The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History
Click Here to Login

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 06-17-2009, 01:45 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464

Still, that's no more than a de facto consort who acts as a regent now and then. Catherine of Aragon, a queen consort who also acted as regent for her husband, was more significant in government than Mary II, a queen who was actually a monarch - Catherine even defended England against the Scots!

Poor Mary II is remembered only as the wife of the King who overthrew James II & VII. The beggining of this thread indicates that there are people who don't even know that she was a monarch.

I wonder what would've happened if she accepted the parliament's offer to reign alone. Perhaps William would've abandoned her and her father would've had more chances to reclaim his throne. Perhaps Mary II was actually smart and not as submissive as we think - is it possible that she knew how fragile her reign would be without her husband's army? I know, so much perhapses :)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-18-2009, 06:57 PM
Grace Angel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
I think May was naturally submissive, given that this was how 17th women were raised to be, and also Mary wasn't that intellectual or well educated, and had married very young, and had little taste of independence. All she knew was leaning on her husband. Had Mary II lived in Tudor Times, she may have taken the throne alone, as Mary I, Elizabeth I both did so, as Tudor royal women were usually well educated and independent for the 16th century, although of course Mary I did marry, etc, whereas Elizabeth did not.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-15-2010, 09:59 PM
American Queen's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5
I agree that Mary was naturally submissive and truly loved her husband. And when she was asked about ruling over England, it did not make sense to her that she should be regnant and William consort. (William wasn't happy about that arrangement either). She insisted that as the wife she would play an inferior role but in the end was happy to rule "equally" beside her husband, who soon came to realize how bright she truly was. He even trusted her to take over the affairs of State when he left for Holland and Ireland.
__________________
The American Queen
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-16-2010, 12:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
Their marriage to me seems very much a love match. He genuinely mourned her and she clearly loved him. It would have seemed natural for her to allow him to reign equally with her, and let's also remember how close his own claim to the throne was.

Even 150 years later Victoria allowed Albert a large say in running things to the extent where during much of the 1840s and 1850s he really did the job with her at his side rather than the other way round, again partly because women were expected to do what there husbands told them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-09-2013, 05:22 PM
ukchrisuk's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wouldham, United Kingdom
Posts: 19
The British Royal House of Orange (1689-1702) & The Glorious Revolution (1688)

Hi

I have just updated the information I have written on the Royal House of Orange.

"William III, Prince of Orange, married Mary Stuart on the 4th November 1677. They were both brought up as staunch protestants, Mary was the eldest daughter of King James II. However James converted to Catholicism around 1689 when she was nine and it was this decision that seeded the beginnings of discontent that lead to the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688."

To find out more please go to British Royal House of Orange
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-09-2013, 08:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,155
Again, I am very impressed with the shear amount of information ukchrisuk provides in such a concise summary. Thanks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-11-2013, 05:24 PM
ukchrisuk's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wouldham, United Kingdom
Posts: 19
Thanks again for your kind comments
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-22-2014, 06:20 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,950
On February 3, 1689, Prince William of Orange declared that he would not agree to rule as regent or as Mary's consort. He demanded the full power and sovereignty of a monarch, jointly held with his wife. They became William III and Mary II.
In Emperors, Kings & Queens, Sonya Newland wrote:

William III was respected rather than loved by his subjects.
In Emperors, Kings & Queens, Sonya Newland wrote:

Mary II bowed to him (William III) in all matters of government, but proved herself a capable ruler in her own right when he was away.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-11-2016, 07:58 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 18,545
From Westminster Abbey : William III

Westminster Abbey » William III
__________________
20th of December,1963-Birth of HRH The Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-31-2017, 02:26 AM
eya eya is online now
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 9,206
Video: Why the William of Orange story is described as one of the biggest lies of British history (From HeraldScotland)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-31-2017, 05:26 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,297
I missed the insight that William III of Nassau, Prince of Orange was no "foreign invader" as spouse of Mary Stuart (daughter of King James II). He himself was half-British via his mother Mary Stuart, The Princess Royal (daughter of King Charles I). While Mary was the Number One in the line of succession, she married her full cousin William, who was the Number Four in that same succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-31-2017, 09:38 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 18,735
Of course he was a foreign invader who initiated a succesfull coup-d'etat. He was accompanied by 15.000 Dutch troops and transported by a small armada of 400 vessels.

http://collectie.legermuseum.nl/site...stadhouder.pdf

The propaganda that was used is well documented. Lucy Worsley hardly has a scoop.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-31-2017, 12:52 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
Of course he was a foreign invader who initiated a succesfull coup-d'etat. He was accompanied by 15.000 Dutch troops and transported by a small armada of 400 vessels.

http://collectie.legermuseum.nl/site...stadhouder.pdf

The propaganda that was used is well documented. Lucy Worsley hardly has a scoop. ]
A foreign invader is Louis XIV invading the Low Countries. Mary Stuart simply was the rightful heiress to her father, the King. Yes, she married a very rich, mighty and shrewd husband, himself a successor to the same throne and he enforced her throne, but I would not label it as a foreign invader, after all the rightful British Princess and her half-British Prince -a successor himself- came on the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-23-2017, 03:19 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,879
Technically it was a foreign invasion because he was a foreign prince whether his mother was English or not; plus they helped oust the rightful King. The only difference from a real foreign invasion is it was with the consent of the "invadee" country.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-23-2017, 04:27 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
A foreign invader is Louis XIV invading the Low Countries. Mary Stuart simply was the rightful heiress to her father, the King. Yes, she married a very rich, mighty and shrewd husband, himself a successor to the same throne and he enforced her throne, but I would not label it as a foreign invader, after all the rightful British Princess and her half-British Prince -a successor himself- came on the throne.
How was she the rightful heiress when she had a brother who was the heir?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-03-2017, 01:30 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,360
Her brother and her father were both deposed and exiled since they were Catholics, which out Mary first in line to the throne. Of course, everybody didn't approve of this. And as you might know, lots of people in Scotland in particular would later fiercely support the Jacobites instead of the Hannoverians. But it seems like James II made himself so impopular in England, that Mary and William were encouraged to take over the throne instead. Ouch...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british history, queen mary i, queen mary ii, queen regnant, stuart, tudor, william and mary


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





Popular Tags
austria birthday birthday celebration carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge gala dress earl of snowdon family general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta margarita infanta sofia ińaki urdangarín juan urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news pablo urdangarín portugal pregnancy prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess alexandra of luxembourg princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary casual style princess mary fashion princess of asturias princess sofia princess sofia's daytime fashion princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia rohan family romania state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge fashion vatican victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises