Talk:Elizabeth I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Homosexual?

Given her appearance and her not marrying or having children, is it safe to assume that she was a lesbian? It would not be that unusual during the period.

Just because someone remains single does not mean they are homosexual. And I believe it would be very unusual for the period, considering every denomination of Christianity at that time regarded homosexuality as a sin. Many still do. 72.77.160.102 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearance

A key problem eith this theory (and others of the same ilk) is that a reigning monarch is never entirely out of the public eye. Any pregnancy approching full term (which this would have to be, given 16th-century medicine) would be dang near impossible to hide. And remember, conspiracies have a way of leaking, and nothing credible along these lines has leaked.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

What is Wikipedia's guidance on the term, Roman Catholic, especially in this period of history? Surely the term, as widely and casually used as it is in Wikipedia, betrays systemic bias. The terms Roman rites, Roman authority - these are legitimate descriptions. But it is a necessary inference from the use of the term Roman Catholic that the church is not universal; the universality of the church is a matter for theological debate, and therefore the inference is not legitimate. In fact, the use of the term in a Wikipedia article that isn't dealing with that theological debate is ignorant.

What drivel. The Catholic church had divided long before the period of Elizabeth. To suggest by the use of the single word "Catholic", which simply means universal, that this was not the case would be ignorance and propaganda.

A church that is divided, or described as Roman, cannot be described as catholic - it's not a matter of propaganda, but of accurate terminology. The discussion page on the article Roman Catholic Church, and its equivalent in French Wikipedia, demonstrate the controversy over this. And why describe a reasoned argument as drivel?--shtove 21:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic" can surely reflect an intent or aim rather than the current actuality, can it not? Regardless of that, the original poster's assertion that the division of the Catholic church (into "Roman" and other sects) is a matter of debate is drivel and not a reasoned argument since it flies in the face of the facts without any support whatsoever. It is nonsense. 213.78.235.176 13:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A few points in response to the above comments:

1. "Roman Catholic" is not a precise term. The Catholic Church actually contains many rites, one of which is the Roman or Latin rite. There are other Eastern rites, which are still in communion with Rome. For example, Coptic Catholics from Egypt are no less Catholic than are Roman Catholics, despite the fact of a different rite. In other words, there are Catholics in communion with Rome, who are not part of the Latin rite. In the West (Europe), after the Protestant Reformation, they became known as "Roman Catholics", or "Papists", because Europe, on account of its geography and history, contained Latin rite Catholics. Unfortunately, this belies an ignorance that there are other non-Latin rite Catholics in the world.

2. The Catholic church has never "divided". Division assumes that you have two of the same thing after the process of division is completed. Clearly that's not the case since what causes division is that one group believes differently than another group. People have separated themselves, for whatever reason, from communion throughout history. This is not an argument that the Catholic Church is not universal. The invitation is always made to all people. Yet people are always free to reject the invitation. That's free will. Many have done so. In some cases, however, the case of Elizabeth I being a good example, people are not free to accept the invitation, because that invitation carries a death sentence, banishment, loss of property, and/or a charge of treason. That doesn't make the Catholic Church less universal in its availability. What Christ offers, no man can take away, try as they might. There are still Catholics in England, in spite of the murders of St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Edmund Campion, and the persecutions, suppressions and murders of countless English Catholics in the run up to and during the Protestant Reformation.

24.6.123.226 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)C. Sand

The term 'Roman Catholic' is, in fact, entirely necessary when discussing the Elizabethan Church or the Church at any point after the reign of Henry VIII. The common misconception of Henry VIII's reform of the Church in England was that he moved away from Catholicism and towards the establishment of Protestantism in England. This view is entirely incorrect as he merely moved away from Roman Catholicism and established a kind of 'Anglo-Catholicism' in England. He still believed in the doctrine and practices of the Catholic Church but disagreed with the idea of the church of his realm be ruled over by an external power. He wanted to ensure that he had control over the church in his country because he recognised the tremendous power which it wielded as well as realising the enormous wealth and revenue which he could have gained from it.

"1066 and All that" says that "the Pope and all his followers seceded from the Church of England, that was called the Reformation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.220.59 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased against Catholicism?

Read this article and tell me if you think it is biased against Catholicism. If you agree, please change it.

I don't think that it is particularly biased against Catholicism, but I do think that in the "Religious Settlement" section there is an error in a hyperlink in regard to "Consubstantial" as opposed to "Transubstantial" views of the Eucharist in the 1559 religious settlement changes. The hyperlinked "Consubstantial" should take the reader to the entry on "Consubstantiation" rather than the entry on the definition of consubstantial in terms of the relative nature of the three persons of the Holy Trinity (homoousious). I do not know how to edit the link but please someone DO edit it. Consubstantiation refers to the doctrine (espoused by Luther) that the consecrated elements of bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ WITH and IN the bread and wine and remain so for a period limited to the reception of them by the faithful, rather than the Catholic view of the consecrated elements becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ (body, blood, soul and divintiy) in a corporeal sense UNDER the APPEARANCES of the species of bread and wine. the doctrine of Transubstantiation is (in my view) much maligned and generally misunderstood, drawing as it does so much on the philosphical concepts of "accident" and "substance", however the link to "Consubstantial" will presently do NOTHING to inform the reader. The difference in the link is VITAL to the sentence. Wombala 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The author of the religious settlement section appears not to know the difference between a liturgy and a litany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.149.248 (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC) The French at least enacted the Edict Of Nantes protecting protestanst during the same era as Elizabeth 1 reign. However under her reign 20,000 English Catholics were hanged per year 20k times 40 = 800,000. No doubt this was due to the English law if you denounce a Catholic you get his property. And hanging then was a very slow process of dying. The good news the Odious Cromwell met his fate in the Tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.108.45 (talk) 12:41, May 14, 2007 Should a sober work of history use the word "odious"? He was certainly a cruel person, but so was Henry VIII, both his daughters, Elizabeth's minister Walsingham, and many others. Why single out Cromwell ?

not enough information and it stinks

not enough information and it stinks

Could you perhaps be a little more specific, anonymous user? Marnanel 19:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is James I the same nephew?

