A discussion forum for history enthusiasts everywhere
 
HomeHome  Recent ActivityRecent Activity  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Royal Bodies

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Anglo-Norman
Consulatus


Posts : 252
Join date : 2012-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 27 Feb 2013, 08:29

@Temperance wrote:
But didn't Edward III go a bit odd towards the end of his life?

He certainly went into a sharp mental decline from c.1373 onwards, although the exact reasons are unclear. One proposed diagnosis has been a series of minor strokes, in the run up to the big one which is presumed to have killed him.
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5029
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Sun 13 Oct 2013, 09:22

I have been googling about this morning looking for info on female anorexic saints in art. I stumbled across this Guardian article - more thoughts from Hilary Mantel. I think it is an excellent, if disturbing, piece.

Royal Bodies is not perhaps the correct thread, but I didn't know where else to post the link. Perhaps we need a Bodies thread.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/mar/04/mentalhealth.health

EDIT: I've deleted "funny" - not the right word at all. Mantel is just ironic in places - the mention of the church halls, for instance, the venues for so many slimming clubs. I think it is Weight Watchers who trains its members to think in terms of "sin".
Back to top Go down
LadyinRetirement
Decemviratus Legibus Scribundis
avatar

Posts : 666
Join date : 2013-09-16

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Tue 15 Oct 2013, 17:21

Going back to Ms Mantel's piece of writing, I guess that if the Duchess of Cambridge, or any young (or at least young enough to have a child) woman wants to be a stay-at-home Mum she has the right to be so. Lots of young Mums I know seem to be working at least part-time whether they are married or single out of necessity.  (Some of my friends and acquaintances are doing Grandma duty looking after the children so their [i.e. the grand-parents'] adult offspring can go to work).   

I was a little confused while reading Meles x 2's post.  For a time I thought "HM" referred to Hilary Mantel rather than Her Madge but the penny has dropped now.  ..... And I got the words of the Sooty Song wrong on another thread too.  Doesn't seem to be my day.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5598
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 16 Oct 2013, 08:41



A scatological interest in the weight of royal personages is nothing new - as the final verse of Monto reveals.
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5029
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 16 Oct 2013, 09:14

What are they on about - the Queen weighing 18 stone?


Is it a reference to Queen Anne?

When Anne became queen, aged 37, in 1702, she had already lived three-quarters of her life. She was so crippled by gout she could hardly walk, and so fat - today we would call her morbidly obese - that it was difficult to find ceremonial robes to fit her for her inaugural speech  to Parliament.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5598
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 16 Oct 2013, 09:20

Victoria - the song is about Montgomery Street in Dublin, once the biggest red light district in Europe. Victoria's son Edward reportedly lost his virginity there (I believe it is yet to be found). Vicky herself paid the city a visit in 1900 and the song appeared promptly afterwards.

18 stone is poetic licence (but not much by 1900 apparently).
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5029
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 16 Oct 2013, 14:43

It's not just royal women who were mocked for being fat. One of the most cutting insults ever was that offered to the Prince Regent by Beau Brummell. The Prince had pointedly ignored Brummell at a society event, whereupon the latter exacted an immediate and very cruel revenge by remarking loudly, "Alvanley, who's your fat friend?"

Prinny was no Mr Darcy: he was very overweight and he must have looked pretty awful in the unforgiving male fashions of the time. His growing obesity made him an ideal target for cartoonists of the day. This is the infamous "two green bags" cartoon: note the limp royal penis.






Back to top Go down
Meles meles
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2654
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 16 Oct 2013, 17:36

There's also Cruikshank's unflattering depicion of HRH as "The Prince of Whales":
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5029
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 23 Oct 2013, 12:36

A royal lady who was very overweight was Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, a granddaughter of George III. Princess Mary of Cambridge was not quite as slim and lovely as the present D of C. Mary, who later became the Duchess of Teck, was the mother of Queen Mary, the wife of George V, and she is reported to have weighed approximately 250 pounds: she was affectionately (?) known to the family as “Fat Mary.” Her first cousin, Queen Victoria, wrote of her, “Her size is fearful. It is really a misfortune.” Victoria was no Twiggy herself, of course.

Princess Mary Adelaide was apparently high-spirited and full of life - a sort of royal Lisa Riley: she was adored by the Victorian public who called her “The People’s Princess.” Alas, times have changed; I doubt a twenty stone princess would be a People's Princess today.



(The slim girl seated on the right is the future Queen Mary.)

