 |
Reply
| |
Greetings and Happy Holidays! I can't believe I have only know begun to study Queen Anne, who reigned from 1702 to 1714. She's a fascinating character in whose reign a distinctive style was developed and definitive military victories helped establish what would become the British Empire. Herself, she was a sickly woman who suffered many stillbirths, miscarriages, and the early deaths of her children. Anne also had interesting relationships with two favorites in particular, Sarah and Abigail, which gave rise to the rumor that Anne may have been a lesbian playing a heterosexual wife and mother. There doesn't seem to be much available on Anne, or at least not that I've found yet. If you would be so kind as to point me in the direction of some good resources, I would be much obliged. Thanks! Sappho |
|
Reply
| |
so no matter the spelling, stuart's ( stewart's ) are the same ? ... I would believe also that any serfs and what have you would take the name of their masters, am I righr about there being no surnames until the Doomsday Book, and then everone was listed and given names??? sorry if I'm so dumb |
|
Reply
| |
I found an interesting article on surnames on the Internet, which said that the first recorded surname in Europe since Roman times (the Romans used surnames of a sort) was in Ireland in 916, the name O'Cleary. The use of surnames in England really began in the 13th century, when it was found that a third of the men in England were called William, Robert, or John, which led to complications in identifying people. So they began to call people William son of Robert, which led to the surname Robertson etc. Also people could be identified by occupation, as in Baker, Smith etc. Louise |
|
Reply
| |
Thank you, Louise... would you still know the web site on surnames... i have traced my maiden name back to Normandy in 1066 with William of Orange and found our family crest.. so it looks like some of my decedents came from Normandy and I do believe the other from Ireland and Scotland.. |
|
Reply
| |
| It sounds like you have a very interesting ancestry! Louise |
|
Reply
| |
I've seen a rumor that Anne Hyde, the mother of Mary & Anne, was "poxed" (meaning syphilis I would imagine). I wonder if that could account for Mary's sterility & Anne's cavalcade of doomed infants? |
|
Reply
| |
There does seem to have been a rumour that Anne spent long periods covered in sores towards the end of her life, so that she had to hide from view, the sores may have been caused by venereal disease (this is mentioned in 'Ungrateful Daughters: the Stuart Princesses who stole their father's throne' by Maureen Waller). However, I should have thought if she did have venereal disease she must have caught it from her husband, the future King James II, I don't think there is any evidence that she was ever unfaithful to him, she seems to have spent most of her time perpetually pregnant, and she became enormously fat as she got older, so she probably wouldn't have had the energy to be unfaithful. Louise |
|
Reply
| |
do you think maybe she may of had diabetes also??? if her husband had a venereal disease and gave it to her... do you know how he died?? was there evidence to this... |
|
Reply
| |
She could have had diabetes, that's very true, it would account for a lot of her health problems. I don't know whether there was ever any suggestion that Jame had a veneral disease, he had healthy children by his second wife, Mary of Modena, and several illegitiame children, and he lived until 1701, dying at the age of sixty-eight, so if he did have a veneral disease it doesn't seem to have affected him adversely. He lived to be a lot older than any of his siblings, so I would assume he was a pretty healthy man. Louise |
|
Reply
| |
were Mary and James having relations all along there marriage? If so then she surely couldn't of had a venereal disease , or she would have given it to him.. and he did prove prolific and lived a long life... right |
|
Reply
| |
I beleive "sticky blood" was what we'd call Rh factor nowadays. It's speculated this was what afflicted Anne Boleyn's subsequent attempts to carry a child to term after the birth of Elizabeth. Usually the mother is able to bear one healthy child, but then future pregnancies are doomed without blood transfusions to offset this medical issue, which of course was unheard of until Samuel Pepys' day. I therefore couldn't see it applying to Anne, as 16 of her children died in infancy, & the sole child who survived was thought to be hydrocephalic & very sickly for the nine years he did live. As far as James & Mary Beatrice, the "Old Pretender" & Louisa Maria were the only two of their children to live to maturity (Louisa died at age 20 in the smallpox epidemic in France which also claimed the lives of Louis XIVs 2 most direct male heirs, the Dauphin & the Duc de Bourgogne, the Dauphin's eldest son, as well as Bourgogne's wife, Adelaide of Savoy, a special pet of the Sun King; Louisa had been considered as a bride for the Dauphin's third son, the Duc du Berry). Of the children James & Mary had while still in England prior to James Francis Edward's birth, only Isabella survived infancy, to die at the age of 5, also of smallpox; Mary was perpetually pregnant for several years, but two sons, both named Charles, Duke of Cornwall, & a daughter, Mary, died before age 2, & there was a stillborn daughter as well. Many historians make it seem as if "the baby in the warming pan" notion of the anti-Jacobites was credible because Mary's struggle to give England an heir with these five pregnancies is largely passed by, making it seem as though the son who lived was conceived in isolation. |
|
Reply
| |
Henry IV was also covered in sores at the close of his life, & he was thought to have had leprosy |
|
Reply
| |
Yes, they are. Mary, Queen of Scots, changed it after living in France. |
|
Reply
| |
No, I thought that it was syphilis, an STD.  That is why he didn't produce an heir with five of his wives.n Lepers are very different. |
|
Reply
| |
For anyone who is interested in Mary and Anne there is a series I believe from BBC called "The First Chuchills" and gives quite a fascinating glimse into the English Court from CharlesII through Anne's reign. It is certainly filmed with a sense of humanity rather than strict historical fact but do remain fairly faithful to history. It truly makes the Royal family seem human and gives a fascinating peek into the past. Melanie |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First
Return to The Stuarts
