Prince Charles in Vogue

Page 666 of the September issue. There's an article on eco-fashion by Prince Charles.

I don't get it either.

Isabella of France

Princess Isabella of France was born at some point in the 1290’s. The exact date is uncertain. The best guess is some time between 1292-1295, but we can’t be sure. Contemporary counts contradict each other about her age.

Isabella’s parents were Philip IV of France, and Joan I of Navarre. The French royal family was the most powerful one in Europe at this time, and given that Isabella’s mother also ruled in her own right, Isabella was very sought after as a royal bride. She was their only daughter, and her three brothers would all be Kings of France. Isabella’s mother died in 1305, and her father chose King Edward II of England to be her husband. Edward was about ten years older than Isabella, and had taken the throne at a fairly young age.

Edward and Isabella were married in 1308, when Isabella was quite young. How young we can’t be totally sure, but suffice to say she was young enough that had she lived in modern times men who were interested in her might find themselves face to face with Chris Hansen. But the marriage was probably not consummated right away. Though young, Isabella was considered exceptionally beautiful, as were her father and brothers. She was regarded not only as attractive, but intelligent and charming as well. Edward, for his part, was also considered very good looking and had long and curly blond hair.

Isabella brought with her a large dowry as well as many personal items and wedding presents. Among what she brought was a large chest of jewels from her father. Isabella naturally expected that these were going to belong to her. Edward disagreed, and gave them to his "close personal friend" Piers Gaveston. Isabella had first noticed Piers at the wedding when he and Edward seemed joined at the hip. Isabella couldn’t quite understand what was going on. Isabella was thrown to the side from the beginning of her marriage. Edward lavished gifts and affection on Piers, but couldn’t even hold up his end of the marriage agreement with Isabella. She expected to have her own household and authority over it, her own property, and access to all of the jewels and plates she brought from France.

Isabella soon discovered that she wasn’t the only person mad at Edward. Many of the noblemen in England were also frustrated with the favoritism Piers was receiving. It didn’t help that Piers loved to flaunt his position and the gifts he received from the King. In medieval times it was not unknown for Kings to have favorites, even if the favorites were other men. The problem was that Piers had more influence over the King than anyone else and while normally noblemen could expect to gain royal favor by serving at court, all of the favor seemed to be reserved for Piers. Isabella’s father, upon hearing about Edward’s behavior, sent funding to the noblemen to fund an uprising to get rid of Piers. It worked, and Piers was temporarily sent away. Edward was even briefly exiled and returned promising loyalty to his wife and fairer treatment for everyone. That lasted for about a month.

Piers was brought back and Edward continued acting just as he had before. Then another uprising occurred, this one even stronger. Isabella refused to support it because she feared they were going to kick out Edward all together which would put her in an uncertain position. Edward and Isabella were force to flee to Scotland. Except there was a war going on there, too. Also, William Wallace was dead by this point so whatever you saw in Braveheart about Isabella was very inaccurate.

Piers was captured on his way to meet up with Edward and executed. Then the nobles backed down and Edward was too upset to retaliate anymore. He even pardoned the people involved with the uprising on Isabella’s request. Things were still very unstable and even Edward knew how unpopular he was. Isabella’s life greatly improved, though. She got her own residence, and had her first child, a healthy boy, in 1312. He was named Edward like his father.

Isabella was also friendly with her aunt, Queen Marguerite, who was Edward’s step-mother. It was a bit awkward, as both Edward and Isabella were close to her and she was aware of the drama between them. Isabella had three more children, John, Eleanor, and Joan. But the marriage was not happy. Edward had found himself a new close personal friend. This one was Hugh Despenser. Hugh, and his father Hugh Sr., were powerful landowners and the medieval version of the mafia. Hugh had married Edward’s niece Eleanor, and had nine children with her. But he was still perfectly happy to be the King’s close personal friend. Hugh and Edward proceeded to paint the town red, and everyone became aware that there was a new favorite in town. Meanwhile, Hugh and his father proceeded to steal from rich and poor alike and murder anyone who got in their way. Hugh knew Edward would protect him and give him whatever he wanted.

Isabella was pissed. Hugh blatantly disrespected her and may have even physically or sexually assaulted her, knowing Edward would let him get away with anything. Isabella left London in 1323 and went on a solo tour of England, making herself more popular than Edward ever was. When she returned, Edward wanted her to swear an oath of loyalty to the Despenser family. She refused. Edward then confiscated her lands and took away her household. Another uprising occurred during this period, and while Edward was fighting the noblemen outside, Isabella hid out in the Tower of London. While there, she met Roger Mortimer, a charming young man who was kept locked up because he disrespected Hugh Despenser. Isabella and Roger hit it off immediately, even though they were both married.

After Edward won that conflict (barely) Isabella got permission to take her children and visit her family in France. Edward looked forward to getting rid of her so she’d never come between him and his beloved Hugh again. But Isabella had a plan. Shortly before she left, Roger had gotten out of the Tower and slipped across the channel. With her powerful relatives and boyfriend in France, Isabella began to scheme. She was not putting up with Edward and Hugh anymore. Most of England agreed with her. Isabella plotted with her brothers and her cousin Joan to raise an army. She knew she’d have support once she got to England, and she made an agreement to marry her cousin Joan’s daughter Philippa to her son Edward in exchange for help with her invasion.

In 1326, Isabella returned in a blaze of glory. Her and Roger took position of royal property, and imprisoned Edward and Hugh. Hugh was brutally executed alongside his father and his few allies. Edward was imprisoned and most likely "done away with" at some point in the next few years. Isabella’s son was only fourteen, so Isabella and Roger ruled in his place. They took absolute power and Isabella decided to do what every medieval monarch did upon seizing the throne; execute everyone she didn’t like. That put quite the dent in her popularity. So did her rumored killing of her husband, and her extra-marital goings on with Roger. In 1330, Isabella’s son Edward III came of age.

He did not like Roger, and was angry about Isabella’s treatment of his father. So he seized power and had Roger executed. Though not charged with any crime, Isabella lost her wealth and power. She was put under house arrest for a time, and had a miscarriage because of the stress of what she saw as a betrayal by her own son. Though having a child by a married man wouldn’t have been very convenient for her at that time. Though myth had it Isabella was kept locked away and went insane, that’s not really true. She mostly kept quiet, not wanting to further antagonize her son. She remained close to her other children, particularly her youngest daughter Joan. She often went to court to see her grandchildren and was particularly close to Edward III’s oldest son Edward, the Black Prince.

She died in 1358, an old woman by medieval standards, and was buried with the heart of her beloved Roger Mortimer.

Fergie may or may not be going bankrupt

Someone needs to learn how to manage money. Even if someone saves her she'll just end up in debt again in a few years like what happened in the 1990's.

Fergie is not royal any more and she needs to learn how to live like a normal person. She used to be a commoner so she should know how to live on a budget. I will blame The Firm for part of it as while she was married to Andrew she knew she could buy whatever she wanted without consequences. The Queen is frugal, but the rest of the Windsors sure aren't.

So when will we be seeing her on The Real Duchesses of New York?

Crown Prince Rudolph

Rudolph was born in 1858 and was the only son of Franz Joseph I of Austria and his wife Elisabeth, known as Sisi. Rudolph was raised by his paternal grandmother Archduchess Sophie. His parents had a difficult marriage and because of the complex familiar conflicts in the Habsburg family during that time period, Rudolph and his older sister Gisela were kept with their grandmother. There was a younger sister, Valerie, who was born ten years later and was raised by their mother.

From an early age, Rudolph was interested in science and politics. He was surprisingly bright for someone who came from one of the most inbred families in history. Zoology was a particular interest of Rudolph's. He published several articles on animal life around the Danube river in Hungary. In 1881 he even traveled to Palestine to study native birds. He was also interested in geology and had a large collection of rocks and minerals from all over the world. Electricity was another major interest of Rudolph, who was fascinated by new technology.

Rudolph had a very difficult relationship with his parents. His mother was never very maternal to him, and he and his father disliked each other even more than royal fathers and sons usually do. Part of it was politics. Franz Joseph was a very old fashion and conservative monarchist while Rudolph was much more liberal. Rudolph wrote many political treatises and supported modernizing the monarchy extensively. Privately, he wasn't a monarchist at all and heavily questioned his future role. He was also adamantly against his father's policies to the point that it was widely believed he was plotting to overthrow him. Rudolph also wrote for several newspapers anonymously on political issues.

In 1881 Rudolph married Princess Stephanie of Belgium, who was a daughter of Leopold II. Stephanie also disagreed with Rudolph's politics, being a staunch monarchist. The marriage was arranged and Rudolph and Stephanie were very unhappy. Beyond her problems with her husband, Stephanie was treated horribly by her in-laws and also had issues with her cruel father. Unhappily married and increasingly disillusioned with his role, Rudolph became self destructive. After the birth of his daughter, Archduchess Elisabeth, in 1883, Rudolph became mentally unstable and was involved with drugs.

He was also sexually promiscuous, like most royal heirs, and in 1886 he contracted gonorrhea. He used morphine as a pain killer and quickly became addicted. Beyond his sex and drugs, Rudolph was extremely depressed. He hated his royal life and lack or privacy and freedom. He also felt generally unloved and lonely, having never felt wanted by his parents. His marriage also became even worse after he passed his gonorrhea on to poor Stephanie, which rendered her infertile for the rest of her life.

In between bouts of sanity (and occasionally brilliance) Rudolph continued to spiral downward. In 1888 he became involved with Baroness Mary Vetsera, a seventeen-year-old girl who's mother was a royal hanger-on. Mary immediately fell in love with Rudolph, who was thirty, and became obsessed with him in the way teenage girls often do with older men. Rudolph jumped into an affair with Mary and the two became increasingly fascinated with death. Rudolph had been suicidal for a while at this point. According to some accounts he had asked his wife and then a different mistress to die with him. Rudolph was too afraid to do it alone. Mary was willing, or perhaps Rudolph simply thought she was willing. In late January, Mary ran away with Rudolph to his hunting lodge at Mayerling.

Mary left only a brief note for her mother, who searched for her child in vain for several days. On January 30th or the night before, Rudolph killed Mary either by shooting her or hitting her head with a blunt object. Accounts differ. Rudolph sat by the body for several hours writing letters to his family and gathering the courage to kill himself. He shot himself in the head in the early hours of the morning, and the bodies were found shortly afterwards.

There was an immediate cover-up. Mary's body was taken away and hidden. Her family was only able to bury her after they found out what happened and threatened to make a scandal. Her uncles were required to take her body out in their carriage dressed and posed as if she was still alive. Officially, Rudolph died of heart failure, though rumors were immediately spread and his death remains a mystery to this day. There are some conspiracy theories that involve both Rudolph and Mary having been murdered, but the murder-suicide theory is the most likely given what little evidence is available.

Rudolph's death was very significant historically. Only men could succeed to the throne in Austria, so Rudolph's sisters and daughter had no right to the throne. In Rudolph's place, the heir became his cousin, Franz Ferdinand. And we all know how that turned out.

Wallis, Part 9

This is part nine, so if you're new to the story you can find parts one through eight on my blog linked in my profile. Not too hard to find; there's a side bar with links to my old posts and the series starts in late May.

After leaving the Bahamas in Spring 1945, the Windsors took up residence in the Waldorf Towers in New York. Wallis and David brought everything they had with them and bought more in New York. They kept their suite as an apartment for whenever they were in New York for the next thirty years. Their next door neighbors and close friends there were Cole and Linda Porter. Cole Porter being the famous (and secretly gay) composer, and Linda being his witty and popular wife. Cool people, both of them; there was a musical about them called De-Lovely which I would highly recommend.

They would often go out to dinner together, and the Porters threw the Windsors a dinner party to introduce them to other members of New York society they didn't already know well. They would even walk their dogs together. Another person the Windsors became friendly with in New York was Elsa Maxwell, "The Hostess with the Mostest", who ruled society with an iron fist. Elsa was a party planner, author, songwriter, gossip columnist, decorator, and general busybody with more jobs than Ryan Seacrest. Still, she made sure she was at every major party and society event and made a point of knowing everything about everybody. Wallis and Elsa had known each other off and on in the past, but after the war was when they really became friends. They were later better known as what we'd now called frenemies, and would end up having horrible feuds, making up and being friends again, until they started feuding about something else. Elsa was from Iowa, started off with few connections, and never married. She got everything by sheer willpower and wasn't going to let anyone come along and take it from her. Elsa was also gay, which was well known at the time but not talked about. The Windsors also made friends with Hollywood types like Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Judy Garland.

When they weren't in New York City, Wallis and David were in the Hamptons, swimming and staying with some of their rich friends. They also, during the next few years, spend a lot of time in Palm Beach. During one of those trips they met Jimmy Donahue, one of the Woolworth heirs and a cousin of Barbara Hutton, who was the Paris Hilton of her time but with more marriages. During the next few years he would cause a lot of drama in Wallis's life, but for the time being, they were just on friendly terms. In the fall of 1945, the Windsors headed back to France. Their house had been empty for the last five years and though there was a lot of dust, Wallis was happy to be back. The only problem was that they were renting, and the house was sold around the time they got back. They were allowed to stay through April 1946, but still needed to look for a new home. In October 1945, David went to London (without Wallis) to visit his mother, who he hadn't seen in nine years. Though she had previously proclaimed he could only return to London when he came to her funeral, her attitude had softened a bit during the war. Also, her memory was starting to go a bit so it's possible she forgot why she was mad at him temporarily. By the time he actually got there, she clearly remembered. They made small talk occasionally, and though David was staying with her they didn't actually see much of one another. He didn't mention Wallis at all until right before he left, when he told his mother "Don't forget; I am a married man now." To which May responded "Forget? As if one ever could!"

The previous summer Winston Churchill had been voted out. The new Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, wasn't nearly as sympathetic to Wallis and David as Churchill had been. Still, David hoped he might be able to get some kind of position as an ambassador in America. It wasn't going to happen. He also was still hung up about Wallis not being an H.R.H. and despite his complaining, that wasn't going to happen either. He returned to France less hopeful than when he'd left. The next time David returned to England, Wallis would be with him.

In 1947, Wallis and David went on a little trip to the U.K. and stayed with their old friends Lord and Lady Dudley (descended from Robert Dudley's family, if you're wondering). For the most part, the trip was kind of boring. They went shopping, took in a play, and were followed around by David's still loyal fangirls. Until the house they were staying in was robbed and the guy walked off with Wallis's jewelry case. It was a big deal.

Part of it was Wallis's fault. She didn't believe in safes or locks or any of that nonsense. No, Wallis firmly believed in leaving your valuables unlocked under your bed. Because no one would ever look there, right? Well, apparently she was wrong. The whole situation was a bit of a scandal, and it wasn't helped by Wallis's comment after the fact when asked about something that was missing. "A fool would know that with tweed and daytime fabrics, one wears gold, and with silks and evening fabrics, one wears platinum." Clearly her Marie Antoinette phase was not completely over.

Wallis never got her jewels back though the thief was eventually caught twenty years later. To this day, there's a popular theory that the theft was arranged by the royals to get back royal jewelry David had unrightfully given to Wallis. Which isn't true; Wallis never had any royal jewels at that point. There are no photos of her wearing royal jewels and no royal jewels that went unaccounted for during her involvement with David. There certainly weren't any that went unaccounted for in 1936, were seen on Wallis, then were stolen in the robbery and magically turned up back with the royal family.

For the most part, the Windsors spend the rest of the '40's in France. Right after the war, there was an amusing anecdote about Wallis throwing a very formal dinner party. Ladies had evening gloves, champagne was served, and the main course was hot dogs and baked beans. Rationing and all. Wallis explained the situation: "Y'all have to understand my meals have suffered."

They eventually found a new house outside Paris with floors paved with gravestones from the French Revolution. Most people would find that creepy, but Wallis loved it. The French government also gave them a good deal on rent. Wallis promptly stocked up in antiques and paintings for her new house. Her prize was a small end table that had once been in Versailles during Marie Antoinette's days. Though in many ways they preferred America, David and Wallis were resolved to live in France. The French government thought they were so cool they didn't make them pay taxes. That was a big deal for David. Before his abdication he had not fully understood those horrible things called taxes (presumably he believed the royal family's allowance grew on trees) and once he was made aware of the concept he'd become obsessed with getting out of paying them. Which he managed to do fairly easily by living in France most of the year. The French had similar arrangements with many European ex-royals. In the years after World War II Paris was full of foreign royalty and there were a dozen or so other ex-kings David could hang out with living there.

Wallis and David spend most of their time entertaining and being entertained. They went to lots of movie premiers and formal balls. They even had the occasional house-guest. One British noblemen described visiting and having dinner with them when Wallis asked him if there was anything he wanted to do in France. The guy said he wouldn't mind seeing some of those lovely nude dancers. Wallis didn't see the point. Her quote on the subject was that "the only woman worth seeing naked is one you've undressed yourself."

During my time digging through library archives I found an interesting article from a woman who partied with them for a while during this period. It's very reliable and believable. Not a lot of dirt or anything, though. She described Wallis:

"The Duchess was a petite woman, with a very trim figure. She had the tiniest waist I had ever seen. Her hair was jet black and cut short. It was becomingly coiffed, parted in the middle, and drawn off her face in soft waves. It was the same familiar hairstyle she wore throughout her life. She had high cheek bones, lovely violet blue eyes and a very warm personality. She spoke with a slight British accent, and I thought she looked more intriguing than beautiful."

And David:

"I observed he had wistful blue eyes, light blond hair, a turned-up nose, and deep furrows on his face. He had a small physique and was about five feet, seven inches tall. He was a wonderful dancer and had great humour. He acted very natural and charming, and wasn't a bit pretentious."

While she didn't find him pretentious, other people sometimes did. The problem was that David was so pissed off about Wallis not being an H.R.H. (she didn't care all that much) that he insisted everyone they knew call her that and curtsey to her anyway. But there was still fun to be had. In a letter to her aunt, Wallis described inviting twelve people over for a party and then drinking thirty bottles of champagne between them. A good time was had by all.

Juana la Loca

Queen Juana (often Anglicized to Joanna) of Castile and Aragon is known as Juana la Loca for some of her more *ahem* eccentric antics. Forgive me if I make a few errors here; I do not know as much about Spain as I do about Britain, France, and Russia and my history may be a touch off. I'm going by I have an old book on female monarchs throughout history which is where I'm getting most of my information.

Juana was born in 1479 to Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon. Isabella is well known to history or sponsoring Christopher Columbus and for her many hard-fought battles to keep people who weren't white Catholics out of Spain. By her marriage to Ferdinand, a monarch in his own right, she merged their kingdoms to form what we now know as Spain. Juana's little sister, Catalina, married into the English royal family and became Katherine of Aragon, Henry VIII's first wife. I believe I did a post on her a few weeks ago; not sure if I ever posted it on my blog.

Anyway, when Juana was sixteen she got engaged to Prince Philip of Burgandy, known as Philip the Handsome. And Juana really thought he was handsome. She fell madly in love with Philip very quickly and once they were married it became almost obsessive. For his part, Philip thought she was a nice girl and all. But he still had lady friends with which he spend a great deal of time.

Juana did not like that one bit; she wanted her man to herself. But there was little she could do; she was just a consort and expected to put up with infidelity. Juana and Philip had six children; two sons who became Emperors and four daughters who became Queens. Her descendants were fond of marrying each other and as such Juana and Philip were the ancestors of some of the most inbred royals who ever lived. The famed "Hapsburg Jaw" was a result of this.

Though Juana was the third of her parents' five children, her two older siblings predeceased her parents and made her the heir to the throne. When she was twenty-five, Juana lost her mother, who she hadn't seen in many years since her marriage. As such, Juana was expected to ascend to her mother's title of Queen of Castile. Juana's father didn't like that one bit; he wanted to rule in her stead. So Juana's husband and father ended up in a kind of civil war situation (maybe not quite that bad, at least given the time period) over who was going to rule Castile.

Philip and Juana won and were sworn in as King and Queen in 1506. Tragedy stuck when later that year Philip suddenly died of an illness, most likely typhus. Juana was naturally a bit shaken up, this is well documented. What is not quite as well documented is that she completely went mad and took to running around the roof of the palace naked. There were accounts of that nature that included all kinds of stories; that she wouldn't let nuns be near her husband's coffin, that she tried to stab courtiers, that she would go into violent rages and had to be restrained. But they probably weren't true.

Here's why: Juana's father, who she wasn't particularly close to, wanted to rule Castile in her stead until her oldest son (six when his father died) came of age. If she was mentally ill and declared incompetent to reign, he could do that. As such, it was in his best interest, and in the best interest of his many hangers-on, to convince people Juana was insane. I don't doubt Juana was depressed and perhaps even a bit unbalenced after her husband died. She was still in her twenties and pregnant with her sixth child and had just won the right to rule a kingdom when she lost her husband who, by all accounts, she was deeply in-love with. But I question the madness claim simply because there were enough people who would have wanted her declared mad regardless of her mental state. Plenty of other royal ladies throughout history have been accused of madness by those who would benefit from declaring them as such.

In 1507, Ferdinand invaded Castile and had Juana imprisoned. She refused to sign away her rights to th throne, so her father had her confined to a convent. When Juana's father died in 1516, she was still more or less imprisoned. Her teenage son, Charles, was then meant to share her throne. Juana hoped he would release her after he visited her for the first time in many years, but he did not. Charles ruled both of his grandparents' kingdom and was worried that if he did anything to imply his mother was not insane he would lose some of his power.

In 1520, there was a rebellion staged by subjects who did not like the way Charles was ruling the country; they felt he was too foreign and not properly adhering to Catholic principals. Since Juana was still officially Queen, they sought her support in the rebellion. If they could get Juana to sign a document supporting their claim they would have the official authority to take over in the eyes of many monarchists. Even though it might have meant her freedom, Juana politely declined, not wishing to hurt her son.

Charles was very afraid of his mother undermining his power; he kept her imprisoned in windowless rooms in a convent for the rest of her life. Though her daughters occasionally visited and sent support, she was mostly alone. Juana began to be convinced the nuns who guarded her were trying to have her poisoned. Perhaps she was beginning to go mad after all, or perhaps they were trying to kill her. Given the circumstances, it only made sense for her to be a bit suspicious.

Juana finally died in 1555; she was seventy-five and had been imprisoned for nearly fifty years of her life. I said it before last night in regards to Elizabeth Woodville, and I'll say it again; it really sucked to be a woman in the fifteenth/sixteenth century.

Elizabeth Woodville

Elizabeth Woodville was married to Edward IV of England. She was the grandmother of Henry "The Decapitator" Tudor through her daughter Elizabeth of York.

Elizabeth was born sometime in the late 1530's to Richard Woodville and his wife Jacquetta of Luxembourg. Jacquetta was descended from both English and Continental royalty and married twice into the English nobility and royalty. Her first husband was a son of Henry IV and she married Elizabeth's father after his death. Elizabeth's parents had sixteen children, twelve of which survived childhood. After Elizabeth became Queen, her enemies would accuse her mother of witchcraft.

Elizabeth's family were fairly close for English nobility at the time. As an adult, Elizabeth would always do everything in her power to help relatives have success. Elizabeth was seen as extremely beautiful by her contemporaries and had many suitors. As a teenager she married John Grey, a wealthy nobleman, in a marriage that may have been arranged. They had two sons, Thomas and Richard.

John Grey died in 1461 and Elizabeth found herself a young widow with two children in a country torn up by the War of the Roses. The War of the Roses was between the York and Lancaster families, represented by the white and red roses, respectively. Elizabeth's family was on the Lancaster side, as was John Grey. But in 1461, the Yorks had seemingly won, and their heir Edward was placed on the throne as Edward IV.

Elizabeth and Edward first met when she tried to request his help getting lands that belonged to her family that had been seized by the crown upon Edward's victory. Edward was a few years younger than Elizabeth, six foot four, and is considered to have been the tallest King in British history. Considering the average height at the time for men was about five foot five, he towered over everyone. He was also a terrible womanizer who slept with every woman who caught his fancy. He was immediately attracted to Elizabeth and set about trying to get her into bed.

Elizabeth refused his advances repeatedly. At one point, he even held a knife to her throat and tried to rape her. Elizabeth did everything she could to resist his violent "seduction" attempts. FInally, in 1464, Edward asked Elizabeth to marry him. Whether she actually wanted to marry him (to be Queen or because she was a masochist) or just felt obligated to marry her would-be-rapist because her family had been on the losing side of a war and he had the power to have them all decapitated if she refused is a mystery of history. It wasn't fun being a woman in the fifteenth century.

Either way, they were married privately (only her mother and two of her ladies witnessed) at her home on May 1, 1464. The marriage was very controversial; Edward's handlers wanted him to marry a foreign princess to help seal his claim to the throne. Elizabeth's family having supported the Lancasters certainly didn't help. Edward's mother, Cecily Neville, was so pissed off about the whole situation she publicly threatened declare him illegitimate and put one of his brothers on the throne.

Elizabeth and Edward had ten children in fourteen years. Elizabeth had a bit of worrying after her first three were girls, but her fourth and sixth children were both boys. Edward, meanwhile, continued to whore around when ever he wasn't impregnating his wife. Elizabeth passed the hours she wasn't in labor arranging good marriages for her siblings. This made her very unpopular; the Woodvilles were seen as the worst kind of ambitious social climbers.

In 1470, Edward was forced off the throne for a time when it was retaken by the Lancasters and Elizabeth and her children had to hide out in uncertainty, but he managed to get it back. He also killed off as many of the remaining Lancaster claimants as he could get ahold of to make sure nothing like that happened again.

Throughout the 1470's, Elizabeth spent her time having babies and participating in the occasional court intrigue. One of the more interesting ones involved her brother-in-law George. George married one of the prominent Neville sisters (also relatives of his) and was somehow involved in a scheme to overthrow Edward and put himself on the throne. For this he was put in the Tower and eventually executed; possibly by being drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine. He was known to be fond of the drink.

Anyway, in 1583 Edward dropped and Elizabeth was a widow with twelve kids and a kingdom to run. Or so she thought. Turned out the arrangements had been made for her brother-in-law Richard to be regent for her son Edward Jr., who took the throne as Edward V. That lasted for about a month until Richard suddenly "found" a document that proved Edward and Elizabeth's marriage had actually not been legal. Which meant Elizabeth's kids had no right to the throne. Naturally, Elizabeth tried to fight back, but her side lost and her brother and son, Richard Grey, were executed. Elizabeth put herself and her other children in sanctuary. Her oldest son Edward was still being kept in the Tower, where he had been staying to await his coronation, by Richard. Somehow Richard managed to talk Elizabeth into letting her son Richard (not Richard Grey, her son by Edward IV who also happened to be named Richard) join his brother in the Tower so they could play together and stuff.

Sometime in late 1483, both boys "disappeared" and were never heard from again. Now, I'm not going to implicate Richard because he had fangirls who I'm sure would strongly disagree with me if I did. But, I mean, he does seem like a likely suspect. Also a likely suspect was professional hanger-on/wannabe King the Duke of Buckingham who had plenty of access and may have killed them with or without Richard's knowledge.

Though Elizabeth probably had her suspicions given Richard had already done away with her favorite brother and one of her sons, she would never really know what had happened to them. For almost a year after Richard took over, Elizabeth and her daughters hid in sanctuary where Richard couldn't get them. Finally, in 1484, they agreed to come out as Richard had pinky-sweared that he wasn't going to kill anymore of Elizabeth's children. Rumors at the time indicated he wanted to marry his teenage niece, Elizabeth's oldest daughter Elizabeth of York. I can't say how true these were, only that they were very widespread. Richard's wife had recently died and so had his son and he desperately needed an heir. He also thought by marrying his niece he could strengthen his claim to the throne. I'm sure at some point he thought about it (marriages between uncles and nieces weren't uncommon among medieval royalty) but I doubt he was serious once he realized how much backlash he would get. Everyone already thought he killed his nephews.

Richard III wasn't actually a bad King; it was that he was widely believed to be a bad person that proved to be his downfall. Henry Tudor was a relative of the Lancaster family who'd been living in exile for years. His mother, Margaret Beaufort, was a prominent noblewoman in England. Henry decided to take advantage of Richard's unpopularity and stage a rebellion. His mother contacted Elizabeth to see if she would agree to marry her oldest daughter off to Henry Tudor if he got the crown.

She agreed. Henry successfully defeated Richard III in 1485 and became Henry VII. The Tudor dynasty was born and Elizabeth's daughter was Queen. Elizabeth's children were now recognized as legitimate again and Elizabeth hoped she'd have some authority in the new court. She was wrong. Henry Tudor was dominated by his mother, who saw Elizabeth as a threat. Margaret Beaufort didn't like that Elizabeth Woodville outranked her and wanted her to go away. So Elizabeth agreed to go to a nunnery and be quiet, under some duress. She was frequently visited by her children and allowed back at court from time to time to visit her grandchildren, but she was never treated as she deserved.

By the time she died in 1492, she was quickly forgotten as people looked toward the bright future of the Tudor dynasty rather than the questionable past of the Yorks and Lancasters.

In case anyone's wondering what's going on at Jezebel...

-MizJenkins was banned, presumably for misspelling Tracie's name, after she commented on Tracie's understanding of race issues.
-Tracie went on Twitter to bemoan her unpopularity in the style of Lindsay Lohan
-Apparently if you think Tracie is racist you're a retard... or something like that
-People were destarred; drama has ensued

I think they're trying to turn the whole site into a ladymag or something. Or maybe Tracie just doesn't like having her white privilege pointed out. Either way the whole situation is turning me off the site.

No idea if I'll be back for tonight's open thread or not.

Also, Tracie doesn't capitalized her words anymore in the comments and that makes her seem like a twelve-year-old.

Inside the Body of Henry VIII

So, I'm watching this thing I DVR'd about the health history of Henry VIII.

Not bad. Some of the insights are interesting and it does include things I haven't heard much about before. That said, it is very speculative and I have a lot of trouble believing things I see on TV history documentaries. This particular show is not too implausible, but the National Geographic channel (where it came on) has a pretty bad track record when it comes to history documentaries. It's like the History Channel; both include improbable claims, conspiracy theories, and lots of Nazi stuff. I hope we can at least be reasonably sure this program focusing on Henry Tudor wouldn't include much of the last two.

Even PBS can be fairly unreliable sometimes. When fictional programs like Mad Men have less obvious inaccuracies you know there's something wrong with the state of television. But this was better than most.

Things I liked:
-Detailed timeline on Henry's health history including major illnesses and accidents which seemed reliable and useful. His biographies don't go into a lot of this and it's very relevant to his life story.
-Attempts to put facts in historical context. They go into medical practices in Tudor England quite a bit. They also go into changes in culture and standards of beauty. Generally, for such a short piece (an hour with commercials; my DVR cut off the first five minutes) the historians involved make an effort to help the viewer see things in proper perspective.
-They speculate on Henry's fear of disease in the wake of losing his father and brother. Something very relevant to history you don't see mentioned much in his biographies. It makes sense given the circumstances. Since this was Tudor England, his concern for his health did him more harm than good. There were leeches involved. Still some doubts in my mind; if he cared that much about his health would he have jousted and jumped on his horse so often.
-Lots of contemporary accounts from reliable sources!
-People often underestimate how his jousting accidents and nasty leg ulcers affected him and the rest of his life. Contemporary accounts go into this, which means it was pretty serious. Talking about the possibility of the death of the King was treason and indicating you thought there was something wrong with the King was almost as bad. The fact that multiple accounts from within England survive of this indicates it was probably a big deal.
-Henry was "the Joseph Stalin of England."
-Lots of stuff on Tudor diets; really fascinating for any Tudor fangirl.
-They do point out a lot of it was his own fault.

Didn't like:
-Historical details rushed through/forgotten. Only to be expected given how short it was.
-Too sympathetic. Not exactly nice, but too sympathetic to a guy who decapitated two of his own wives.
-Talk about the inspection of Henry's bodily "fluids" and other things I do not want to think about ever.
-Little on his mental health which is much more relevant.
-They seem to think his major personality change occurred during his joust accident in early 1536. I disagree; he was already a jerk when he locked away his wife and daughter. He might have gotten more paranoid and had some personality changes related to his head injury, but he didn't change from nice Prince Charming to The Decapitator because of one event. Honestly I question him being Prince Charming to begin with; he just had an easier time presenting himself as such when he was young.
-Continuing the myth of sexy young King Henry. Henry Tudor was good looking by Tudor standards for a royal. If you know a lot about Tudor standards of beauty and royal standards of beauty, that doesn't make him a hottie at all by today's standards. Also, people tend to flatter the royals a lot. Not to say he was always the fat slob he's known for being; there was a time he was tall and muscular and genuinely attractive to the ladies at court.
-They mention the story of his body supposedly exploding in the coffin, but don't analyze the plausibility of that which I would have liked to see a medical perspective on.

Henry Casting

If you can't tell, this is the stuff from the last Jezebel open thread. I also had something somewhat lengthy on Princess Victoria, but the next day I realized the source I had used was not the least bit reliable. I feel like there's probably stuff on this blog that's untrue, because as I never tire of saying, I wasn't there. But I think I should at least be able to stand by everything to the extent that I believe it's true and remember getting it from a somewhat reliable source.






Here is the Queen Mother, when she was young and pretty.

There is an evil going on in Hollywood, that I call Henry Casting, after Henry VIII. By the way, if they insist on making Henry VIII young and hot why haven't they tried Rupert Grint? At least he's tall and muscular with red hair.

Henry Casting is when you cast a ridiculously good looking actor who bears no resemblance to a person to play them in a historical film. I can understand getting someone of a similar type, but better looking.

But not this.

You see the lovely young Elizabeth in that photo? In two upcoming movies, she is going to be played by Helena Bonham Carter and Natalie Dormer. Fun fact: both of those actresses have also played Anne Boleyn, who looked nothing like young Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon here!

I can understand screwing up with Anne. All we have of her are portraits. But with Elizabeth here, we have a photograph so we know exactly what she looked like as a young woman.

She was a pretty girl, but short and not thin, with a rounded face and strong brow line. She was very pale, with dark hair and bright blue eyes.

Anne Boleyn, by the way, was described by contemporaries as being very thin, average height, flat-chested, and having an olive complexion and very dark brown eyes. Her features were also generally considered sharp rather than soft.

Their personalities were also a bit different, though both were absolutely fierce and not people I'd want to meet in a dark alley. I mean this in the best way possible. There's a certain red-headed Duchess who is still feeling the pain of having crossed the Queen Mother eight years after the latter's death. I wonder how those reality show applications are coming along...

Happy Belated July 17th, everyone!

Two very important events in the history of the House of Windsor took place on this date (July 17th) thirty years apart.

1. Ninety-three years ago, the House of Windsor was born. Most dynasties are founded by war or the end of a family line. Not this one. George V found himself in a pickle. He was at war with the Germans and trying to inspire his people. The problem was that George, and his whole family, were German. They were originally from the dynasty of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Their last name might have been von Wettin or something equally German, no one was sure. George knew something had to be done. He'd heard rumors that some people were doubting the loyalty of the royal family because of their German heritage. The attitude towards people of German descent in Britain during World War I was like the attitude towards people of Middle Eastern descent after 9/11. George couldn't change the fact that his bloodline was almost exclusively German. But he could change the name! So the House of Windsor was born. Windsor, like the castle, was also selected for the family's official new last name.

2. Sixty-three years ago, Camilla Shand was born. Better known under her married name, Camilla Parker Bowles, Camilla is the second wife, and former mistress, of Prince Charles. Camilla was born the great-granddaughter of legendary royal mistress Alice Keppel. When she met Charles, she allegedly joked "My great-grandmother was your great-great-grandfather's mistress, so how about it?" Whether she actually said that or not, it was love from the beginning. Charles and Camilla were, and still are, absolutely perfect for each other. Beyond belonging together, they also deserve each other. Very few people deserve the unique ball of "eccentricities" that is Prince Charles; Diana certainly didn't! Long story short, Charles and Camilla fell in love, his family said she wasn't suitable, so they broke up and both married other people, while still basically being in love with each other. Shortly after Charles married Diana Spencer, they realized nothing was going to keep them apart, and jumped into a full out affair. Camilla doesn't fit the bill of royal mistress; she's not the witty, stylish, or sophisticated type. Furthermore, despite what tabloids would have you believe, she has few royal ambitions. Charles and Camilla were just made for each other. They both loves the same stupid radio shows from the '50's. They both love the country. They both love unfashionable clothing.

The only reason Camilla ended up in the mistress position was because Charles was both too weak to stand up to his parents and too weak to honor his marriage vows and put royal duty first. If you can't tell, I am firmly on Team Diana. But I don't blame Camilla; the whole thing was the fault of the royal family, and that includes Prince Charles, Prince Philip, and, to a lesser extent, the Queen. Of course, the worst offenders when it came to setting up this situation are both dead. The Queen Mother chose Diana as a royal bride and allowed Prince Charles to use her house for trysts with Camilla. Lord Louis Mountbatten encouraged Charles to marry a virgin and not Camilla and repeatedly warned him against rebelling against his family. "Uncle Dickie" as Charles called him, used both Edward VII and Edward VIII as examples for what Charles was to do. If he was like Edward VII, and married a suitable virgin and then cheated on her, he would have fun and parties and lots of sex and be remembered as a wonderful king and all around cool guy. If he was like Edward VIII and rebelled against his family and royal duty and married someone unsuitable, he would end up getting kicked out of the family and have to live in France, which to Prince Charles would be a fate worse than death. But personality wise, Charles had little in common with either Edward VII or Edward VIII; he was more of a George III type but slightly less crazy. So those examples had little relevance to his life.

Anyway, Charles and Camilla have been married five years now, and it seems to have worked out alright for them. That doesn't excuse their treatment of Princess Diana, but if Charles had just followed his heart and married Camilla in the first place the world would have never known Diana and William and Harry wouldn't exist. But I still don't really care for Charles.

The great historian and commentator Stephen Colbert described Camilla thusly:
"Oh, to be with Camilla. T'would be like making love to the chalky white cliffs of Dover."

On Charles and Camilla's relationship:
"It's the classic fairy-tale romance. Girl meets Boy. Girl loses Boy. Boy marries Another Girl. Girl becomes Boy's mistress. Other Girl dies tragically, and they all live happily ever after!"

Also, it was today in 1918 that the Romanovs were killed but that was just so horrid and unfortunate I don't feel like talking about it tonight.

Wallis, Part 8

On the dark and stormy night of July 8, 1943, a man named Harry Oakes was murdered. He had been bludgeoned repeatedly on the head, and then set on fire. Harry Oakes was the richest man living in the Bahamas. He was a Canadian millionaire who had moved to the Bahamas to avoid taxes and exploit the locals. He was also known for his extensive charity work, but he was still definitely a colonialist type. There were stories he had been involved in some shady business dealings, but no one was entirely sure.

It was important the Governor be immediately informed. The next morning, Wallis and David were awoken with a knock to their door early in the morning. Wallis was still half asleep when her husband got out of bed to answer the door. She heard him have a conversation with his equerry in the door way. The only word she could make out was "murder".

The obvious suspect was Harry Oakes's son-in-law, Alfred de Marigny. Alfred de Marigny liked two things: money and teenage girls. He was born to poor French aristocrats, and used his charm to marry two wealthy women in quick secession and took money from them in the inevitable divorces. Harry Oakes had a daughter named Nancy, who was a pretty teenager from a wealthy family. When she was in her mid-teens, she and de Marigny had had a flirtation. He was in his late-thirties at the time. Her father had thought he'd put an end to it, but two days after she turned eighteen, Nancy ran off with him and they got married in New York before returning home to her shocked parents. Naturally, Harry Oakes was not happy about it. He tried to pressure his daughter into getting a divorce, and shortly before his death he'd sent her and her mother away to the United States to try and get her away from her husband for a while.

There were other suspects. Oakes's business partner, Harold Christie, was another possibility. But as Harold Christie was richer and more powerful than Alfred de Marigny, he wasn't as seriously considered at first. There was another issue; David, who in his position as Governor of the Bahamas had some authority over the investigation, hated de Marigny's guts. While Wallis was someone you definitely wouldn't want to cross, David was not a hateful person. Most of his worst behavior was motivated by selfishness or ignorance rather than a genuine desire to hurt anyone. Even people like Stanley Baldwin, Alec Hardinge, and Alan Lascelles, who really screwed him over, he never spoke of with much malice. His hatred of de Marigny went back to before Harry Oakes was killed.

There's a quote I remember reading once from David on de Marigny where he accuses him of being a horrible disgusting person who liked little girls. I can't find the exact quote so I won't try to guess at it beyond that, but basically David considered him to be a pedophile. It didn't help that he was rude and disrespectful to Wallis. It certainly went both ways. Alfred de Marigny is often used a source for books and documentaries trying to prove the Windsors were Nazis. Not only did he accuse them of Nazism, he also said they were involved with the Mafia in all kinds of illegal activities, and hinted that they were involved in killing Harry Oakes because he wouldn't go along with their plans. Alfred de Marigny also suggested they intentionally framed him for murder because he knew too much.

What made it impossible for the investigation to properly do its job was that everyone involved in the government and police believed Alfred de Marigny was guilty from the moment they realized it was murder. David's main mistake (beyond pre-judging de Marigny guilty) was when, instead of trusting the local authorities or calling in the Scotland Yard, he hired a Miami police officer who had once worked as his bodyguard to handle the case. David originally told him that he thought it possible that it might've just been a suicide (Oakes had seemed very depressed and irritable in the days before his death) and the fire was an accident. It was only after that theory was totally disproved that de Marigny was accused.

There's little evidence David intentionally set out to frame Alfred de Marigny. He really believed the man was guilty. He did have motive, means, and possibly (depending on who you believed) opportunity. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was guilty. It was certainly enough to convince David and Wallis at the time, though. His motives were clear; Harry Oakes wanted to break Alfred and Nancy up, and had even threatened to financially cut off his daughter if he couldn't. And while de Marigny probably wasn't the pedophile David accused him of being, he did like underaged (but not pre-pubescent or pubescent) girls and had a reputation for going after other teenage girls before Nancy Oakes. As such, David (and many other people) considered him thoroughly immoral. This was not entirely hypocritical; even in his wild younger days David had never gone after jailbait.

There was eventually a trial, and the whole story was a media sensation. It involved everything Americans love reading about: murder, exotic locations, impropriety, royalty, and lots of money. While it perhaps wasn't quite O.J. Simpson level notoriety (there was a war going on, after all), at the time it was a big deal. Alfred de Marigny was acquitted, with the condition that he leave the Bahamas and go live somewhere else. Apparently the jury was willing to buy the "pedophile" accusation but not the "murderer" one.

What got him off, and what is still the main bone of contention, was a fingerprint on a screen near where the body was found. The fingerprint belonged to Marigny, but some investigators and experts believed the fingerprint had been planted and pressed on to the screen off of something else. This is also the main evidence for a conspiracy. It seems like I am going on about this case, but it is pretty relevant, and I am not even going into half the conspiracy theories associated with it, or all of the different possible suspects. The whole thing is just a giant ball of WTF and the case is so weird I don't think anyone could make it up. It was the inspiration for a TV movie and several episodes of various crime shows over the years.

The theories that in recent years have been researched and have the most evidence are that either Harold Christie did it, or that Alfred de Marigny actually was guilty after all and only got off because he used his widespread unpopularity against the prosecution to convince people of a nonexistent conspiracy. Even if he was guilty there may have been some conspiracy; perhaps authorities weren't sure he did it or knew he was guilty but faked evidence because they couldn't prove it. Harold Christie was probably guilty, though, considering he was nearby when the murder took place and years later when asked about it at a party he didn't deny his guilt and simply refused to say anything. Either way, there may or may not have been a conspiracy. If there was, David may not have been involved with it at all. Both Oakes and Christie had had connections with the Bay Street Boys and were rumored to be involved in all sorts of unsavory business dealings. Christie wouldn't have needed the Governor to instigate a conspiracy. David had worked against the Bay Street Boys and made enemies in the process, so it's unlikely he would get involved in one of their conspiracies. Perhaps his dislike of de Marigny was manipulated by people involved with the government so he would unwittingly help the conspiracy. It's also been suggested, if he was involved, it was because criminals had threatened to harm Wallis if he didn't cooperate.

Either way, the Windsors' involvement in the case was overstated by the press. David did not have any absolute authority over the investigation and without getting a lot of people "in on it" he couldn't have orchestrated a conspiracy or gotten de Marigny charged. Wallis, for her part, had nothing to do with anything. But it's still relevant to my series of posts on her life, because the press did try to rope her into it. As she was already widely disliked, it was suggested by many (including de Maringy himself) that she had manipulated her husband into having him framed. There was even a bizarre theory that Wallis and de Marigny were involved in some kind of affair, and that Wallis ordered Harry Oakes killed and Alfred de Marigny framed to get revenge on him for choosing Nancy Oakes over her. Needless to say, all evidence directly contradicts that.

The whole unfortunate episode highly damaged David's reputation, even though his involvement in the case had been highly overstated. The press had wanted to sell papers; when you link a celebrity to a lurid murder case it makes the story even more interesting to the public. Wallis regarded the whole situation as unpleasant. She summed up the situation after the murder in her memoirs: "The sense of shock and horror sent through the colony by this crime and the mystery as to its perpetrator were never quite dispelled during the remaining time we were there."

During the time between the crime and the trial, life for Wallis continued as it had since their arrival. She did a lot of charity and war work to keep herself busy, and still tried to go to America every chance she got. On one trip to Washington D.C. there was a riot back in Nassau due to conflicts between the Bay Street Boys and the native population and David was forced to return early without his wife. Wallis was deeply concerned for him, but David's actions during the riot actually improved his press significantly. He had managed to significantly calm the rioters and had even gone into a burning building to help put out a fire and save civilians. But in the aftermath of the de Marigny trial that was pretty much forgotten.

There was also another major issue for Wallis during that time period. In spring 1944 she began to feel ill and suffered spells of dizziness and pains throughout her body. Wallis insisted she was fine. David suggested she go to New York to see a specialist, but she refused. She wrote to her Aunt Bessie: "The Duke is anxious for me to go but I can't bring myself to leave him in this awful hot depressing hole." When they finally went to New York in July, 1944, Wallis received an examination and it was determined she had stomach cancer. David and Wallis remained in America until September while Wallis had an operation and recuperated in Virginia. While there, Winston Churchill, who was also in America visiting President Roosevelt, met up with David to discuss his future role. David offered to go to Europe and do undercover work for the Foreign Office. He was turned down because of his unpopularity with the government and the fact he probably would have made a terrible spy. His knowledge of espionage came entirely from Film Noir movies, which he and Wallis were both obsessed with.

Churchill did offer to help him get Wallis received by the royal family. It was customary for the King and Queen to receive colonial governors and their wives for tea if they ever came to Britain. When the war ended, David and Wallis would be expected to at least pass through London and thus be invited to tea. Churchill figured this would be a good way to help heal the conflicts in the family as custom and tradition would require a reception and thus Bertie and Elizabeth would not feel as though they were betraying their feelings about Wallis. David desperately wanted any help he could get with that matter. Unfortunately, as Churchill wrote to the Windsors later, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were "inflexibly" opposed to such a meeting and not even Winston Churchill could change their minds.

Though her cancer was gone, Wallis still continued to feel ill, and couldn't stomach another summer in the Bahamas once 1945 came along. But once again she refused to leave without her husband. Churchill had told David in September 1944 that he could resign his position at his convenience. He announced his resignation on March 15, 1944, to take effect at the end of April. The war was coming to an end and his term would have ended on July 9th anyway. Despite claims he quit or deserted his post, terms for colonial governors were not set in stone and people often left early. It wasn't like an American office (like, say, Governor of Alaska) where you're elected to a term and expected to stay the course. By leaving early, beyond sparing Wallis another summer in the heat, he also did the British government a favor. They wanted him gone, but were worried about public backlash if his term came to an end and they didn't offer to renew it.

Because of the de Marigny scandal, his term was generally judged a failure by the British government. He had also managed to piss off everyone in the colonial government, and despite going beyond the call of duty with her charity work, Wallis was judged for her more Marie-Antoinette-like behavior. Ironically, even during the de Marigny trial, David's approval rating with the black Bahamians, who made up the majority of the population, rarely dipped below eighty percent, but given this was a colonial government that worked against him in the eyes of the British government.

Because of travel sanctions, the Windsors first went to New York to wait for the official end of the war in the Pacific. While there, they went shopping, partied, and "rewarded" themselves for surviving their time in the Bahamas. The war had aged them both significantly; photos show that though only five years passed between 1940 and 1945 both Wallis and David aged about fifteen. But life was getting better; it was the beginning of Wallis's new life as the most fabulous socialite in the Jet Set.

Think before you speak!

There's an awful lot of things, that if I were to reread them now, I'd say to myself: "Good God, I wish I hadn't said that!"
-Prince Philip

Outrageous royal quotes, or why people in the public eye must think before they speak:

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
-Prince Philip

My father was frightened of his mother. I was frightened of my father and I am damned well going to see to it that my children are frightened of me.
-George V

I wish nothing but good; therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel.
-George III

One thing you have to say for this Hitler Johnny-he knows how to treat the nosey brigade.
-Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester

I've committed every vice in my life except murder, and I don't want to die without doing that too.
-Princess Elisabeth of Romania

This is the Duchess of Windsor! Are you the son of a bitch that sent this fucking trout up here?
-Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendent horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and digusting of begins and would surely perish without male protection.I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.
-Queen Victoria

I have lost my oldest son, but I was glad of it.
-George II

Which Queen are you refering to? My sister, my mother or my husband?
-Princess Margaret

Fucking is the greatest pleasure in life; the second is drinking. For all can drink but not all can fuck.
-Edward VII

LadyTudorRose's boring homework... Romanov edition!

The Death of the Romanov Family

On July 17, 1918, at 1:30 am, Dr. Eugene Botkin was woken up by Yakov Yurovsky. He was told to wake up his employer, the former Tsar Nicholas II, and make sure that Nicholas’s wife and children were woken up and dressed. The Romanov family had been living in Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg under house arrest for seventy-eight days. That night they were sent down to the cellar and told they would be photographed. Nicholas’s wife, Alexandra, asked for chairs for herself and her son, which were brought out (Massie 4). While they waited, they whispered to each other and Alexandra tried to talk to her daughters, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia, in English, the language the family used in private. Yurovsky then called in eleven men, armed with revolvers. He then told the confused family and their retainers that they were to be executed. Nicholas responded “What?” and Alexandra and Olga tried to cross themselves before the shots began. Thought they’d each been given individuals to shoot, all of the gunmen aimed at Nicholas before turning on the rest of the family. For decades afterwards, the killing of the Romanov family sparked debate, drama, and mystery. It led to increased tensions and conflicts within the European royal community, and helped cement the final end of Imperial Russia.

In March, 1917, Nicholas II abdicated the throne for himself and his son. He drew up a manifesto naming his brother Michael the next Tsar, but Michael declined to accept the throne. Nicholas was pressured to abdicate by the Provisional Government in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Nicholas felt he and his family would be safe if he signed away his rights (King and Wilson 84) and anticipated they would be able to find asylum abroad. King George V of Great Britain was a first cousin of both Nicholas and Alexandra. George and Nicholas had been friendly for years and even physically resembled one another. It was expected that the Romanov family would find safety in Britain. The British government was prepared to offer them asylum, but George prevented it. George had been worried about his own popularity, though he would later insist he had done everything he could to save them, as would his children and grandchildren (Edwards 310). That was not exactly the case, as George had had the option of offering them asylum when it could have saved them, and any other rescue efforts he may have been involved with (evidence is scarce either way) would have come once it was too late. Though George could not have known that they would die if they remained in Russia, he had little reason to believe they would otherwise be safe. Many of the family’s other relatives were in Germany, which was at war with Russia during World War I and would not have offered asylum to enemy royalty, regardless of family connections. Most of their other relatives in Denmark, Spain, and Greece, were not in a position to help the family. The possibility of them being sent to one of their overseas residences was also suggested, but arrangements were not made. Ultimately, when the Bolsheviks came in power in October 1917, it was no longer considered wise to keep the family alive in Russia where they would serve as symbol for Monarchists.

In late 1917, many in the extended family fled to Finland, Crimea, or other parts of Europe. Nicholas, his wife and children, and his brother Michael, were kept under house arrest and were unable to flee. Michael was murdered separately a month before Nicholas was killed (Perry and Pleshakov 194). The Soviets feared the possibility of Nicholas meeting up with Monarchist forces and being used a tool to fight the Revolution. Other relatives hid out to avoid being captured by the Reds. Nicholas may have at some point contemplated the possibility of his own execution, but it is unlikely he or anyone else in the family thought that Alexandra and the children would be killed as well (Massie 10). As a child, Olga Romanov had once told her tutor, after learning about Tudor England, she was glad to live in civilized times where she didn’t have to worry about being executed.
By 1918, the Soviet government became convinced the Nicholas was going to have to die. The problem was with what to do with his family. His wife, the former Empress, was incredibly unpopular, even more than her husband. She was believed to have German sympathies because of her German heritage, even though she considered herself more British than German. The issue was what to do with the children. Though had they known what was in store they probably would’ve changed their minds, the family did not want to be broken up. There was also the issue of where to send them, as George V had already proven unlikely to offer asylum and most of their other relatives were torn up by war. By spring 1918, when the family was moved to Ipatiev House, it was decided they were all going to die. The servants were considered irrelevant and it was decided they would be executed too if they would not leave the family. One of the kitchen boys was sent away before the executions so he would be able to survive.

The night before she died, the former Tsarina and “Empress of all Russias”, wrote in her diary that it was a cold night for July and that she had played cards with her husband before bed. A few hours later she, and her entire family, would be dead. Their deaths spawned anger, mystery, and even pretenders who claimed to be them. But ultimately, the family and their servants, were just a few deaths among many caused by the Russian Revolution, and World War I before it. But no other deaths during that time period caused quite as much mystery and controversy as the deaths of Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei Romanov.




Works Cited:
Edwards, Anne. Matriarch: Queen Mary and the House of Windsor. New York: W. Morrow, 1984. Print.
King, Greg, and Penny Wilson. The Fate of the Romanovs. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Print.
Massie, Robert K. The Romanovs: the Final Chapter. New York: Random House, 1995. Print.
Perry, John Curtis., and Konstantin Pleshakov. The Flight of the Romanovs: a Family Saga. New York, NY: Basic, 1999. Print.



An old English assignment floating around my documents folder. We were able to pick our topic. Naturally, I got an A.

TheVictorianLady2: My new favorite person on Youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheVictorianLady2

Check out her channel right away! She has many cool royal and non-royal historical dramas you can watch in their entirety on her page.

So, waste an afternoon.

Right now I'm watching The Woman He Loved, which is one I'd actually never seen before.

I would recommend Firelight, which is an amazing historical romance film from the 1990's. No royals involved, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. Really beautiful and romantic.


If you're looking for royals, she has:

The Lost Prince
The Woman He Loved
Wallis and Edward
Mrs. Brown

She says she will be uploading Victoria and Albert soon, so stay tuned!

She also has several Jane Austen adaptations if that's what you're in to.

On Wikipedia:

A lot of people, upon reading stuff I post, may be encouraged to go on wikipedia to learn more. Please don't. Here's why not:

1. I have no issue with wikipedia. I use it often. But not for royal stuff. The areas where wikipedia are least reliable are things that are subject to controversy. Because of the controversial nature of monarchy in general, as well as the scandalous lives so many royals have led, this makes royal related articles some of the least reliable things on the site.

2. Wikipedia requires a source; not a good source. The Daily Fail is a source. All of those hack-job "inside stories" from royal hangers-on are also sources. I know of one article that uses one book as a source for the majority of its claims. That book does not properly cite its own sources. So what you're getting is information that's allowed on wikipedia because it has a source, but that source doesn't have one. So the author may have just made it all up.

3. The whole neutral point-of-view issue. As a great teacher of mine once said, "There is no such thing as objectivity." I can understand wikipedia not taking sides on issues. That really only makes sense. The problem is that the people who write these articles are not up front about their own point-of-view. The best historians, in my opinion, tell the reader what their opinion is. It's the ones who pretend to be unbiased who are misleading you; it's not possible to research something extensively and be interested enough in it to write a book and not have an opinion. To give an example, say two authors write books on the Princes in the Tower. Both believe Richard III killed them. Both books are similar in content; both present evidence Richard was responsible and attempt to debunk evidence he wasn't. One author introduces her book by saying she thinks Richard did it, and that with this book she is going to demonstrate why she has come to believe that. The other author introduces her book by saying she is trying to write an unbiased account of what happened to the Princes in the Tower based purely on historical fact. Both authors, based on their opinions, would be naturally inclined to promote and explain all evidence Richard was guilty, while at the same time discrediting evidence he didn't do it. But only one of them is being honest about it. Now, I suppose you can avoid bias when writing a paragraph on someone non-controversial. But it's a Catch-22. Short articles on boring people will most likely not be biased, but they also probably involved less research, and thus may not be as accurate about details.

4. Several internet groups, including Anonymous if I'm not mistaken, have been in the habit of editing some of the more obscure wikipedia articles and throwing in random untrue, but believable, facts and waiting around to see how long they stay up. Some of them have probably remained for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they even find "sources" for this stuff and bank on no one checking them out.

As a whole, my issue is not that anyone can edit wikipedia as much is that if the majority of people editing wikipedia believe something and can find some kind of source to back it up, it will end up there and be seen by anyone who's researching the subject in question.

So what do I recommend for research? Well, you can look at the sources on the wikipedia page, which might work a bit better, though you should know nothing is completely reliable. Check out your local library. For 20th century royals, Time, Life, and many other magazines and newspapers have archives going back decades. Contemporary sources are wonderful because even if they aren't accurate, they are relevant because what's said about a person during their lifetime impacts them even if they don't know about it. Also look for books that are no longer in copyright that can be read for free online.

Use google to find some detailed websites, usually run by my fellow internet historians who have been researching their topic for ages.

For Tudors, I recommend:
www.tudorhistory.org

Or google Tudor History or Tudor England for more links.

For Romanovs, I reccomend:
www.alexanderpalace.org

If you ever need any links, feel free to comment and ask me! Of course, all of the above is IMHO, and your experience may differ. Perhaps some of my beef with wikipedia has to do with me having been involved with an edit war over something incredibly stupid that I'd rather not think about. Plus I love Stephen Colbert and think wikiality is something that's incredibly relevant when it comes to royal history and how people are remembered.

Royal Story Time

From last night's Jezebel Open Thread:




Our first royal story tonight involves the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.
During her final years, Elizabeth watched a lot of television. One of her favorite shows was Da Ali G. Show, from Sacha Baron Cohen. Only the first season aired before her death, but she really got into it.

Da Ali G. Show was where Cohen first debuted his characters Borat and Bruno, both of whom later went on to star in their own blockbuster films.

Elizabeth's favorite was the title character, Ali G., who was meant to be a suburban White guy obsessed with rap and hip-hop culture who claimed to be black and used outdated hip-hop slang terms. Elizabeth, then 100, thought Ali G.'s antics of tricking public figures into humiliating themselves were really amusing. She also loved his catch phrases and mannerisms.

One Christmas, she regaled her family with her Ali G. impersonation, after being egged on my her great-grandchildren. She even attempted his famous fake "accent" and repeatedly clicked her fingers (Ali's trademark) and told her family "Respec'!" before telling them "Any good parties, invite me down!"

Oh, and Jimmy Carter onced kissed her on the lips. She was not amused.



Our next story involves an even more badass old lady, also a Queen, and also named Elizabeth.

In December 1597, Elizabeth, then 64, met with her French ambassador.

She was attired in an ornate silver, red, and white gown. There was just one little issue; the entire front of it was open. So you could see "the whole of her bosom" as the ambassador himself put it.

" Her bosom is somewhat wrinkled as well as one can see for the collar that she wears round her neck, but lower down her flesh is exceeding white and delicate, so far as one could see."
-Andre Hurault, the French Ambassador

Elizabeth Tudor was a badass until the end. Furthermore, she kept opening the front as if she was hot, just to make sure he got a peak. Or maybe she just didn't care what he saw; she was the Queen after all and he was just some French guy.

She did make sure she had a wig with gold and silver spangles and pearls on before she would see him, though. How Gaga of her.



Our next story involves Edward VII, and his mistress Alice Keppel. Alice was one of several mistresses Edward had, but in his later years she was the favorite.

Once, at a formal dinner party, a Hungarian Countess was making small talk with the man seated at her right.

"Oh, how is your name pronounced?" She asked him.

"Kep-el." He said.

"How strange! You have the same name as the king's mistress!"

The unfortunate dinner guest was Alice's husband.

Fun fact: Alice's great-granddaughter was Camilla Shand, mistress and later wife to Prince Charles.



Here is a great story, likely a myth, that was most famously spread in regards to the not-yet-King Edward VII and Lillie Langtry, one of his mistresses and a famous actress. It has also been spread about other 19th and 20th century royal couples, which is why I question its accuracy. Still pretty amusing, though.

A prominent British newspaper had a box for announcements at the top of their front page. One week, they had printed alone in the box one sentance.
"There is nothing whatsoever between the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Langtry."

Readers were perplexed by the blatent denial; the papers ususally liked to have a bit of fun with their heir. But careful readers noticed exactly one week later in the same spot of the same paper, was another brief message.
"Not even a sheet."



George III is known for two things: being mad and losing the American colonies. This story is about the former.

King George was once riding in his carriage through Windsor Great Park and he suddenly ordered his driver to stop. The driver obliged him, and George got out and went over to an oak tree and put out his hand and shook one of its branches. The driver watched on amazed for several minutes while George talked to the tree and carried on a conversation. When he was done, George got back into the carriage. The Driver looked over at him, confused.

Turns out George thought the tree was the King of Prussia.

Naturally, if you ask Prince Charles (George's biggest fanboy) about that story, he'll say it didn't happen. But what fun is he?

Victoria and Albert

There are only five royal married couples ever I feel totally certain had great romances. Victoria and Albert are one of them.
Though Victoria constantly wrote, particularly in regard to her daughters, that marriage was a horrible thing, that was more about her dislike of babies (she had nine) than her husband. She also felt that her and Prince Albert were special and had a great and magical love that no one else would ever understand.

