Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots  (Read 10769 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 749

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2127





Ignore
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2015, 01:31:41 AM »

The sons of George III didn't marry the women they chose because their father didn't approve of them and they couldn't legally marry after the Royal Marriage Act was passed.

George IV was forced into a marriage to settle his debts and that marriage resulted in one child - the one who died in 1816 in childbirth - leaving George III with no legitimate grandchildren. Princess Charlotte had married Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - the brother of Victoria who married the Duke of Kent and also of Ernest - the father of Prince Albert. From Leopold's second marriage come the current Belgian Royal Family as Leopold became King of the Belgians in 1830.

The younger sons largely lived with, we today would say there were in de facto relationships with, the one woman from their early 20s until forced by the death of Princess Charlotte to marry suitable princesses in an attempt to have a legitimate child. Because they were living with these women in monogamous relationships they acknowledged their children. The best known descendant today of any of these children is David Cameron who is descended from one of William IV's children - a FitzClarence.

As for the brothers after Charlotte died they chose suitable wives. Frederick the Duke of York married Princess Frederica Charlotte of Prussia and had no children.

William - Duke of Clarence married Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meingenin and had no children that survived. She sadly for her did have a couple of daughters but they died within a short period of time after their births.

Edward - Duke of Kent married Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - they are the parents of Victoria.

Ernest - Duke of Cumberland married Frederika of Mecklenburgh-Strelitz and they had children. The current Prince Ernest of Hannover, husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco is a direct descendant of this marriage.

Alolphus - Duke of Cambridge married Princess Augustus of Hesse-Kessel - and they also had children. Their granddaughter was Princess Mary of Teck who married George V and thus became Queen Mary.

Augustus - Duke of Sussex married against the RMA and so his marriages were declared null and void and thus his children regarded as illegitimate.

Logged
Herazeus
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 609

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1053





Ignore
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2015, 11:15:47 AM »

Novice: Illegitimacy wasn't the big issue that we currently take it to be. The only problem with illegitimacy was that the illegitimate off-spring couldn't inherit and had to suffer whatever their father's decided to give them. In most cases, the illegitimate off spring (talking society as a whole) were brought up with their legitimate siblings and given names or honours that gave them an income whilst still acknowledging their illegitimacy.

And in many cases, the illegitimate off spring were more loyal and useful than the legitimate ones eg Richard 3 had a son who was known as John the Bastard who grew up to be a commander of his army, and was Captain of Calais - a very prestigious post.

Henry 8 had an illegitimate son, The Duke of Richmond, who was honoured at court.

Most of the time, any aristocratic family with Fitz infront of their name usually points to illegitimacy eg FitzRoy (son of the King).

Many illegitimate off-spring were sponsored into the church to become statesmen in the long-term.

The most famous royal dynasty, The Tudors, is descended from illegitimacy. Their royal claim was from the sons of John of Gaunt and his mistress Kathryn Swyford. They were later legitimised on condition they and their descendants never claimed the throne, but we know how that went.

The stigma of illegitimacy only became a thing during the Victorian times. Then again, that entire era was incredibly judgemental as far as morals were concerned.

As for Mary and Elizabeth, Mary was an incredibly spoilt silly woman who had no sense of anything beyond her own entitlement. She also had no self preservation, no idea about politics, thought she could simply charm her way out of any situation.

The problem is that she was brought up at the French court as a petted Dauphine (fiance of the future King to whom she was betrothed from infancy). Everyone, especially the king indulged her and spoilt her without giving her any lessons in statecraft that would be needed in Scotland.

She thought Scotland (and England) would be ruled in much the same way as France where The King's very being was the essence of law. She was either too stupid or lacked the character to see below the surface, and was easily flattered by anyone and everyone - see Elizabeth dangling Durnley at her knowing she'd fall for his pretty face and not see beyond that. It's incredible that this woman who grew up at the feet of Catherine Medici didn't pick up a trick or two from her especially in the arena of survival. It wasn't smooth sailing in France during her time there, but she seems to have been brought up in a spoilt, princess bubble.