PS The Sun came up with one of its excruciating headlines last week. Following her successful shedding of every last ounce of Royal Baby Weight, our future queen was triumphantly dubbed her HRH the Muchless of Cambridge.
Back to top Go down
Triceratops
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2810
Join date : 2012-01-05

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Fri 25 Oct 2013, 12:31

Some members may have already seen this, Dr Worsley's 3 part series about royal illness.

Part 3 of 3



anyone who wants to watch it is best advised to do asap, as these BBC videos have a tendency to disappear.
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5029
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Mon 16 Jun 2014, 13:05

Hilary Mantel has been made a Dame, despite her comments about our slender Duchess.

Something was said to me this weekend (see below) by a fifteen-year-old girl that led to me digging out the following article from the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2013/oct/31/daily-star-obsessing-duchess-of-cambridge-body


"As we sell our daughters birthday cards, dressing-up costumes and childhood books about becoming a beautiful princess (while our boys revel in merchandise promoting the active adventures of astronauts) the media obsession with the duchess's every bodily inch reinforces the principle that girls should be seen and not heard. Compound that with the contradictory message that she is simultaneously perfectly, joyously slender and selfishly, irresponsibly underweight and we're also broadcasting to our girls, loud and clear, the message of mandatory female insecurity.

The duchess's treatment testifies that though they will forever be evaluated on the basis of their looks alone, those looks will always be cruelly attacked by somebody; there is no way they can win.

And if you think it doesn't matter – if you think that none of this is having an impact on our little girls and their aspirations and academic dreams – then please just stop and read this entry to the Everyday Sexism project from a 15-year-old girl – and feel your heart break a little: 'I'm 15, and feel like girls my age are under a lot of pressure that boys are not under. I know I am smart, I know I am kind and funny, and I know that everybody around me keeps telling me that I can be whatever I want to be. I know all this but I just don't feel that way. I always feel like if I don't look a certain way, if boys don't think I'm 'sexy' or 'hot' then I've failed and it doesn't even matter if I am a doctor or writer, I'll still feel like nothing. I feel like successful women are only considered a success if they are successful AND hot, and I worry constantly that I won't be. What if my boobs don't grow, what if I don't have the perfect body, what if my hips don't widen and give me a little waist, if none of that happens I feel like whats [sic] the point of doing anything because I'll just be the "fat, ugly girl" regardless of whether I do become a doctor or not … I know the girls on Page 3 are probably starving themselves. I know the girls in adverts are airbrushed. I know beauty is on the inside. But I still feel as if I'm not good enough.'

These girls are absorbing every message we send them. Its impact on them is very real. And every new body-shaming, figure-obsessing, dehumanising article about the duchess's physical form drives the message home ever clearer."


The teenage girl quoted by the Guardian writer was saying more or less what the fifteen-year-old daughter of a friend told me at a  BBQ on Saturday. What prompted our very interesting conversation was a picture that had been published earlier in the week showing a Vogue-like Duchess of Cambridge looking absolutely stunning in towering heels and a size six (confirmed by Daily Mail) Alexander McQeen outfit. She was caught on camera at the garden party for the Duke of Edinburgh as she greeted her husband's cousin, the Princess Eugenie. The daughter of the Duke of York looked young and pretty in her simple white summer frock, but she is not as tall as the Duchess and she has what has been called the "Windsor bosom". Alas, definitely not the fashionable look for today. My young friend could not have been more dismissive. She declared that whereas the Duchess was the ideal - what all young girls these days aspired to be - the unfortunate Eugenie, obviously healthy and of absolutely normal weight, was declared to be "fat and dumpy". My argument that the Duchess was perhaps having to put an awful lot of time and effort - time and effort that could perhaps be put to better use - at maintaining such a fashionable image fell on deaf ears.

So what? Well, while others tucked into the delicious food on offer at the Saturday BBQ, my friend 's daughter resolutely stuck to salad - no sausages, no veggie burgers, no crusty bread - and definitely no helpings from the range of creamy and tempting puddings. Bit worrying?




