|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Feb 9, 2017 6:00:23 GMT
Forgive me if this is a strange question, but who would you say was the sexiest historical monarch?
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 9, 2017 7:31:41 GMT
By looks or by deeds?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Feb 9, 2017 7:53:47 GMT
Either is fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 9, 2017 7:58:57 GMT
Our present Queen Elizabeth was quite a dish when she was young.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 23:15:09 GMT
Empress Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary ( 1837-1898 ) Empress Zita of Austria-Hungary ( 1892-1989 )
|
|
|
Post by itsmagic on Feb 17, 2017 1:19:38 GMT
Don't know if she qualifies but Grace Kelly...
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Feb 17, 2017 1:40:48 GMT
Don't know if she qualifies but Grace Kelly... Not a monarch as such, but so beautiful that she's more than welcome to appear on this thread, or any other thread, or in my dreams....
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 22, 2017 0:34:55 GMT
Don't know if she qualifies but Grace Kelly... Not a monarch as such, but so beautiful that she's more than welcome to appear on this thread, or any other thread, or in my dreams.... Perhaps Grace doesn't count as a monarch per se, but, as Wolf-Swordsman wrote, she's so beautiful that you can refer to Grace in any thread and I'll be fine with it. Her entrance scene in Rear Window is one of my favorites of all time, but how Jimmy Stewart (in-movie, of course!) can snub her... On topic, however, because I can talk about Grace all night... I don't really have a pick for this category--there were many beautiful royal ladies, but they tended to be wives or daughters rather than monarchs in their own right (Victoria and the current queen were quite beautiful when young, however)--but I wanted to post because this thread reminded me of one of the stupidest songs I've ever head, The Divine Comedy's "Catherine the Great." I heard it on the radio while driving with my cousin. We both broke out laughing hysterically. Here's the music video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4V7WBq72Gg. Biggest problem is, the tune is actually really catchy, but the lyrics are ludicrous!
|
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
Likes: 63
|
Post by bb15 on Feb 22, 2017 0:52:13 GMT
Not a monarch as such, but so beautiful that she's more than welcome to appear on this thread, or any other thread, or in my dreams.... Perhaps Grace doesn't count as a monarch per se, but, as Wolf-Swordsman wrote, she's so beautiful that you can refer to Grace in any thread and I'll be fine with it. Her entrance scene in Rear Window is one of my favorites of all time, but how Jimmy Stewart (in-movie, of course!) can snub her... On topic, however, because I can talk about Grace all night... I don't really have a pick for this category--there were many beautiful royal ladies, but they tended to be wives or daughters rather than monarchs in their own right (Victoria and the current queen were quite beautiful when young, however)--but I wanted to post because this thread reminded me of one of the stupidest songs I've ever head, The Divine Comedy's "Catherine the Great." I heard it on the radio while driving with my cousin. We both broke out laughing hysterically. Here's the music video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4V7WBq72Gg. Biggest problem is, the tune is actually really catchy, but the lyrics are ludicrous! In terms of 'possible' ruling monarchs, Grace Kelly's daughter Princess Caroline (3rd in line as the ruler of Monaco and the current Princess of Hanover) was very beautiful when she was young. Could she count? BB ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 22, 2017 1:07:24 GMT
Perhaps Grace doesn't count as a monarch per se, but, as Wolf-Swordsman wrote, she's so beautiful that you can refer to Grace in any thread and I'll be fine with it. Her entrance scene in Rear Window is one of my favorites of all time, but how Jimmy Stewart (in-movie, of course!) can snub her... On topic, however, because I can talk about Grace all night... I don't really have a pick for this category--there were many beautiful royal ladies, but they tended to be wives or daughters rather than monarchs in their own right (Victoria and the current queen were quite beautiful when young, however)--but I wanted to post because this thread reminded me of one of the stupidest songs I've ever head, The Divine Comedy's "Catherine the Great." I heard it on the radio while driving with my cousin. We both broke out laughing hysterically. Here's the music video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4V7WBq72Gg. Biggest problem is, the tune is actually really catchy, but the lyrics are ludicrous! In terms of 'possible' ruling monarch, Grace Kelly's daughter Princess Caroline (3rd in line as the ruler of Monaco and the current Princess of Hanover) was very beautiful when she was young. Could she count? BB ;-) Well, I think the problem is that the word monarch, as opposed to "royal" or "member of the Royal Family," implies "one who rules in his or her own right." (My dictionary gives the word the meaning of "sovereign head of state," sovereign meaning, "possessing the ultimate and supreme power." For example, the British government to this day acts in the name of HM Queen Elizabeth, who officially possesses complete and supreme power, even if she does not use it herself and, because of tradition and the noble, unwritten British Constitution, cedes it to the democratically elected House of Commons and Cabinet.) HRH Princess Caroline, the Duchess of Hanover, is undoubtedly royal, of royal blood, but she does not fit either of these categories: her husband HRH the Prince of Hanover has [perhaps unfortunately, seeing the troubles in Germany at the moment] been deposed, thus depriving him of sovereign power--and, even if the Prince were not, Princess Caroline still would not be a monarch, as she would be the queen-consort (wife of the monarch) rather than queen-regnant (monarch of her own authority, by her birthright). It's the same situation with Princess Grace [Kelly], her mother. Grace was the wife of a monarch (princess-consort in this case, because Monaco is a principality, not a kingdom) but not a not a monarch herself--whereas Queen Elizabeth is a monarch because she inherited the throne herself. Yes, this stuff is pretty darn' confusing. Of course, depends on what the original poster was asking for. If he just wanted a beautiful royal, then all these people count. If he wanted the definition more precise, then, to include the ladies (and as a red-blooded American male that's whom I would include), we need queens- and princesses-regnant rather than -consort.