Under "Death", section 7: In later years[...] she showed an inclination towards her nephew, ironically the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, whom she had executed; but she never officially named him. [...] She was succeeded by James I of England, who was already James VI of Scotland.

Is James I the same nephew mentioned in that first sentence? He seems to be, from his own page, but it's not terribly clear. --Suitov

---

Yes they are the same people, as Elizabeth had no children, her nearest heir was her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, who could have expected to inherit the English throne had she not been executed. Therefore the line passed down to Mary's son (Elizabeths nephew)James who was already King of Scotland and became King James I of England.

---

James wasn't really Elizabeth's nephew. As Mary, Queen of Scots was her first cousin once removed, James would have been her first cousin twice removed, correct? Not disagreeing with the line of succession, just the terminology, and I would want to have it correct in case of any future editing.Prsgoddess187 15:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As the daughter of one who is obsessed with his family tree, I know how to work out all this cousin business, and James VI is indeed the first-cousin-twice-removed, NOT the nephew, of Elizabeth I. A nephew/niece can only come from the child of one's siblings. However, I would suppose that in his or a similar situation one would call the elder by 'Auntie', simply as a term of endearment and that 'cousin' indicates that they are equal on the family tree, which he is not. If you sketch out the family tree (I'm not sure how to do that on Wikipedia) you can see that there are two lines, one culminating in Elizabeth, and the other twice as long, passing through Mary of Scots and ending in James. The lines are joined way back at Henry VIII, whose sister is James' great-Grandmother.

Of course, I'm splitting hairs here. Nephew works just as well, but it's worth mentioning on both pages that James is not the nephew, and is really a distant cousin, of Elizabeth. Lady BlahDeBlah 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

YEah be more specific

who, what, were, when, and why, and the exeptional how

I think that there should be more information on who, what, were, when, and why, and the exeptional how!! it is a wonderful sight but that would really make it stand out

Could you be more specific? To what section are you referring?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

URGENT NOTE HELP:

In the process of adding a new link to additional text on the page Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, pointing to robert dudley son of leycester, duca de northumbria, the page created was named Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester, CONSEQUENTLY REDIRECTING THE LINK Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester on this page TO THE WRONG ADDRESS.

Correct page being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley%2C_1st_Earl_of_Leicester

Faedra.

You could just go to the redirect page and modify the link, you know. I've changed it now. Marnanel 15:38, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Captions

Hey Emsworth, I realise that Wikipedia:Captions says that captions may be ommitted for biographical articles, but that doesnt mean they have to. I often prefer reading image captions rather than the introductory paragraph. If you feel there's too much clutter, we could cut it down some. Deepak 23:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose captions for main images in biographical articles. They are, I think, utterly redundant; all important information should be given in the article text. The caption should merely indicate that the individual depicted is indeed the subject of the article. Captions are only appropriate, I believe, where the subject of the image is not, completely and exactly, the subject of the article. -- Emsworth 23:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's a matter of opinion. So what if someone adds an interesting caption to a picture of a person in a biographical entry? I don't see any harm in it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh... the first thing I noticed about this article was the unusual (I thought) lack of caption. I'd have liked to have seen some info about when the picture was painted, by whom, and if it was to commemorate any particular occasion. PMcM 16:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Extensive captions near the introductory paragraph seem aesthetically displeasing. -- Emsworth 16:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find having to type using a keyboard aesthetically displeasing, unfortunately I'm stuck with it until a better alternative comes along.

If you don't want a big caption, could you maybe add a lot more info to the image description page instead? (Wikipedia:Captions#Tips_for_describing_pictures)

I'm still inclined to agree with Wikipedia:Captions#Exceptions_to_the_rules: Images of the subject of biographical articles (A good caption is best, no caption is okay. A year for the photo is important).PMcM 11:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reign of Elizabeth I(1533-1603), Queen of England and Ireland was remarkable for its political and religous stability.

So can we evolve a consensus on this now? How about this? Deepak 16:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disagree: the exception noted above is appropriate. All information in the caption will just be redundant with the introduction paragraph. In non-biographical articles, the caption should indicate the relationship of the picture to the article. But in biographies, the relationship is quite clear to almost every user. Captions are meant to identify, not tell the story—that role is to be played by the article itself. -- Emsworth 13:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree, and neither does Wikipedia:Captions. People read articles in different ways: some may read the caption before the opening paragraph, so a proper caption sentence can draw them in read the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a picture book. I don't think that captions should be used as interest-catchers, for the purpose of the article is not to excite the reader, but to inform him (or her). You cite Wikipedia:Captions. According to it, however, "no caption is okay" for biographical articles. (It also says "A good caption is best"—this is subject to interpretation; as I see it, a caption indicating [a] the subject of the picture and [b] the relationship with the article is "good." The subject of the picture is clearly identified as "Elizabeth I"; the relationship is obvious and need not be re-iterated.) One of the primary participants in the project, User:Ke4roh, states on the talk page: "A caption's job is to tie a picture to an article." By identifying the image as that of Elizabeth I, our caption quite clearly ties the picture to the text. The same user also declares, "Nominative pictures (which simply serve as an example of the subject of the article with no further information) generally don't need captions at all." -- Emsworth 17:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(I note that, although previously opposed, I have accepted captions for other portraits on the page. But for the first image, the relationship with the article is abundantly clear; I strenuously oppose any extensive caption in this case. -- Emsworth 17:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Other than Emsworth, who is implacably opposed, the consensus (the other four people to have commented) is to add one. Just as a point of information, someone has created a biography infobox - see Galileo Galilei. I don't like that particular implementation very much, but something along those lines could be a good idea. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't realise that the tyranny of the majority was going to come in to effect; please let me register my concordance with Emsworth.

