The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 05-31-2011, 09:20 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyGrinningSoul View Post
Mary I - I do have some sympathy for her, at least as a young woman and in regards to her obvious mental issues. But a bad childhood and tyrant of a father can never excuse her burning Catholics like it was going out of fashion. I do sometimes wonder if she would have been quite so awful had she not endured the things she had. Of course in her eyes, she was probably doing the "heretics" a favour by burning their sins away. Though as with Thomas Cranmer, its obvious her intent was very much revenge and propaganda.

John - Although the result of his disastrous reign was Magna Carta, the ends most certainly did not justify the means. Of course he ended up breaking the rules of Magna Carta (which provoked civil war) and taxed people enormously, lost Normandy, Anjou, Maine and parts of Poitou. which if I am thinking correctly the attempts to take these places back were the reason for the taxes.

Stephen - usurped Henry I and cheated Matilda out of her rightful throne, He seized the Treasury, crowned himself, bought off the Scottish by giving them Cumbria (as a Cumbrian this appalls me mightily!) paid Danegeld to appease the Danes and then provoked four civil wars. These decisions left the country in ruins, economically and otherwise. It had never been a weaker power before or since then.

At one point I would have named Richard III as one of the worst, however it seems obvious to me that much of his poor reputation was due to Tudor propaganda. I don't believe he murdered the princes. I certainly think there was some sort of 'hush hush' secret funeral or something of the boys, in order to prevent the exact rumours that have dogged his reputation for centuries. Also, there is no proof that he was responsible for the death of Henry VI, or that he was even in the castle(?) at the time of Henry's demise.
Minor correction...Mary didn't prosecute Catholics...she wanted the return of Catholicism in England. She burned Protestants and quite as kept, so did Edward VI. He was so devoted to Protestantism that he was willing (or allowed himself) to overturn his father's will and try to keep Mary from getting the throne.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 06-02-2011, 01:26 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4
The nazi-sympathising fool David (he does not deserve to be called with the royal name or title). We shall be thankful to Mrs. Simpson from saving Britain from a truly vile man.

Mary I, as well as many others who persecuted people for their beliefs, burnt them alive etc. in those dark ages. Than came the Enlightenment and the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights. 1689 - the year freedom was born.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 06-02-2011, 02:57 AM
IloveCP's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Palm Springs, United States
Posts: 4,917
With out a doubt Mary i.As for Edward viii,well he did it for love,at least he did'nt do it because he just did'nt want to be king.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 06-28-2011, 04:18 PM
LadyGrinningSoul's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Blackburn, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Minor correction...Mary didn't prosecute Catholics...she wanted the return of Catholicism in England. She burned Protestants and quite as kept, so did Edward VI. He was so devoted to Protestantism that he was willing (or allowed himself) to overturn his father's will and try to keep Mary from getting the throne.
Aw dear, I actually knew that but it was a mistake on my part. Silly me! Thanks for the correction. :)

Now I would add Edward VIII, but as he wasn't on the throne long enough to do any real damage in my view, I omitted him. Whilst on the throne at least. I believe as many do that he was absolutely in league with the Nazi's. But this is only from watching the infamous 'Traitor King' documentary. If this does not count as not entirely off topic, is there any compelling evidence to suggest that he didn't do the things he was accused of, or at least in defence? Giving very important information to Hitler, asking the Germans to somehow retrieve Wallis' belongings in Paris after it had become occupied etc?
__________________
"I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too."
— Queen Elizabeth I
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 06-30-2011, 10:08 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Just to let people know, documentaries can not be trusted completely. I saw one a few months ago claiming that Elizabeth I was really a boy. Another one about Prince Albert said if he hadn't died he would have been a tyrant as bad as Stalin and Lenin. So instead of going by documentaries, you might want to actually do the research yourself instead of taking other people's opinions at face value. There were a lot of rich white men who were open to Hitler in the 30s, before he proved himself crazy and evil and desperate for world domination.
__________________
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
  #166  
Old 06-30-2011, 10:15 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Diminishing the power of the crown in England very well could have saved the monarchy as a whole. Other monarchs who refused to give up their strong hold on the crown ended up dead either in the 1790s or with WWI.
__________________
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
  #167  
Old 07-01-2011, 12:22 PM
Jeniann's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia Beach, United States
Posts: 57
No, he wasn't giving information to the Nazis. There's no proof and I don't understand why he would have done that anyway. What did he know that the Nazis somehow found out anyway? Is there anything that he knew that wasn't common knowledge among British forces that the Nazis ended up knowing about? And is there any way such a leak could have been traced to him?
__________________
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
  #168  
Old 07-01-2011, 06:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Just to let people know, documentaries can not be trusted completely. I saw one a few months ago claiming that Elizabeth I was really a boy. Another one about Prince Albert said if he hadn't died he would have been a tyrant as bad as Stalin and Lenin. So instead of going by documentaries, you might want to actually do the research yourself instead of taking other people's opinions at face value. There were a lot of rich white men who were open to Hitler in the 30s, before he proved himself crazy and evil and desperate for world domination.