|
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
Likes: 63
|
Post by bb15 on Feb 22, 2017 1:46:04 GMT
In terms of 'possible' ruling monarch, Grace Kelly's daughter Princess Caroline (3rd in line as the ruler of Monaco and the current Princess of Hanover) was very beautiful when she was young. Could she count? BB ;-) Well, I think the problem is that the word monarch, as opposed to "royal" or "member of the Royal Family," implies "one who rules in his or her own right." (My dictionary gives the word the meaning of "sovereign head of state," sovereign meaning, "possessing the ultimate and supreme power." For example, the British government to this day acts in the name of HM Queen Elizabeth, who officially possesses complete and supreme power, even if she does not use it herself and, because of tradition and the noble, unwritten British Constitution, cedes it to the democratically elected House of Commons and Cabinet.) HRH Princess Caroline, the Duchess of Hanover, is undoubtedly royal, of royal blood, but she does not fit either of these categories: her husband HRH the Prince of Hanover has [perhaps unfortunately, seeing the troubles in Germany at the moment] been deposed, thus depriving him of sovereign power--and, even if the Prince were not, Princess Caroline still would not be a monarch, as she would be the queen-consort (wife of the monarch) rather than queen-regnant (monarch of her own authority, by her birthright). It's the same situation with Princess Grace [Kelly], her mother. Grace was the wife of a monarch (princess-consort in this case, because Monaco is a principality, not a kingdom) but not a not a monarch herself--whereas Queen Elizabeth is a monarch because she inherited the throne herself. Yes, this stuff is pretty darn' confusing. Of course, depends on what the original poster was asking for. If he just wanted a beautiful royal, then all these people count. If he wanted the definition more precise, then, to include the ladies (and as a red-blooded American male that's whom I would include), we need queens- and princesses-regnant rather than -consort. Thank you for sorting this out. Since I'm from the US, all these intricate Royal relationships can be confusing.
I agree with your interpretation but then you brought up what the original poster's intent was. By including Grace Kelly (Princess of Monaco) the OP seems to be including the spouses of a ruling monarch. - Of course you are right that Hanover is no longer a functioning kingdom so that probably disqualifies Caroline on this thread. Still strangely enough the British royal family recognized that the Hanover Prince was a descendent of George III and so the Prince had to ask permission of Queen Elizabeth in order to marry Princess Caroline.
