The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 09-04-2007, 11:42 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
From my university books and studies, specifically:

The Oxford History of England -

Vol. 10 - The Later Stuarts 1660-14, by Sir George Clark
Vol. 11 - The Whig Supremacy. 1714 - 1760 by Basil Williams
Vol. 12 - The Reign of George III 1760 - 1815 by J Steven Watson
Vol. 13 - The Age of Reform. 1815 - 1870

and sundry other pertinent publications.
Thanks for the references. I'll have to order some and dig in.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-05-2007, 12:51 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
This is very interesting. I previously thought the porphyria gene was from Queen Victoria. I don't think she actually had the disease, but could have carried the gene from the Hanover line. One of her children suffered from it, right? The gene must have carried down through Edward VII, George V, and actually afflicted Prince Henry of Gloucester. I think Prince William of Gloucester also suffered from it.
There are historical studies which seem to prove that porphyria was a disease several of the Stuart kings of Scotlands and their relatives suffered from - eg James V., the father of Mary queen of Scots.
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-05-2007, 10:12 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
I hadn't heard that before, Jo, and find it very interesting. Do you have references to those studies? I tried to track something down on the web, but to no avail.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-05-2007, 11:05 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
OK, Jo, I found a reference to James VI and I, who, apparently, may have had the disease.

From the net: "James was the product of a consanguineous union, i.e. he was descended from Margaret Tudor through both his father and his mother, so it is likely that Margaret had the porphyria gene. It is now thought that George III, a sixth-generation descendant of James, also had porphyria."

Thanks for that, Jo. I learn something new every day!

Interesting to note (to me, at least) that James, although sometimes very melancholy and sick and sorry for himself, was never actually thought to be mad as was George III.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-06-2007, 12:01 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Polly, a couple of books which trace the history of porphyria in the royal family back to the Stuarts are McAlpine & Hunter's "George III and the Mad Business" (Pantheon, 1970) and Rohl, Warren, & Hunt's "Purple Secret: Genes, Madness, and the Royal Houses of Europe" (Bantam, 1998).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-07-2007, 01:56 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Thank you, Elspeth.

I'll track them down. The second title looks most intriguing to me.

From a C21 perspective, it's a pity, n'est ce pas, that so little was known about genetic inheritance and pre-disposition, in the past? How much anguish, suffering, and indeed, revolution, might have been avoided?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-07-2007, 02:03 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhontella View Post
Thanks for the references. I'll have to order some and dig in.
Far be it from me to discourage you, Zhontella, but they're all fairly weighty, historical tomes. Perhaps they are not entirely suitable to those who do not have a professional interest in the various periods outlined, so it may well be better to check them out at your local library, and/or avail yourself of the inter-library loan facilities first. After checking them out, you can then decide whether or not to purchase. Twenty years ago, they were not cheap, sad to say.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-07-2007, 01:29 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
Far be it from me to discourage you, Zhontella, but they're all fairly weighty, historical tomes. Perhaps they are not entirely suitable to those who do not have a professional interest in the various periods outlined, so it may well be better to check them out at your local library, and/or avail yourself of the inter-library loan facilities first. After checking them out, you can then decide whether or not to purchase. Twenty years ago, they were not cheap, sad to say.
I found these books on Abebooks for only a few dollars. A lot will happen to the price of a book in 20 years.

My interest in royals has always been more for the personal, psychological history -- rather than any politics or formal fanfare. So your descriptions are exactly the kind of info I've been searching.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-08-2007, 01:55 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Good for you, Zhontella! Such enterprise is commendable, in my opinion.

The Oxford Histories are, however, more concerned with bald history and constitutional matters than gossip, though, of course, there are many qualifications, along the lines which I suggested, throughout.

If you find them too dry, PM me and I'll try to nominate more specific titles along the lines of your interests. I have a lot of books, all of which informed my very strong opinions, attitudes and fancies.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-08-2007, 02:03 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
Thank you, Elspeth.

I'll track them down. The second title looks most intriguing to me.

From a C21 perspective, it's a pity, n'est ce pas, that so little was known about genetic inheritance and pre-disposition, in the past? How much anguish, suffering, and indeed, revolution, might have been avoided?
Funny you should mention that, because I've often wondered how many major wars in the ancient world were caused because the kings involved had toothache or something.

It's sort of interesting that there seems to have been insanity in the royal line before Mary Stuart (I'm thinking of Henry VI in particular, but some of the others didn't seem to be too stable). Presumably Mary inherited the porphyria gene from somewhere (assuming she really did have it), but I suppose the medical records further back in history are too sketchy for modern researchers to really know what was causing the symptoms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-08-2007, 02:35 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Funny you should mention that, because I've often wondered how many major wars in the ancient world were caused because the kings involved had toothache or something.

.
Do you know, Elspeth, that I think that one of the most profound comments I've read on this Board, or anywhere, for that matter, and I read a lot of history.

It's not funny at all: I'm convinced that it's a genuine contender for serious investigation and reflection, though I wouldn't restrict it to an examination of the ancient world, alone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 09-09-2007, 06:01 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
So where is the "historical sense" that the Spencers were ever superior to that august ancestry?
Of course they weren't!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly
the censorious, striving, middle-classes of England, who've only ever struggled to emulate the ingrained influence of the aristocracy which it, so sadly, futilely envies.