James F. (talk) 11:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tyranny - moi? Just trying to reach a consensus ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So the majority would like a caption, and Emsworth is against an extensive caption. A compromise seems to be in order; perhaps a caption that isn't too extensive. A single sentence would probably suffice. Something like "Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland, is also known as the Virgin Queen." That's short enough to not be aesthetically displeasing, it succinctly describes the subject of the photo and it draws people into the body of the article. Quoting Wikipedia:Captions, "Different people read articles different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through for other interesting information, looking specially at pictures and captions. For those readers, even if the information is adjacent in the text, they won't find it unless it's in the caption — but don't tell the whole story in the caption — use the caption to make the reader curious about the subject." We could probably come up with better captions that are interesting without being unnecessarily verbose. -- Nitishkorula 04:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes Im fine with that, although I would still like a little bit more in there, something to do with the remarkable nature of her reign, but i think this is a good compromise. Emsworth? Deepak 18:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about a description of the portrait, which would certainly not be redundant with the introduction (my main problem with the captions previously proposed)? Something like: 'In the "Ermine Portrait" (above) Elizabeth I is shown with an ermine, a symbol of royalty.' -- Emsworth 19:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's an good idea; it certainly provides interesting and non-redundant information. As a matter of fact, I had wondered about the ermine myself. Deepak's point about the remarkable nature of her reign is also worth considering, though, and closer to what I originally thought. In a perfect world, we would be able to combine the two in a natural way instead of concatenating two unrelated concepts. Would all royals be pictured with an ermine, or only strong / successful monarchs? Ermines are also a symbol of purity - would that have had anything to do with it? -- Nitish 05:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Elizabeth in the "Ermine Portrait" by Nicholas Hilliard, 1585 (at Hatfield House): the allegorical royal ermine wears a crown collar.

A better caption style (illustration, right), referred to in the text, as you see. Captionless images are just décor. Good captions make the reader look again at the image, identify the image precisely, give a link if necessary, (Nicholas Hilliard deserves an entry) and also relate the image to the text. Now that the frame of thumbnailed images is no longer cardboard gray, they are much less offending. Wetman 23:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that the caption proposed looks somewhat messy; moreover, it is not a complete sentence. I would prefer: Elizabeth I is depicted in the above "Ermine Portrait" (by Nicholas Hilliard in 1585) beside an allegorical royal ermine. -- Emsworth 00:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is good, but to retain some of the pleasing consistency between the captions for the various English monarchs, how about:

Elizabeth I
Queen of England and Ireland
depicted in the "Ermine Portrait" (by Nicholas Hilliard in 1585) beside an allegorical royal ermine.

To maintain the consistency, the other royal protraits will also need a short caption along these lines. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That, I am afraid, seems even more inelegant (esp. due to the insertion of "Queen of England and Ireland"). The general format, I think, should be: King N. is depicted in the [special name of portrait if any/ above portrait] by X. in Year. [Comments specific to portrait included as appropriate.] -- Emsworth 23:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Extensive captions are needed for historical portraits: all of Elizabeth's portraits were part of her propaganda, contributing ultimately to the perception of her as Gloriana and the Virgin/Faerie Queen: as a document, each should carry at least a date and an attribution. Turn to the article on the Spanish armada and you will find such information for the picture displayed there (Battle of Gravelines), which allows you to understand that the picture is representative merely of an exaggerated early-Romantic appreciation of the historical event. Elegance in an article rests with the thought and expression, not in the attractions that the wrapper may hold for some sparkly twit.--shtove 21:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

References

The Wikipedia:Cite sources specifically says:

Wikipedia has no shortage of space, so you need not abbreviate names; a good guideline is to list them as they are written in the original article/book.

- Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Queen of England, Ireland, and...France

From Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

Hi,

Elizabeth I was also Queen of France. Since the 100 years war, the English monarch was also king (or queen) of France. It's only George III who cancelled that title, after the French revolution. Of course, that title was purely nominal, the true king of France being the French monarch. --User:62.161.27.52

Anyone know what the convention is for putting things like this in the box? -- 217.42.48.241

"The box" -- what box? →Raul654 21:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Elizabeth, however, did not give up her claim to the French Crown, which had been maintained since the reign of Edward III during the period of the Hundred Years' War in the fourteenth century, and was not renounced until the reign of George III during the nineteenth century.

This sentence is in the article, and i think it's enoughIlluvatar 21:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about Wales however? I cant see it mentioned anywhere in the article even though the Tudor dynasty is of Welsh ancestry and that the Kingdom of England since the reign of Henry VIII meant England and Wales?

