood to shave someone beard) or forcing his men to watch anatomy lessons with extra punishment if they threw up, or randomly trying to pull their teeth (he learned to do so from a physician and got so excited he'd often volunteer to some poor noble who didn't want him too but couldn't say no so the nobles would try to hide any type of tooth or medical problem). To the fake Tsars even ones who managed to stay on the throne for an amazing. Man or woman they didn't give up or back down. Nicholas II a good father and husband but completely incompetent ruler along with his wife.

The Pauline laws were ridiculous. Out of Nicholas II's five children, Olga would likely have been a decent monarch. But because she had the audacity to come out of the womb as a female, no. Better luck next time. It would have alleviated a lot of the family drama with regards to all the male members contracting "unequal" marriages too. There weren't a lot of royal families willing to marry off their daughters to the Romanov men because they were considered terrible husbands.

[samurai_sarah]

My fave is "Liselotte von der Pfalz", sister-in-law to Louis XVI of France, in the 17th century. She wrote endless letters, and was astute and funny in her observations. She also wasn't good-looking, had no illusions about it, and just owned it. While she was a snob, she also had a big heart, and was distraught when her brother-in-law started a war, ostensibly to claim her heritage. Her letters are funny, poignant, don't mince words, and are sometimes shocking.

[anjulibai]

1 hour ago, samurai_sarah said:

My fave is "Liselotte von der Pfalz", sister-in-law to Louis XVI of France, in the 17th century. She wrote endless letters, and was astute and funny in her observations. She also wasn't good-looking, had no illusions about it, and just owned it. While she was a snob, she also had a big heart, and was distraught when her brother-in-law started a war, ostensibly to claim her heritage. Her letters are funny, poignant, don't mince words, and are sometimes shocking.

I like her, too. I've never found a specific biography about her, but when she's quoted in other work, she makes a lot of really great observations about llife at court. 

[JordynDarby5]

13 hours ago, anjulibai said:

The one treatment of that time that bothers me the most is The Other Boleyn Girl. Why they had to make Anne worse than she was just to make Mary better is beyond me. Plus, with making the incest rumors true - that's disgusting and horrible considering that Anne was innocent and was murdered for not giving Henry a son. 

That one bothers me too. Its more likely Anne saw what happened with Mary and the other mistresses cast aside for another or fell out of favor for whatever reason and learned from it.  It also helped that the King had no male heir which helped her hold out for marriage. To flirt and do everything except sleep with him. I don't think she knew completely if it would work or not but she took a shot to try and not end up like another cast off mistress. The downside was Anne failing to realize the downsides of being Queen. Now your the one having to ignore your husband's affairs, being around his mistresses, and not say anything. And she wasn't someone who could do that. 

11 hours ago, singsingsing said:

The Stuarts descend through Margaret Tudor, Henry's older sister. You know, the one The Tudors decided didn't need to be in the show. Thus eliminating the entire Stuart dynasty and radically altering the course of British history. 

And yes, Jonathan Rhys Meyers was totally wrong for the role of Henry VIII, but The Tudors made no secret of the fact that it was a soap opera/bodice ripper loosely inspired by actual history, so whatever. If he's missing an entire sister I suppose he can also be (comparatively) short and brunet. 

If you haven't watched the Wolf Hall mini series yet, seriously, do it. Henry is perfect. I've never seen a better Henry VIII. 

Don't forget adding in an uncle that was murdered in the first episode. Odd since Henry's father was an only child and his mother's brothers were the princes in the tower.  

[JordynDarby5]

8 hours ago, Lyle Lanley said:

The Pauline laws were ridiculous. Out of Nicholas II's five children, Olga would likely have been a decent monarch. But because she had the audacity to come out of the womb as a female, no. Better luck next time. It would have alleviated a lot of the family drama with regards to all the male members contracting "unequal" marriages too. There weren't a lot of royal families willing to marry off their daughters to the Romanov men because they were considered terrible husbands.

Ridiculous and in the end are what helped destroy the monarchy. During Nicholas II's reign most of the men were out except Alexei and Dimtri due to death or monganatic marriages. Olga would have made a good monarch. Maybe her sisters. Maybe his sisters. Maybe some of the men that ended up being out because they married a woman of lesser rank. His brother Mikhail has often been said would have made a good monarch but he married the lesser Natalia and was out.  Also ridiculous and I know this goes against the point of Kings and Tsar but everyone knew that Nicholas would make a bad one. But instead of educating him or skipping over him they decided to not education and do nothing. Why would you put your monarchy and country at risk by handing it to someone everyone already knew was unfit and be a disaster? They might have been able to save everything if they chose educate him or skip right over him to someone who would be better. 

[tabitha2]

The Japanese are doing that right now in 2018. They have effectively  limited the future imperial family to one child , his spouse and if they don’t have sons it’s all over. 

[singsingsing]

3 hours ago, JordynDarby5 said:

Don't forget adding in an uncle that was murdered in the first episode. Odd since Henry's father was an only child and his mother's brothers were the princes in the tower.  

Apparently I did not watch that far! Hmm... his mother did have at least one living brother (probably more to be honest, her dad was a total horndog) but he was illegitimate obviously. Arthur Plantagenet. He definitely had a good relationship with the family, was around court a lot and became a viscount. He was imprisoned by Henry VIII eventually (of course) and died in prison but he was an old man and died of a heart attack. And it was toward the end of Henry’s reign.

[Lyle Lanley]

4 hours ago, JordynDarby5 said:

Ridiculous and in the end are what helped destroy the monarchy. During Nicholas II's reign most of the men were out except Alexei and Dimtri due to death or monganatic marriages. Olga would have made a good monarch. Maybe her sisters. Maybe his sisters. Maybe some of the men that ended up being out because they married a woman of lesser rank. His brother Mikhail has often been said would have made a good monarch but he married the lesser Natalia and was out.  Also ridiculous and I know this goes against the point of Kings and Tsar but everyone knew that Nicholas would make a bad one. But instead of educating him or skipping over him they decided to not education and do nothing. Why would you put your monarchy and country at risk by handing it to someone everyone already knew was unfit and be a disaster? They might have been able to save everything if they chose educate him or skip right over him to someone who would be better. 

I often wonder what would had happened if Alexander II hadn't been assassinated and had been able to bring about the reforms that would have eventually turned Russia into a constitutional monarchy. They weren't big reforms but it was baby steps. It is quite possible that Alexander II could have outlived his own heir, meaning that Nicholas would have inherited a role that was more of a constitutional monarch than an autocrat.

There is an author arguing that if you look at the first 10 years of Nicholas' reign, it would be considered a fairly successful reign. It was the Russo-Japanese War that caused the steady downfall of the Romanov dynasty at that point. I'd have to find it again, it was a pretty in-depth piece.

It's interesting because if Nicholas hadn't been so devout and a stickler for the rules on marriages between first cousins, Michael would have likely married Princess Beatrice of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Therefore avoiding him eloping with Natalia. At that point the royal houses were so intertwined that the ones willing to marry into the family were first cousins and the Russian Orthodox Church forbade it.

[viii]

On 11/17/2018 at 11:29 AM, louisa05 said:

I should probably put this in Unpopular Opinions, but increasingly, for current royals, I'm leaning toward Camilla. 

She is a resilient and strong women. She has gone through a lot of real stuff like caring for ailing parents, living through a scandal that she got the entire blame for without falling apart, gracefully living in a spotlight she never desired, having her entire life and personality distorted by media all over the world, and yet she remains poised and confident. 

She has proven herself to be a feminist, not on a blog or in magazine interviews, but in action. Her 90+ patronages include organizations that work on issues like rape, sexual abuse, domestic abuse and other women's issues. And she does it all without fanfare or the attention landing on her clothing and hairstyle.

 

 

 

 

I meant to comment on this earlier but forgot. Anyway, I completely agree. I am a HUGE fan of Camilla. I will always have sympathy for Diana (although she was no angel) but the fault needs to lie with Charles and Diana - not Camilla. 

She has proven herself so many times, and it’s time to let the past lie. When Charles becomes king, I sincerely hope she becomes queen because I am so here for Queen Camilla! 

[JordynDarby5]

4 hours ago, singsingsing said:

Apparently I did not watch that far! Hmm... his mother did have at least one living brother (probably more to be honest, her dad was a total horndog) but he was illegitimate obviously. Arthur Plantagenet. He definitely had a good relationship with the family, was around court a lot and became a viscount. He was imprisoned by Henry VIII eventually (of course) and died in prison but he was an old man and died of a heart attack. And it was toward the end of Henry’s reign.

Yes, the uncle was apparently Ambassador to Urbino. murdered by the French in the very first episode. They never explained who this uncle was or where he came from. If they claimed he was an illegitimate uncle that would make more sense because yes his mother's father was  total horndog he probably dozens of illegitimate children. Of course no murder actually happened either.   

[tabitha2]

9 minutes ago, viii said:

I meant to comment on this earlier but forgot. Anyway, I completely agree. I am a HUGE fan of Camilla. I will always have sympathy for Diana (although she was no angel) but the fault needs to lie with Charles and Diana - not Camilla. 

