Talk:Elizabeth I

Untitled This article uses British English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:LOCEcomplete

Archives
January 2004-November 2007

Jargon

The sentence "Elizabeth reacted by sending Howard to the block."? What is "the block"? I know what it is, but I think that many don't. Also, it sounds like this conflicts with "WP: Words to avoid". I would recommend changing it to "Elizabeth reacted by having Howard beheaded" (decapitated is also a good choice)

96.243.206.236 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro

"Her brother, Edward VI, cut her out of the succession." should be changed to read "Her half-brother..." since he was the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour and not her full brother. July 5, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.212.123 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth's reign is referred to as the Elizabethan era.

Does this need a sentence of its own? Would it not be better to incorporate it into the next sentence: During the Elizabethen era etc.? RedRabbit 11:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We meet again, sir Rabbit. I'm working my way through the article for the FAR (at my habitual slow pace). The lead is the last thing on my list, as usual. By all means copy edit away, but I have my eye on changing the lead considerably, getting rid of all that stuff about lordships, etc. Once I've finished referencing the article (couple of sections to go), I intend to give it a deep copy edit, resulting, I hope, in simpler, perhaps more elegant, prose. qp10qp 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph of this article claims that as Queen Elisabeth was instrumental in creating what would become the Church of England (CoE), however the Wikipedia page on CoE ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England claims history 5th para.) that the CoE originated with King Henry VIII and his wish the annul a marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which the Papacy of the Catholic Church denied, causing Henry to splinter and create the CoE. One of these pages needs to be changed. (preferably the inaccurate one) Thank you for the wonderful work you editors do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.98.129 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the fact that her reign is known as the Elizabethan era is a relevant fact on its own, worthy of the emphasis of that a standalone sentence would give it - because it indicated the significance of the era, and the dominance of her own personality in our historical associations with the timeOriana Naso (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote" helped forge a sense of national identity" endquote, surely, we are studying a kingdom in a world without nations. Dmermerci (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bishops at parliament in 1559

I noticed that the following:

"Elizabeth was fortunate that many bishoprics were vacant at the time"

was changed to

"Elizabeth saw to it that many bishoprics were vacant at the time"

with the edit summary "this wasn't good fortune, in every case but Pole's they resigned or were deposed".

I have now restored the original wording because the new wording no longer derives from the source. To reinforce the verifiability of this edit, I have added quotes in the note from both Somerset and Black, as follows (in context):

The House of Commons strongly backed the new proposals, but the bill of supremacy faced opposition in the House of Lords, particularly from the bishops, though Elizabeth was fortunate that many bishoprics were vacant at the time, including the archbishopric of Canterbury<ref|>"It was fortunate that ten out of twenty-six bishoprics were vacant, for of late there had been a high rate of mortality among the episcopate, and a fever had conveniently carried off Mary's Archbishop of Canterbury, Reginald Pole, less than twenty-four hours after her own death." Somerset, 98; "There were no less than ten sees unrepresented through death or illness and the carelessness of 'the accursed cardinal' [Pole]." Black, 10.</ref|> The Protestant peers were consequently able to outvote the bishops and conservative peers.

Elizabeth did not start to actively deprive bishops of their offices until after the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity became law. That was when a bunch of resignations happened too. qp10qp (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, sir. -- SECisek (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I've removed this template from the article. Though I'm not in favour of them (don't see such things in history books or in other encyclopedias), my real objection is that this one doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. And I haven't a clue how to edit it. What are its principles? What are the two grey bands for, for example? Why is Elizabeth's name repeated? Why is Henry VII, the founder of the dynasty, omitted? Why include Henry, Duke of Cornwall (and which one are we talking about?), but not Arthur, Prince of Wales? Come to that, why not include Margaret Tudor, since her line extended to the throne? And why are Henry VIII's children in age order rather than reign order (Edward VI reigned before Mary and Elizabeth)? If someone wants this back in, could they please find a way to alter it appropriately first? qp10qp (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It's a House template, of significant members of the house to whom the subject was closely related. The full versions of each House template (Template:House of Stuart, Template:House of Hanover etc.) show each monarch in a mauve header band, followed by his descendants. The broken-up versions use only one monarch's section.

However, Elizabeth had no descendants, so hers includes her father's section too, and, subsequently, her siblings (in birth order).

And, incidentally, that you've seen no such thing in any other encyclopædiae will not wash, so don't even go there. ^† DBD 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that isn't my reason for removing, just my reason for disliking. My reason for removing is that the box's meaning isn't readable. Clearly this is not the whole dynasty (ideally it would simply give the five monarchs). It's odd to have Elizabeth's name appear twice. The duke of Cornwall seems irrelevant to the article; and there were anyway two babies so named.qp10qp (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, keep this out. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. I think it should be in the article, but the points are valid and I can't edit this thing either. -- Secisek (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Genealogical table

I have restored the shorter genealogical table (can't bring myself to refer to it as "Ancestors", but maybe that's just me). The larger one was overkill, in my view (it wasn't referenced, either, and would have demanded more work than it was worth to do so—genealogy is laborious). More importantly, I believe we should provide information in the style presented in the reference books: if you look at the tables in Black, Somerset, Weir, Starkey, and Williams (the other biographies I have don't give any), you will see that they go back no further than Henry VII. I don't think Wikipedia should take it upon itself to be different, especially as this is a general article that doesn't overdo the detail elsewhere. The place for such extra genealogical detail is Tudor dynasty or specialist genealogical articles. qp10qp (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth and arts

"The notion of a great Elizabethan age, however, depends partly on the great builders, dramatists, poets, and musicians who were active during the reign, though they did not owe much directly to Elizabeth, who was never a major patron of the arts."

"Like her father, Henry VIII, Elizabeth was a writer and poet."

Isn't this a bit contradictory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.113.209 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But the latter bit has gone anyway now. I am going to work on the lead over the next day or two and address any disjunctions between the lead and the main article. My understanding is that the patronage of the arts mostly came from Elizabeth's lords and ladies. She was certainly accomplished in the arts herself, but that's a different thing. qp10qp (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Error 203.166.99.230 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Jamie

Discussion on material Re: Marriage Question

Why this particular information and in such detail, since Elizabeth was repeatedly petitioned to marry? The article needs to summarise such events as a group rather than picking one out and losing the reader in unclear quotations. I base my opinion on the choice of material in several biographies of Elizabeth. qp10qp (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I see you decided to edit out the material before discussing the issue.

I happen to think the "stuff" that you have deleted compliments the article. Please share what biographical resources you based your choice on.

There might be many more items you will need to edit out of the article.

User:Jediforce 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The material is still there. I was starting a discussion about it here. If you insist on a mention of Robert Bell, we could include him as a particular example of the general point. But you need to justify the inclusion of the quotation. I find it unclear; but the real point is that you need to source the quotation from a secondary source that chooses that quote to make the general point. You ask below what my principles are: they are to include in this article the most well-known information, theories, and quotations, as they appear in the most general works. qp10qp (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look again. I did not remove your addition, I merely copyedited it, and it remains substantially the same. qp10qp (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I see, that you did not in fact remove the material which remaied before your editing endeavors, and Fair enough. (User: Jediforce) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have spent a somewhat interesting morning going over the 516+ or - edits that you have contributed to this article since November 18 2007. I find that it is not necessarily that I insist on including Robert Bell in the article, but rather, that according to the 500 + edits that you have contributed, he appears to be the only example of a Tudor subject that you have insisted on removing. You state that "we could include him" should I or all of us other Wikipedians consider that you are laboring in proxy for a group? if so, whom do you claim to be representing?

With respect to the justifing the inclusion of the quotation, it should be generally understood as it has been presented, in that the succession issue was pressed to the point that Elizabeth vented her frustration at Robert Bell, who was speaking for the House of Commons. I am left to ponder and scratch my head at your definition of well-known information, theories, and quotations unitl you share specifically what works you consider to cover the Elizabeathian 'stuff' in General. I would consider the History of Parliament House of Commons Series, (where the quote was taken from) a more or less general work, backed by an authoritive presence. User: Jediforce 07:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The expression "we could include him" is consensual, surely. If you insist on including the material, we should find a way of integrating it better, in my opinion. The books referenced for the article are in the bibliography. They appear in the usual bibliographies on the subject: I've avoided popular biographies and stuck to ones with academic support (on the whole). I tried to include information that was mentioned in several of them at once. qp10qp (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse the misunderstanding. For what its worth, sometimes the making of a good article requires that it strives to offer either more or less information, and or a fresh appraisal of any particular point concerning the subject matter. I try to learn at least two or three new things daily, so perhaps a few other documented, however, not so general or common details, properly blended, would enhance the gravity of the article and help to form it into a very good read. I will make an attempt to rework the material.User: Jediforce 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly give some more context for the quote you included ("Mr. Bell with his complices must needs prefer their speeches to the upper house to have you my lords, consent with them, whereby you were seduced, and of simplicity did assent unto it")? The significance of it is not entirely clear, I feel: in particular "prefer their speeches to the upper house" and "did assent unto" need to be clarified, I suggest. I cannot do this myself because even though I have a deskload of books, this quote isn't given in any of them, even the ones on Elizabethan parliaments. If you have Hasler, which has everything somewhere in its three volumes, could you please provide the context from that? qp10qp (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that I do not have access to the volumes, I only referenced the article covering him on Wikipedia, however, I know a fellow researcher who has a copy of the CD version of these volumes and will place an inquiry about this.

If it will help please find the following context from the article covering Robert Bell as it appears in the New ODNB:

..."Although he does not figure in the recorded Commons' proceedings in 1563, he was busily engaged in the parliamentary search for a settled succession during the second session in 1566. He was active in debate, with lengthy arguments in favour of a bicameral petition to the queen and the need for a royal answer; he was also one of the Commons' spokesmen who put its case to the Lords. He was the target of the queen's anger when she addressed a joint delegation on 5 November. She referred to ‘those unbridled persons’ in the Commons, in particular ‘Mr. Bell with his complices’. William Cecil too regarded him as a leading parliamentary nuisance."

"In the parliament of 1571 Bell once again presented the image of a trouble-maker. He made provocative attacks on promoters and royal purveyors and, on the second occasion, sought redress...."

Michael A. R. Graves, ‘Bell, Sir Robert (d. 1577)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004-.User: Jediforce 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the value of the insertion. The event is notable from Bell's perspective, but not so much in hers, considering the grand sweep of things. DrKiernan (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote could be removed since the same information is found within the article about Sir Robert Bell,although, I also think it has some value as it is used in this article; being effective in demonstrating a climax from Elizabeths perspective concerning this specific issue. On a seperate topic, I have also long wondered if this event could be the scene that is portrayed in the popular film Elizabeth, but this is more for an entertainment curosity, not necessarily historical. Han 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquotes

Twice recently, a huge section of quotations has been added from Wikiquote. Last time, User:Civil Engineer III removed it, and this time I have. One doesn't find a list of quotes in history books: they are integrated into the text, as in this article (including some of these very ones). The quotes are are also not sourced (we need to know who says that she said these things: Wikiquote is not a reliable source in itself); and there are textual issues with some of them. The intervening comments seem like unsourced original thought and are inaccurate and misleading at times (how could Elizabeth have addressed a "small crowd" during her coronation, for example, when every inch of London was teeming?) I also removed the huge signature that was added at the same time: we already have that signature higher up the page, at an appropriate pixel size. qp10qp (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This Link...

The one that suposedly 'proves' that Elizabeth was married, since we all know that couldn't possibly be farther from the truth, be removed? I find it a bunch of worthless junk that to me makes absolutly no sense and is based off of rumors from the Spanish court! I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriormartin (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any link like that, so hopefully somebody has removed it. It sounds awful and must have been added very recently. qp10qp (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It must've been taken off, thank goodness. Warriormartin (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Need some cleanup for neutrality

• Removed "she was also a whore."66.235.35.137 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Kthompson

• "Historians, however, are often more cautious in their judgement." -- WP:WEASEL
• "They depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered, sometimes indecisive ruler, who enjoyed more than her share of luck." -- "They"?? WP:WEASEL: Some do, and some don't.
• "many of her subjects were relieved at her death." That is totally not true, for Elizabeth was a great queen and she ruled fairly. She was open to many suggestions, and had many trustful councillors including William Cecil, who greatly respected her. :P-- and WP:WEASEL: And many others were not.
• "Elizabeth is however acknowledged as a charismatic performer and a dogged survivor..." -- By whom?

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a question of cleanup but of word choice. One has to somehow make evaluations based on the overall scholarship, of which I would argue that the points above are all a fair summary.

• "Historians, however, are often more cautious in their judgement." -- WP:WEASEL

• "They depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered, sometimes indecisive ruler, who enjoyed more than her share of luck." -- "They"?? WP:WEASEL: Some do, and some don't.

To be honest, I can't find any that don't. But to leave more room for the possibility, I have now adjusted the wording slightly, as follows: "Historians, however, tend to be more cautious in their judgement. They often depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered, sometimes indecisive ruler, who enjoyed more than her share of luck.

Elizabeth policy in Ireland was genocide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.253.241 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Elizabeth is however acknowledged as a charismatic performer and a dogged survivor..." -- By whom?

By historians. This paragraph is about the assessments of historians, as its introductory sentence shows, and I assumed that the antithesis introduced by this sentence was clear enough. However, to make that clearer, I have changed it to "Elizabeth is however acknowledged by historians as a charismatic performer and a dogged survivor". In other words, though historians nowadays pick holes in her achievements (and all the ones I have read do), they still give her credit for her convincing performance of the role of queenship, which her subjects bought into, and for her determination to survive. Without these personal attributes, I don't think she would have survived at this time in English history: but this achievement was partly illusory, as historians have shown.