Last edited by Temperance on Mon 16 Jun 2014, 14:23; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
LadyinRetirement
Decemviratus Legibus Scribundis
avatar

Posts : 666
Join date : 2013-09-16

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Mon 16 Jun 2014, 13:36

Temperance, it is indeed worrying that people obsess about their bodies at such young ages.  I agree the Duchess of Cambridge does look attractive, but then she has people round her advising her and helping her choose styles which will suit her and from the photograph you post the other lass is not "ugly" just not quite so stylish.  It might not do any harm if somebody with a bit more clue about style had a word in her shell-like. People seem to go for physical beauty rather than a beautiful personality - but then when I was young and went to dances I was always pleased if a personable chap asked me to dance (not saying that happened every time and I wasn't horrible to less personable ones). Thinking about the Royal family, I was never as obsessed with the late Princess of Wales as some people were - I'm not saying she wasn't an attractive lady and she certainly died before her time.  I may have been turned off by the amount of sycophancy in the newspapers relating to the late Princess of Wales during her lifetime (though to be fair that may not have been entirely her fault).
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5029
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Mon 16 Jun 2014, 14:14

LiR wrote:
  I agree the Duchess of Cambridge does look attractive, but then she has people round her advising her and helping her choose styles which will suit her and from the photograph you post the other lass is not "ugly" just not quite so stylish.  It might not do any harm if somebody with a bit more clue about style had a word in her shell-like.


But LiR my point is that Princess Eugenie looks perfectly OK! She does not need to have advice on "style". She's a normal weight - she obviously eats occasionally - and has clearly taken some time and trouble to look pretty, summery and appropriate in her white frock. Looking like the Duchess, on the other hand, takes more than lucky genes and a team of fashion stylists. It takes hours and hours of hard work and terrific effort: iron discipline and will-power and determination, all laudable qualities certainly, but, I would suggest, only when directed at achieving a goal more useful than keeping one's weight under 112 lbs.

My concern is that hungry girls can't concentrate. A starving brain does not function properly. And being a hunger artist can quickly become a way of life - to the exclusion of all else. And while most now admit that happiness is not a warm gun - the male version of the old lie - neither is it a getting into a size six (UK) size 2 (USA) - the female version of same.

But the young never listen. I certainly didn't.
Back to top Go down
LadyinRetirement
Decemviratus Legibus Scribundis
avatar

Posts : 666
Join date : 2013-09-16

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Tue 17 Jun 2014, 15:49

@Temperance wrote:
LiR wrote:
  I agree the Duchess of Cambridge does look attractive, but then she has people round her advising her and helping her choose styles which will suit her and from the photograph you post the other lass is not "ugly" just not quite so stylish.  It might not do any harm if somebody with a bit more clue about style had a word in her shell-like.


But LiR my point is that Princess Eugenie looks perfectly OK! She does not need to have advice on "style". She's a normal weight - she obviously eats occasionally - and has clearly taken some time and trouble to look pretty, summery and appropriate in her white frock. Looking like the Duchess, on the other hand, takes more than lucky genes and a team of fashion stylists. It takes hours and hours of hard work and terrific effort: iron discipline and will-power and determination, all laudable qualities certainly, but, I would suggest, only when directed at achieving a goal more useful than keeping one's weight under 112 lbs.

My concern is that hungry girls can't concentrate. A starving brain does not function properly. And being a hunger artist can quickly become a way of life - to the exclusion of all else. And while most now admit that happiness is not a warm gun - the male version of the old lie - neither is it a getting into a size six (UK) size 2 (USA) - the female version of same.

But the young never listen. I certainly didn't.
The dress doesn't do her any favours, Temperance - or the hat.  While I don't want to see youngsters being obsessed with weight - or become anorexic - a dress in a style which suited Princess Eugenie slightly better could have helped her (and white is a colour which makes one look larger than one really is - I discovered that the hard way looking at a photograph of myself).  I'm not saying that Princess Eugenie needs to lose weight but in all honesty I think she could have been kitted out slightly more appropriately.  It's not like she's short of a bob or two.
Back to top Go down
Islanddawn
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2043
Join date : 2012-01-05
Location : Greece

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Tue 17 Jun 2014, 16:27

I like the dress Eugenie is wearing and think it suits her. In fact, she is easily the most appropriately dressed of two in front. Kate looks like an ironing board with a doily on top. 

But aren't we doing exactly the same as those under criticism here?
Back to top Go down
LadyinRetirement
Decemviratus Legibus Scribundis
avatar

Posts : 666
Join date : 2013-09-16

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 18 Jun 2014, 10:46

I guess we all have different opinions of what is attractive, ID.  I prefer how Kate looks in the photograph. I do, however, think the press have had the long knives out for Sarah Ferguson for a long time and some (and this is very nasty and mean) try to find fault with her daughters by extension.  In theory I believe that the freedom in this country we enjoy was hard won, and therefore everybody should be free to wear what they like. Neither do I think there is anything wrong with having curves (in fact I think some of the male gender like ladies with curves). Unfortunately people in the public eye get scrutinised by people in the media - every slight flaw will be magnified. (Or if there are a string of photographs taken, the one where a person looks rough {if the press have it in for them} will be used rather than one where the subject of the photograph looks perfectly alright.  I don't think Sarah Ferguson's daughters are unhandsome lasses.  I guess they are at the age where they are finding out what suits them; they will make the odd mistake and it is unfortunate (and spiteful) that any mistakes will be pointed out to the world at large.
Back to top Go down
Islanddawn
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2043
Join date : 2012-01-05
Location : Greece

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 18 Jun 2014, 10:56

@LadyinRetirement wrote:
I guess we all have different opinions of what is attractive, ID. 

Which is exactly my point, including Eugenie and Kate. Who are the press, or indeed any of us, to judge anyone on appearances and by whose or what standard do we measure what is appropriate or attractive anyway? I'm sure there are more important issues/topics to be worrying about.
Back to top Go down
ferval
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2421
Join date : 2011-12-27

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 18 Jun 2014, 12:16

When it comes to the royals, isn't it just a bit naive to imagine that their choice of outfits is completely governed by their personal taste? As discussed in the 'Dress to impress' thread, what anyone chooses to wear is often a very deliberate statement to project an image.

Our gender, our age, our status, our ethnic, cultural or religious affiliations all have been and still can be announced through our dress as well as more personal expressions of identity and all are tied up with the where, when and how we live. It can be used to display conformity but also to subvert.

This is evident in the sartorial choices of these women - and men - and as such seems to me to be fair game for discussion. If they choose to project themselves as some kind of national symbol and a vehicle for British fashion, then surely they are, to be blunt, asking for it?
That does not mean that their physical attributes are equally fair game although given our cultural assumptions around how a prince or princess should look, and how that has been inculcated into our psyches (those fairy stories again), there might just be occasions when it could be. How would we feel about a size 30 princess? Would she not be interpreted as a poor role model much as an over-thin one has been?

Anyway, a size 6 today isn't quite a tiny as it once was - I have clothes old enough to prove just how much stock sizes have changed over the years. The size 10 I wore at 20 wouldn't close on me now but I can easily get into a today's M&S size 8 if I breathe in.
Back to top Go down
Islanddawn
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2043
Join date : 2012-01-05
Location : Greece

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Wed 18 Jun 2014, 17:26

So you're saying that the royals wear outfits that they hate, they have no say in the selection or choice of wardrobe and it's 'naive' to think that they do have input? Yeah right.

Are they projecting themselves as national symbols? Or is that the role forced on them by society? Are they also projecting themselves as a vehicle for British fashion? Or are they promoting an industry that brings billions into the UK economy yearly, as they are in a very good position to do and again as is expected of them as part of the job? Yet are fair game to become punching bags for merely doing what is demanded of them by society in the first place and what is expected of a Royal family anyway.

More a case of damned if they do and damned if they don't, poor buggers.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5598
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Thu 19 Jun 2014, 09:41

Apropos to the debate ...

Guardian Newspaper's Ascot Lady's Day Quiz

(I'm mortified - I actually got 6 right from 10)
Back to top Go down
https://reshistorica.historyboard.net
LadyinRetirement
Decemviratus Legibus Scribundis
avatar

Posts : 666
Join date : 2013-09-16

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Thu 19 Jun 2014, 10:52

@ferval wrote:
This is evident in the sartorial choices of these women - and men - and as such seems to me to be fair game for discussion. If they choose to project themselves as some kind of national symbol and a vehicle for British fashion, then surely they are, to be blunt, asking for it?
That does not mean that their physical attributes are equally fair game although given our cultural assumptions around how a prince or princess should look, and how that has been inculcated into our psyches (those fairy stories again), there might just be occasions when it could be. How would we feel about a size 30 princess? Would she not be interpreted as a poor role model much as an over-thin one has been?