I'm currently watching the TV series The Crown and it seems who can marry who in British royalty is a complicated business.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 22, 2017 1:56:01 GMT
Well, I think the problem is that the word monarch, as opposed to "royal" or "member of the Royal Family," implies "one who rules in his or her own right." (My dictionary gives the word the meaning of "sovereign head of state," sovereign meaning, "possessing the ultimate and supreme power." For example, the British government to this day acts in the name of HM Queen Elizabeth, who officially possesses complete and supreme power, even if she does not use it herself and, because of tradition and the noble, unwritten British Constitution, cedes it to the democratically elected House of Commons and Cabinet.) HRH Princess Caroline, the Duchess of Hanover, is undoubtedly royal, of royal blood, but she does not fit either of these categories: her husband HRH the Prince of Hanover has [perhaps unfortunately, seeing the troubles in Germany at the moment] been deposed, thus depriving him of sovereign power--and, even if the Prince were not, Princess Caroline still would not be a monarch, as she would be the queen-consort (wife of the monarch) rather than queen-regnant (monarch of her own authority, by her birthright). It's the same situation with Princess Grace [Kelly], her mother. Grace was the wife of a monarch (princess-consort in this case, because Monaco is a principality, not a kingdom) but not a monarch herself--whereas Queen Elizabeth is a monarch because she inherited the throne herself. Yes, this stuff is pretty darn' confusing. Of course, depends on what the original poster was asking for. If he just wanted a beautiful royal, then all these people count. If he wanted the definition more precise, then, to include the ladies (and as a red-blooded American male that's whom I would include), we need queens- and princesses-regnant rather than -consort. Thank you for sorting this out. Since I'm from the US, all these intricate Royal relationships can be confusing.
I agree with your interpretation but then you brought up what the original poster's intent was. By including Grace Kelly (Princess of Monaco) the OP seems to be including the spouses of a ruling monarch. - Of course you are right that Hanover is no longer a functioning kingdom so that probably disqualifies Caroline on this thread. Still strangely enough the British royal family recognized that the Hanover Prince was a descendent of George III and so the Prince had to ask permission of Queen Elizabeth in order to marry Princess Caroline.
I'm currently watching the TV series The Crown and it seems who can marry who in British royalty is a complicated business.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
Actually, I'm from the U.S. too (thus my line about my being a "red-blooded American male"). I'm just interested in different monarchies because I've long had a fascination with history, both American and European. Yes, it's a complicated business about who can and cannot marry into royalty. You know the Wallis Simpson story, right? I've never heard about the Prince of Hanover's having asked Queen Elizabeth's permission to marry Princess Caroline, but I wouldn't be surprised. All of the heads of the European royal houses, whether still reigning (e.g., Britain, Netherlands, Spain) or deposed (e.g., Germany, France, Austria), are related. As my history professors never tired of telling us, King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm II, the monarchs of Britain and Germany, respectively, which of course fought each other in the 1st World War, were first cousins. (So was Czar Nicholas II of Russia.)
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 22, 2017 2:01:24 GMT
By the way, to connect all this monarchical talk to the films this forum is supposed to be about, have you ever seen the Ian McKellen version of Shakespeare's Richard III ('95)? It's not one of my favorite movies, but McKellen gives a stellar performance in it--and of course it's all about monarchy, and in this version is set in an alternate-universe Fascist Britain in the '40s, so that's probably why I thought of it.
|
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
Likes: 63
|
Post by bb15 on Feb 22, 2017 5:18:02 GMT
Thank you for sorting this out. Since I'm from the US, all these intricate Royal relationships can be confusing.
I agree with your interpretation but then you brought up what the original poster's intent was. By including Grace Kelly (Princess of Monaco) the OP seems to be including the spouses of a ruling monarch. - Of course you are right that Hanover is no longer a functioning kingdom so that probably disqualifies Caroline on this thread. Still strangely enough the British royal family recognized that the Hanover Prince was a descendent of George III and so the Prince had to ask permission of Queen Elizabeth in order to marry Princess Caroline.
I'm currently watching the TV series The Crown and it seems who can marry who in British royalty is a complicated business.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
Actually, I'm from the U.S. too (thus my line about my being a "red-blooded American male"). I'm just interested in different monarchies because I've long had a fascination with history, both American and European. Yes, it's a complicated business about who can and cannot marry into royalty. You know the Wallis Simpson story, right? I've never heard about the Prince of Hanover's having asked Queen Elizabeth's permission to marry Princess Caroline, but I wouldn't be surprised. All of the heads of the European royal houses, whether still reigning (e.g., Britain, Netherlands, Spain) or deposed (e.g., Germany, France, Austria), are related. As my history professors never tired of telling us, King George V and Kaiser Wilhelm II, the monarchs of Britain and Germany, respectively, which of course fought each other in the 1st World War, were first cousins. (So was Czar Nicholas II of Russia.) The interrelationships of all the European royals, the large number of them and knowing when monarchies became republics makes it a bit tricky to know who was in power when. Imo at least, BB ;-)
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 24, 2017 20:50:20 GMT
I confess to being a tad bemused by Americans in their regard to royalty. Many deride monarchy as being not perhaps finshed but certainly out of date, while others can't get enough of monarchy.