 Scotland was a very rude shock and she didn't adjust. And when she arrived in England after all she had been through clearly hadn't learnt the lesson. She simply resorted to plotting no matter how often she was nearly caught, tacitly gave her approval to full-scale rebellion of the northern lords all the time trusting to the french version of sacred monarchy and her guise family to save her. In the end she went too far and was finally caught red-handed (or was trapped into it).
Logged
leatherface

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 660

Offline Offline

Nigeria Nigeria

Posts: 2407





Ignore
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2015, 07:51:52 PM »

Novice: Illegitimacy wasn't the big issue that we currently take it to be. The only problem with illegitimacy was that the illegitimate off-spring couldn't inherit and had to suffer whatever their father's decided to give them. In most cases, the illegitimate off spring (talking society as a whole) were brought up with their legitimate siblings and given names or honours that gave them an income whilst still acknowledging their illegitimacy.

And in many cases, the illegitimate off spring were more loyal and useful than the legitimate ones eg Richard 3 had a son who was known as John the Bastard who grew up to be a commander of his army, and was Captain of Calais - a very prestigious post.

Henry 8 had an illegitimate son, The Duke of Richmond, who was honoured at court.

Most of the time, any aristocratic family with Fitz infront of their name usually points to illegitimacy eg FitzRoy (son of the King).

Many illegitimate off-spring were sponsored into the church to become statesmen in the long-term.

The most famous royal dynasty, The Tudors, is descended from illegitimacy. Their royal claim was from the sons of John of Gaunt and his mistress Kathryn Swyford. They were later legitimised on condition they and their descendants never claimed the throne, but we know how that went.

The stigma of illegitimacy only became a thing during the Victorian times. Then again, that entire era was incredibly judgemental as far as morals were concerned.

As for Mary and Elizabeth, Mary was an incredibly spoilt silly woman who had no sense of anything beyond her own entitlement. She also had no self preservation, no idea about politics, thought she could simply charm her way out of any situation.

The problem is that she was brought up at the French court as a petted Dauphine (fiance of the future King to whom she was betrothed from infancy). Everyone, especially the king indulged her and spoilt her without giving her any lessons in statecraft that would be needed in Scotland.

She thought Scotland (and England) would be ruled in much the same way as France where The King's very being was the essence of law. She was either too stupid or lacked the character to see below the surface, and was easily flattered by anyone and everyone - see Elizabeth dangling Durnley at her knowing she'd fall for his pretty face and not see beyond that. It's incredible that this woman who grew up at the feet of Catherine Medici didn't pick up a trick or two from her especially in the arena of survival. It wasn't smooth sailing in France during her time there, but she seems to have been brought up in a spoilt, princess bubble.

 Scotland was a very rude shock and she didn't adjust. And when she arrived in England after all she had been through clearly hadn't learnt the lesson. She simply resorted to plotting no matter how often she was nearly caught, tacitly gave her approval to full-scale rebellion of the northern lords all the time trusting to the french version of sacred monarchy and her guise family to save her. In the end she went too far and was finally caught red-handed (or was trapped into it).

Word Herazeus, especially on Mary Stuart.

She was such an airhead it was unreal. I've always wondered how someone so stupid managed to survive infancy after being raised by Catherine di Medici and Diane de Poitiers the badest bitches who proved that women know how to run  show.
Logged
Herazeus
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 609

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1053





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2015, 11:48:27 PM »

^ IKR!!!! Shocked
Logged
JessDawn

Small Member
****

Reputation: 75

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 623





Ignore
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2017, 06:39:01 PM »

I love Antonia Fraser's biography. It's a must-read. But yes, Mary Stuart was the typical pampered queen unlike her two cousins; Mary Tudor had horrible adolescence/early adulthood, and Elizabeth, whose life has been always shit but knew how to deal with it.

People think Mary lost, but it isn't true; Both Elizabeth and Mary Stuart won: By the end of EI's rule, England was protestant and highly influenced by the House of Tudor's most remarkable monarch, and Mary Stuart's descendants live up to this day in Elizabeth I's protestant country and other European monarchies.
Logged

CyrilSebastian

Large Member
******

Reputation: 93

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1317





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2019, 11:28:56 PM »

The demise of Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I in July 1564 meant that an alliance of the Holy Roman Empire with England against France and Scotland seemed an attractive option. The possible idea of a marital union between Elizabeth I and Archduke Charles of Austria was brought forth.
Logged
SvenskaSarah

Small Member
****

Reputation: 114

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 466





Ignore
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2019, 01:15:44 AM »

For anyone who watches this film, could you please let me know if Elizabeth and Mary share a scene? I'm a stickler for historical accuracy (I'm a historian) and in the trailers it seems that they share a scene, yet the two women never met! Tia x
Logged
cordtx

Warned
Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 1282

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 8616





Ignore
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2019, 03:20:43 AM »

Yes they do.
And it’s ridiculous but it’s more like speaking past each other on a stage
Logged
NAOTMAA

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 720





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2019, 06:31:36 AM »

I love Antonia Fraser's biography. It's a must-read. But yes, Mary Stuart was the typical pampered queen unlike her two cousins; Mary Tudor had horrible adolescence/early adulthood, and Elizabeth, whose life has been always shit but knew how to deal with it.