Wales remained a principality, not a kingdomJatrius 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Title

Wikipedia policy is not to use ordinals where they are redundant -- for instance the article Victoria I of the United Kingdom was moved to Victoria of the United Kingdom. This article is therefore anomalously titled and should really be moved to Elizabeth of England since there never was an Elizabeth II of England. -- Derek Ross | Talk

You point out that there was never an "Elizabeth II of England." You would be correct; there is no "Elizabeth I of England," either; both titles are inventions of Wikipedia policy. But, now, since there is no "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" other than Elizabeth II, do we move Her present Majesty's article to "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom?" Shall we move "William IV of the United Kingdom" to "William of the United Kingdom?" Of course not. As the numbering of the British and English monarchs has been continuous, it would be appropriate to use the first ordinal. Your example with Victoria, I believe, is not applicable here, as there has not been an English or British monarch of the same name since. But, there has been a second Queen named Elizabeth (the present Queen, of course), and therefore there must have been a first Queen of the same name: Elizabeth I. -- Emsworth 12:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, the three crowns (England, Ireland and Scotland) are, and always have been, inherited separately, though conferred on coronation together. Wales, I suppose, remains a royal principality.--shtove 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Wales is was part of the Kingdom of England from the reign of Henry VIII until the Act of Union in 1707 created Great Britain. The Principality of Wales is a title granted by the English/British Crown.

Personal Trivia

Elizabeth I has a lot of mention in various trivia books of varying authenticity, and some downright weird stuff is going around. Any truth to any of this?

• She only bathed twice in her life
• She was totally bald
• Her glass coffin exploded at her funeral, but her body somehow remained intact

I would believe a commoner of that time period bathing only twice in his life, but not a monarch. I also doubt that she was totally bald, but I would believe either of those two over the last one. If any of that did turn out to be true, though, it would certainly merit a mention here. --BDD 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth actually bathed rather often for someone of the time (monthly). She wasn't bald but towards the end of her life she did wear a variety of wigs which varied in color from strawberry blond to deep red. I guess this is where the bald myth came from. One true thing you missed was that she was missing most of her teeth by her early thirties and the few she had were black. She would stuff rags into her cheeks to keep them from having a sunken appearence. Never heard the exploding coffin myth though. Glass coffins were not typical for the era though. 5/12/05 MK

"The Virgin Queen"

I had always heard that despite her nickname, Elizabeth's actual virginity was questionable. Has anyone else heard anything of the sort? --BDD 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Depending on what you read, some say that her virginity was questionable (not that I can name any sources off the top of my head). She did have a few "favourites" in her time, including the Earl of Essex. Of course, she never gave birth, but I suppose there are other reasons of her not being pregnant but still having sex. Maybe someone else could clarify this further? ♪ Craigy ♫ 14:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, when she was 17, she had an affair with a palace guard. She also had many other things like that thoughout her life.--The Republican 00:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)The Republican

What about her infatuation with Thomas Seymour when she was sent to live with Catherine Parr? It certainly establishes her as a passionate woman ... is there any truth to that story? I've also read that Thomas Hatton was a favourite. 59.93.245.85 06:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Mrs S.

I don't think the infatuation with Seymour that you mention really can be used to establish a pattern. She was, I think, about 15 at the time and on the recieving end of Seymour's attentions – not the instigator of them. Catherine Parr participated to some extent, but apparently got worried about where it might end up, and sent Elizabeth elsewhere. As for Hatton, he was one of the Queen's favorites, but as such is one of several. The more "famous" of her favorites are Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and his stepson Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What if she didn't exactly favor men opposed to women?

I would like to state that the title "Virgin Queen" shouldn't be taken so litteraly. She has been known to court with a few young/older men, but the fact is that the name is established because she was never married. She was the Virgin Queen because she never had a King. Her position was too awkward to marry anyone. Virginia is also named after the "Virgin Queen" when the english colonized that region.

A carefully-word section has been added to address this concern. The content is most common-sense rather than information specific to the subject, but it should help to address this common topic of discussion. -- 199.33.32.40 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is one aspect of Elizabeth's virginity that has not been mentioned. For over thirty years of her reign Spain was her inveterate enemy, and with their unbounded resources maintained a network of spies at her court, ready to pick up on any piece of gossip. The fact that never once did they claim to have proof of her loss of virginity would seem to me to make her lifelong virginity one of the best attested facts of histoty. Plerdsus 12:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't read easily

The text doesn't seem to flow well. It's almost like I'm reading bullet points, except they're grouped together into rather random-feeling paragraphs! Or is it just me? --Rebroad 20:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous edits of 12 September 2005 have improved this - more like it are needed; but is it right to Americanise (Americanize?) the spelling?

No, it's against policy. Proteus (Talk) 23:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Americanizing spelling is against policy?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Slave trade

"Elizabeth has also been criticised for supporting the English slave trade." Is this history? Historians don't write or think like this. --Wetman 28 June 2005 05:25 (UTC)

See the most recent para. in this Talk page, on 29/11/2007. See "Source of Info".

Revert warring over titles

This is getting silly. Please take this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and find out what the consensus is before you make further changes to the names in this and several related articles. Rl 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Revisionists

Regardless of being a "featured article", the history page for this article is another display of Wikipedia's weaknessess and why such projects can never rival a "real" encyclopedia with real editors. The article may as well be deleted for all the use it will be to anyone researching the topic and looking for reliable information.