What you are advocating is that people actually be historians and evaluate all sources, including documentaries and I couldn't agree more.

As a history teacher it is what I am always saying to the kids I teach, and some of the staff at my school who are not history trained but have to teach the subject anyway - and believe one documentary and then watch another one and it says something different - then they say they are confused. Trying to explain that history isn't hard and fast facts but rather every historians own interpretations based on their own personal bias (we all have one based on our culture, religious beliefs, education, wealth, status, gender, sexual orientation and experieces etc) and thus they are valid interpretations.

You have to look at the presenter of a documentary - just as you would with a written based historian and find out what evidence they used, what access to official and non-official documents etc that they had, and they you will draw your own conclusions and guess what - someone who has done the same research could reach a completely different conclusion because they have a different view of life.

As for Edward VIII - he was incompetant as a King and the government found a great excuse to get rid of him (what they would have done if Wallis hadn't come along is anyone's guess but they would have done something). Was he handing over secrets to the Nazis - I don't believe so. Was he lax with the security of information he had been given by the government - definitely. Could a leading German representative in Britian have those learnt something about British policy in 1936 (remember this was the year of the Olympics and the year that Hitler pulled in his more extreme views as a result anyway although he did re-occupy the Rhineland - he sent German troops into German territory) - possibly?

In 1936 Hitler was seen as a 'good' leader by the vast majority of the rest of the world. Churchill, who was speaking out against this man, was seen as the odd man out - a bit like Prince Charles and the environment in the 80s. It is a mistake to judge Edward's actions in 1936 and 37 by the standards of today when he was just the biggest name to support the Nazis publicly. The Queen Mum and George VI were supporters of Hitler's ideas to a certain extent also at that time - even though they never met him - but they weren't the totally anti-Hitler that they became by late 38.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 07-06-2011, 05:32 AM
LadyGrinningSoul's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Blackburn, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Just to let people know, documentaries can not be trusted completely. I saw one a few months ago claiming that Elizabeth I was really a boy. Another one about Prince Albert said if he hadn't died he would have been a tyrant as bad as Stalin and Lenin. So instead of going by documentaries, you might want to actually do the research yourself instead of taking other people's opinions at face value. There were a lot of rich white men who were open to Hitler in the 30s, before he proved himself crazy and evil and desperate for world domination.
I was simply asking what people thought of these claims, ie. provoking discussion on a discussion board. Asking for others view points is a form of ''doing the research for myself'' is it not? I hadn't researched much of him prior to the documentary as my interest is more that of the Tudor era. I admitted my opinions were at that time coloured by the documentary, though despite what you claim there is plenty of evidence to back some of these claims up.

I certainly think he suffered from loose lips, particularly in the manipulative (perhaps, at times alcohol fueled) company of those with a certain fascist bent. Of course its terribly unfair to judge the actions of any man from an era other than our own.

I do believe the man to have been immensely naive in his position in getting drawn into the seductive power of the third Reich. Of course this comes from the benefit of hindsight, before the horrors of the regime were well known.
Of course many well educated and otherwise were. Lets face it, the views of Hitler were very much widespread.
__________________
"I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too."
— Queen Elizabeth I
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 10-24-2013, 01:03 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
A lot of people in here named Richard I but history and historians seem to like him a lot.
As for Stephen, he had support for his cause and not all England wanted Matilda. He usurped the throne but so did William the Conqueror, Edward IV, Henry VII, William and Mary etc.
As for Henry VI can you really label him one of the worst? Is this before or after his illness? He can't really help being mentally insane.
__________________

__________________
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
Reply

Tags
british monarchs


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
Coronation of British Monarchs Josefine British Royals 217 09-29-2014 07:48 PM
Unexpected Monarchs auntie Royalty Past, Present, and Future 72 12-05-2013 07:40 PM
Monarchs of Norway norwegianne Norwegian Royal History 0 11-10-2007 03:31 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:30 AM.

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]