What IS this fascination that Americans have with royalty. They seem to have far more obsession with monarchy than those (including myself) who actually live in a monarchy (constitutional or otherwise).
Can someone please set me right on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 22:10:16 GMT
Don't know if she qualifies but Grace Kelly... The story goes that Hitchcock was in love with Grace Kelly, That's the reason for all the extreme closeups of Kelly in Rear Window, to which I say, THANKS Al.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 24, 2017 23:11:02 GMT
Don't know if she qualifies but Grace Kelly... The story goes that Hitchcock was in love with Grace Kelly, That's the reason for all the extreme closeups of Kelly in Rear Window, to which I say, THANKS Al. You and me both, buddy. You and me both.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 25, 2017 4:34:11 GMT
I confess to being a tad bemused by Americans in their regard to royalty. Many derride monarchy as being not perhaps finshed but certainly out of date, while others can't get enough of monarchy. What IS this fascination that Americans have with royalty. They seem to have far more obsession with monarchy than those (including myself) who actually live in a monarchy (constitutional or otherwise). Can someone please set me right on this? Actually, Tarathian, it's a good question, and one that I've frequently considered myself (as an American who is interested in and sympathetic to monarchy but does not want a monarchy in his own country). I think you've actually hit the nail on the head, perhaps without even knowing it. That is, we Americans are interested in monarchy exactly because we do not have, and have never had, a monarch. You know the phrase, "Familiarity breeds contempt"? I'm not saying that those who live in a constitutional monarchy are contemptuous of their monarch--certainly not if one analyzes the high approval ratings that Queen Elizabeth has--but they're used to the concept of a monarchy, and, since the majority of monarchies nowadays are constitutional or ceremonial (usually both at once), the monarchy does not affect their daily lives. Americans have no idea what it's like to live under a monarch. (I understand that, practically nowadays, it's no different from living under a republican head of state, but since we've never really lived under a monarch, we-as-Americans don't know that because we haven't lived it.) Our head of state (and government) is elected, so we haven't the foggiest idea what it would be like to have the same head of state for life. The U.S. is unique not in the sense that it is a republic but rather in that, as long as it has been a country (rather than 13 colonies), it has never had a monarch. With the exception of Switzerland (and even there before confederation), this is not true of any of the states of Europe. C.S. Lewis has a passage that goes like this: "Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." There are points on which I'd quibble, especially because I support republicanism in and for America (and monarchism in and for Europe), but I cannot deny that many of my countrymen have taken to honoring millionaires, athletes, and film-stars because they have precious few others to honor. (Certainly not politicians, of either or any party!) So, when they see a charming royal family like Britain's, especially with Prince William, Princess Kate, and their children, they immediately if unconsciously want the real thing rather than a knock-off. Americans (myself included) have always been unduly obsessed with titles, exactly because we've never had such a thing on our country. You know all the old stories about penniless dukes and viscounts, or masqueraders to those titles, who can impress rich American women? (Used in a thousand con-artist books and movies.) That's my best answer for your question. Does that help to assuage your bemusement?
|
|
|
Post by tarathian123 on Feb 25, 2017 8:19:35 GMT
Thank you salzmank for your very intelligent and knowledgable assessment. Actually I've lived in two reigns. The current QE2 and her father G6. With luck I may even live to see a third. :-) I don't consider myself as being European, but British. :-) One point I do find amusing is how many Americans still think that the British monarch holds the power, as per an absolute monarch, and don't understand our constitutional monarchy in which the monarch holds no political power whatever. He/she does have influence, but that's a different matter. The monarchial power is, that the heredity position, under strict Parliamentary rules, does not allow any dictator, or anyone, to usurp that position as Head of State. This gives a continuation of stability. It is this point that gives me a preference to constitutional monarchy over republicanism wherein the monarch has no political power, yet a POTUS does, and can issue executive orders virtually at will. That seems to me to veer towards absolute orders that an absolute monarch might give, even if not dictatorial. Many people in the UK wish to have Britain/UK as a republic, but I think the British majority got immunised, and still are, by the interregnum period known as the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell, and the history of the previous brutal English Civil War and its even more brutal aftermath is still all around us. Indeed probably on a par with the effects of WWs 1 and 2. To our home grown republicans I just say one thing....God Save the Queen! :-) [Your avatar looks like a very young Peter Bowles. ]
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 25, 2017 15:44:26 GMT
