The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 02-18-2010, 10:40 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Henry II's involvement in the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury; the death of the Princes in the Tower; the behavior of the children of George III; and the Flora Hastings matter, to name a few. Charles and Diana were newsworthy but paled in comparison to many other scandals, including Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, which cost him the throne. But truly, which was more scandalous--that she was married when they first began their affair or that he wanted to marry a divorced woman? As Head of the Church of England, Edward could not marry a divorcee but morally I think his affair when she was married was more scandalous. But then, that's me.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-18-2010, 10:48 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Jonny,

Although Edward never recognized these supposed illegitimate offspring, did they receive any honors from him? Or any recognition from other royals because of their connection through Edward?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-19-2010, 03:24 AM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
To me the biggest scandal must be Henry's love to Anne Boleyn. I mean at that time and changing a whole countries religion because of the personal love of a King...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-19-2010, 06:54 AM
QUEENECE29's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dierna23 View Post
To me the biggest scandal must be Henry's love to Anne Boleyn. I mean at that time and changing a whole countries religion because of the personal love of a King...
Definitely agree to this interpretation. Development and as a result, a very different situation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-19-2010, 12:03 PM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,101
I'm not very familiar with the Princes in the Tower~blush. But what actually happened? Did Richard III really have them murdered>
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-19-2010, 02:51 PM
Jeniann's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia Beach, United States
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchessmary View Post
I'm not very familiar with the Princes in the Tower~blush. But what actually happened? Did Richard III really have them murdered>
No one knows for sure. I would say yes, it was ordered by Richard or one of his supporters sometime in fall or winter 1483. If it wasn't Richard my money would be on the Duke of Buckingham. There are also theories involving Henry Tudor and his mother, but I don't think those are very plausible.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...wer-22302.html
__________________
What's the worst that I can say?
Things are better if I stay.
So long and goodnight.
So long and goodnight...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-19-2010, 04:49 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeniann View Post
No one knows for sure. I would say yes, it was ordered by Richard or one of his supporters sometime in fall or winter 1483. If it wasn't Richard my money would be on the Duke of Buckingham. There are also theories involving Henry Tudor and his mother, but I don't think those are very plausible.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...wer-22302.html

To show that there is clear differences of opinion on this issue I personally believe that Richard had nothing to do with their disappearance. I am not convinced that they were actually murdered in 1483 but that they were removed for their safety and either Henry had them murdered or they died of natural causes at a later stage of their lives - possibly in a monastery somewhere.

This is a topic that has been argued and researched to death over the years and the simple answer is:

They were taken to the Tower for Edward to prepare for his coronation (perfectly acceptable as Kings went from the tower to the Abbey for their coronations in those days).

They were seen playing in the grounds of the Tower in the late summer 1483.

They were declared illigitmate by Parliament due to their father's alleged betrothal to another before his secret wedding to Elizabeth.

They weren't seen again after the summer.

What happened? We don't know - they could have died that summer without any foul play, they could have been murdered that summer, they could have been removed from the country that summer, they might have still been alive when Henry took the throne and he had them killed, Henry could have hidden them away somewhere etc etc etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-19-2010, 05:02 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
Oh I totally think Richard had something to do with it either directly or indirectly.....it was like Henry II and Becket...he mentioned it in passing and someone decided to do the King (or uncle of a King) a favor and get rid of his burden.

But we have to remember that terrible things had happened the last fifty (or 100) years before the Princes in the Tower. You had the War of the Roses, the family infighting was just horrible and they were killing everyone (or pratically) everyone who stood in the way of the throne. I mean, once Edward II was killed and they have the upheaval of the War of the Roses.....Henry's king, no Edward is King...you have the Earl of Warwick making any and everybody a King....Edward's brother turning on him....and brothers and cousins turning on each other....the killing of the Princes should not have been a surprise. But what was surprising was prior to this (in my opinion) no one every touched/killed children. If you were old to take up fighting (Henry VI and Margaret's son...I think another Edward), and you died in battle...that was different. No one ever targeted small and in my mind innocent children prior to this.

But back on topic...I am going to go with George IV ( I think that is the right George) and Caroline of Brunswick. I am going to marry you and have a kid, I will try to divorce you and tell England that you are not a nice woman and when that doesn't work....I will lock the church doors so you can't get crowned. That had to be a nice juicy scandal.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-19-2010, 05:08 PM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,101
Yes, I had forgotten about Caroline of Brunswick! That poor woman. To have the abbey doors slammed in your face when you show up for your Coronation! What a lout George!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-19-2010, 05:16 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
Well...she wasn't exactly innocent.

Traveling all over Europe with some man who was not her husband? What did she expect? And frankly, she was a bit free with her favors while she was in England. If the British public hadn't hated George more than they hated her...he would have been divorced before he was Crowned.

And yes, hypocrisy is a big thing since George wasn't entirely faithful to her. And some say married to Mariz Fritzherbet. But he was man, King and had all the power. Sometimes life isnt' fair.