I don't get the point - please expand.--shtove 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I do like the concept behind open source, but Wikipedia is far from being a compedium of facts, just an open forum for ideological debate. I'm not even interested in labeling this article pro-Catholic or Protestant or whatever. The fact that these two figures are even being likened at all is asinine, given as has already been mentioned, the difference in the length of the reigns and certainly, the extent to which either actually governed and excercized their decision-making power (rather than allowing the royal cabinet de facto rule). --Jentizzle 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth is long gone but there is still a regular attempt to spin the article in a pro-(specific type of) Catholic way. The idea that "Bloody Mary" was not remarkable for the rate at which she had enemies executed, and the similar repeated uses of the words "spurious" or "dubious" in the section on the evidence at MQoS's trial are things that an editor would prevent. The "spurious" example is the worse of the two because it shows how easy it is to undermine an article. If someone has a reason to make that statement about the evidence, a real editor in a real encyclopaedia would surely request more information than that one word. But on Wikipedia anyone can come along and slot such a thing in and then wander off again. Once such an oversight is corrected, a real encyclopaedia editor does not have to check every day to make sure it hasn't come back.

Subtle issues like this are the bane of Wikipedia, far more than the obvious vandalisms which even an naive researcher would spot. To go away from an article on Elizabeth with the impression that historians regard her as no less bloody or tolerant than her sister, or that there are good reasons to doubt the evidence at MQoS's trial, or any one of a million other simple revisions that could slip through the review process for days or weeks, would be a failure of the system. Yet it is a very real possibility even here on an article one would have thought was reasonably uncontentious. What hope is there for an article about, say, the causes of 911, or the troubles in Northern Ireland, which are very much live and sensitive issues? 12:40, 10 Oct 2005

I disagree. The body of the article reflects traditional protestant views of Elizabeth, and I think at one stage the tiresome contrast of Mary's rabid catholicism to Elizabeth's shrewd protestantism was cemented in like a cenotaph. Academic historians have graduated beyond those views, as a result of deeper research in various collections of papers; they tend to view the old-style political glorification of the reign as distorting of the truth and, frankly, stodgy. For example, it is only in the past twenty years that significant space has been given in works published in Britain to Elizabeth's reign in Ireland, which yielded the most important setbacks and developments for crown government and foreign policy in the decade 1595-1605; prior to that, a book of 500pp on Elizabeth might have devoted a mere 10pp to this subject. I point this out to show that the historical picture is becoming more accurate and, in my view, the emphasis has become far more interesting. If it finds its way into the article then the emphasis should be welcomed (although a comparative head-count of persecution between the two queens is suited to journalism). It certainly isn't revisionism. If someone nips in every so often with an ill-advised point of view that goes against the facts or betrays bias, then there's a crowd of people out there to put it right: Eternal Vigilance. Also, I think if you avoid the bright lights and explore the alleyways, you'll find articles on the less well known figures from the period that are not subject to this, and which occasionally are more instructive than print sources.--80.4.252.22 16:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

objectivity

It is important to avoid value judgements in historical work. " a successful monarch" whose "record was blemished" is not history but opinion. It is interesting that E was seen as successful, but the term is completely subjective - successful in defending whose interests ?

Her own. She was successful in keeping her head attached to her body in a time when many factions wished to remove it, which makes her a successful politician if nothing else. 213.78.235.176 13:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a problem, not with editors putting in points of view, but with such points of view as are not neutral. This is my understanding of WikiWorld - am I mistaken?--shtove 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

London Tower, then Woodstock, Oxfordshire, then Hatfield, Hertfordshire

Maybe two slight corrections could be made to the article.

Instead of Quote: After two months in the Tower, Elizabeth was released but kept under house arrest in the care of Sir Henry Bedingfield at Hatfield;

Read: After two months in the Tower (18 March-19 May 1554), Elizabeth was released but kept under house arrest at Woodstock, Oxfordshire, then was allowed to stay at her residence in Hatfield, Hertfordshire.

And instead of Quote: Though Philip II aided her in ending the Italian Wars with the Peace of Cateau Cambrésis, Elizabeth remained independent in her diplomacy.

Read: Elizabeth ratified the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis established on 3 April 1559, bringing peace with France.

(England and Elizabeth I were not involved in the Italian wars.)

Charles Blount

Is there any basis for the description of the Baron wearing scarves? Ariasne 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is, in Sean O'Faoilean's book The Great O'Neill - but the description is not appropriate to this article (my fault). Remove at will.--shtove 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

'her father's enormous girth'

From what I recall, Henry VIII was only fat in his later years. The armour he wore as a young man (still preserved) shows he was muscular but not vast. Also, artists probably increased his physique to make him look more intimidating. Perhaps this should be edited?

I believe that what you are saying is quite correct. But, when Her Royal Highness (later Her Majesty) was living as a teenager, her father was quite obese. In other words, because he lived through Elizabeth's life as a fat person, it shouldn't need editing.

the Great

There as been a movement in recent years to give her the honor of being a Great. This was started by Elizabeth Jenkins, an authoress. Please keep my refernce to this in the article. I'd be much obliged.

Saucy

Why has flirtatious just been changed to saucy?--shtove 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reinserting flirtatious. — Grstain 12:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Language

I have added in the list of language flemish, as she was fluent in it.