Ferval, I agree.  ID is right to say that there are more important issues in the world than how a person looks.  ID does seem to think I was being mean about Princess Eugenie.  That was not my intention....my point was that the dress and hat she was wearing (in my opinion at least, though obviously not in ID's) did not really suit her.  Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice have rocked up in some weird but not so wonderful get-ups from time to time.  When I was the age that I was experimenting with fashion I had a mother who would tell it like it was and if something didn't suit me she would let me know.  Now if I had a friend who was in the public eye and I knew the paparazzi would be putting their outfits/make-up etc under the microscope every time they went out of the house, I would want to HELP them and if they wore something that did not flatter them I would say so, though hopefully not in a nasty way.Forewarned is fore-armed though it's quite right that the current obsession with looks is worrying - very young girls wanting "boob jobs" that kind of thing. In my time I knew a couple of ladies who were blonde and "well-blessed" in the chest department but were intelligent and found that men perceived them to be a certain way (totally different to their real personalities) because of how they looked.  Most story-book princesses are blonde (well not Snow White) so being brunette the Duchess (not Princess) of Cambridge breaks the mold a little.  Re: the size 30 princess, Temperance did make a post on this thread last autumn about a princess from the Victorian era who was both plump and popular.  This does not appertain solely to royalty, I watched some re-runs of "Pie in the Sky" starring the late Richard Griffiths.  They were from 1995 but I noticed that even though Richard Griffiths was not discriminated against because he carried a bit of weight (well he was a very good actor) the show-runners had cast a good-looking (in a mature womanly way) actress to play his wife. Sexism?

I will finish now.  I have said much more than my tuppence on the subject.


Last edited by LadyinRetirement on Sat 21 Jun 2014, 12:36; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Triceratops
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2810
Join date : 2012-01-05

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Thu 19 Jun 2014, 12:17

THE page boy who fainted during the Queen’s speech had been weakened by Prince Philip’s vampiric tendencies.
Page boys are traditionally used as a food source by senior members of the monarchy, who need to sustain themselves on the fresh blood of pedigree children.
A royal source said: “Philip felt he required more blood than usual if he was to remain conscious during the prolonged tedium of the Queen’s speech. Also he finds sunlight exhausting.
“It is a great privilege to have your child selected for pagedom, and they bear their puncture wounds as a badge of honour.
“Unfortunately though they rarely survive longer than six months.”
Because of this special diet, members of the royal family have been known to live over 900 years.
When they reach about 104, royals usually fake their deaths and retire to a castle in the foothills of Carpathia where they prey on peasant girls and lonely travellers.
Back to top Go down
LadyinRetirement
Decemviratus Legibus Scribundis
avatar

Posts : 666
Join date : 2013-09-16

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Thu 19 Jun 2014, 12:21

@Triceratops wrote:
THE page boy who fainted during the Queen’s speech had been weakened by Prince Philip’s vampiric tendencies.
Page boys are traditionally used as a food source by senior members of the monarchy, who need to sustain themselves on the fresh blood of pedigree children.
A royal source said: “Philip felt he required more blood than usual if he was to remain conscious during the prolonged tedium of the Queen’s speech. Also he finds sunlight exhausting.
“It is a great privilege to have your child selected for pagedom, and they bear their puncture wounds as a badge of honour.
“Unfortunately though they rarely survive longer than six months.”
Because of this special diet, members of the royal family have been known to live over 900 years.
When they reach about 104, royals usually fake their deaths and retire to a castle in the foothills of Carpathia where they prey on peasant girls and lonely travellers.
Oh Trike you twit.  Your post is funny though.
Back to top Go down
ferval
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2421
Join date : 2011-12-27

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Thu 19 Jun 2014, 13:11

Many a true word.......

Not only does Charlie claim descent from old Vlad but he's got his retirement home sorted.  
http://www.transylvaniancastle.com/viscri.html
Back to top Go down
Triceratops
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2810
Join date : 2012-01-05

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Thu 19 Jun 2014, 13:58

@LadyinRetirement wrote:


Oh Trike you twit.  Your post is funny though.


Copy and paste from The Daily Mash*, LiR.


*always good for a laugh.
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 5029
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Royal Bodies   Mon 23 Jun 2014, 08:26

ID wrote:

But aren't we doing exactly the same as those under criticism here?



We are indeed. And I am as guilty as any.

PS Re Dame Edna's headgear, as worn at Ascot - what a coincidence! I admired that very hat - in the flesh, so to speak -  last Wednesday. It's in the V&A now. Anyone who goes about with the Sydney Opera House on her head certainly has my respect and admiration. Eat your heart out, Jean Moorcroft Wilson.

Back to top Go down
 

Royal Bodies

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Res Historica History Forum :: The history of people ... :: Individuals-