She has proven herself so many times, and it’s time to let the past lie. When Charles becomes king, I sincerely hope she becomes queen because I am so here for Queen Camilla! 

 

 

She will be Queen Consort anyway. She will be married to a King after all. They can call her what they want buy that does not change that fact however insisting she be called a made up title of  Princess Consort keeps them firmly stuck in the past forever.

[JordynDarby5]

2 hours ago, Lyle Lanley said:

I often wonder what would had happened if Alexander II hadn't been assassinated and had been able to bring about the reforms that would have eventually turned Russia into a constitutional monarchy. They weren't big reforms but it was baby steps. It is quite possible that Alexander II could have outlived his own heir, meaning that Nicholas would have inherited a role that was more of a constitutional monarch than an autocrat.

There is an author arguing that if you look at the first 10 years of Nicholas' reign, it would be considered a fairly successful reign. It was the Russo-Japanese War that caused the steady downfall of the Romanov dynasty at that point. I'd have to find it again, it was a pretty in-depth piece.

I always wondered if he lived longer too if he'd actually go through with it. I know some authors had wondered if he would do it. He kept putting it off. He always said he would and it would have been really great if he had. That would have taken away half of Nicholas's problems plus Alexander was stronger to deal with any fall out from it or any parts that needed to be fixed or addressed by the time it was Nicholas turn that would have been going on for a couple decades.  Nicholas probably would be been a much better constitutionial monarch.  

I'd love to read the article and see if I can try and find it too. The Russo-Japanese exposed the myth of the Russian Army and began what started to expose how ineffective Nicholas was. Then came the peaceful march that ended with a lot of innocent people shot and killed for nothing. They didn't even start anything. And Nicholas does nothing. The strikes that followed the rest of the year continued to show how weak Nicholas is. He only agrees to the Duma because he has no choice and to buy time. He messes with the Duma until he gets one that'll do what he wants. He messes with the Duma's power stripping it of its power.  By that point the people know he's not going to give up all his power, he's not going to honor any agreement he makes in regards to the Duma or rights of his people. Who's going to believe him at that point?  

Quote

It's interesting because if Nicholas hadn't been so devout and a stickler for the rules on marriages between first cousins, Michael would have likely married Princess Beatrice of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Therefore avoiding him eloping with Natalia. At that point the royal houses were so intertwined that the ones willing to marry into the family were first cousins and the Russian Orthodox Church forbade it.

That would have helped things out a lot. Michael and Beatrice's heirs could have followed after Alexei less to worry about. If he wasn't such a stickler and so stubborn. When your looking at your heirs and realizing there's not a whole lot of names listed. That's when you think something needs to change or fixed. Marrying a first cousin his hardly surprising in their circles. You'd think Nicholas would agree seeing how people weren't exactly thrilled at his choice in marriage. Worries over Alix's shyness and other things which aren't exactly what an Empress needs. But nope he said no. Then he's surprised when his brother elopes with Natalia. What did he really expect? He rejected a Princess who else is there for them to marry? 

27 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

 

 

She will be Queen Consort anyway. She will be married to a King after all. They can call her what they want buy that does not change that fact however insisting she be called a made up title of  Princess Consort keeps them firmly stuck in the past forever.

Oh, she definitely will. I know in the beginning of the marriage or engagement they said she'd never be Queen but I never believed that. I always thought that was either a lie or something they said to pacify people and were betting that after time people wouldn't care anymore. After a decade or so married that's a lot people commenting or caring. I imagine by the time it actually comes (assuming the Queen doesn't live until 150 or forever and Charles is still around) no one will care and she'll be Queen. 

[anjulibai]

33 minutes ago, JordynDarby5 said:

Yes, the uncle was apparently Ambassador to Urbino. murdered by the French in the very first episode. They never explained who this uncle was or where he came from. If they claimed he was an illegitimate uncle that would make more sense because yes his mother's father was  total horndog he probably dozens of illegitimate children. Of course no murder actually happened either.   

I figured the uncle was supposed to be a husband of one of Elizabeth of York's sisters or non-royal half brothers. Regardless, the incident didn't happen.

[samurai_sarah]

17 hours ago, anjulibai said:

I like her, too. I've never found a specific biography about her, but when she's quoted in other work, she makes a lot of really great observations about llife at court. 

I'm not sure there's an English-language one. There's a really exhaustive one in French, by Dirk Van der Cruysse "Madame Palatine", first published in 1988. I read it in German though, so no nothing of its availability elsewhere. But I agree with you, she was great at observing and very snarky.