If we want to talk about other scandals...how about Edward VII and all his other women...and the threat of being named in a divorce case...or George, Duke of Kent and his alleged affairs before and after his marriage to Princess Marina of Greece. Or the uncles of Queen Victoria? When you have to make a conscious effort to marry and have LEGITIMATE children so that they can inheirit the throne...that is pretty sad.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-20-2010, 02:20 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
Jonny,

Although Edward never recognized these supposed illegitimate offspring, did they receive any honors from him? Or any recognition from other royals because of their connection through Edward?
to be quite honest with you i do not know if they had or not !

i have not gone into this subject in much depth, as it is only presumed that these children was fathered by king edward VII.

most of edwards lovers were married women and these children could be passed off as their husbands, regardless who fathered them !

it is therefore difficult to determine paternity with any certainty, as there is only circumstantial evidence to rely on, which would suggest that edward may had fathered these children !!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-20-2010, 03:13 PM
Duchessmary's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: San Diego, United States
Posts: 1,101
Didn't Charles II have a number of illegitimate children but no legal heir? Wasn't Henrietta Maria barren?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-20-2010, 04:22 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493

yes king charles II had 15 or more illegitimate children.
his wife was not henrietta maria, that was his mother. this king married catherine henrietta of braganza and she had three children stillborn and a miscarriage !!
btw a number of the kings illegitimate offsring are the ancestors of the late Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall !
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-20-2010, 05:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnydep View Post

yes king charles II had 15 or more illegitimate children.
his wife was not henrietta maria, that was his mother. this king married catherine henrietta of braganza and she had three children stillborn and a miscarriage !!
btw a number of the kings illegitimate offsring are the ancestors of both diana, princess of wales and camilla, duchess of cornwall !

Sarah, Duchess of York can also claim descent from Charles II along with Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall (aka Camilla).

NB To describe Camilla and Diana with the same form of their titles, as done above, is to imply that they are/were both divorced from Charles but Diana was divorced and hence became Diana, Princess of Wales but Camilla is definitely married and thus is HRH The Duchess of Cornwall or at least Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall. This is a side issue and just a personal note and I understood perfectly what you meant but on a royal board we could try sometimes to get that side of the titles things correct and please don't take offence as I am just trying to point out that the different ways titles are written means different things regarding the status of the person concerned. The use of the word 'The' with a capital 'T' has a lot of meaning in titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-20-2010, 06:24 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493

point taken, no offence taken...... are you suggesting that i should have written the late Diana Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall ?

am sorry if i have offended, i treat the use of TRF as a mere pastime, so therefore am not so particular about being precise regarding the correct forms, some of which may be due to my ignorence anyway !!

i will try to do so in any future posts, if i return !!

cheers
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnydep View Post

point taken, no offence taken...... are you suggesting that i should have written the late Diana Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall ?

am sorry if i have offended, i treat the use of TRF as a mere pastime, so therefore am not so particular about being precise regarding the correct forms, some of which may be due to my ignorence anyway !!

i will try to do so in any future posts, if i return !!

cheers
I certainly didn't take offence but was simply pointing out that the way you originally wrote the titles had them both divorced rather than one married and one divorced.

Yes the TRF is a great pasttime and I love reading your posts.

I do think that trying to get the titles/styles right when the wrong way of use actually changes the titles and status is something we can strive to do (and I do know that at times I have got it wrong).

However, I am also a teacher and sometimes I do find some things grate.

Please don't leave on account of my post as I was simply trying to add to yours (and others knowledge) accepting that many people don't know the difference.

I hope that I have added to your knowledge rather than made you feel 'ignorant' or in any way lacking in anything as you have added a lot to my knowledge here at times.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-21-2010, 08:15 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493

no worries.....am glad that you have enlightened me and i appreciate your help to get things correct.....
am learning everyday , its not a bad thing

however, thank you of reminding me that Sarah, Duchess of York, is also a descendant of king Charles II....i had qiute forgotten !!

there is a few scandals attached to Sarah's name is there not ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-21-2010, 09:53 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnydep View Post
there is a few scandals attached to Sarah's name is there not ?
Toe licking.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-21-2010, 10:52 AM
Thomasine's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Well...she wasn't exactly innocent.

Traveling all over Europe with some man who was not her husband? What did she expect? And frankly, she was a bit free with her favors while she was in England. If the British public hadn't hated George more than they hated her...he would have been divorced before he was Crowned.
Caroline of Brunswick lived at the Villa d'Este (at Lake Como) and traveled around Europe with Bertolomeo Pergami.
__________________
Dux femina facti - Behind the deed was a woman
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-21-2010, 01:15 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: N/A, United Kingdom
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Fan View Post
LOL Id say your right also The Duke of Saxe Coburg Gotha Nazi Link Cant have pleased many
hi.....
well Charles Edward the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was merely conforming to the political mores of the day which existed in that period of Germany's history, hardly a scandal in its self !!.

it was the norm and rather a exception for a high rankling German to be linked to the Nazi Party and the Reich, in fact amongst this familys members there were nine individuals who was members of the Nazi Party !! .

yes between the two world wars, the vast majority of the German Royal, Princely, Ducal families and the German Nobility became enthusiatic supporter's of hitler and prominent among them was a great number of Queen Victoria's descendants i fear, even the brother in laws of our present Queen's husband Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh, was promiment members of the Nazi Party.....
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
English/British Queens and Queen Consorts mknyazev British Royal History 46 02-18-2013 03:48 PM
Historical Scandalous Royal Affairs and Mistresses Monalisa Royalty Past, Present, and Future 167 05-15-2012 07:34 PM
English and British Royal Marriages Lady Ann British Royal History 81 07-07-2011 09:54 PM
"A Treasury of Royal Scandals" - Michael Farquhar, 2004 Michael Farquhar Royal Library 12 04-29-2007 12:57 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]