The use of cautious phrases in history articles is not, in my opinion, anything to do with weasel words: it is a necessary aspect of the historian's vocabulary, unless history is to be reduced to a set of certainties.

• "many of her subjects were relieved at her death." -- and WP:WEASEL: And many others were not.

The use of the word many here leaves room for the notion that others were not, surely. However, she was unpopular at the end: Christopher Haigh, Elizabeth I, says, "Elizabeth died unloved and almost unlamented"; and David Loades, Elizabeth I: The Golden Reign of Gloriana, writes, "When Elizabeth I died on 24 March 1603, the lamentations were theatrical, but there were also audible sighs of relief". There is no perfect wording to quantify this sort of thing precisely, so words like "many" and "some" must needs be called into service. qp10qp (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Removed recently added coat of arms for the time being. It was stuck rather unaesthetically under the infobox, without any caption. If it is to go in, it needs a caption and a reference to a secondary source, surely. qp10qp (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right! Plus do we need the Anglican template, which is badly placed, creating a big white space for me? On the other hand the new Mirrour book might be better opposite the contents, where there is a space for a pic. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like Anglican templates, Lutheran templates, etc., because you don't find them in history books. I hesitate to make an issue of it, though, being already somewhat at loggerheads with the royalty project. qp10qp (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It creates a big white space for me too. I think if it remains here it should be placed in the "See also" section, which is where links to other related articles usually go. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nail

Shortly before she died, the Queen of Hearts with a nail though its head was found in a chair in Elizabeth's apartments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.99.135 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have heard this but it is total conjecture with no evidence to support it. Also, it is believed that shortly after her coronation, she had Dr. John Dee perform some kind of rite on all of her palaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Newman (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

I completed a copyedit of the article. I mostly had minor punctuation and prose changes for clarity. However, there were some issues I couldn't resolve; see hidden notes in the text labeled COPYEDITOR NOTES for details. Thanks! Galena11 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks; you've done a good job.

You are strictly correct at the moment to change centuries to figures, but the MoS is over-prescriptive on that one just now. In fact, all the sources referenced in the article use "sixteenth", etc. As a history graduate, I am used to that. There is at present a long debate about the issue on the MoS talkpage, and I am confident that soon the MoS, as it used to do, will allow editors the choice. qp10qp (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I understand what you mean about the MOS...as an editor, I just try to go with the version that is currently in use. Once a decision is made on numbering centuries, feel free to change it to comply. :o) Galena11 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism/gobbledygook inserted by IP address 209.183.5.31 RockStarSheister (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Is this currently accurate? I'm doing a report and don't need vandelised info -.-; -To lazy to login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.81.253 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very accurate. Vandalism slips through occasionally, but it is usually obvious. Doubtful additions tend to have no citation and are regularly removed, or, if useful, given citations. (If you click the small blue note numbers in the text, they will take you to the notes at the bottom of the page, which show the sources; there is also a bibliography of the books and articles on which the piece is based.) qp10qp (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis Drake and John Hawkins should be listed properly as Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.81.142 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Early Life

I believe the artist for the painting of young elizabeth with the empty book was painted by Levina Teerlinc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnsprig (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII is given a date of death as 1548 in this section. It should be 1547. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelli83 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. This is one of those nasty little pieces of vandalism that people insert to spoil articles. qp10qp (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Minor Corrections Needed in Religion Section

I am a registered user, but obviously not a recognized one since I haven't been active here that long. So I'm assuming I cannot make these changes myself. So here they are, if anyone else wants to make them.

In sentence beginning "She also knew that the papacy would never recognize her..." the style throughout for spelling of words like "recognize" has been the British style with "s" instead of "z" (as in the second paragraph in this section, the word "practised," which in American style is spelled with a "c" rather than an "s").

Also in that second paragraph, the phrase "... subjected to enormous fines, imprisonment and execution," should take a series comma as that style was used previously (or vice versa, but consistent either way).

The last sentence in that second paragraph is a fragment. 69.249.39.224 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was not logged in when I posted the above minor corrections to be made. I realized when I saved and saw only my IP address and not my username. So here I am again! Kathy (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Actually, that last bit seems to have been added without references (and sneaked in behind the existing reference), so I've removed it.

By the way, you can edit the article whenever you like. None of us are recognized. Or recognised, come to that!qp10qp (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image of Elizabeth seems to be changed by someone every couple of months. I'm not happy with the Rainbow portrait, as it's heavily symbolic like masquing costume, and does not represent the queen as she would have really looked in life.

I would prefer the Siena "Sieve", "Ermine", or "Darnley" portraits as a lead image (the Darnley is believed to have been painted from life and is widely influential on subsequent portraits). We might also use a head-and-shoulders crop from the Steven van der Muelen "Hampden" portrait.

• 
  "Darnley"
• 
  Siena "Sieve"
• 
  "Ermine"
• 
  "Hampden" (detail)

The Rainbow portrait deserves its own article and one of these days will get one, no doubt.

Thoughts? - PKM (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I did the FAR, I put in the Ermine, and someone changed it to the Rainbow: what I don't like about it is that it makes her look very different—one gets a sense of her appearance from most portraits. Unfortunately, this article gets messed with a lot, so I doubt we can make one portrait stick. I prefer an inward-facing portrait for the infobox, and therefore I wouldn't be keen on the Darnley. qp10qp (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the Ermine, myself. - PKM (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I have noticed that the lead portrait changes in accordance to whomever is editing the page. It has been the Darnley portrait, the Ermine portrait, the Ditchley portrait, the Coronation portrait and the Peace portrait. You have to remember that to display the portraits you need permission of the portrait holder. The Rainbow portrait is displayed with the kind permission of Hatfield House.

• • I have noticed the text has also changes in accordance with whomever is editing the page. I have seen this page shift between being pro-Elizabeth and anti-Elizabeth and vice versa. This article needs to be completely neutral to give an accurate depiction of England's greatest monarch.

• • Are not all of the portraits of Elizabeth filled with symbolism? The Ermine portrait, the Sieve portrait are steeped in symbolism. I think the Rainbow portrait is perfect. It symbolises Elizabeth and her England perfectly. The wildflowers on her brocade represent Astraea the Virgin. The eyes and ears on her gown represent the fact that she saw and heard all. The pearls symbolise her virginity and the crown, naturally, her royal stature. The serpent on her left arm symbolises wisdom and carries a heart-shaped ruby in it's mouth which symbolises her love. The celestial sphere above it's head represents Elizabeth's command over nature. Elizabeth's right hand holds a rainbow with the Latin inscription 'Non sine sole iris' ('No rainbow without the sun'). The rainbow symbolizes peace, and the inscription reminds viewers that only the queen's wisdom can ensure peace and prosperity. Elizabeth was in her late sixties when this portrait was made, but for iconographic purposes she is portrayed as young and beautiful, more than mortal. In this portrait, she is ageless. (http://www.marileecody.com/eliz1-images.html)

I will say I was the one that put the Darnley portrait in place, it's one of my favourites.

Danny Newman (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

All portraits of Elizabeth and any photographs of them publoshed in the US are public domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., and we should not thank anyone for permission to use them here. UK copyright law differs. - PKM (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, you need the permission of the portrait holder. The portrait itself may be in the public domain but the the houses that hold the portraits own all rights to display said portrait. That's why permission had to be obtained to display the Rainbow Portrait. Which, surprisingly, happens to be the longest portrait to have "reigned" on this page. Danny Newman (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Portrait Elizabeth Tudor c 1545 by an unknown artist is attributed to William Scrots. http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?imgbuttonsearch=&radioAll=0&startYear=&searchText=william+scrots&title=&rccode=&makerName=&category=&collector=&endYear=&pagesize=20&object=404444&row=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancydrew50 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible redundancy in marriage section?

In this sentence: "When Dudley's wife, Amy Robsart, was found dead in 1560, uncertainly of natural causes, and under suspicious circumstances, a great scandal arose," should "uncertainly of natural causes" be taken out? It would seem to be redundant if the death was under suspicious circumstances, no? Kathy (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is another clumsy addition. qp10qp (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Illegitimate daughter

I have always read in numerous biographies of Elizabeth that rumours were rife that she bore Thomas Seymour a daughter who was hidden away in a French convent.She did go into seclusion for a year or so after Seymour's execution.The article makes no mention of the rumour.jeanne (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many things that can be covered in a 500 (or even 20!) page biography that of necessity will be left out of a one-page summary of a life. The trick here is to cover the important and significant, verifiable facts. - PKM (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a number of sources for the rumor it might warrant a section of its own. Otherwise our partial memories from various books are not sources in themselves. Dimadick (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

When working on the FAR for this article, I spent some time choosing which biographies to use, and none of the ones (6) I used mention this. There are many popular biographies of Elizabeth out there, but I thought it best to avoid that sort of book for the purposes of this article.

Our knowledge of the Seymour-Elizabeth affair depends on the confessions of her servants Kat Ashley and Thomas Parry under interrogation; they were frightened and spilled a lot of beans, so I don't see why they would have kept quiet about something like this. I see nothing mysterious about Elizabeth's movements after leaving Katherine Parr's house: she stayed with Sir Anthony Denny and his wife and continued to be tutored and visited there. qp10qp (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Who interrogated them? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My History teacher mentioned the rumour(stressing the word "rumour") and I have read that she may have had a child by Dudley;however as to the rumour about a daughter by Seymour, that was given far more credence by the author.I cannot remember who the author was-perhaps Mary M. Luke.Unfortunately,I no longer have the book in my possession.I used to own many bios on Elizabeth,but they've been misplaced over the years.Kat Ashley would never have revealed a secret of that sort.She was passionately devoted to her mistress.It's possible Katherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk was in on the secret,seeing as she was such a devout Protestant.jeanne (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cameron: Ashley and Parry were interrogated by officials commanded by the Privy Council. I don't think we know any names, but Sir Robert Tyrwhit interrogated Elizabeth. Jeanne: to be fair to Kat Ashley, she wasn't the first to sing. Parry confessed first and the interrogators confronted Ashley with him and then the two spilled the lot. Can one blame them, given Tudor methods of interrogation? Apparently, Ashley was given good accommodation in the Tower to start with, but then thrown into a dungeon. I think her confession was understandable; but I find it unlikely that she and Parry would have held back on a pregnancy, since they enumerated the embraces, horseplay, marriage talk etc. They thought they were going to be executed and were trying to save their own necks. qp10qp (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

However,a pregnancy can be successfully concealed.For instance,Hortense de Beauharnais hid her pregnancy from the world-and she was the Queen of Holland!!!jeanne (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the wikipedia article page dealing with Francis Bacon contributors have added a lengthy section claiming that he was Elizabeth's unacknowledged son. Is there any evidence for this or does it need to be amended? Contaldo80

When I was working on the FAR for this page, I used six biographies, and there was no mention of pregnancies in them, not even to dismiss the idea: these were all academic biographies, by Neale, Black, Loades, Somerset, Williams, and Haigh. I have just checked through a popular biography of Elizabeth by Alison Weir, and she makes no mention of this either; to be fair, she is a good sourcer. There are two types of biography of Elizabeth: scholarly and popular; apart from Weir, I have read none of the latter. I daresay they are full of speculation, but in Wikipedia, we should use the best sources.

I have not read any books about Francis Bacon, and so I don't know what evidence has been proposed; but the idea that he was Elizabeth's son is counter-intuitive to me for two reasons. Firstly, Elizabeth did not live her life in private, and so would have been unable to keep secrets of this kind. Secondly, Bacon came from a particular class of officials, and this class never mixes blood with royalty, who preferred the landed nobility. Bacon was the son and nephew of high officials: Sir Nicholas Bacon and William Cecil. In my opinion, Wikipedia editors should fight tooth and nail to present the public with history that is cleansed of persistent myths and rumours of this sort: good sources trump bad ones, and we need to put our foot down on that. My suggestion would be to read three or four of the most recent works on Bacon by university scholars; if they don't mention this, cut the claims entire. qp10qp (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you count Neale´s biography as scholarly?? There are plenty of examples in it where he distorts and even lies, and HE does not give his sources!! It´s always AD FONTES!! Reading general overviews is not the thing. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Neale is very poor, but he was a scholar in his day. It's always important to crosscheck all sources. qp10qp (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a book and a television documentary dedicated to this subject. It's called The Secret Life of Elizabeth I. It was by Paul Doherty Danny Newman (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. But Doherty is a joke as a historian. He regularly writes books like this discovering all sorts of truths that have somehow eluded all the scholarly historians who (unlike Doherty, who writes several books a year) spend years, sometimes decades, researching each book. He's in it for the money, and good luck to him. qp10qp (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There were periods of her life when she retired from public life, such as when Seymour was executed, and the time early in her reign, when she was allegedly ill, but could have been hiding a prgnancy. I believe the latter is highly unlikely as too many servants would have needed to have been heavily bribed to maintain silence. The former, however, is a possibility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr Seymore is said by most historians to have done no more than 'wrestle with the teenage Elizabeth at best, at worst tried to Pet her'. The idea that a pregnansy of someone as famouse as Elisabeth could be keppt secret belongs with; 'George Bush did 911', and Oswald never shot Kennedy'. Pure madness.Johnwrd (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because this section is called "Illegitimate Daughter", I would like to give the original source where a daughter is mentioned (which the biographers seem to have overlooked): "They would then raise to power the son of the earl of Hertford whom they would marry to a daughter of Leicester and the queen of England, who, it is said, is kept hidden, although there are bishops to witness that she is legitimate. They think this will shut the door to all other claimants. This intrigue is said to be arranged very secretly. London, December 1574." So much from the report of the Spanish ambassador Guaras (Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs...from...Simancas vol.II p.491). Of course I don't believe Elizabeth had children (I am not sure Guaras believed it), but there were always such rumours in all classes, and that says something about what people thought of her private life with Robert Dudley (the children of the rumours are always by him). It is interesting that Guaras stresses the "daughter" to be legitimate. Sadly, many biographers use only those sources which suit their purpose and only repeat themselves again and again, they often just don't give the climate of the times. Therefore always check the sources if you can, and read as well books (including the very scholarly ones) about other people of the times. It's really worth it! Buchraeumer (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends how you see the task of Wikipedia. Is it to create encyclopedia articles that reflect the aggregate of summary secondary sources or is it to somehow acknowledge all primary sources? I believe the second is, for large subjects like this, unfeasible. There are several places in this article where people have insisted on material that is not in the main biographies: see the section on Barbary States, for example, or the bit on Sir Robert Bell. In my opinion, we deviate from good tertiary writing at those points. qp10qp (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Qp10qp, I am sorry if I stole your time with this, but I never meant that there should be mentioned any putative children in the article, although perhaps the rumours about them could have been included as they were really widespread and continued throughout Elizabeth's life. Susan Doran (Monarchy p.72, see art.bibliography) gives two further examples of 1578 and the 1590s. They have certainly more to do with Elizabeth's person than Edmund Spenser, Marlowe and so on, which are given her an entire paragraph. I acknowledge that the policy of the English WP is really difficult as regards reliable sources; for me as a German, the most reliable source in history is of course the original source, what the English WP means with that phrase we would call Sekundärliteratur, not necessarily sources, so perhaps "reliable sources" here should be rather called reputable secondary sources, instead of reliable. I also hope to have understood by now the difficulties of OR here, although that is almost impossible to achieve. In the German WP only "Theoriefindung" is forbidden (meaning presumably conspiracy theories and the like). The WP rules are really quite different, as I had to find out! I personally was misled, when I tried to find references for quotes which were in an article already, then of course I had to look for them in published original sources, taking considerable trouble. Later I learn that original sources are not really welcome! Please don't take this personal, but generally I couldn't find in the WP rules that only biographies of the person (Elizabeth here) should be used. I understand that only important things can be mentioned because of focus and space, but biographies often tend to be unduly rosy (or, sometimes negative) about their subject. Finally there is the question why WP should repeat the cliches that abound in the other encyclopedias (EB, Encarta, Brockhaus...), if we could make a difference: I personally would never have taken the trouble to improve (some very bad) articles if I'd read all the (English) rules very carefully before I was deeply involved in it. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, of course there is no rule that says that only biographies should be used, but it makes sense to work from books that have already done the task we are attempting here, which is to summarise Elizabeth's reign. Above all, they are a guide to what is generally thought important—and, yes, sometimes this does lead to clichés. If I ever decide to do something about Henry VIII of England, I'll have no hesitation in using Eric Ives's 110-page biography (derived from his ODNB entry). I agree there's something unsatisfactory about articles like the present one, which are edited so much that they deteriorate and lose proportion very quickly. I sometimes wish I'd never undertaken the FARs on Elizabeth and James I of England, because I simply cannot cope with trying to maintain them. But the news is not all bad. There's plenty of scope on Wikipedia for precise scholarly editing, as we are able to start articles on any detail of Elizabeth's reign that we like. I enjoy working on articles with a narrow focus, where every last piece of scholarship and primary evidence can be accommodated. But articles like Elizabeth I of England have a big readership, and, with a sigh, I feel a certain grudging responsibility towards them.

On your point about primary sources, I disagree that they are reliable: on the contrary, they are notoriously problematic, which is why we need a respected historian to interpret them for us. If we based English history on the letters of ambassadors, or on rumours and gossip, it would become a fantasy.qp10qp (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

With bad articles I didn't mean this here at all; I meant smaller ones about Tudor personalities, without any references, which I have in many cases supplied, necessarily rewriting those articles in some instances. The problem with historians interpreting sources is that they hardly ever agree, and very often choose and pick what suits them. So perhaps not for WP, but for oneself one should have a deep look at the sources, when possible. In this article here Anne Somerset is quoted: "In some respects she had a firmer grasp of strategy than the men to whom she had to entrust the conduct of the war, and certainly much more damage was caused by her commanders' failure to adhere to carefully formulated instructions than by Elizabeth's vacillation or attempts to economise." Somerset, 655. Now this is a perfect example of ignoring volumes of original evidence, and giving a rosy picture. I have read 500+pp of original correspondence of Elizabeth's statesmen regarding the Netherlands expedition, and if anyone was incompetent there it was Elizabeth! She was exasperating and her "carefully formulated" instructions were an incomprehensible conundrum, wholly impractical and her starving soldiers were paying the price. But I understand that original sources are a menace, like the Bible was 500 years ago! Buchraeumer (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumours and gossip: well, most of the older history is hardly anything else, state propaganda excepted. The ambassadors are welcome sources for historians, they do not have much else, and again if one reads more of them, they appear to be rather earnest reporters, they do not merit their bad name as gossips. With the example above by Guaras I expressly didn't mean that Elizabeth had a child, as I said there: gossip, if widespread, is an important fact, an important fact of (Elizabethan) society. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are welcome sources, but they need to be filtered through scholarship and then to make their way into the general histories before they should be included here. I can't think of any other way to proceed, or the article will become a free-for-all. The key to entry into the standard accounts is usually corroboration. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but these kind of stories are "filtered through scholarship", as I made clear above (in case Prof. Susan Doran is respected enough). And I am sorry that you didn't understand my point regarding WP rules: The term reliable sources is misleading for newcomers, reputable secondary literature would be more clear, especially as the rules specifically encourage supplying inline citations for unreferenced quotes and facts already existing in articles. That's what I did at the beginning, later I discovered in other rules that (printed) primary sources are preferably not to be used! That's absurd and rather disingenious of Wikipedia. Nevertheless I am happy to have contributed to WP. Buchraeumer (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are filtered through scholarship, but then, for me, they have to jump through a second hoop, which is to be mentioned in several standard biographies and general histories. Even after that, they have to earn their place over thousands of other historical details. This is the way I approach it—I am not saying that is Wikipedia policy—in fact, I seem to have lost every argument on this talkpage when I have criticised additions on grounds of undue weight. The way I see it is that we are not writing history, we are summarising it: for me, the best way to do that is to base the article on other summaries, made by professional historians. This may seem an unambitious task, but in fact the skill of writing lucid, pithy summaries of history in accessible language is a rare one. For every fifty scholars who can produce a learned article dissecting some incident or document, only one can write compelling general history; and they know this. (I am not talking about glib popular history here, which is novelish and inaccurate, but about cogent academic general history, like Richard Rex's masterly Henry VIII and the Reformation.) Concise lucidity of this order is almost absent from Wikipedia, where it would be ideal. Very few people edit an article as a whole: they come along with pieces of information which they tack on with no sense of proportion, contributing to a pudding effect.

I do understand your point about reliable/reputable sources, but I endorse Wikipedia's stance on primary sources. If it were accepted that Wikipedians could write articles using primary sources, they could selectively create their own versions of history. I know you don't wish to include the illegitimate child rumours in the article, but lets take them as an example. Someone could search out a number of rumours on that and other aspects of Elizabeth's love life and create a misleading impression, which did not take into account the proportionate importance attached to that data by the aggregate of biographers and general historians. Nevertheless, I agree that there are severe flaws in the policies on sources. So long as editors are armed with a "reliable" secondary source or two, they can usually impose their edits on articles with impunity. Only when they are opposed by a group of editors can they be stopped, on grounds of consensus (see the recent thread "Neville" on Talk: William Shakespeare, where an editor sought to add an edit based on a 1930s book that he thought supported his POV). Please do go on editing: we need more editors like you, who know what they are talking about.qp10qp (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A good example of the unreliability of primary sources are the primary sources which present conflicting descriptions of Anne Boleyn's physical appearance. And we know we cannot rely on reports made by the Spanish ambassadors! Historian Barbara Tuchman had pointed out the violent partisanship taken by chroniclers in the Middle Ages, and indeed later on, which makes it difficult for modern academics and historians to separate rumour from fact, and obtain a truthful, balanced account of historical people and events.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You, Jeanne Boleyn, are responsible for this curious section, so I simply must defend mis embajadores queridos against your attacks of all, even if Qp10qp will block me! You know you cannot rely on reports made by the Spanish ambassadors! Prof. Hammer (Earl of Essex) has found out the date of an important court appointment, the dating of which used to be a thorny problem. Who had reported it correctly from the start? Bernardino de Mendoza! They do specifically report rumours as rumours, not fact! de Quadra wrote that there were so many stories about Elizabeth having children, that she would have to have a whole family by now, 1563, "but I do not believe it, having never seen any trace of them." The better known stories have long been in the CSP Domestic (Neale mentions the story of Mother Dowe). Most of the reports on rumours of children are in the Assizes documents of the counties, because such talk was severely punished. Emmison has more in his Elizabethan Life: Disorder from the county of Essex (the latest is 1590s)...Inventing children was apparently the popular way of saying that people were lovers. I repeat, I will not put them in the article. I also repeat that rumours are historical facts in itself, not less than houses or virginity cults, for example. Historians for various reasons give them different weight in general histories. Reasons for this may include historiographical tradition, different historical schools or methods (history of art / social history), subconcious respect for national myths among other things. Buchraeumer (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I shoulder the responsibility for having started the ball rolling with this section. You will admit that Ambassador Mendoza was violently anti-Elizabethan, just as the Imperial ambassadors were anti-Anne Boleyn. All primary source reports have to be carefully weighed against various factors which is why we consider the evaluations made by historians. Nobody is going to block you Buchraeumer, so relax. You've the right to defend your opinions and references same as everybody else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You would never guess how indispensable de Quadra is for all those biographers who will make some of us believe that Elizabeth was an absolute virgin...ätsch!...Neale and presumably all narrative biographers cite this (or the part which suits them). I do not doubt de Quadras report in this case. Quite personally, I doubt Elizabeth's honesty in those circumstances (not least because I have read a famous episode about a certain ordeal by Froissart, not Tuchman). I must say in fairness to Neale, that he doesn't stress this "problem" very much, I presume, because he belonged to another generation. So I leave you to guess! Buchraeumer (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe for a moment that Elizabeth was a virgin. Even my 8th grade teacher said it was likely she was deflowered by Seymour, and almost certainly had a physical affair with Dudley. By the way, what does atsch mean? I don't speak German--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to know your thoughts. I am sorry, I can't explain what ätsch is in English, something like: ha, ha, ha. Mendoza was critical of his own sovereign, which hampered his career at home: He was against sending an Armada to England! Buchraeumer (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ambassadors' reports are a vital source, but for historians, not us. It's fascinating tracing Chapuys's reports on Anne Boleyn, because, despite his importance, he can be caught out (via conflicting accounts) making mistakes, owing to the limitation of his sources. In the past, I think historians trusted ambassadors too much. A lot of the case against the Borgias derives from ambassadors' reports: they have been given credence because they were contemporary, but often they speak of events second hand, and of events they cannot have witnessed. At such moments, their bias kicks in. qp10qp (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

List of namesakes?

There's a list of things named after Elizabeth, but I can't find where it is. Anyone remember the name of that article? -- SEWilco (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

1st Earl of Leicester

Just wanted to tell everyone that I just added a subheading titled the 1st Earl of Leicester. I'm new here so please feel free to make any changes since its not top notch quality, but please don't delete it!!! Sweetlife31 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It has to be deleted because it is not referenced. Nor is most of it referenceable to good academic sources, in my opinion. The affair is already summarised and this large addition unbalances the proportions of the article.

The thing to do is to start a new article on their love affair, where you can put in as much material as you like. But I strongly advise finding good academic references first. I don't want to put you off as a newcomer from contributing to articles, but, particularly with a featured article like this, it is best to propose large-scale changes on the talk page. I will leave the material in for a while to see what others think. qp10qp (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries, but it is referenced??...and like I said, I'm new...Sweetlife31 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken it out now. There were no citations or references given. If you need any help in editing Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to ask. qp10qp (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rare portrait

I added this extremely rare copy of original to be on display AugustAn extremely rare 1650 to 1680 portrait of Queen Elizabeth I as teen princess with Edward VI and Mary I, father Henry VIII and his jester, Will Somers, was found in the Duke of Buccleuch's collection at Boughton House, Northamptonshire. A copy of an original early 1550s panel painting, the picture will be displayed at the house in August.news.bbc.co.uk, Rare Elizabeth I portrait foundukpress.google.com, Rare portrait of Elizabeth I found --Florentino floro (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this because it is neither important nor reliable enough to go in the article. Who would go to popular historians Alison Weir and Tracy Borman to comment on the importance of a painting? The fact that it is such a late copy makes it a poor candidate to include here, given the many other portraits of these monarchs. It is certainly interesting that these five should be portrayed together, but the fact that the three children were rarely all legitimate at once makes it highly unlikely that the original was a royal commission. In fact there was a craze in Tudor times for collecting portraits of royals, and many artists, from good to poor to naive, peddled this sort of thing. My guess is that it was a copy of copies of copies, amalgamated from different patterns, and that the first combination of these five patterns was done around the 1590s, when the popular market for royal portraits exploded. qp10qp (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Today's Times has slightly better coverage. I suppose the portrait would fit with a date around 1543, when Catherine Parr reunited the Tudors as one happy family. Personally I wouldn't object to the picture itself going in with a suitably cautionary caption - on my screen there is a big white space opposite the TOC. But Qp10p is certainly right on it's likely degree of authenticity, and quality, and there is no need to cover it in the text. We don't seem to have an article on portraits of Elizabeth, unfortunately Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England seems to cover everything except these. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Some articles on various sets of portraits would be good. Maybe at or in co-ordination with Commons? Which historical figure has the most number of authentic portraits, I wonder? Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the original could have been painted in 1543, because surely the pattern for Mary, judging by the collar and sleeves, comes from the Flicke or Mor portraits of 1555 to 1558, and the high-collar style is not Henrician. The Master John portrait of Mary of 1544 looks very different. I think the idea of placing Will Somers in the picture may well have derived from the famous fantasy group portrait of 1545, though, but the costumes are from later. Given the conflation of ages and the political aspects, I strongly suspect that the original was painted in Elizabeth's reign. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We must do that Elizabeth portraits article sometime: it's not as if there's a lack of material. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we must. PKM (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a good quality scan of the Rainbow Portrait, with permission from Hatfield to use it on Wikipedia.

Danny (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maids of Honour

The article makes no mention of her Maids of Honour apart from Catherine Carey. Surely the article needs to mention Mary Sidney, Elizabeth Vernon, Helena Snakenborg, to name but a few.jeanne (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of things the article doesn't make mention of—you've seen how large the biographies are, and the article is an attempt at distilling the most significant material. A separate article on Elizabeth's maids of honour would be most useful, though. qp10qp (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Serious POV issue

As far as I can tell Loades writes for the The Catholic Historical Review and he appears to have a strongly Roman Catholic POV. Given that the Elizbethan settlement and her excommunication are objects of considerable disagreed between Roman Catholics and Anglo Catholics using such a POV source for all the claims about the motivation of E1 in splitting from Roman seems totally inappropriate. They should all be taken out until a neutral scholar's view can be found. --BozMo talk 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is rather thin gruel. Firstly, since when does religious adherence automatically disbar a respected academic from authority in his field? If his work has been criticized or disputed, then those disputed elements can be tackled- but this is the same process that we use for Anglican or irreligious sources- all sources, in fact. Secondly, the Loades book is a National Archives publication, and a little research indicates that it is principally original sources, with a comparatively minor narrative matrix. The use of the references seems to point to the original documents. Frankly, Loades should be praised for putting together such a volume- which is the kind of exacting and little-acknowledged labour that is the true value of academia. thought better of that comment, apparently it's a fairly small volume, which makes me doubt my assumption of academic value Gabrielthursday (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The book is of excellent value, and I thought it was a perfect volume to use for a Wikipedia article because it contains so many facsimile versions of the key documents (the academic value is that some appear in facsimile for the first time) and, to my eyes, little theorising. Loades has also written a full biography fairly recently. I have not noticed any POV in Loades and did not realise his scholarship had been questioned (could you produce some evidence of that for us to assess?). I hope it won't be necessary, but I have a heap of books on Elizabeth and could easily replace the Loades cites with equivalent ones if the case were proved. qp10qp (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have just gone through every Loades cite in the article, and none refs any POV information, as far as I can see. The book itself does not dwell much on religious matters, and certainly, now that I go through it, does not seem to show any Catholic POV. In the past, I've also read three other books by Loades in which I have not noticed any Catholic POV. When working on the article's FAR, I always had several sources open on the desk in front of me to help establish a standard reading. qp10qp (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain more. Clearly, I recognise two POVs. The English (Anglo) Catholic POV is that a primary motivation for E1 setting up a non-Roman settlement was to do with her sister ("Bloody Mary"), who under the Pope's authority martyred by burning more than 300 prominent and deeply religious christians within a few years under a heresy law (which I believe E1 revoked fairly early on). This was shocking even for the time. This and the reaction to it is well documented. The precedent of her father previously setting up a separate Catholic church from Rome allowed the creation of a via media on mature reflection, which was provoked by listening to the reactions to an earlier draft. The Roman POV is that the motivation was largely expediency, weakness of will versus advisors, politics and money. Obviously it is easy to assemble facts in support of either subjective position. Elsewhere in Wikipedia a balanced view of these POVs is generally given but here all the incidental context is about why she had political motivation to split with Rome, implying that they give a reasonable summary of the reasons. As to the issue of neutrality of scholars, sure for many issues but not on things which are so close to core RC beliefs (in this case it is central to the question of whether Roman Catholics or Anglicans are the better claimants to being the legitimate Catholic church in England) you have to be more careful. I guess the section needs at least a POV flag --BozMo talk 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the factors currently mentioned and cited are, as qp10qp notes, generally accepted by historians. I do not believe many historians speak of revulsion against the Marian Persecutions as being a factor in Elizabeth's decision per se. However, I note there is no mention of the Marian Persecutions in the article, and mention of them is appropriate to provide context. I also note that Elizabeth's personal conscience is mentioned in the article as a factor, which is hardly RC propaganda. If we plan on going much deeper into the different historiographies of the motivations of Elizabeth I think it is appropriate to do that on the Elizabethan Religious Settlement article, rather than this one.

Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I myself am (Roman) Catholic, with a substantial interest in the English Reformation, and I don't think that the motivation of Elizabeth makes much of a difference theologically. Nor does it among many Anglo-Catholic (I happened to listen to a lecture by a priest of the Society of the Holy Cross yesterday in which he said this very thing). Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, progress. So where should we put Mary's martyrs in? Also is the "generally accepted" your OR synthesis or can you find a non-partisan reference for it? If the former presumably we only need one reasonable reference for the alternative. Also, why in a section on E's religion does it not lead with her religion and instead lead with the influences on her? --BozMo talk 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am glad for the progress. I think it makes sense in the section on Queen Mary's reign. Skipping along, I think the section is not on E's religious belief, but her religious policy.

In putting together an encyclopaedia, determining what is generally accepted (particularly in history) is the essence of the job. It is not WP:OR, but the essence of WP:ENC. It should be noted that I was speaking of the particular factors in Elizabeth's decision already delineated in the article. I believe (and Qp10 would appear to have done the spadework) that they are generally accepted. If there are other factors which also command general acceptance, they should be included (at least in the Religious Settlement article). Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok lets try a shorter proposal based on the linked article. Since the section is title "Religion" it should start with her conscience not imply she was wind-blown: "Elizabeth had not supported the papacy during the reign of her father and was known to have protestant sympathies (<assume you could support this>). However early on she revoked the heresy law under which the Marian Persecutions took place and was relatively tolerant. Many of her powerful lords were keen to split with Rome for which a precedent had been set by her father. An initial proposal based on the strongly protestant settlement of her brother was drafted but during the legislative process it was changed toward the (largely Catholic) settlement of her father: the liturgy was changed to allow for belief in transubstantiation in the Communion, robes were allowed and as a woman her title was changed from Supreme Head of the Church to Supreme Governor. In the end it became the Elizabethan Settlement which largely stands today and is viewed by it supporters as a unique "via media" embracing both Catholicism and Protestantism" That would do (with a bit of polish)? --BozMo talk 19:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't anything close to NPOV. I reiterate that the protestant settlement's conformity with Elizabeth's conscience is already in the text of the article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what protestant settlement was that? I have never heard the Elizabethan Settlement called the protestant settlement although that term is sometimes used of her brother's --BozMo talk 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a talk page, and I am not herein bound to NPOV. As it happens, while I wish Anglo-Catholics well, I don't agree with the characterization of the Elizabethan settlement as non-protestant. I also wanted to avoid the infelicity of noting that Elizabeth's conscience was in tune with Elizabeth's settlement. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost with this conversation, because the religion section is innocuous, I would have thought, and doesn't seem to make any pro- or anti-Catholic points. Only one of the citations there is to Loades.

Could BozMo please make a list of sentences they are unhappy with and why, and then we can address them one by one. I am happy to use different references, if necessary (I have specialist books on the English Reformation and can cite those, rather than the present biographical ones, if wished). I am not wedded to any POV myself and am only interested in the quality of the article. qp10qp (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Like Catholic & fundamentalist, "protestant" means different things to different people. Where I worship it has associations with the considerable fundamentalist body who believes that "the Pope is the antichrist" and here we tend to shy away from the term as unecumenical (since we don't doubt the validity of the Roman faith, just doubt its uniqueness). I am I should add not a High Church Anglican. What an "Anglo Catholic" is, is also inconsistently used. Anyway, to the article apart from the missing Marian Persecutions which should be in the section on Mary I guess I am happy with the version which I entered last night and you punctuated. It does shorten the section here which is fine as there is a main article. It changes the order so as to lead with conscience which I think is fairer. Whatever I am, I am not (I might add) a fervent Anglo Catholic, and feel it should not be given undue weight versus the Roman machine but it does own a reasonable body of scholarship (and a good bit of my bookcase) and in general there are 70m (or however many) Anglicans whose church officially declares itself as "Catholic" however many Papal bulls say the reverse. But (talk page so opinion allowed as you say) I am sometimes annoyed by the RC version of history which often does not seem to me to be trying to be fair ("Catholic for Dummies" actually says in one place the CofE broke often because of Henry VIII's divorce and never again returned to Rome). If we cannot be trusted to be truthful about things we got wrong with Galileo (which doesn't matter) who might believe us on the resurrection (which does)? As an add on I also wonder about the excommunication of Elizabeth: is not this in fact the significant act which broke communion? Why did the Pope wait 15 years before doing it? Are we missing something here? --BozMo talk 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that while Mary I's page links to a list of Protestants executed under her, Elizabeth's page does not link to the "40 Catholic martyrs of England and Wales" page, or even mention that any Catholics were executed at all under her. It seems an inconsistency not to at least link to the "Catholic Martyrs" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.67.96 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor mistake in Thomas Seymour section?

I'm no historian, but I spotted what I think is an error:

....in January, 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow his brother.

Shouldn't it be HER brother? I mean, Thomas Seymour had to have been arrested for trying to marry Elizabeth and thus overthrow Edward VI and not Edward Seymour, as the article seems to suggest.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. Just checking....

vinayg18 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's correct; some historians believe that Seymour never tried to kidnap the King at all, and those that do suggest it was to get control of the country during Edward's minority. There has never been any conclusive evidence that Seymour was plotting to seduce/marry Elizabeth, and these rumours may well have been spread by his rivals. I have never read a suggestion that Thomas Seymour was planning to overthrow Edward VI, just to get his brother's position - custody of the king may have given him this, without him having any evil intentions.Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was suspected of plotting to overthrow his brother, who was the Lord Protector. The prize was control of the king, not the overthrow of the king. qp10qp (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Martial or marital

"from political and martial misalliances."

This in para three after the Latin motto video et taceo. I suggest that to be exact it should read marital rather than martial - just a typo, but confusing.

I would change it myself but the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.212.170 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. It used to say "marital" and someone had changed it. This article gets hit by a lot of that sort of thing. Changed back. qp10qp (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

I feel that http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-CEO-Strategic-Lessons-Leader/dp/0735201897 should be added? Could anyone verify this and maybe add it to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cniessen (talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issue

This has already been mentioned below, but sometime ago and the discussion seems to have fallen away. The intro to this article claims:

Historians, however, tend to be more cautious in their assessment. They often depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered,[4] sometimes indecisive ruler,[5] who enjoyed more than her share of luck. Towards the end of her reign, a series of economic and military problems weakened her popularity to the point where many of her subjects were relieved at her death.

1) The intro to any wikipedia article is not the place to make such strong criticisms of any person (or equally strong praise). They can be argued about lower down in the article, but putting them in the introduction gives them overly authoritative weight. 2) Looking at the discussion below, the "relieved at her death" section seems to be based entirely on Loades, who is well known amongst historians for his pro-Catholic (i.e. anti Elizabeth) personal bias - the American Historical Review called his biography of Elizabeth "in its conceptualization, use of evidence, and scholarship, lacking the competence of some of his other many publications". If you look at Roy Strong's work on Elizabeth, you'll find arguments that Elizabeth's death really did result in Diana-style personal grief for her citizens.

Obviously, lots of people have put work into this and I wouldn't chop and change it without discussion, but I really think these problems have to be addressed.Oriana Naso (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is essential, in my opinion, that the lead reflect the content of the body of the article and encapsulate the different strands in the scholarship. I cannot comment on Loades' biography of Elizabeth because I have not read it, but, as a history graduate, I have full confidence in Loades' scholarship as demonstrated in the book of his that I did use, Elizabeth I: The Golden Reign of Gloriana, which is a National Archives publication based on analysis and facsimiles of some of the most important documents of the reign. I have read Gloriana and The Cult of Elizabeth by Roy Strong, and I find nothing in them to contradict Loades: remember that Strong is talking of the cult of Elizabeth, and of course this was intense at the time of Elizabeth's death and took the form of "Diana-style grief", as you aptly put it, and it revived again in the 1620s. As Strong says, the 1620s were the time of "the revival of interest in her ... There was little or none before that date as the country was entranced with the phenomenon of a royal family replacing a virgin queen" (Gloriana, 164): the question is whether there was any substance behind it. Were the people mourning the political Elizabeth or the icon? We should not be deceived by the consequences of this revival, which have ever since informed a tradition of Elizabeth as the ideal monarch: in this retrospective glow, sealed by the anti-Stuart commonwealth historians of the seventeenth century who held Elizabeth up as a parliamentary paragon, it is easy to overlook Elizabeth's unpopularity in the last years of her reign, a time of repressive monopolies, economic hardship, and repeated defeats in war.

It is not correct to assume that, when I worked on the article for FAR, I relied on Loades alone for this balancing view. In fact, I had a good few books open before me, and I tried to achieve a balanced article while making sure that quirky views of Elizabeth were omitted. The notion that Elizabeth's death met with "relief beneath the grief", so to speak, came up repeatedly in the scholarship. For example, take this from Christopher Haigh's Elizabeth I: "Elizabeth died unloved and almost unlamented, and it was partly her own fault ... her reign had been 30 years of illusion, followed by fifteen of disillusion ... As the gap between image and reality widened, so resentment spread, for the English had never loved the real Elizabeth ... she was a ruler overtaken by events—'a lady who time had surprised', as Ralegh remarked" (Elizabeth I, 170–71). In the last paragraph of Anne Somerset's biography (also called Elizabeth I), she says: "Towards the end of her life her reputation suffered as a number of her subjects gave reign to 'discontentments in their private opinions, though perhaps none in truth' ... She cannot have failed to have been saddened by the fact that her hold over her subjects' affections had proved less absolute than in the past" (Elizabeth I, 733). Somerset also reports The Queen's Master of Requests as noting in his journal: "The people, both in the city and counties, finding the just fear of forty years, for want of a known successor, dissolved in a minute, did so rejoice as few wished the gracious Queen alive again" (Elizabeth I, 724). Somerset goes on to say of the funeral: "It was an impressive spectacle, and there were tears from some of the crowd, above all from the women. By no means all the spectators were so sentimental: as the cortege wound its way through the streets to Westminster Abbey ... there was some muttering against her"; she quotes John Clapham's reasons for the muttering, which included that the people "could not lightly be in worse state than they were, considering that the people generally were much impoverished by continual subsidies and taxes ... that little or no equality was used in those impositions, the meaner sort commonly sustaining the greater burden" (Elizabeth I, 723–24). The view of Somerset and Haigh is not just a recent reading. In his A Jacobean Pageant: The Court of King James I (1962), G. P. V. Akrigg wrote: "In a few years the English were to become nostalgic about the great days under Elizabeth, but now they were glad to be done with her and confidently expected all their discontents to vanish before this paragon coming from the North" (Jacobean Pageant, 17).

In short, I feel that both the lead and the article has this right. We owe it to Wikipedia readers to inform them that Elizabeth's death was greeted with some relief and that the revival in her reputation did not seriously kick in until twenty or more years after her death. The unpopularity and political, military, and economic failures of her later years are part of the story we must tell; and we should not shirk this in the lead, which, as the guidelines require, summarises not only the facts but the analysis in the article. qp10qp (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a long time since I've read much on QEI but my recollection is that both an impatience with a ruler clearly in decline (especially among the elite) and fears and uncertainties about a new ruler replacing the only one many could remember (especially among the people) were felt, no doubt often both together. As far as I remember this was the standard view of Neale et al. The lead should summarize the whole article. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two facts that need to be emphasised in the article that are not mentioned. Firstly, relating to alleged relief that Elizabeth was dead, it is important to remember that the date of her accession to the throne (17th November 1558) was celebrated as a public holiday until the 1730's. Secondly, as far as Mary of Scotland being her successor, it needs to be remembered that Henry's Succession to the Crown Act (35 Hen VII, c1), which was the act thay placed Elizabeth on the throne, also proveded for her successor, and was not Mary. It is true that Mary's son James succeeded her, but this was technically illegal. ([[User talk:plerdsus 20:19 17th August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.11.196 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly those who welcomed James (most of the government and most of the people), did not think so. As in 1547 with the failure of Lady Jane Grey, legitimacy was then seen to reside in the normal laws of inheritance and not in the wills or legislation of monarchs or in the religion or nationality of heirs. The attempts by Henry VIII and Edward VI to alter the succession were what was illegal. Monarchs had no right to do that under the English system, however they might bully or be bullied by parliament or their councils, and it was doomed to failure. Elizabeth was astute enough to grasp that. qp10qp (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - a)"historians tend to be more cautious in their assessment" clearly implies that the majority are critical, which is not accurate or NPOV b) relieved at her death? really? it certainly needs to be looked at again...86.137.208.114 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

a)Most historians are critical of Elizabeth, some strongly so. Even the most pro-Elizabeth biography of Elizabeth that I have read, J.E. Neale's (1934), says: "The truth was that a sense of ennuie, tinged with sex prejudice, was stealing over Court and country, 'for things of long continuance, though never so good, are tedious'. There was a 'credulous desire of novelty and change, hoping for better times, despising the present, and forgetting favours past'" (p. 386).

b)A sense of relief often comes up in the sources (see my comments above, which show that this has been "looked at again"). For example, Keith M. Brown writes: "There was widespread optimism at the start of a new reign, and general relief that the tired, old queen had gone, the myth of the Elizabethan golden age only gaining ground later, when memories of her dithering and failure had faded" ("Monarchy and Government, 1603–1637", in The Seventeenth Century, ed. Jenny Wormald, p. 14). This last quote also speaks to plerdsus's point above about the celebrations of Elizabeth in later centuries: they do not reflect the feeling in the country in 1603. qp10qp (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Split foreign policy section?

Anyone else think the foreign policy section should be a separate page like the religious settlement? TheKaplan (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth and education

At this Peer Review about the early days of Jesus College Oxford (founded 1571), the question has been asked whether it was founded as part of some national educational/religious policy. Can any Elizabethan scholars assist? Bencherlite^Talk 06:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been looking some things up, and it seems to me that the context was the Protestantisation (and expansion overall) of national education. In order to make the Elizabethan settlement stick, the government needed vast numbers of Protestant priests and the only means was to have them educated. J. B. Black, in his biography of Elizabeth, gives a list of the major educational foundations in her reign: Repton (1559), Merchant Taylors' (1561), Rugby (1567), Uppingham (1584), Harrow (1590), Jesus College, Oxford (1571), Emmanuel College, Cambridge (1584), Gresham College, London (1596). Cambridge University was given new statutes in 1571, with Cecil pulling the strings as Chancellor. Leicester, as Oxford Chancellor, secured an act of incorporation for Oxford (see J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1936, 273–74). In addition, I think Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, was founded in 1596, like Emmanuel as a Protestant seminary. The authorities had problems with Catholicism in certain colleges, particularly at Merton and New College, Oxford, and at King's and Caius, Cambridge. Oxford, according to Christopher Haigh, was aggressively protestantised through university statutes.

MacCulloch links the Jesus foundation to the success of the Tudors in Wales, where the Reformation was particularly strong. "A significant factor in binding the Welsh cultural and social elite into the agenda of a Protestant government was the foundation in 1571 of a new college in Oxford University, Jesus College, which immediately augmented an already significant Welsh presence in the university and proved to be a seedbed for Protestant Welsh clergy and gentry" (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation, 2003, 395–96). MacCulloch suggests that the Reformation took hold so readily in Wales because the Tudors accommodated bardic culture and because it was believed that the throwing off of Rome represented a restoration of ancient Celtic Christianity. The founding of Jesus would have helped secure this success.

Christopher Haigh suggests that the Elizabethan educational policy was a missionary one, to secure the Reformation. "The success of the missionary campaign was assisted by changes in the provision of schooling, what some have called an 'educational revolution' ... Protestant clergy emphasized the role of learning in Christian understanding, and some Elizabethan bishops—Parker, Grindal, Pilkington, Sandys, and others—founded schools themselves. It seems that admissions to universities increased markedly" (Christopher Haigh, Reformations, 1993, 276).

The point about the expansion in student numbers has, however, been disputed. According to John Guy: "Although admissions figures suggest that freshmen figures soared from an average of 317 per annum in the 1550s this is trompe-l'oeil: whereas in Henry VIII's reign it was possible to be a student without leaving any trace in either university or college records, Elizabethan matriculation statutes enforced the registration of all students, including those not taking degrees. It is obvious that the creation of new university registers resulted in increased numbers of students recorded as present in the universities. Also the expansion of colleges and halls at both universities during the sixteenth century marked a change from earlier practice, when Oxford and Cambridge were not essentially collegiate universities. As the century progressed, town-dwelling and loosely attached students were resettled and registered at undergraduate colleges where teaching was increasingly concentrated" (John Guy, Tudor England, 1988, 422–23). There was, however, a tremendous rise in literacy by the 1580s, which can only have resulted from more education of some sort, in my opinion.

I'll revisit my comments at the PR in the next day or two. qp10qp (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a scholar of Elizabethan history, and this is my first post, specifically to answer your question, so excuse me if I don't know all the rules of ettiquette here! Firstly, it's important to note that one of Elizabeth's primary concerns in making appointments to universities (which she had the power to do) was to keep out the extreme Puritans from intellectual influence, particularly those who had been radicilized by exile under Mary Tudor (a great little study of this is The Influence of the English Protestant Refugees in Geneva on England in the XVIth Century, by René Hoffman-De Visme, but it's only available at the Bodleian Library, at New College Oxford and at the British Library, to my knowledge). Also try having a look at Oxford and Cambridge in Transition 1558-1642 by Mark H. Curtis in The English Historical Review, Vol. 76, No. 298 (Jan., 1961), pp. 102-104 , which should be available online. Elizabeth was a committed moderate, who trod an uneasy path between a liberalising freedom of religion to a limited, 16th century extent, and keeping the extremist elements out of the new Protestant establishment. Although Hugh Price isn't really my field, he was certainly an Anglo-Catholic enough force to get Elizabeth's approval. (After all, his entry on this very site points out that in his youth he was a judge of James Bainham, who was condemned for Tyndale-esque Protestantism).

It's also worth looking at the 1571 Oxford and Cambridge Act of Parliament in full. It incorporated both universities in royal charter, which lead to Oxford (under Leicester) instituting tests to determine undergraduate's loyalty to the Act of Settlement. So certainly a full programme of bringing the universities into the Anglican status quo was underway. And generally, I'd agree with everything Qp10qp has said, with a bit of skepticism about John Guy. And Protestantism, of course, placed great stress on the education of as many individuals as possible, hence the massive expansion in access to education (including amongst women) that followed the Protestant reformation in Britain.Kat Ashley (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All interesting stuff, thanks; a particular thanks and welcome to Kat Ashley. It sounds as though there's scope for an "Education in the reign of Elizabeth" article, which I'm sadly completely under-qualified to write! Any volunteers? I'll see which of these sources I can track down (sadly never being around the Bod these days...) for an extra bit of context in the Jesus College article. Bencherlite^Talk 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture portrait not used in article

a featured picture.

Hi, is there a reason why the portrait that's a featured picture is not in use at this biography article? It appears at the biography of the artist. Occasionally featured pictures get removed from articles accidentally, so instead of readding this one immediately, posting here to ask whether non-use is a deliberate editorial choice. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just that the featured picture is a failry recent addition and there's already a good selection of portraits in the article. - PKM (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice it. Well done PKM. I think it should be the lead picture: it's pointing the right way, and the Darnley is so browny and drab. Most of all, the fact it's a featured picture would give us an excuse to stabilise the lead picture, which editors keep changing. qp10qp (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it for a long time, the head doesn't seem to sit right for me—a sign of a copy from a pattern? The heads usually nestle better into the collars in paintings I've seen by this artist, I think, including other versions of this one. The head is fine but the dress seems a little naively painted to me, as is the setting in space and the pose. Well, there I go with my amateur theorising again (smacks wrist). Still want it for lead picture, though. qp10qp (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally' I'd rather get a really good scan of the ermine portrait and try to push through a FP for that - but I've had no luck finding a high-quality source. I won't object to using this one. There's also a head-and-shoulders detail from it in the commons. - PKM (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In a way, I'd prefer a head and shoulders, but then we'd not be able to cry "Featured image"! I should take back saying that the Darnley is browny and drab: it is only that way in our image—the original has many delicate golds, whites, and oranges, and redder lips. Anyway, I shall do the swap. qp10qp (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More portraits

We now have a high-res scan of the Hardwick Hall portrait (left). - PKM (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And of the Pelican Portrait (right). - PKM (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since editors are bound to continue juggling lead images, perhaps we could say here which ones are good quality and ask them to consider sticking to those. On this basis, that would look to be these two and the Van Meulen, so far. (Difficult to believe that the Hardwick and the Pheonix are both connected to Hilliard.) qp10qp (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the Darnley. It took me hours to remeber where it was. I found it late last night, will scan today. I am thinking of putting it up for FP if it comes out well. - PKM (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And here it is. I recommend this as the lead portrait for this article; as the origin of the face pattern called "The Mask of Youth" by art historians, this is the source image for many of the iconic portraits of the queen. - PKM (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is so superior to the other browny grey one. It's looking to the right, though, which is why I find it uncomfortable for the lead picture. However, I would not oppose it on those grounds, particularly as it seems to be the portrait that most people want there. qp10qp (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also uploaded this one (moving thumbnails of these new high-res images to a gallery).

• 
  Hardwick Hall
• 
  Phoenix
• 
  Darnley
• 
  c1585-90

- PKM (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture nom

I have nominated Elizabeth I of England - Darnley Portrait for Featured Picture status - comments encourage on the nomination page. - PKM (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Van Der Meulen

Quite frankly I think the Van Der Meulen is ridiculous as the first image. How many people would be able to correctly identify the lady as Elizabeth I at a glance? Similarly this image is used as the first photo of Queen Victoria. No, it may not be as pretty as this lovely one but at least its Victoria through and through. --Cameron* 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See the thread above for a potential alternative: the Darnley portrait looks very likely to be featured shortly, and you may prefer that. Remember that this is a featured article, and it is important that the lead image in particular is of an appropriate standard: in other words, that it is high resolution and that the description page is as well sourced as the article. qp10qp (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I like all of the images in the above gallery. I believe most people would be able to identify them as Elizabeth on a glance. The one atm is fine too. --Cameron* 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

New Featured Picture

The Darnley Portrait is now also a FP, I will add it as the lead image. - PKM (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashing. I wish I knew how to work in a hidden note to the infobox to persuade people not to remove featured lead images. I've moved the van Meulen to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England, so as not to waste it—and there I was able to add a hidden message. (There used to be an image of Cate Blanchett there, but it must have been illegal: no reason why cultural depictions have to be modern ones, though.) qp10qp (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the hidden note. - PKM (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Images of her parents needed

I think that portraits of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn should be included in the article. Does anyone else agree with me ?--jeanne (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle, yes. In practice, where could they go? The "Young Bess" portrait is essential. One solution might be a split picture of Henry and Anne (using the Madrid portrait of Henry), with Young Bess going where the embroidered book is and the latter moving down to the Thomas Seymour section (since it was made for his wife). qp10qp (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree a split picture replacing the embroidered book. Images of Henry and Anne are needed.--jeanne (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are wonderful portraits. They look good where they are placed as well.--jeanne (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put it on my list to upload higher quality versions of those two images and redo the job. Feel guilty about cutting a strip off the bottom of the Holbein, and won't do that next time. qp10qp (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A pity there isn't the "peacock" portrait in the article. That was a beautiful portrait of Queen Elizabeth. I suppose there isn't space for it though.--jeanne (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are so many portraits. PKM and I have talked about doing an article on the portraits, but, given the density of the sholarship, it's a daunting task. My favourite portrait of her is the coronation portrait, which I have guarding my talk page. Typically, there's a complex story behind it and the other versions of it. qp10qp (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an entire article on the clothing in the Coronation Portrait by Janet Arnold in the Nov 1978 Burlington Magazine. I have a copy. We really must do the Portraiture of Elizabeth, but as you say the challenge is distillation, not a dearth of material. I need a break from Pre-Raphaelites; maybe when I get back from my next trip out of town I can start this.

An honest section in reelation to the wars in Ireland is needed. Lets face it - hew wars were genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.253.241 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the title be Portraiture of Elizabeth I or Portraits of Elizabeth I? I am inclined to the first. - PKM (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Grammar

"On the other hand, marriage offered the chance of an heir" i could not change "an" to "a", as this is a locked article.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgmclennan (talk • contribs) 05:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's been changed

Danny (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper article preceeding a word starting with "h" (especially a silent one) is "an" not "a". It's an historical fact :-) CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hampden portrait

I added this back into the article, as its encyclopedic value is zero in Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. At the very least, please keep it in the article until the painting is off the Main Page as POTD (Template:POTD/2008-10-20). Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the Hampden portrait is discussed in the new article Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Dudley

I was thinking we should add that t has been suggested she had a son with Robert Dudley. There is some very good evidence to suggest it. Im saying she definatley did or anything, but i think we should mention it somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? Chloe2kaii7 (talk)

I had always read in various books- not novels, whose names I cannot recall (and the books are no longer in my possession) that Elizabeth had a daughter by Seymour and a son by Dudley. But we would need to cite the exact books to include this speculation in Wikipedia.--jeanne (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you got the evidence that you can quote and is it from a reliable source? If so, mention it here on the talk page.--jeanne (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are some books

Elizabeth and Leicester, Sarah Gristwood

The Secret Life of Elizabeth I, Paul Doherty <- That was also turned into a tv programme that aired on Channel Five, in June 2006

I cant think of anymore right now, but just google "arthur dudley elizabeth i" then you can find a lot of information, here are some good sites:

http://www.dudleygenealogy.com/arthur.html

http://www.five.tv/programmes/revealed/secretelizabeth/

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/femail/article-390593/Did-Virgin-Queen-secret-love-child.html

Chloe2kaii7 (talk)

Portraits

I have started a skeleton of Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This Link

I think that Queen Elisabith 1 has great leadership. She had to deal with Mary 1 in her teens. She went through a lot since her mom was beheaded when she was only three. I bet she had to deal with tons of stuff by herself with noone to help her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gina gao (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion

"Elizabeth was fortunate, however, that many bishoprics were vacant at the time, including the Archbishopric of Canterbury.[52][53]" that's not right, right? it should just be bishops...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.40 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

bishopric is the post, (though nowadays it would be more normal to say Diocese) and when one is vacant a new bishop is required. ϢereSpielChequers 00:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

More normal perhaps, but wrong. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, are you saying that the beginning of diocese "It is also referred to as a bishopric" is wrong? If so you may want to change diocese. ϢereSpielChequers 09:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Queen of France?

It is true that all English/British/UK monarchs from (I think) Edward II to George III claimed to be King/Queen of France, I recognise this was important enough to be mentioned on coins etc.. However it is ficticious to treat this as something really seperate from the monarchy of England. She was also Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, do we give them their own succession box? The most important (arguably) of her secondary titles, Queen of Ireland, just gets mentioned under Queen of England. Lots of monarchs and other royals have secondary titles which are really just an offshoot of their primary title, e.g. Elizabeth II is also monarch of several countries, and Prince Charles is (off the top of my head) Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland, and Baron Renfrew. Do these titles really all get their own succession box? PatGallacher (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Plus we can't really have two succession box sequences running for the same title. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth I was really a unifying force in England. Because of her father Henry VIII's desire to divorce Katherine of Aragon and his subsequent split from Rome, the country of England was ripped in two. A person cannot merely abandon their religious zeal because their state religion has changed. The country was divided between those loyal to their king and those loyal to Katherine and Catholicism. As if this switch from Catholicism to a newfound Anglicanism wasn't bad enough, when Edward came to the throne he further changed the religion to following a much more Protestant model. When his health failed and he was succeeded by Mary, she reverted the nation back to a violent Catholicism, burning all "heretics" who clung to their protestantism at the stake, thus earning her name "Bloody Mary". Elizabeth, however, took the throne and united the kingdom peacefully under protestantism. State religion provided a unifying force that allowed England to flourish in all other areas.

Ashamarie12 (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)asha

There were plenty of Catholics in England-and in Europe who considered Mary, Queen of Scots to have been the rightful queen of England. The Pope excommunicated Elizabeth, and his successor in 1588 sanctioned Philip II's Armada to invade England, depose Elizabeth and return England to Catholicism. I wouldn't say the kingdom was so peaceful. Elizabeth constantly feared her own assassination at the hands of Catholic fanatics as well as foreign agents. one only has to recall the Babington Plot. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A Question About QE I

I have but one question that's been bothering me off and on for a good while now.Where did Queen Elizabeth I reside during Her 45 year reign? Kevin

She had several palaces in and around London, and also went on tours over much of the kingdom, being put up by courtiers. The Palace of Whitehall was her main base, and Richmond Palace was a favourite, also Greenwich. See Category:Tudor royal palaces in England. Unlike her father, she did very little building herself. The article doesn't seem to cover this. Johnbod (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

While the above were her mainstays, she would often go to Nonsuch, Oatlands, Hampton Court, Havering, Enfield, Kew. However, if she was on Progress, she would often have many nobles fighting for her to stay there and often to great expense (she was sometimes known to pity a poor noble and reimburse him too). She's known to have stayed at Kenilworth, Cowdray House, Theobalds House, Gorhambury House and Levens Hall.

• from The Palaces and Progresses of Elizabeth I by Ian Dunlop.

Danny (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When Protecting an Article, You Must Indicate Why

Anyone who semi-protects an article must indicate (verifiably so) why here in Talk so we know it isn't an attempt to block legitimate other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.199.130 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth's Translation of Horace

Here in the Horace article is a mention of Elizabeth I translating one of his works into English.

This is certainly noteworthy as a sign of her education and intellect, and as an extremely unusually academic/literary effort by a woman of this age.

Was the work published, was it popular? Was she the first woman translator in British history?

A new age was born at her death?

The section headed "Legacy" begins with these sentences:

"Elizabeth was lamented, but the people were relieved at her death.[140] A new age was born, and at first the signs were good, with the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes."

The clause "A new age was born" is naive, not something any historian I know would say. It takes more than the death of a single person, however powerful and eminent, to give rise to a new age. On a lesser note, referring to all of England as "the people" as if they were ever of one mind is also naive.

This article is so excellent - perhaps the best I've seen in many, many happy hours surfing Wikipedia - that I'm not going to attempt any change.

However, I would suggest an edit like this:

"Elizabeth was lamented, but many were relieved at her death[140]. At first those who hoped that her passing would inaugurate better policy were heartened by the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes."

Douglas Barber (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded as follows: "Elizabeth was lamented, but many people were relieved at her death. Expectations of King James were high, and at first they were met, with the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes." There is plenty of mention of "the people" in both the contemporary and secondary sources, but I take your point. There is also mention enough in books of the end of the Elizabethan age (Roy Strong, for example, says "In this way, forty-five years of the rule of Elizabeth Tudor came to an end and a new era began" (The Cult of Elizabeth, 14). However, it does no harm to change this, as the concept of an "age" is essentially retrospective, and the "golden age" propaganda did not set in till the 1620s; a slight queasiness of viewpoint did, I see now, give the impression of a direct statement by the article, rather than, as intended, an encapsulation of the popular hope at the time, which is documented. qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Poetry

How come there is no mention (at least a line) about any of her (bad) poetry? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth persecutions

I've heard and read that Elizabeth I killed more Catholics during her long reign than Mary did Protestants. Is that in the article because I didn't see it.

References: The Faith of Our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons (chapter 18), Triumph by H. W. Crocker III at least talks about it (Chapter 15) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "killed". Elizabeth fought against Catholics in Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Ireland, and I'm sure many Catholics were killed, often in cold blood. But she only burned two heretics. According to historian J. M. Richards, who does her best to rehabilitate Mary but hardly attempts it on this question: "However they are reckoned, the numbers burned in Mary's reign were exceptional in English history, even before the very short time over which they occurred is taken into account" (Mary Tudor, 2008: p. 193.).

This will give you a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05474a.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that if you decide to count Catholics executed for other reasons than heresy, then, by the same token, you would have to increase Mary's tally with Protestants executed for other reasons than heresy. qp10qp (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Qp10qp; besides Mary I didn't earn the sobriquet Bloody Mary for nothing, especially when you consider the ruthlessness of the era.--jeanne (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing Elizabeth feared more than anything was Civil War over Religion. France and what we call today Germany were often bloodbaths. Besides, Elizabeth had a curious way of looking at enemies. Dead Catholics don't pay Taxes, don't work in fields or factories (such as they were), don't sail your ship or serve in your Armies. So long as Catholics were prepared to obey the Law, Elizabeth was happy to leave them alone.Johnwrd (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeths War

she faught in the war against the spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.95.142 (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Settlement of James's succession

The article glosses over some important aspects of the succession of James to the English throne in 1603. The Third Succession Act of 1543 in combination with Henry VIII's testament, had excluded James' Scottish line (from Henry's elder sister Margaret) from the succession, in preference for the line of Henry's younger sister Mary Tudor. This Act (which played an important part in the succession of Mary I and Elizabeth herself, as the article adequately covers) had not been repealed by 1603 (despite several attempts to have Elizabeth settle the succession, as the article points out). The heir presumptive was therefore Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven. Nevertheless, this claim was never pressed, apparently. The coup d'état the article correctly describes brought James smoothly to power. However, one wonders if James would have rested easy, if the legitimacy of his accession could be put in doubt. Indeed, the matter was "rectified" by the Succession to the Crown Act 1603 (1 Jac. I, c. I) which explicitly ignores Henry's testament, but apparently implicitly repealed the 1543 Act. Also, this Act implied that (like Elizabeth) James succeeded by Act of Parliament and not just by right of inheritance. I wonder if it would be useful to put these developments in the article?--Ereunetes (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC

We could add the following note, from the James I of England article: "James's claim to the English throne, as the great great grandson of Henry VII, was far superior to any other. However, Henry VIII's will had passed over the Scottish line of his sister Margaret Tudor in favour of that of their younger sister Mary Tudor. In the event, Henry's will was disregarded." (Stewart, pp 159–161; Willson, pp 138–141)

But I don't think this needs labouring in either article, since James's succession was so straightforward. If the article "glosses" over the potential challenges to the succession, then so were they glossed over at the time. The bottom line is that Henry's provisions were ignored. In a sense they had become redundant, superseded by the assumptions about the succession that had revived with Mary's victory over Jane Grey—namely that the oldest-heir principle (males first, then females) was accepted as trumping the wills or devices of monarchs. This tradition, and not Henry's succession acts, was the key to the succession of Mary and Elizabeth, though the fact that it produced the same result was legally convenient. After all, Henry's statutory provisions were an innovation and an anomaly: English monarchs did not traditionally have the right to choose their successors, as the astute Elizabeth knew. So the succession issue proved in the end to be something of a non-problem—even more so since the only potentially viable claimant from Henry's younger sister's line, Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp, was of challengeable legitimacy. For this reason, James's succession is not usually regarded as a coup d'état but as a legitimate handover of power from Elizabeth to her rightful successor. qp10qp (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It could also be argued that Elizabeth named James as her successsor so as to appease the guilt she harboured over the execution of his mother Mary, Queen of Scots. Besides, there was little love lost between Elizabeth and Beauchamp's mother, Catherine Grey, illegitimacy notwithstanding. Henry only excluded Margaret's descendants from his will due to his deep hatred of the Scots.--jeanne (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was inspired by the historical analogies between the successions of the Lady Jane Grey and James I, and the diametrically opposed outcomes. In both cases the Third Succession Act and Henry's Will were ignored by the Privy Council, at least initially. As the articles on the Tudors point out, Edward VI (on his own initiative or not) tried to disqualify his elder sisters (he even issued letters patent as to their "illegitimacy") and to put his own candidate on the trone. The Privy Council went along, until a popular revolt (caused by the "illegality" of the Council's proclamation in view of the 1543 Statute) forced them to retrace their steps. So the statute was important in 1554 to help Mary gain the throne. (see also Talk:Alternate successions of the English crown#The Third Succession Act). Again, the statute helps explain why in 1558 Philip (and the dying Mary herself) meekly acquiesced in Elizabeth's succession. Now, in 1603 we see a repeat of the events of 1554. The 1543 statute and Henry's last will are still in force. Again, the Privy Council acts to put a different candidate on the throne than the one whose claim is based on the 1543 statute. The only difference is that in this case that candidate did not try to mobilize popular feeling. Nevertheless, the new situation is "regularized" after the fact by the first Act of Parliament of James's reign (which would have been superfluous if his succession had been as self-evident as the act studiously pretends). In this context the claim that Elizabeth herself "verbally," (or even "nonverbally") indicated her preference for James on her deathbed (which may or may not be apocryphal) is of much value as Edward's much more explicit preference for Lady Jane Grey turned out to be when Edward's will came up against the 1543 statute.

The point of all this is that something remarkable took place in 1603: the rights of the heir presumptive were disregarded and this caused hardly a ripple (though Cecil apparently took precautions against protests from the followers of another potential claimant, Arbella Stuart; see e.g. [1]), whereas in 1554 an analogous event almost led to civil war. Of course, the wish to avoid civil war is probably the main reason for this remarkable quietude. But my point is that all of this could be made explicit in the article, providing an answer to questions that undoubtedly rise by students of the era.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are as entitled as anyone to add something to the article; but I disagree with your general argument. For me, it was the acts of Henry that were extraordinary and the choice of the traditional heir that was conventional. (In this respect Mary's and James's successions were the same and James's not extraordinary.) James's parliament had to make this clear, whereas Mary's and Elizabeth's had not needed to because the heir was the same according to both statute and tradition. (And I don't think many of the people who flocked to Mary's standard were thinking about Henry's statutes.) qp10qp (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To show that my remarks are not frivolous, but historically germane, let me quote a scholarly article on the subject that is accessible online: "Although James I was not seriously opposed as successor,[65] it was necessary to reinforce his title by statute, since it contravened an earlier Act.[66] The Act of Recognition of the King’s title 1603-4[67] was an attempt to explain the contravention of the Succession to the Crown Act 1543-4,[68] an assertion of the hereditary title as stronger than the statutory one.[69]"[2]. The context of this quote contradicts your argument as it shows that both Mary and Elizabeth needed Acts of Parliament to justify their respective successions to the crown in view of the mess Henry had created (it turns out to be even more complicated than we thought). But let's not digress and limit ourselves to the legal quandary in 1603.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course your argument is not frivolous, and you have a technical point. But the political reality was that no one could come to the throne in Tudor and early Stuart England except by male-preferrred primogeniture. For this reason, James's succession was not remarkable; his parliament merely brought the legislation up to date, superseding the anomalous provisions of Henry VIII, passed at a time when the political reality had been something akin to tyranny but which had served well enough for the successions of Mary and Elizabeth. qp10qp (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not politically relevant? In "The Sovereignty of Parliament" (Oxford U.P., 1999, ISBN 0198268939,p. 145)" Jeffrey Denys Goldsworthy says: "Whether or not Parliament could control the royal succession was highly controversial throughout the century. As previously noted, the Stuarts had every reason to deny that it could, because James I had succeeded Elizabeth contrary to the terms of Henry VIII's will, and therefore to the statute that authorized the making of the will." (he goes on to argue that this is part of the general struggle between the "Divine Right" and the "Parliamentary Supremacy" ideologies). So the point is highly relevant for the later succession problems, even the Act of Settlement 1701. I grant you that Henry's attempts to let statutory law supersede canon and common law was anomalous at the time, but even in James' day it had already become less so and soon would become the reigning doctrine. But apart from this somewhat arcane aspect of the history of Constitutional law I think it is useful to point out that James was not "the only option" (as there were several other potential claimants), or that the dying Queen could legally designate him her successor by a "nod of the head," (in answer to Cecil's question) as some myths will have it. --Ereunetes (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read specialist books or articles, you are bound to find specialist points. But while I've been discussing this with you, I've been consulting a large number of books on Henry and James—most general but including Elton's The Tudor Constitution and Graves's Elizabethan Parliaments—and I do not find this issue addressed. In fact, it is hard to find any worthwhile evidence that Elizabeth overtly recognised James as her successor: instead, she seemed to wish the natural succession to take its course, and the general books concentrate on Cecil's communications with James. The books all seem to assume that James was the inevitable successor and waste little ink on the alternatives. Having said that, I appreciate your discussing this here and would not challenge any addition you might wish to add to the article on the matter, so long as it was not disproportionate (the article is a highly condensed version of the reign, to say the least). qp10qp (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I limited myself to one paragraph :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How old is she?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.114.110 (talk) 1907, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

{HARRIET LP} In one of the paragraphs I think that someone should add in the nicknames of her admirereg Sir Robert Dudley- Sir eyes. One of the French Dukes- Frog. I also thimk that the bit on the French admirers is to breif. Could someone edit it please? (I can't work out how.) Thanks.

The article does report that Elizabeth wore a frog-shaped earring that the second Anjou gave her. Also, the caption to his image says: "Elizabeth called the duke her "frog", finding him "not so deformed" as she had been led to expect". Yes, the courtships are dealt with briefly, but so is everything in the article. This has to be so in condensing the events of her long and complex life to a single article. Ideally, articles about Elizabeth's suitors, private life, etc. will spin off from this one. qp10qp (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 Hi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.3.196 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 

Queen Elizabeth

Queen Elizabeth executed her Roman Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.3.196 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavery sourcing

The "Slavery" section of this article has only one source, a link to "History Learning Site" which describes itself as having been entirely written by a high school teacher in the UK. I tend to dispute that this is a reliable source, and the entire section strikes me as a bit badly phrased and possibly misplaced (seems to be all about Hawkins, and no real relation to Elizabeth). I myself am no expert on the topic, however, and am not going to remove content without seeing what other users of the page think. Opinions? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, lets remove it. I have. The people who want to insist on this section being added to the article need to do better than that. First, they need to show that the topic is an important aspect of Elizabeth's reign, and then they need to provide good academic sources. qp10qp (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The remark "no real relation to Elizabeth" is wildly untrue. She benefited financially from

Hawkins's second and third slaving trips. See the web-site of Plymouth Coucil, already

mentioned by me earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.182.155 (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

On the section "Barbary States" that has been added

Note to PHG's takpage, copied here:

I think your addition unbalances the article, which was a necessarily compressed account of the key events in Elizabeth's life. The section you have added is not proportionately reflected in the biographies of Elizabeth, and I see you have referenced it from incidental sources, about literature. I cannot find the man whose image you have added to the article mentioned let alone illustrated in my biographies of Elizabeth, and so I don't believe your inclusion of it to be representative. Also, the subject is much more complex than your section indicates, because there were considerable fluctuations in the balance of power in that region during Elizabeth's long reign and the alliances of various Berber groups shifted considerably, as did control of certain ports and of the interior. I think the best place for this material would be in a separate article.qp10qp (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Qp10qp, I think you'll agree, however that the image of the Moroccan ambassador is wonderful. I've never seen it before. Is it contemporary?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the painting is contemporary indeed. It was displayed at the 2006-2007 Tate Gallery exhibition "East-West: Objects between cultures". Here is the summary of the Tate Gallery, which says "circa 1600": [3]. The Barber Institute of Fine Arts also says 1600: [4]. It is described as quite an important painting, visually relating the exchanges between Elizabeth and the Barbary States. Phg (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous portrait. I've put it on my user talk page. I'm glad it's contemporary as I was afraid it might have been done much later. I wonder who painted it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you say what you mean here by "The Barbary States"? As far as I know, they were not one political entity. Morocco is not the same as "Barbary States". Who did this man actually speak for? Who is "king Hamad"? Is this the same guy as Ahmad al-Mansur? Why is Elizabeth not mentioned in his article? Yes the picture is marvellous, but we shouldn't make the guy seem significant to Elizabeth's reign. The new section is misleading, and I propose to remove it, while leaving a mention of the embassy in the article. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Following the sailing of The Lion in 1551" ..." Where is that link supposed to lead, and what is the significance of this event of 1551 to this 1600 event? The political structure in north Africa was entirely different at that time.

For me, the watershed for English involvement with the Barbary Coast would be the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, after which the Ottomans largely withdrew from the western Mediterranean. From then on, and with the formation of the Levant Company and, to a lesser extent the Barbary Company, which the Levant Company crowded out, the English began to trade freely in the Mediterranean, supplying grain and tin. English consuls were set up in a series of Muslim centres, including several in Barbary, and the main purpose was trade. The shifting of Spanish military policy to the Atlantic coast meant that trade and safe-conduct agreements with Morocco were mutually beneficial. None of this is of fundamental importance to Elizabeth's biography, however, since she gave her companies considerable leeway.qp10qp (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And I see, looking at your source Performing Blackness on the English Stage, that the writer says: "Muly Hamet wanted an English fleet to help him invade Spain, a design too quixotic for Elizabeth's pragmatic diplomacy; his ambassador had to be content with trade agreements instead". I think this much would be appropriate to add to the article. Indeed, Elizabeth spent her whole reign rejecting grand military schemes.

The other source you cite, Last Plays, by Allardyce Nicholl, from Shakespeare Survey II, fudges the matter, in my opinion, by referring to Barbary as if it were a state. This forces the impression that the embassy was more representive than it was—but this is an article in a literary annual. qp10qp (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. And thanks for spotting the spelling discrepancies for Ahmad al-Mansur, I'll correct them... I'll also try to make a specific article about The Lion in 1551... In a chapter about "Foreign policy" it should be normal to be able to include areas beyond Europe which had rather intense commercial and diplomatic contacts with Elizabeth. The Barbary States are one such area, but I have been also planning to add a paragraph about the Ottoman Empire as well, which had many important commercial and diplomatic exchanges with England at that time. I have found two other extensive sources regarding the relations of Elizabeth with the Barbary States and the Barbary embassy:

• Speaking of the Moor by Emily C. Bartels [5]
• The Jamestown project by historian Karen Ordahl Kupperman [6] in which she states that following the embassy "Elizabeth agreed to sell munitions supplies to Morocco, and she and Mulai Ahmad al-Mansur talked on and off about mounting a joint operation against the Spanish before both died in 1603" (page 39)
  

I'll try to incorporate this new material in the short paragraph. Thank you for the constructive comments. Cheers Phg (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly improved the section now, but you've made it even longer. Of course it is possible to find extensive sources on particular aspects of Elizabeth's reign, but the finer judgement is to incorporate only what is appropriate to a very general summary article. The material you are adding is not representative of general histories of Elizabeth's reign: believe me, I have spent some time looking today and I can't even find these people in the indexes. I've also looked through several histories of Spain at this time with the same result. The principle with Wikipedia is to place material this incidental and detailed in a separate article. I like the article you have done on the ambassador, by the way, but I don't know why you want to place the material here as well, where it is disproportionate. Elizabeth's relations with Morocco, and with the Ottomans (I see you have now started a section on the latter) for that matter, are not comparable to those with France, Spain, etc. in the least. qp10qp (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now tried to shorten the paragraph in question, summary-style, so that only the most essential information remains, and people who are interested in these relations can at least find the relevant links. The two paragraphs about the Barbary States and the Ottoman Empire are now the shortest ones of the "Foreign policy" section, which I hope will better satisfy balance. Phg (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The section on the Barbary states is still too long. In fact, I doubt it even warrants as part of a title of a section. Its importance is negligible. Nothing more major than the exportation of weapons seems to have been the result of Anglo-Barbary relations. The subject is given undue weight in a biographical article on Elizabeth I.--Johnbull (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

????

Where is she born at ??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.84.167 (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. She was born at Greenwich Palace.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Poem

I have not read the entire article, but does it say anything about Elizabeth's poem?

"My care is like my shadow
Laid bare beneath the sun.
It follows me at all times
And flies when I pursue it.

I freeze and yet am always burned
Since from myself again I turn.
I love and yet am forced to hate.
I seem stark mute; inside I prate.

Some gentler love doth ease itself
Into my heart and mind.
For I am soft and made of snow
Love, be more cruel or so be kind."