Thank you salzmank for your very intelligent and knowledgable assessment. Actually I've lived in two reigns. The current QE2 and her father G6. With luck I may even live to see a third. :-) I don't consider myself as being European, but British. :-) One point I do find amusing is how many Americans still think that the British monarch holds the power, as per an absolute monarch, and don't understand our constitutional monarchy in which the monarch holds no political power whatever. He/she does have influence, but that's a different matter. The monarchial power is, that the heredity position, under strict Parliamentary rules, does not allow any dictator, or anyone, to usurp that position as Head of State. This gives a continuation of stability. It is this point that gives me a preference to constitutional monarchy over republicanism wherein the monarch has no political power, yet a POTUS does, and can issue executive orders virtually at will. That seems to me to veer towards absolute orders that an absolute monarch might give, even if not dictatorial. Many people in the UK wish to have Britain/UK as a republic, but I think the British majority got immunised, and still are, by the interregnum period known as the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell, and the history of the previous brutal English Civil War and its even more brutal aftermath is still all around us. Indeed probably on a par with the effects of WWs 1 and 2. To our home grown republicans I just say one thing....God Save the Queen! :-) [Your avatar looks like a very young Peter Bowles. ] A few points. I should have clarified that, when I wrote "for life," I meant "for the monarch's life," or, more properly, "for the monarch's life since that person ascended the throne." Also, a major mistake on my part: I meant to write "...as an American who does NOT want a monarch in his own country." That simple little three-letter word changes the whole meaning, eh? (I've now corrected it, but I think my meaning was clear anyway with the "republican" line.) Because the U.S. was never founded with a monarch, I don't think it ever should have one. And I'm happy for that: having republics and monarchies adds color and diversity to one's analysis of governments. You're absolutely right about the "British"/"European" distinction, of course. If you don't think it's presumptuous of a non-Briton to say, I would say that the Brits have always had a streak of independence in their national soul, just as Americans do, but the British streak is borne of the Isles' not being directly connected to the Continent (whereas the American one is naturally because of the War of Independence). No, I absolutely know about the monarch, the unwritten British Constitution, and constitutional convention. To correct a little bit of a misconception: I think Americans know at an intellectual level, to some degree, that the Queen is not actively governing, but they don't know exactly how that government is working without the Queen. (Of course, this is different from an official, theoretical, de jure level, on which all power is exercised by the Government in her name.) I once spoke to someone from New Zealand at a meeting, and we were joking because he said that no one in New Zealand understood the presidential system, and I told him that no one in America understood the parliamentary system! I'm not going to get into the benefits of monarchs and presidents (as I've written, I support monarchs in those states with a long tradition of monarchy and republics in those states with a long history of republicanism), but the executive order power, though superficially akin to a "royal decree," is not as powerful as the press may like to make it out to be. Officially, it is the order given by the president regarding how to execute a specific law. As the president is the chief executive, his job is to carry out the laws made by Congress, but his methods for doing so are his own. Does that make sense? Unfortunately, many presidents have used the executive order power to be, in effect, legislators rather than executives. That is unwarranted by the Constitution, but it also gets into some murky waters. Not to get too much into current politics, but for example, Pres. Trump's executive orders have been very powerful. However, with a few pointed exceptions (the so-called "travel ban" being the most notable), every one of his EOs merely cancels out one of Pres. Obama's. So is that unprecedented, law-making power? Difficult to say, especially if you believe Obama's orders were unconstitutional, as do many (large-R) Republicans. See how murky those waters are? I agree that British (and Canadian, and Australian, and New Zealander) republicans are wrong. I say this partially because I am a (small-c) conservative and have great respect for tradition and partially because the dissolution of the monarchy would throw those countries into chaos, especially in newly-republican countries in which both a president and prime minister could claim a popular mandate. I have studied the Interregnum and utterly despise Cromwell, a bluenose butcher; actually, some of my favorite historical stories are of Charles II and, later, Bonnie Prince Charlie. To your home-grown republicans, though not to mine, I will also join in the toast of "God Save the Queen!" [My avatar is not a young Peter Bowles, but this person does have a connection to what we're discussing: it's John Dickson Carr, an Anglo-American detective-story writer and historical novelist, most famous in the '30s and '40s. He's one of my favorite writers. Connected to our point, he was an American who married an Englishwoman, lived in England for years, and had a great respect for monarchy. Like myself, he was very (small-c) conservative, and he and fled England with his family when Clement Attlee's Labour Party came into power in the '45 elections.]
|
|