Bad Manners and Brimstone

General Etiquette => Family and Children => Topic started by: Aleko on August 14, 2020, 12:31:00 pm

Title: On princesses
Post by: Aleko on August 14, 2020, 12:31:00 pm
There's a classic historians' joke that goes like this:

Quote
My daughter said to me, 'I want to be Daddy's princess!' So as soon as she turned twelve I traded her to an elderly foreigner in exchange for his help with my war.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is in a nutshell the function and fate of princesses throughout Western history.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: guihong on August 14, 2020, 05:55:38 pm
That was the real fate of so many princesses.  Married off like a business transaction, no matter if the groom was gay, disgusting, mentally ill, or just dull.  Of course, maybe she wasn't all that and a bag of chips!

The joke is funny  ;D.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Asharah on August 14, 2020, 08:59:30 pm
That was the real fate of so many princesses.  Married off like a business transaction, no matter if the groom was gay, disgusting, mentally ill, or just dull.  Of course, maybe she wasn't all that and a bag of chips!

The joke is funny  ;D.
It's better than what happened to Princess Joan of England. She was betrothed to a Spanish prince, but she and most of her entourage were killed by the Black Death when they stopped at Bordeaux. 
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Lula on August 15, 2020, 06:31:56 am
It's better than what happened to Princess Joan of England. She was betrothed to a Spanish prince, but she and most of her entourage were killed by the Black Death when they stopped at Bordeaux.

Sounds like divine mercy to me!
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Winterlight on August 15, 2020, 12:37:14 pm
My dating axiom is that a guy who says he'll treat you like a queen probably has Henry VIII as his role model.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: HenrysMom on August 16, 2020, 05:55:21 pm
This made me think of one of Queen Victoria’s granddaughters (or was it a great-?) who was married off to some European prince, was later dumped and blamed/shamed by her ex-in-laws for everything wrong with the marriage (the husband’s failings had nothing to do with it, oh no).  Queen Victoria took her in, saying “Let her come to me.”  The poor princess then lived in seclusion the rest of her life (at least I think that’s how it went). 
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: TootsNYC on August 17, 2020, 12:26:18 pm
This made me think of one of Queen Victoria’s granddaughters (or was it a great-?) who was married off to some European prince, was later dumped and blamed/shamed by her ex-in-laws for everything wrong with the marriage (the husband’s failings had nothing to do with it, oh no).  Queen Victoria took her in, saying “Let her come to me.”  The poor princess then lived in seclusion the rest of her life (at least I think that’s how it went).

I'm not certain that was such a horrible fate. Depends how far "seclusion" went. If it was "not being required to make official public appearances," that's not bad. If it was "stays in her room or wing of the building and never sees anyone but serving staff," that's not so good.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: gramma dishes on August 17, 2020, 01:40:12 pm
This made me think of one of Queen Victoria’s granddaughters (or was it a great-?) who was married off to some European prince, was later dumped and blamed/shamed by her ex-in-laws for everything wrong with the marriage (the husband’s failings had nothing to do with it, oh no).  Queen Victoria took her in, saying “Let her come to me.”  The poor princess then lived in seclusion the rest of her life (at least I think that’s how it went).

I think that one was Mary Louise.   Turns out the husband was gay and they had never consummated their marriage even though they were married several years.   I think somehow the husband was found enjoying the company of one of his manservants and the parents immediately turned that to being because Mary Louise was not attending properly to his 'needs'.   She lived with Queen Victoria the rest of her life, but never dated again because even though she had grown to loathe her husband (and his parents ~ surprise! surprise!) she had taken her wedding vows seriously and never stopped wearing her wedding band even though she was divorced from him.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Lilipons on August 17, 2020, 03:43:42 pm
We can also tell ‘Princess Obsessed’ little girls about positive things that royal women have done.  Princess Diana and Princess Grace of Monaco come to mind.  If presented properly, a Princess with a moral conscience can be as powerful as a prince with a sword on a white horse. 
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Aleko on August 17, 2020, 05:12:05 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens. 
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Mary Sunshine Rain on August 17, 2020, 06:25:52 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens.

I think that as long as you don't dig too deep, she's a good role model--mainly her picking charitable endeavors that required more courage than opening a hospital somewhere.

But, as to her neurosis, I agree with you.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Winterlight on August 17, 2020, 07:07:42 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens.

I think that as long as you don't dig too deep, she's a good role model--mainly her picking charitable endeavors that required more courage than opening a hospital somewhere.

But, as to her neurosis, I agree with you.

Well, I'd say she was a cautionary tale, if nothing else. "This is what happens when you raise your child to think that her only value is being a wife and mother, and she falls for the wrong guy."
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Hmmm on August 17, 2020, 07:35:42 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens.

I think that as long as you don't dig too deep, she's a good role model--mainly her picking charitable endeavors that required more courage than opening a hospital somewhere.

But, as to her neurosis, I agree with you.

Well, I'd say she was a cautionary tale, if nothing else. "This is what happens when you raise your child to think that her only value is being a wife and mother, and she falls for the wrong guy."
Did she actually fall for him or was it just considered a great catch for a young woman of her social standing?
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: gramma dishes on August 17, 2020, 07:36:30 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens.

I'm hard pressed to even begin to imagine what it would have been like to be 19 or whatever she was and dating the Prince, heir to the throne.   I do think she actually loved him.   Finding out on your honeymoon that your brand new husband was still having an affair with his lover would be a little hard to take.  I'm pretty tough, but I think that would have shattered me to the core.

I think she really came into her own being after the divorce.   I think she was a fantastic mother and did do some very brave charitable work.

It always struck me as interesting that people who actually live in England seemed to almost universally dislike her, some very intensely, and yet the rest of the world seemed to love her. 

Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: chigger on August 17, 2020, 07:45:40 pm
I agree that Diana was a wonderful mother! Yes, she was 19 and he was in his 30's? She had a rough time of it those first several years. She was just barely an adult. I admired her for the charity work she did. I truly believe the attention she brought to the AIDS crisis helped immeasurably.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: chigger on August 17, 2020, 07:50:07 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens.

I think that as long as you don't dig too deep, she's a good role model--mainly her picking charitable endeavors that required more courage than opening a hospital somewhere.

But, as to her neurosis, I agree with you.

Well, I'd say she was a cautionary tale, if nothing else. "This is what happens when you raise your child to think that her only value is being a wife and mother, and she falls for the wrong guy."
Did she actually fall for him or was it just considered a great catch for a young woman of her social standing?

I think it was probably both! If Diana had not really cared for Charles, she would not have been so destroyed over the realization that he and Camilla were in a long time affair. I think she was very, very naive, as most 19 year olds are, especially then.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: HenrysMom on August 17, 2020, 08:11:19 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens.

I think that as long as you don't dig too deep, she's a good role model--mainly her picking charitable endeavors that required more courage than opening a hospital somewhere.

But, as to her neurosis, I agree with you.

Well, I'd say she was a cautionary tale, if nothing else. "This is what happens when you raise your child to think that her only value is being a wife and mother, and she falls for the wrong guy."
Did she actually fall for him or was it just considered a great catch for a young woman of her social standing?

I think it was probably both! If Diana had not really cared for Charles, she would not have been so destroyed over the realization that he and Camilla were in a long time affair. I think she was very, very naive, as most 19 year olds are, especially then.

And Diana didn’t really have any familial support - when she confided in one of her sisters about Charles’ affair with Camilla, the response was “you can’t back out, your face is on the tea towels.” 
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: gellchom on August 17, 2020, 10:29:14 pm
When I think of Diana, I think of her campaign against landmines.  I was impressed by that.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Hanna on August 18, 2020, 06:02:16 am
I’ve read a few books about Marie Antoinette and think being royal sounds wretched. She left her mother still a child, and never saw her own family again. She was never even allowed to speak her own language again or wear her own clothes. Pretty sure she never saw the ocean. Anyone and everyone was allowed to watch them live their daily lives including intimate daily routines. They placed the head of her closest friend on a spike and paraded it around outside the window where she was imprisoned with no access to her own children. She was basically a prisoner from a young age, then excoriated for it to the point that even today people believe she was a selfish person who deserved what she got. The likelihood is that is not true at all.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Aleko on August 18, 2020, 07:38:02 am
Quote
I’ve read a few books about Marie Antoinette and think being royal sounds wretched. She left her mother still a child, and never saw her own family again. She was never even allowed to speak her own language again or wear her own clothes. Pretty sure she never saw the ocean. Anyone and everyone was allowed to watch them live their daily lives including intimate daily routines.

Yes to all of that - which was absolutely normal for royalty. She was also hated just for being foreign: "that Austrian woman!' and suspected of undermining France for the sake of her own birth family. This too was a very common experience for queens throughout the medieval and early modern periods. For this reason, it wasn't unusual for a king to banish all the servants and ladies- and gentlemen-in-waiting that his new bride (or his heir's bride) had brought from her home, and replace them with subjects of his own who often couldn't even speak her own language. That must have been extraordinarily painful and frightening. A princess might rarely have even seen her parents and might not have felt the loss of them (though this wasn't true of Marie Antoinette: her parents Maria Theresia and Franz Stephan led a cosy home life); but she would likely be sent to her bridegroom with people from her own household, and these would have been the people she was closest to - her nanny, her tutor, the groom who had put her on her first pony, the ladies, gentlemen and pages she saw and talked to every day.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Hanna on August 18, 2020, 08:48:40 am
Quote
I’ve read a few books about Marie Antoinette and think being royal sounds wretched. She left her mother still a child, and never saw her own family again. She was never even allowed to speak her own language again or wear her own clothes. Pretty sure she never saw the ocean. Anyone and everyone was allowed to watch them live their daily lives including intimate daily routines.