Envy is a very negative emotion, but it doesn't start and end with the middle classes. Viscounts are envious of Earls, Earls of Marquesses, Marquesses of Dukes, they were all envious of the power of the monarch of course and all fought among themselves to be one of the powers behind the throne.

The Spencer's lineage is only traceable back to 1330, with the family tree starting with plain old William, the title of Earl Spencer being created in 1765 (If you look at their family tree, you will see many careful marriages to daughters for advancement purposes). Many aristocratic families can trace their titles back a further 120- 330 years and some of the Scots beyond that.

All aristocratic families, tried to stay close to the throne, (some like the Spencer's even changed allegiance to pursue that goal). Most tried to advance themselves through the system, becoming Baron - Viscount - Earl - Marquess - Duke, as always, loyal servants were rewarded, those that fell from favour lost everything.

Most people have witnessed some of the back stabbing that goes on within a company, climbing the social ladder was no different 500-700 years ago, than it is today, although the stabbing tended to be real. Women were commodities, to be used to advance the family and that has not changed, Diana's father, IMO, planted the seed from an early age, that Diana at last could achieve what had eluded the Spencer's for so long. So their lineage may have been prestigious, but they were still scheming to achieve the ultimate goal and marry into the ('inferior') royal family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-09-2007, 11:33 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Diana's father, IMO, planted the seed from an early age, that Diana at last could achieve what had eluded the Spencer's for so long. So their lineage may have been prestigious, but they were still scheming to achieve the ultimate goal and marry into the ('inferior') royal family.
One might argue that the hopes were pinned on Sarah first, then Diana.
Or maybe it was Diana, Sarah, Diana again; if the Earl merely hoped for a Diana, Duchess of York until Sarah managed to be a girlfriend of the Prince of Wales. Who knew that Jane would best them all, by bagging and keeping arguably one of the most prominent royal courtiers in the land? But thank goodness Lady Sarah A-J or Lady Helen Windsor didn't marry Charles Spencer.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-09-2007, 03:18 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
One might argue that the hopes were pinned on Sarah first, then Diana.
Or maybe it was Diana, Sarah, Diana again; if the Earl merely hoped for a Diana, Duchess of York until Sarah managed to be a girlfriend of the Prince of Wales. Who knew that Jane would best them all, by bagging and keeping arguably one of the most prominent royal courtiers in the land?
I think any one of them would do, but he had more of a chance marrying Diana into the BRF because Frances wasn't about to keep his ambitions in check! I think Sarah and Jane were well grounded and perhaps, having had their mother about for longer, less guilible.
Quote:
But thank goodness Lady Sarah A-J or Lady Helen Windsor didn't marry Charles Spencer.
Oh CasiraghiTrio, shame on you, what a terrible thought!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-09-2007, 09:35 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
So their lineage may have been prestigious, but they were still scheming to achieve the ultimate goal and marry into the ('inferior') royal family.
Was that the ultimate goal? Short sighted I think! They have achieved far more. Spencer blood will one day reign....albeit mixed with a dash of that pesky Windsor blood, of course.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-10-2007, 05:07 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Was that the ultimate goal? Short sighted I think! They have achieved far more. Spencer blood will one day reign....albeit mixed with a dash of that pesky Windsor blood, of course.
Ha Ha, you are right, they exceeded even their wildest dreams!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-12-2007, 10:37 PM
PoLo's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Princeton, United States
Posts: 11
"I don't think anyone else matters to Charles except Charles"

Charles only thinks about Charles. Lying Camilla is desperatly needed, to tell him only things he wants to heir, such as to reasure him on a daily basis that his close-set-eyes do not mean insincerity. Characteristically, that trait means you cannot be trusted. Many thiefs have eyes like that.

Also, does anyone in their right mind sincerily believe what the boys are forced to say about Camilla? My heart goes out to them......... how sad.
__________________
Duty First, Self Second. - Queen Elizabeth II
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-13-2007, 12:28 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoLo View Post
such as to reasure him on a daily basis that his close-set-eyes do not mean insincerity. Characteristically, that trait means you cannot be trusted. Many thiefs have eyes like that.

Also, does anyone in their right mind sincerily believe what the boys are forced to say about Camilla? My heart goes out to them......... how sad.
Right... Eyes determine personality.

Yes.

Perhaps he stole Christmas as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-13-2007, 03:47 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Right... Eyes determine personality.

Yes.

Perhaps he stole Christmas as well.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-13-2007, 04:04 AM
Leonie's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 43
i dont think things would have turn out much different, because Camilla wouldn't wait for charles and she fell in love with someone else and married him while charles was in the Navy. Charles would still have had to marry someone if it wasn't diana and the out come would be similar either way. Camilla wanted both men (if she didnt she would never of married Andrew) and would have been happy going back and forth between them like she had already and if the affair didnt go public she still would be going between both men, i dont however and never have believe Charles was Camilla love of her life, otherwise she would have waited for charles instead of marrying someone as soon as charles left the country.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 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]