People think Mary lost, but it isn't true; Both Elizabeth and Mary Stuart won: By the end of EI's rule, England was protestant and highly influenced by the House of Tudor's most remarkable monarch, and Mary Stuart's descendants live up to this day in Elizabeth I's protestant country and other European monarchies.

One historian (I can't remember who) said Mary was the biggest winner simply because she provided the heir to continue the line of succession. It's her blood that runs through the veins of the future monarchs, not Elizabeth's. Providing an heir and continuing the line of succession helps stabilizes the country. It's probably a big reason why Elizabeth was so upset when she received the news of James birth. Deep down she knew Mary succeeded at something very important and she had not. Her failure to secure the secession caused so much trouble and uncertainly throughout her reign, religious and political. So much blood was shed and money spent because of that single uncertainty. Mary, and others, only became threats because Elizabeth didn't have a child to succeed her. They said for all her great successes and amazing legacy she failed at the biggest and most important duty of all. I'm not sure I totally agree with that but its one point of view when talking about the two.
Logged
CyrilSebastian

Large Member
******

Reputation: 93

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1317





Ignore
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2019, 11:40:40 PM »

In France, Mary, Queen of Scots and her husband the Dauphin Francis (later King Francis II) began to quarter the English arms with the French arms in their emblem. It was a gesture that displeased Queen Elizabeth I of England.
Logged
CyrilSebastian

Large Member
******

Reputation: 93

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1317





Ignore
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2019, 11:38:29 PM »

If Queen Elizabeth I named either Catherine or Mary Grey as heir, there would be Protestants who supported Henry Hastings.   
If Queen Elizabeth I named Mary, Queen of Scots, as heir, there would be Catholics who suggested Lady Margaret Douglas.
Logged
CyrilSebastian

Large Member
******

Reputation: 93

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1317





Ignore
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2019, 10:00:41 PM »

Mary Stuart was very fond of white. She insisted on wearing white for her wedding to the Dauphin Francis (future Francis II) of France.
Logged
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3522

Offline Offline

Posts: 17729





Ignore
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2019, 10:06:42 PM »

Interesting, so perhaps she instead of Victoria should get the laurels for inventing the bridal Whites?
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Konradin

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 44

Offline Offline

Argentina Argentina

Posts: 218


“Après moi le déluge”




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2019, 03:01:47 PM »

Quote from: SvenskaSarahlink=topic=14497.msg1184255#msg1184255 date=1546727336
For anyone who watches this film, could you please let me know if Elizabeth and Mary share a scene? I'm a stickler for historical accuracy (I'm a historian) and in the trailers it seems that they share a scene, yet the two women never met! Tia x
I watched it on Sunday, they did share a scene, and it was very difficult film to watch for several reasons:
- That meeting never happened. Mary was keen on doing it, she knows she was really charming and could have used that to actually flatter Elizabeth face to face, writing was different, even with the whole legitimacy issue on the table, they were equals, family and queens in their own right on the same island. Sadly, it never occurred for Elizabeth canceled them on a very short time with dubious reasons. Lady Antonia Fraser did write a lot about that, for some reason, Elizabeth was really scared of that meeting.
- Dont' get me wrong, but the whole politic correctness' trend does not appeal to me. I'm not going to discuss race, just history, black and chinese in those courts, sorry... but no. It's very wrong, I know they have to take some liberties to tell a story, but really!?
- No war ever happened between Scotland and England, both Elizabeth and Mary were very keen to avoid that.
Logged
CyrilSebastian

Large Member
******

Reputation: 93

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1317





Ignore
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2019, 12:06:13 AM »

Queen Elizabeth I granted the musical composers Thomas Tallis and William Byrd a monopoly licence to print and sell music in England.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: