Royalty in History

[woodchipper]

Thanks for all of the suggestions! I'm off to the library this afternoon (how I love working at a University!)

[oceansun]

May 2, 2008 10:18:52 GMT -4 @dukeofurl said:

Funny you should mention Cleopatra, oceansun. Yesterday a coworker told me about a "history of sex" show he watched, I think on HBO, where Cleopatra was credited with inventing the vibrator! Not the battery kind, of course, but the bunch-of-bees-inside-a-hollowed-out-gourd kind. Even if there's no credible evidence for that (what are they going to do, dig up a Polaroid?) it's what I'm going to believe from now on.

Damn, she WAS one badass lady!

[Deleted]

From what I've read, Cleo was actually supposed to be really fug.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2008 13:32:58 GMT -4 Mouse said:

I think Mary Stuart was a total airhead and one of the biggest fuckups in history. Truly an overrated historical figure, IMO.

I'm inclined to be a bit more generous towards her. I think she would have been in somewhat of a bind no matter what. People were suspicious of her reign before she actually had a chance to reign over Scotland. People were suspicious of her mother/regent because she was French. As a half-French women who had grown up in France, Mary would have for certain had a rough go of it. Add in the fact that she was Catholic in an increasingly Protestant area, and a woman... well, she was in trouble.

I think her personal life had the biggest effect. Two power-hungry husbands (especially the gawdawful Darnely) and a myriad of personal scandals was ample reason for those who already didn't like her (because she was a French-Catholic woman) to run her out of the country.

I don't thik she was super awesome or wholly innocent, but I think the odds were stacked against her and that she's not really to blame entirely.

[Mouse]

She chose to marry Darnley. And once she got run out of Scotland, what did she do? Did she go back to France? Did she escape to another Catholic counry--say, Spain? No, she ran to Elizabeth I. Never mind that she had laid claim to Elizabeth's throne. Honestly, the woman did not have the intelligence God gave a dog.

[Deleted]

She was an idiot to marry Darnley, true. It was sort of an infatuation, and then once she realized what an asshat he was, it was too late.

She may not have had much common sense, but I still see her as a tragic figure-and a lot more interesting than Elizabeth, who we've heard more about.

[Deleted]

Darnley was actually considered to be a really good match for Mary prior to their marriage. Like her, he had claims to the thrones of both England and Scotland. In becoming a unified pair, they solidified both of their claims. Mary, of course, already had the Scottish crown in her possession, but the marriage to Darnley strengthened her claim to England. Darnley was at one time also considered as a potential husband for Queen Elizabeth for the same reason. Even if neither Mary nor Darnley succeeded to the English throne themselves, their child would almost certainly inherit it, along with the Scottish. Along with this, Darnley was also a Catholic and, Mary hoped that he could help her strengthen the Church in Scotland. Mary and her advisors chose him because of political reasons and it should have been a good match in that respect, but he was totally inept and kind of a degenerate. He put on a good show when he was courting her, I guess.

[Deleted]

I think Mary would have been better off had she not been a reigning monarch. Unlike Elizabeth, her talents lay elsewhere.

[angelaudie]

I think Mary would have been better off had she not been a reigning monarch. Unlike Elizabeth, her talents lay elsewhere.

Agreed. Mary's biggest problem, in my opinion, was that she was naive and not the greatest judge of character. In France her education better prepared her to be a queen consort not to actually rule. Plus, she was rather spoiled. I think if her first husband had not died or if she had children by him she probably would have remained in France and had sent people to Scotland to basically rule for her.

Really, I don't believe people remember Mary as a great ruler. She's viewed as a tragic figure whose heart was probably in the right place but she was just in over head.

[Mouse]

May 14, 2008 17:59:29 GMT -4 angelaudie said:

I think Mary would have been better off had she not been a reigning monarch. Unlike Elizabeth, her talents lay elsewhere.

Agreed. Mary's biggest problem, in my opinion, was that she was naive and not the greatest judge of character. In France her education better prepared her to be a queen consort not to actually rule. Plus, she was rather spoiled. I think if her first husband had not died or if she had children by him she probably would have remained in France and had sent people to Scotland to basically rule for her.

Really, I don't believe people remember Mary as a great ruler. She's viewed as a tragic figure whose heart was probably in the right place but she was just in over head.

Another problem is that she simply wasn't very bright. How else could you explain her escaping to England instead of France?

Also, I'm not sure why she was considered to be a great beauty. In all her portraits, she looks rather plain. Not fug, mind you, but not the looker everyone claimed she was.