Yes to all of that - which was absolutely normal for royalty. She was also hated just for being foreign: "that Austrian woman!' and suspected of undermining France for the sake of her own birth family. This too was a very common experience for queens throughout the medieval and early modern periods. For this reason, it wasn't unusual for a king to banish all the servants and ladies- and gentlemen-in-waiting that his new bride (or his heir's bride) had brought from her home, and replace them with subjects of his own who often couldn't even speak her own language. That must have been extraordinarily painful and frightening. A princess might rarely have even seen her parents and might not have felt the loss of them (though this wasn't true of Marie Antoinette: her parents Maria Theresia and Franz Stephan led a cosy home life); but she would likely be sent to her bridegroom with people from her own household, and these would have been the people she was closest to - her nanny, her tutor, the groom who had put her on her first pony, the ladies, gentlemen and pages she saw and talked to every day.

Yes, all of that happened to her. And the cultural differences between their families must have been quite stark. The Hapsburgs were not typical spoiled do-nothing royalty.

It was all really heartbreaking to read. Then the course involvement in their sex lives. Her husband was also just a child when they were forced into marriage.

It makes me livid to think that history painted her so unfairly. She was actually a kind woman and indeed comparatively, they were very cautious and thoughtful financially. The need for a country to impress with gross displays of wealth was not her doing.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: lakey on August 18, 2020, 10:22:50 am
Princess Diana was like every other human being, a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. The public put her on a pedestal. Then little by little, people found out that when you take away the expensive clothes, jewelry, and luxurious lifestyle, she was just like everyone else, an imperfect person trying make a workable life for herself.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Hanna on August 18, 2020, 11:09:16 am
Princess Diana was like every other human being, a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. The public put her on a pedestal. Then little by little, people found out that when you take away the expensive clothes, jewelry, and luxurious lifestyle, she was just like everyone else, an imperfect person trying make a workable life for herself.

I think the people who do cherish her memory, but never met her, tend to like her for that reason exactly. She was the human condition personified, on a global stage. Yet she used the platform she had to help others.  One might argue she did it for the admiration. I don’t think so. But truly I don’t care.

Might also explain why many Americans did and still love her. We like real, flawed people who don’t act like they are perfect.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: TootsNYC on August 18, 2020, 11:41:43 am
When I think of Diana, I think of her campaign against landmines.  I was impressed by that.

That's the one I think of always as well.

Though she was very visible in her willingness to touch AIDS patients, and thereby humanize them.

https://time.com/4914377/princess-diana-humanitarian-work/
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: lakey on August 18, 2020, 04:47:05 pm
Quote
Re: On princesses
« Reply #22 on: Today at 11:09:16 am »
Quote
Quote from: lakey on Today at 10:22:50 am
Princess Diana was like every other human being, a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. The public put her on a pedestal. Then little by little, people found out that when you take away the expensive clothes, jewelry, and luxurious lifestyle, she was just like everyone else, an imperfect person trying make a workable life for herself.

I think the people who do cherish her memory, but never met her, tend to like her for that reason exactly. She was the human condition personified, on a global stage. Yet she used the platform she had to help others.  One might argue she did it for the admiration. I don’t think so. But truly I don’t care.

Might also explain why many Americans did and still love her. We like real, flawed people who don’t act like their perfect.

I agree. Idolizing people will leave you disappointed. Admiring someone for what they accomplish in spite of their problems gives you a good example to follow. There are many people who are devastated after a failed relationship or a divorce. She showed that you can move on.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Winterlight on August 25, 2020, 12:29:07 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens.

I think that as long as you don't dig too deep, she's a good role model--mainly her picking charitable endeavors that required more courage than opening a hospital somewhere.

But, as to her neurosis, I agree with you.

Well, I'd say she was a cautionary tale, if nothing else. "This is what happens when you raise your child to think that her only value is being a wife and mother, and she falls for the wrong guy."
Did she actually fall for him or was it just considered a great catch for a young woman of her social standing?

I think it was probably both! If Diana had not really cared for Charles, she would not have been so destroyed over the realization that he and Camilla were in a long time affair. I think she was very, very naive, as most 19 year olds are, especially then.