I think it should. —93.122.135.17 (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is a hash up of a poem written by Elizabeth called On Monsieur's Departure. This looks like the version sung by the Mediaeval Baebes for the 4 Part miniseries The Virgin Queen. Danny (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Hello (apologies if this is in the wrong place - not sure where to put it here), I hesitate to become involved here but in the interests of accuracy may I explain new evidence that has been discovered in the past nine years. [1] Elizabeth's first Lady Mistress was Lady Bryan but by the time of Prince Edward's christening Lady Bryan was in charge of the new prince and Elizabeth was in the care of Blanche Herbert Lady Troy (reference available, account of Prince Edward's christening). [2] When Prince Edward joined Elizabeth's household, Lady Troy was the Lady Mistress for both children (reference Elegy for Lady Blanche (of Troy) by Lewys Morgannwg - see www.blancheparry.com and new biography and Lady Troy on Wikipedia) [3] Lady Troy remained Elizabeth's Lady Mistress until she retired to Troy House, Monmouth in c.late 1545 or early 1546. Elizabeth sent her a pension (Household Accounts, Hatfield, 1551-1552). [4] Lady Troy dies c.1557 before Elizabeth's accession (Elegy above). [5] Lady Troy had trained her niece Blanche Parry as her successor but in the event Kate Ashley was appointed (Letter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt). [6] Note: Kate Ashley was appointed Elizabeth's governess in 1536 (Letter to Thomas Cromwell) but she did not become Lady Mistress until c1545-1546, after her marriage and after Lady Troy's retirement. [7] Blanche Parry came to Court with her aunt Lady Troy. She was with Elizabeth from her birth until Blanche died aged 82 years (epitaph in Bacton Church, see www.blancheparry.com, biography 'Mistress Blanche, Queen Elizabeth I's Confidante' by Ruth Elizabeth Richardson, Logaston, available from amazon, Blanche Parry on Wikipedia). [8] Blanche was second in the household from c.1545-46 to 1565 when Kate Ashley died. Then she became Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber (in control of access to the Queen)and Keeper of her Majesty's jewels (epitaph on her tomb in St. Margaret's Westminster). [9] Blanche's responsibilities also included the Great Seal of England (for two years), the Queen's personal papers, clothes, furs, linen and books - she received books given to the Queen in the New Year Gifts. She also received money on behalf of the Queen. She passed information and the presentation of Parliamentary bills to the Queen. She supervised 'other things belonging to her majesty' and these included 'our musk cat', probably a ferret. The Queen treated Blanche Parry as a baroness (everything mentioned is verified). [10] Blanche's cousin and close friend was Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who actually wrote out her Wills himself. This facilitated Burghley's close working relationship with the Queen. [11] Re Elizabeth being a virgin - Blanche actually says this in her Bacton epitah dated to before November 1578. Point here is that this is Blanche's testimony to God and if Elizabeth had not been a virgin Blanche would simply have not mentioned it. Blanche Parry was the one person who was in a position to know the truth. [12] Re religion - Blanche Parry's family and her aunt, Lady Troy's family had ancestors and land connections with the Lollards and the descendants of Sir John Oldcastle. This is suggestive of a residual Lollard influence in the family of the two ladies who brought up Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Both would have conformed to Henry VIII's religious ideas. However, this residual influence may have helped both children towards a wish to read the Bible for themselves. [13] Re Bible in Welsh - there is a possibility (discussed fully in Blanche's biography) that she helped finance the translation of the Bible into Welsh.

Well - there is a lot more (fully referenced) in the biography. Shall I add a few sentences to mention Lady Troy and Blanche Parry, and to slightly correct the information about Kate Ashley, to this entry on Elizabeth I please? It is all accurate and is new information. If you want to ask me about any of it please do so here, or use the Contact page on www.blancheparry.com Thank you. REHopkins (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved your text to this place, as it was diffcult to find where it was before. I am afraid I cannot comment on your proposed additions, I just make a few remarks on some points you mentioned. Blanche Parry's epitaph is very well known. There is quite a lot of mention of Elizabeth's virginity and virginity cult in several sections of the article already, so I think this needs not to be augmented any further, especially as then the very considerable evidence to the contrary would as well somehow have to be addressed in order to keep some sort of balance. The old argument that people wouldn't say this and that before God or under oath simply isn't really a valid one. There are examples, for example in the late Middle Ages, where it can be easily seen that people have sworn totally false oath's on the sacrament at mass directly before they would certainly die (without a chance of last repentance) in trial by single combat, God deciding the outcome (ordeal). They did this because of honour. Percieved honour to the world, even after death, meant everything, possibly much more than thruthfulness before God! Historical theories on what people purportedly believed tend to simplify such things. Then, an epitaph is made of stone after a persons death, just one such very public thing, very useful for propaganda, not good evidence for this kind of question. Lastly, Blanche Parry was evidently not "the one person in a position to know the truth", why should she be that person?

As regards the Welsh Bible I understand that the author of the book you mention only speculates on this. It is of course in vogue with authors to attribute such positively seen achievements to their particular heroes; I don't say that Blanche didn't contribute to the Welsh Bible project financially. My point is, this project was patronized by Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and then that also would have to be mentioned in the article and so on. And very probably it hadn't anything to do with Elizabeth personally. This article is by necessity a summary. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This information should take up no more than a sentence or phrase, if you want to add that Blanche Herbert was a Lady Mistress to Elizabeth. This article needs to be kept very tight. You might consider a new article on "Lady Mistress". I don't think Blanche Parry demands mention here, since so much else is necessarily left out. qp10qp (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay - thank you. I'll leave out details re virginity and Welsh Bible as you suggest. However, Blanche Herbert Lady Troy does need to be mentioned to correct the position re Kate Ashley. Also Blanche Parry needs to be mentioned as succeeding Kate Ashley and being the cousin of Lord Burghley. Will this do? Very short and slight additions. Thank you. 86.128.125.25 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Buchraeumer, for this edit: it was puzzling me before. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

REHopkins, IP8..., IP8..., I am afraid we can't clear the confusion of Elizabeth's early governesses, "guardians" (what's that?), Lady Mistresses. Being absolutely no expert on Elizabeth's female household, I still thought that passage should not completely contradict itself, for the benefit of the occasional reader. Now, as I've tried to re-instate Kat Ashley as governess/teacher, it's again somewhat confusing. I have given a date for the beginning of Blanche Parry's service as Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, although this section is supposed to be about Elizabeth's earliest years. Still there is now the question why we don't mention e.g. Catherine Knollys, nee Carey (Chief Gentlewoman of the Bedchamber) or Mary Sidney, who nursed Elizabeth during her smallpox (to her own considerable cost)...and so we could go on and on...I am afraid there is no room for the club of Elizabeth's female friends in this article, even her male friends don't figure greatly here...Buchraeumer (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Buchraeumer - All I want to do is give people the opportunity to become aware if they wish that new evidence exists. Therefore, somewhere the names of Lady Troy and Blanche Parry should be mentioned. Re Lady Mistresses: Elzabeth had three - Lady Bryan, Lady Troy, Kate Ashley. Kate Ashley began her time in the household as governess and then became Lady Mistress on Lady Troy's retirement. Lady Troy's funeral Elegy describes her as the 'guardian' of Henry VIII's children and as you removed 'Lady Mistress' and 'governess' isn't correct, I put in 'guardian'. (I am happy to follow your suggestion and include a new category of Lady Mistress but I am not sure of procedure - it should be wide enough to include the position for others no matter what the title used.) Re Blanche Parry - she really was the person who was with Elizabeth the longest, from Elizabeth's birth to Blanche's death in 1589 (1590 in our terms because of change of beginning of the year). She was second in the household until she succeeded Kate Ashley as Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, a post she therefore held for more than 24 years. She was Lord Burghley's cousin and friend and her position at the centre of the court was accepted by everyone. It is perfctly true that the first depiction of Elizabeth as an icon, as Gloriana, is on Blanche Parry's monument in Bacton Church which is now securely dated to before November 1578. Blanche Parry is far, far more than simply a member of the 'club' of Elizabeth's friends. I really don't mind where you allow mention to be made of Blanche Parry and Lady Troy, and I really don't mind how short the references to them are - all I want is for their names to be there so anyone interested can find more if they so wish. I certainly do not want to change anything people have written but, in the interests of accurate research (and that is my sole aim) these names should be in this article somewhere. So please, I should be most grateful if you would be kind enough to help me in this. Yours sincerely REHopkins (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have know put the title "Lady Mistress" back into the article instead of "guardian" and ventured to make Lady Bryan a Lady Mistress instead of a governess (only for clarity). You first wrote "Lady Mistress" after a slash behind "governess", so I thought that it was another word for the same thing. Now there is no longer a problem with Kat Ashley being her governess from 1537. Elizabeth/Gloriana on Blanche Parry's epitaph is now mentioned in a footnote (for the main article, this info was simply too special, especially as the word "icon" was only explained one sentence later). I used the sentence from the Blanche Parry article as a basis. Blanche is now twice mentioned in this article here (once in a footnote), and in both instances linked. Now, it's all there and I hope understandable. It would be useful to add the page numbers, then it's fine. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Buchraeumer - Thank you for your help - very much appreciated. I'll add page numbers tomorrow as you suggest. If you would like to see a picture of Blanche's monument in Bacton Church it is on the website's gallery. This is the one she actually mentioned in her First Will and originally it was coloured. The local people must have been vastly impressed especially in a time when it wasn't easy to know what the monarch looked like.REHopkins (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

INAPPROPRIATE EDITORIALIZING

Hope I'm doing this right. I find the following passage very silly: "Elizabeth was happy to play the part,[157] but it is possible that in the last decade of her life she began to believe her own performance. She became fond and indulgent of the charming but petulant young Robert Devereux..." If the first sentence had been followed up with some evidence that she was delusional, that would be one thing. But all that follows is a statement that Elizabeth was interested in a charming man. The implication is unwittingly sexist. Who says an older woman has to be convinced she's young and beautiful just to be interested in a younger man? And the queen of England, no less!

This article is gradually being mashed up and swollen with insertions. You are right that the second sentence doesn't follow from the first. qp10qp (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

THE BISLEY BOY

No mention is made of this myth/rumor/legend whatever it is. It's interesting if for no other reason than it reveals a certain attitude towards women in power.

Wrong links to preceeded by...succeeded by...

At the bottom of the article there is a chart showing the preceeded by... succeeded by for a number of different categories.

Somehow, Edward VI is shown as having succeeded Eizabeth I, even though he was two monarchs before her in succession.

There seem to be two categories for monarch, one of which shows Elizabeth I preceeded by Mary I, which is right, and one of which shows her preceeded by Lady Mary Tudor... not sure of the reason for the difference in title... surely Mary I is right in both cases?

I do not appear able to alter this, and leave it to those who can to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliandris (talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been four months and this problem has not been fixed. I wish I knew how to fix it. (Eeyore22 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Bad Bess

(This was a quote from Terrible Tudors.): Ye don't mess with Queen Best!

The fake more cautious historians

Usually I do not take a hand with starred articles but this statement struck my attention.

"Historians tend to be more cautious in their assessment"

I do not know when this self-righteous and pompous generalization was slipped in there but it is not true. It implies that all glowing accounts were of non-historians and historians know better. Non-sequitur. Glowing historians are among historians so "historians" are not more cautious in their assessment. This is slanted writing and is not encyclopedic. It is easily fixed so I will fix it - no editorial bias please.Dave (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Allegorical painting of Elizabeth

The 'death' painting of Elizabeth seems to be missing its artist from the image caption. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Founding of Virginia

The sentence.... "Her reign also saw the first colonisation or "planting" of new land in North America; the colony of Virginia was named by her when she modified the name of a Native American regional "king" named "Wingina" that had been recorded in 1584 by the Sir Walter Raleigh expedition, noting her status as the "Virgin Queen".

Forgive me for saying this, but the Colony and Dominion of Virginia was not founded during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England. Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in North America, was founded in 1607, precisely 4 years after Queen Elizabeth I died. It was James I of England and VI of Scotland who was on the throne during the founding and the beginnings of Virginia. Also, Sir Walter Raliegh sailed and reached the shores of present-day North Carolina as he founded the Roanoke Colony in 1585, which two years later was abandoned by the colonists. So the sentence above is very misleading. The Colony (and state) of Virginia were named after the Virgin Queen, but only after the colony's founding in 1607 and after the Queen's death in 1603. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth could not have possibly have named Virginia in honor of herself simply for the fact that the place did not exist or was known until after her death! --Yoganate79 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Virginia was named by Sir Walter Raleigh and his colleagues during Queen Elizabeth's reign, but he did not necessarily mean the same area as the current Commonwealth of Virginia. Raleigh's Roanoke Colony was in that "Virginia", even if now in the State of North Carolina.

The first successful settlement, the first English settlement in today's Virginia, was in King James's reign, but the colonists came to a place already named. The boders of the colonies would have to wait until King Charles's reign to be settled. You cannot say "Virginia was not named in Queen Elizabeth's reign" just because its borders changed later; you migh as well say it was not named until the retrocession of southern DC!

Spencer dedicated his Faerie Queene to Queen Elizabeth as "Queen of England, France, Ireland and Virginia". In a portrait of 1632, she is entitled, Serenissima ac Potentissima Princeps Elizabet D.G. Angliae, Franciae, Hiberniae et Virginiae Regina Fidei Christianae Propugnatrix Accerima.

Howard Alexander (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

First biography

I've removed the section called First Biography because it was unreferenced (this is, after all, a FA) and because I don't think it is relevant. Other articles do not mention the first biography of their subjects and I don't see why this one should. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the text:

---

Frontispiece and titlepage from a 1675 edition of William Camden's biography of Queen Elzabeth I.

When William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, aka Lord Burghley, was nearing death in 1597, he suggested to William Camden, author of Britannia (1596), to write a biography of Elizabeth's reign. Legend has it that Burghley gave Camden access to all his personal and state records concerning the queen. Camden published the first edition of his biography in Latin, "Annales Rerum Gestarum Angliae et Hiberniae Regnate Elizabetha", the first part appearing in 1615 and the second part in 1617. The complete work in English was published in 1625. It went through several subsequent editions throughout the 17th century. Although the work is heavily biased against the perceived threat of "Papists", those loyal to the Roman Catholic Church, Camden's biography upholds as one of the great primary sources of Elizabeth's reign.

---

Regnal number

In her time, was she referred to as "Queen Elizabeth I of England", or just "Queen Elizabeth of England"? I've heard it said that the regnal number isn't used until the 2nd monarch of that name comes along, because up till then, there was by definition only one monarch of that name, and thus no need to disambiguate that monarch from any other. For example, Queen Victoria is never known as "Victoria I". But if there were ever another one, then the first one would be renamed "Victoria I" and the new one would be "Victoria II". Same is true of King John, who is never "John I". If that policy held with Elizabeth I, she would have been known as just "Queen Elizabeth" right up till 1952, and only then would she have become "Elizabeth I". Is this actually the case, and if not, why would the regnal number have been used before it was actually necessary? Or is there more to regnal numbers than mere disambiguation. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, JackofOz! As late as 1934, she was simply Queen Elizabeth, as is shown in the original title of a very popular biography by J. E. Neale. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)