Just out of curiosity, what's your source for this? I know that Elizabeth was fluent in many langages, so I won't say Flemish wasn't one of them, but it's not really one of the "standard" languages one might expect someone to learn. (Perhaps it was nearer to being one of the "standard" foreign languages back then than it is now.)  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Scurvy edit

Don't like this edit (in bold, l.39):

• "Sometimes referred to as The Virgin Queen (since she was never married, to a man, although she was said to be married to her country)"

It's a repetition of propaganda and should be deleted.--shtove 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Elizabeth used this rationale herself. It might be a good idea to keep it in the article, but in such a way that makes it clear that this was the propoganda she used.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between Mary Stuart and Elizabeth I

I think Mary is not cousin of Elizabeth. Mary's grandmother Margaret Tudor is the elder sister of Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father. So Mary should be Elizabeth's niece.--Heroyog 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Margaret Tudor and Henry VIII were brother and sister. Henry's daughter Elizabeth would be first cousins with Margaret's son James V of Scotland. Therefore, James's daughter Mary would be Elizabeth's first cousin, once removed see here, their common ancestor is Henry VII of England, Elizabeth's grandfather and Mary's great-grandfather. Prsgoddess187 12:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wootage. Aren't family trees fun. James VI is also Lizzie's first-cousin-twice-removed, as per my long ramble above (didn't know this was down here!!) Just remember though, if you ever see a diagonal line on a family tree, more often than not it means various family members were gettin' jiggy with it when they weren't supposed to!! XP Lady BlahDeBlah 15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When I read Antonia Fraser's book on Henry VIII's wives, I noticed something interesting on the family tree at the front of the book: Henry and all six of his wives shared a common ancester — I'm pretty sure it was Edward I.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Levina Teerlinc

The WP article on this artist (which needs work) doesn't attribute this portrait to her. Christopher Haigh Elizabeth I (2001) ISBN 0582472784 states it's probably by William Scrots in 1546. Perhaps the Coronation Portrait, in which the crowned queen has her left hand on an orb, is the one that is possibly attributable to Teerlinc?--shtove 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Drake

According to the article on Francis Drake, he was the first person to circumnvaigate the globe, not just the first Anglo, Magellan having died en route. Fishhead64 21:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Magellan died en route, but he certainly was not the only person on board. According to the article on Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate would be either Juan Sebastián Elcano or Magellan's servant Henry the Black (in addition to 17 other crew members). Although Drake might be the first "famous" person, he certainly was not the first absolutely. Massimo377 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Regarding the various names given to the Queen, there have been several changes to this section of the introduction in the past few months. For instance, within the past few days an edit was made that identified E.R.I as "The Faerie Queen", changed from "The Faere Queen", the latter of which I suspect is the correct nomenclature. In the absence of proof of some definative, I am editing to return the article to its former state. Of course there should be as much input on the subject as possible, but to justify the reversion I would point out that Elizabeth, who was "The Virgin Queen" was not a Faerie or any other kind of mythical beast. I am assuming of course that a modern interpretation of "The Faere Queen" would be "The Fair Queen". I thank you in advance for your consideration. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume Faerie Queen comes from the allegorical poem of the same title, which Edmund Spenser dedicated to Eliz I.--shtove 08:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hamster sandwich, having made my first contribution to the wikipedia today, with an edit of the Elizabeth I page, I can assure you that the name Faerie queen does indeed come from the famous poem written about her by Edmund Spenser. See for example, http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/texts.htm many thanks, Elisabeth.

Monarch of Canada?

Was Elizabeth recently categorised as a Monarch of Canada because of the British Colonies in what would later become Canada during her reign? If so, is that really correct categorisation - my Canadian history isn't very good, but I didn't think there was really anything that could be called "Canada" at the time. Advice of the more informed requested.  :-) --Estarriol ^talk 08:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of the technicalities of this. On the same principle, she should be categorised as monarch of the United States because of the Roanoke colony. I don't fink so. There's an odd urge on WP among British nationalists and fellow travellers to claim credit for everyone and everything that's ever been in the last 1000 years eg. British Empire contains a claim to western France, the Netherlands, parts of Germany and Italy!--shtove 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Eliazbeth I was monarch over the colony of Newfoundland, which is today, of course, a part of Canada. It's true she was also monarch over territory in what is now the United States, but the difference there is that in becoming the United States ties to the Tudor/Stuart/Hanover/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor line were completely broken, whereas what is now known as Canada emerged under the relations of Elizabeth I, and they still form the line of succession to the Canadian Crown today. As Canadian Senator Serge Joyal said in his pamphlet Canada: A Constitutional Monarchy "Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development. Under the Crown, Canada developed first as a colony of two empires, originally the French and subsequently the British, then as an independent dominion, and now as an entirely sovereign nation."

Perhaps my naming of the category was unclear, but I based it on the section Monarchs of Canada in Monarchy in Canada, and thought it was sufficient to state that the list included monarchs of New France, British North America and Canada. --gbambino 15:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Humphrey Gilbert turned up in Newfoundland in 1583 and for a few weeks waved his papers about on behalf of Elizabeth - apparently annoying the hell out of the international fishing fleet who were there doing a real job - before grounding one ship and then going down with another on the return voyage. I'm not sure anything was done by the English after that until 1610. So, if it's okay to list a monarch of Canada from such an early period, I guess the first English one would be James I.--shtove 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Henry VII of England was the first English monarch in Newfoundland. Did you know that Mary I of England was a joint monarch in New Spain? IP Address 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Newfoundland only became part of Canada in 1949, Elizabeth was certainly not monarch of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.224.153 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor Amy Dudley, always forgotten

Added a reference to Robert Dudley's wife which was missing, her existence being one of the bars to Elizabeth marrying Dudley had she really been committed to do so.

Alibi 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Amy Robsart's existance was only a bar to the marriage for the first few years of the Queen's reign. Robsart died under suspicious circumstances in 1560, and the uproar would have made it dufficult, from a public-relations standpoint, for Elizabeth to marry Dudley. But really, the thing that really prevented Elizabeth from marrying Dudley was her insistance that she would not marry one of her subjects.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary films

Elisabeth is currently the subject of an HBO Mini Serie: "Elisabeth I". http://www.hbo.com/films/elizabeth/index.html

Lizzie The 1st's Death?

I just watched the 2 part series on HBO "Elizabeth 1(st)" I have to say that I was totally enthralled. I as an american, don't know much at all about the history of the British Monarchy, and found it to be a very moving portrail. Well acted, excellent writing, a supurb piece of cimematic Storytelling. It's just that it glossed over some areas, (as ofcourse it must have or I'd still be watching to now.) It was a 2 part movie both parts lasting about 3 hours. It made me realize the heartaches, trials and tribulations, a member of the Monarchy goes through, especially if you're a woman back in those days. It left the ending of her life though, a bit vague. How did Elizabeth The 1st Die? According to the movie, it seemed as though she more or less "willed" herself to death, due the heartache of her having to cause the execution of one of the men she loved dearly and privately. I think it was the Earl of Lester, and his stepson. In history, whats written as her cause of death?

P.S. I suggest to anyone that wants to see a good piece of acting, writing and directing, as well as the costumes, to see it. Now I'm currious as to what other movies that actress has played, she kept me glued to the screen, (as did the story itself) and there aren't many films being made today, with such care to detail, and excellence. I feel for her, never having married, and not being allowed to marry the men she did fall in love with due to her position. Now I'm going to be looking more deeply into the British Monarchy of the 15 and 16 hundreds.

Thank You

Bruce

Yeah, I thought that was well done. Eliz I seemed to lose the will to go on and just gave up the ghost. I'm not aware of any diagnosed cause. Certainly, in her last years she was under great pressure as the factions led by Robert Cecil and Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex jockeyed for position in preparation for the next reign. And living up to the propaganda probably sapped her. The actress, Helen Mirren, recently played Eliz II in another film, for which she has also been acclaimed. She's the one who stepped up to receive an award at this year's Emmys and said, "I nearly fell arse over tit coming up those steps". And didn't Judy Dench get an Oscar for playing Eliz I in the Shakespeare film?--Shtove 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

proper english please

I have just recently edited AGAIN. The abuse of English is horrible. A sentence should never be more than 2 lines long and yet people are writing things that seem to go on for days. I made 4 sentences out of one. What's going on? And some people deleting references attached to certain people like Anne Boleyn's title of Pembroke? Henry gave it to her to elevate her more before he married her so it wouldn't seem like that bad of an idea. Why would someone delete it? I do agree about some things being taken out because they misleading and subjective. But some things, like well-known rumors that well-respected authors include in their books, should be left in. They are part of who Elizabeth is and what makes her so fascinating. All the drama and the fact that we'll probably never know is what attracts some people. Everyone has their own version of the story. As a place dedicated to informing people, we should present every side, not just the one we like best. Get it? beautiful1749 6/15/2006

I think the problem is that some stuff seems so strange people assume it's wrong. I've had to replace the fact that she was "Queen of France in name only" and can only assume someone thought it was a mistake. As for the bad english - well I'm afraid a lot of editors (including me) are not too strong on this so it's great that someone else reads it and improves it! BTW if you sign the end of your post with 4 tildas like this ~~~~ it will automatically expand into your username and th current time/date. Sophia 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of edits come from fans of romantic fiction/films/TV - they keep nipping in with tidbits, which disrupt the flow.--Shtove 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's some truth to that. Another possible source of such "nipping in" might come, inderectly, from historians. One of the reviews on Amazon.com of Retha Warnicke's book about Anne Boleyn said that some of Warnicke's weirder claims were blown out of proportion in one of the more recent fictional accounts of Boleyn's life. Said claims, for example, may work their way into inappropriate parts of the article in exaggerated form via the fictional work. They may also skip the fiction altogether, and appear — sourced and footnoted — from the original historical work.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

brief Question

Does any user know the referencing method used on the article? (As there are little or no citations throughout the article except for a few references at the very bottom). -- AJ24 July 12, 2006

Elizabeth I & Elizabeth?

i'am confuse between Elizabeth I(the queen after Queen Mary I)and Elizabeth(the queen after the King James I ).Can you tell me more about their matter during both their reign.

Elizabeth I was, as you said, Queen of England after her sister Mary I. This very same Elizabeth I was in turn succeded by her cousin, James I of England (VI of Scotland). King James was in turn succeded by Charles I, who, to my knowledge, did not marry an Elizabeth.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC); edited by the author, 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be referring to James' daughter Elizabeth, named after the queen that left him the throne, who became the Queen of Bohemia for a year, also known as the Winter Queen. However, she was never Queen of England, so that is merely a guess.

Early life

Are details available for Elizabeth's life prior to her early reign? --SparqMan 05:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Details of her earlier life were in previous versions but incredibly they have been deleted. It cannot be a full biography if it starts at the age of 25. Her relationship with her father, brother, sister, Katherine Champernowne and Katherine Parr are crucial elements of her life. JMcC 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, glad to see someone did something about it. Beautiful1749 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic persecution

There was a rather extensive persecution of Catholics during Elizabeth's reign, especially of priests, including such famous martyrs as Southwell and Campion. Perhaps something about this should be mentioned in the article.