Agreed. He was definitely a catch for her- she was the daughter of an earl, yes, but she wasn't academically inclined or really interested in a career (admittedly, few young women in her set were either of those), so marriage was where she was going to go, and the Prince of Wales was very much sought after. And also, she was young, probably somewhat in love with love, and living what appeared to be a fairy tale. But I think she was genuinely in love with him in the beginning, which is why things went so badly when she found out about Camilla.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: JeanFromBNA on August 26, 2020, 02:17:54 pm
You think Princess Diana is a role model for little girls? Or indeed anyone at all ? Dear heavens.
I admit that I'm curious why you feel that way. Care to share?
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Star Wars Fan on September 04, 2020, 10:31:07 pm
Princess Diana was like every other human being, a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. The public put her on a pedestal. Then little by little, people found out that when you take away the expensive clothes, jewelry, and luxurious lifestyle, she was just like everyone else, an imperfect person trying make a workable life for herself.

Princess Diana still makes the rest of the royal family (with the exception of Queen Elizabeth) look like escapees from an insane asylum. I think they just might be.  ::)

Ed.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: pierrotlunaire0 on September 05, 2020, 11:30:35 am
I’ve read a few books about Marie Antoinette and think being royal sounds wretched. She left her mother still a child, and never saw her own family again. She was never even allowed to speak her own language again or wear her own clothes. Pretty sure she never saw the ocean. Anyone and everyone was allowed to watch them live their daily lives including intimate daily routines. They placed the head of her closest friend on a spike and paraded it around outside the window where she was imprisoned with no access to her own children. She was basically a prisoner from a young age, then excoriated for it to the point that even today people believe she was a selfish person who deserved what she got. The likelihood is that is not true at all.

I always thought the final touch of horror was when they got her very young son to accuse her of repeatedly sexually molesting him at her trial. When she didn't respond, the judge said, "You have no words to defend yourself?" And she replied, "I have no words. No mother would have words to express her horror at being accused of such a monstrous crime of motherhood." She turned to the crowd (who hated her), and said, "I appeal to all the mothers here." And the women roared in her support, which was incredible considering that these were the same women who wanted to literally tear her apart.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Isisnin on September 08, 2020, 09:36:26 pm
Lately, I have been rereading about Empress Elizabeth of Austria. Born Princess Elizabeth of Bavaria, Sissi to her family. Her marriage (1854) to Emperor Franz-Joseph of Austria was a love match, but since she was only 16 at the time, I suspect it was more like a crush she had on Franz-Joseph.

Her biography is fascinating. Highlighted, she had an unhappy marriage and family life mostly due to her mother-in-law (who was also Sissi's aunt). Her mother-in-law took her children away from her when they were born. Franz-Joseph gave her gonorrhea from which she suffered from for the rest of her life. Her son, the heir to the throne, had a nervous breakdown at the age of 5 due to how the mother-in-law was raising him. By then Sissi was politically savvy and well-loved by the people of the Austrian empire. She was out of the country when she heard about her son and she wrote Franz-Joseph that she was to be given full control of her children immediately or she would never return to Austria. Franz-Joseph capitulated so she returned and had her children back.

She was so politically skilled that she was very influential in keeping the empire together to the point that historians and political scientists give her most of the credit for Hungary staying with the empire and the Austrio-Hungarian empire being created (she was considered a liberal since she believed in the right of the people to vote and had advocated for Hungary to have its own parliament with Franz-Joseph as King)

The end of her life was very tragic. Her son and one of his mistresses committed double suicide. 9 years later, Sissi was assassinated by an anarchist. Some speculate that if she had lived, she would have been very influential in avoiding World War I.

She is well worth reading about plus watching any one the European mini-series that have been made about her.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Kimpossible on September 09, 2020, 05:55:21 am
Isisnin, are you a History Chick?  I love that podcast.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Isisnin on September 09, 2020, 06:59:39 am
No, I haven't heard of History Chicks. I just looked them up. They are certainly right up my alley. I'll give a try soon while doing some chores. Usually I listen to audiobooks. Haven't thought of listening podcasts. They'd be good for chores and long drives too. 

Thank you for the tip!
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Isisnin on September 09, 2020, 07:11:02 am
Already 12 minutes into the Sisi and they've got lots of fascinating details I hadn't heard before. And it sounds like the History Chicks did a lot of research. Excellent! Thank you Kimpossible.
c
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Kimpossible on September 09, 2020, 07:44:18 am
I'm so glad that you like them.
Title: Re: On princesses
Post by: Rose Red on September 09, 2020, 05:26:15 pm
For those interested, Allison Pataki wrote a two book fiction series based on the life of Sisi. I read the first book and liked it a lot. I haven't read the second book yet.