"I feel sure that no girl would go to the altar if she knew all."
"When I think of a merry, happy, free young girl - and look at the ailing, aching state a young wife generally is doomed to - which you can't deny is the penalty of marriage."
-Victoria on marriage

Victoria and Albert were first cousins. They were originally set up by their mutual uncle Leopold of Belgium, but after one meeting when they were in their late teens, they fell in love. Or at least Victoria did, Albert's feelings may have taken longer to develop. At eighteen Victoria had become Queen, so she was the one who had a propose to him because she outranked him. He immediately accepted.

"His purity was too great, his aspiration too high for this poor, miserable world! His great soul is now only enjoying that for which it was worthy!"
"None of you can ever be proud enough of being the child of SUCH a Father who has not his equal in this world -- so great, so good, so faultless. Try, all of you, to follow in his footsteps and don't be discouraged, for to be really in everything like him none of you, I am sure, will ever be. Try, therefore, to be like him in some points, and you will have acquired a great deal."
-Victoria on Albert

Victoria quickly became pregnant after their wedding. They would have nine children total. I was on a few weeks ago about her feelings towards "unfortunate Leopold" but all of her children weren't exactly adored.

"An ugly baby is a very nasty object - and the prettiest is frightful."
-Victoria on babies

Of her nine children, her second child and eldest son, Edward Albert, known as Bertie, was her least favorite.

"I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder"
-Victoria on Bertie

Bertie was a womanizer who drank and partied and generally acted unsuitably. Victoria also thought he was ugly. Which must have been some curse of fate, because as you can see from the above photo, his parents were the Brad and Angelina of their day.

"For a man to strike any women is most brutal, and I, as well as everyone else, think this far worse than any attempt to shoot, which, wicked as it is, is at least more comprehensible and more courageous."
-Victoria on domestic violence and why, if you're going to abuse your wife, you should do it with a gun

Prince Albert died at age forty-two, and Victoria totally lost it. She went into mourning and stayed there for the rest of her life. She became so reclusive that everyone was fed up with her and wanted to end the monarchy. Her son's womanizing with half the married actresses in London while his wife Alexandra looked the other way didn't help.

"I would venture to warn against too great intimacy with artists as it is very seductive and a little dangerous."
-Victoria on artists

Queen Victoria was to some extent brought out of her exile by John Brown, her Scottish manservant. Whether or not she ever got under his kilt is a subject of great debate. Victoria was not as much of a prude as people think when it came to sex. In face, attitudes toward sex in the era that bear her name weren't nearly as oppressive as everyone thinks. Certainly conservative by today's standards, but the upper classes still got into all kinds of trouble and weren't exactly secretive about it.

"The important thing is not what they think of me, but what I think of them."
-Victoria on other people

Victoria wasn't exactly a liberal, though. She was kind of the opposite. But she was certainly a decent enough lady, particularly compared to her cousin Leopold II of Belgium.

"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights," with all its attendent horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and digusting of begins and would surely perish without male protection.I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dilike these masculine occupations."
-Victoria on feminism

Here's a funny story: a royal hanger-on once was having dinner with Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, and she described finding in the archives of Windsor Castle a document proving a secret marriage between Victoria and John Brown. When asked what she'd done with it, the Queen Mother told her dining companions she'd burned it, of course. Supposedly several people heard her tell this story, but it's not definitely true given both hangers-on and the late Queen Mother have never been known for their honestly.

P.S.
That quote on feminism was used on a men's rights website. With this commentary:

"How could she see today's reality from over 100 years in the past? I especially like the part about women becoming hateful, heathen and disgusting. You would have to be that way to hate men and abort your baby without reason."

Seriously, google it, it's totally for real!

Prince John

^Prince John and his brother Prince George.

John was the youngest son of George V and Mary of Teck. He had epilepsy and possibly autism, too. It's hard to know as the details of his condition were kept very quiet.

He was close to his brother Prince George, but the younger two children were kept fairly separately from the older ones and as such John didn't really have that much of a relationship with the rest of his siblings. He would've gotten to know them better if he'd lived longer. John was tutored privately, and was kept away from people outside his immediate family in his early years. Except for nannies, of course. The people who did know him commented that he would often play pranks and mess around in the palace. He got away with a lot more than the rest of the children could. He would make very unusual comments to people they'd remember years later.

When John was eleven he was sent to live separately from the rest of the family on a farm. That was around the same age his older brothers had been sent to military school. In the farm house John had his own staff and was allowed more fresh air and freedom than he had in the palace. His grandmother, mother, and brother George often visited him. He had some friends and played in the gardens. He certainly missed his family, but it wasn't like they kept him locked up in the attic.

I do not like Queen Mary; I think she was a pretty horrible mother to all of her children and a not particularly nice person all around. But she really doesn't deserve the flack she gets for Prince John.

Honestly, from what I've read, she loved him and spent more time with him than she did some of her "normal" children. She sent him away, but she sent all of her other sons away at around the same age to boarding schools and she visited John more than she probably ever visited her other sons. Also, it wasn't entirely her decision what happened to John. I don't think she liked having her children around either way. In his memoir her oldest son Edward said that usually the only time he ever saw his mother as a child would be for an hour in the evenings when she was dressing for dinner. She would have her children sent up to her room and talk to them and teach them crafts and things, and then they would be taken away by the nanny and she wouldn't see them until the next day.

People during that time period were embarrassed of disabled children, particularly the upper classes. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, had an older brother who had two mentally challenged daughters he sent to an institution as teenagers. After that they were forgotten and the family told people they were dead.

John died at age thirteen in early 1919. His death was reported in the papers, but it was not a big story. The really bizarre thing is how after that he was basically forgotten. As a child, he had been mentioned as a member of the family; there were pictures of him sometimes with his siblings. But after he died, he was written out. All of a sudden the family only had five children. Official family trees were published for the coronation of George VI and the weddings of Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret. John was not included. His mother didn't talk about him much after he died. His grandmother Queen Alexandra did sometimes, but she died six years later. Prince George was the only relative who made significant efforts to keep his memory alive.

That's the really weird thing about this story. It shows one of the nastier elements of The Firm. Before he died, John was removed from the public eye. After his death, John as forgotten. No monuments and a very small funeral. I don't believe his name was mentioned in the obituaries for his parents; if it was it was only a fleeting reference. His name was considered bad luck so none of his relatives named children for him.

People completely forgot he'd ever existed until nearly eighty years after he died. In 1998 there was a big auction of the possession of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Some of the items included a large box of royal family photographs. There were pictures of John included. When the press were covering the auction, someone saw those and began to wonder "who was this kid?" and it led to an article and the publication of the photos in the British press. Of course the article was rather sensationalist; about how John had been locked away. Which wasn't exactly the case, but it made sense because most royal watchers had never heard of him at all. He wasn't included in many books documenting the family and when he was there was only a brief mention of his name and that he was sick. Certainly no one would have recognized him from the photos.

That press attention led to "The Lost Prince" miniseries which led to John's story getting more attention.

***This is actually something I posted on Jezebel and other places a few weeks ago but forgot to add here so I guess if you follow the blog you might not have seen it***

Never read the comments

The royals have been in the news a lot in the last month. I love going on google news and reading different articles and comments on certain stories.

While not reaching Youtube comment levels of stupidity, the average entertainment or political blog comment seems to have been written by someone between the ages of eight and twelve. Jezebel is a good exception, but I can't pretend stuff on there doesn't sometimes piss me off. Many royal blogs have the occasional intelligent comment too. I've also noticed local blogs often have more intelligent comments. Perhaps because people know where you live?

Either way, I have not been impressed over all.

There are three types of stories with comments I have seen recently that made me want to bang my head against my desk:

1. In response to the Queen's visit to Canada:
-Nasty and often sexist insults hurled at the eighty-four-year-old Queen.
-People bringing Diana into it. Some love her and some hate her. She has nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth visiting Canada.
-Rabid monarchists speaking of H.M. as though she was an other-worldly saint and getting into fights with those who disagree.

2. In response to Madonna's Wallis Simpson movie:
-"u no she was a nazi, right? i read it on wikipedia!!!"
-Assuming the commentator (who seems to generally not know what they're talking about) knows more about Wallis than Madonna does. You can say a lot of nasty things about Madonna, but when she gets into something she really gets into it. She may intentionally make the movie about her instead of about Wallis, but she's done her research. Often overlaps with the above.
-Bringing Princess Diana/Camilla into it. Seriously?

3. Will and Kate wedding rumors:
-Jokes about William's lack of hair. I can tolerate these when done with wit and some level of sympathy, but when every other person posting on the thread has made a poorly spelt bald joke you need to come up with something more original.
-Kate is a golddigging slut and her mother is a social climber. Often coupled with laments about British taxpayers having to pay for the wedding, but that's really more of an excuse for hating her.
-The general assumption that Will and Kate are engaged and planning a wedding. They're not.
-Bringing Princess Diana into it.

At least on Youtube, the bad comments are so awful they're kind of amusing. But these people just make me weep for humanity.