Go ahead! You can link the contribution to the articles on Robert Southwell and Edmund Campion. No doubt you'll get resistance from those who describe the persecutions as prosecutions of traitors.--Shtove 15:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but don't lose perspective. Elizabeth's persecution of Catholics, while noteworthy, was nothing compared to her sister's persecution of Protestants.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Untrue - more catholics came under the cosh during Elizabeth's long reign, than did protestants during Mary's short reign. Plus, you're forgetting about the many slaughters and executions in Ireland, Elizabeth's forgotten realm. See Tudor re-conquest of Ireland.--Shtove 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wish to note that while Elizabeth did kill many more people in her reign, she was not on a religious crusade like her sister was; should Mary have lived I have no doubt she would have surpassed Elizabeth's final score, but more importantly Elizabeth most often framed her revenge in treason to the realm or throne. William Byrd, a devout Catholic, lived a peaceful life at court because he never engaged in plots to depose Elizabeth or betray the realm to foreign (including Popish) powers. Thomas Howard the Duke of Norfolk, however, was closely connected to the Northern Rebellion, which attempted to overthrow Elizabeth, the Church of England, and invite foreign rulers to invade the realm. Catholic threats to the safety of the realm were punished - 900 peasants were killed after the Northern Rebellion - but quiet practicers of the Old Faith were largely left alone by the queen. Here it is important to specify the difference between treasonous actions and religious practice.

Comparing head counts doesn't really help. The problem with Elizabeth's approach is that open practice of the catholic faith pretty much amounted to treason, depending on the will of the prosecutors (given that conviction on such a charge was a foregone conclusion). And William Cecil's Bloody Question - designed to put suspects on the spot - forced the faithful to deny their faith in order to affirm their allegiance to the Crown. And of course the priests were hunted, tortured, and put to death as traitors simply because of their presence in the realm. The distinctions are very difficult, and Elizabeth played an amazing hand in steering between the extremes. But she was not gentle by comparison with Mary. And that's even before we get started on Ireland.--Shtove 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is not up to the 'persecutor' to decide who is a 'martyr' and who isn't. If that were so, there would be no martyrs at all. 72.77.160.102 16:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Early reign

these "facts"

It is also said that Elizabeth first got the news of her sister's death when she was reading the bible sitting under a tree at Hatfield. A manservant came up to her and breathlessly said, "Your Majesty...". Elizabeth curtsied and replied, "It is God's doing and magnificent in our eyes."

are straight out of the fictional movie Elizabeth ...

Actually, what you describe is just one particular telling of an existing story (which, of course, may or may not be true). Elizabeth was said to have recieved the news of her accession while sitting under a tree — and I think it's been established at least that she was at Hatfield House — and to have replied to it with the Latin version of the phrase you give above. You might want to take a look at Alison Weir's The Life of Elizabeth I (ISBN 0345425502).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 21:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph hopefully clarifying things a little. Jel Mist 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the picture used in the Early Reign section is running over the top of some of the text. 66.57.225.77 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya'know, creating this kind of article would be a good idea for Elizabeth I. Some historical figures (including Good Queen Bess and Joan of Arc) seem to be magnets for biopics and fictionalizations.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please create more of these kind of articles on cultural depictions! Thanks, --164.107.92.120 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Henry V Pivotal in Comparison?

Shakespeare aside, the English -did- lose that war and thus all of Henry's gains within a bit more than a generation. While England remained at a national level decisively protestant into the 20th century. So the mention of Henry V as a pivotal monarch or any other claims of influence save the lasting impression his memory made on Englands idea of itself is strange. Wilhelm Ritter 03:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC) But self-image IS important, even, or especially, when it is in conflict with reality. That's why Richard I, who spent less than a year in England during his reign, remains important etc..Jatrius 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone for historical accuracy?

All this talk about grammar leaves me wondering if anyone's minding the store. There's a glaring 'vandalization' here: "The King enjoyed a string of affairs, one of which involved a woman named Dana who was a daughter of a suitor of the king's court. After secretly spending the night with Dana, King Henry got her pregnant, though evidence of the child's gender or whereabouts thereafter remained unknown." There are only 2 'recorded' mistresses for Henry VIII, and neither of them is named, "Dana" (they are Eliz. Blount and Anne Boleyn's sister, Mary). This entry should be for Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount, who bore the bastard, Henry Fitzroy for the king. Fitzroy's gender and existence is well documented; he was named Duke of Richmond by royal decree. I'm not bold enough to change this, wish someone would, or just notice it. Vstevensstoklosa 14:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I made the change

Vstevensstoklosa 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

On the 5th paragraph down, it reads:

channi is the biggest bitch the only surviving child of King Henry VIII of England by his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Marchioness of Pembroke.

Can someone repair this?

4.225.208.209 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's how to repair vandalism (you may want to keep this page open in a separate window):

1. Click on "Page History". The location of this link varies, depending on which skin you use, but you can't do change skins unless you're a registered user and signed in. Otherwise, look along the top of the article.
2. You'll see a list of versions of the article, starting with the current one. Click the one directly preceeding the vandalism.
3. This version will come up, looking mostly like it's current, but will have something saying it isnt. But you knew that already.
4. Click on the link to edit the pre-vandalism version.
5. No need to change anything, since this is, after all, the pre-vandalism version. Type something in the edit summary to say that you're reverting vandalism, rather than starting a revert war. Click on "Save Page".
6. That's it! Often, users will leave a note on the vandal's talk page, explaining why their vandalism was reverted. I don't bother, since I stick to reverting obvious vandalism. My logic is that these people are best dealt with by fixing the problem without giving the troublemakers any particular attention; they'll probably go away on their own once they figure out that their changes won't stick unless they add something to an article that should be there anyway.

Oh, and thanks for signing your question! We get plenty of people who don't.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Queen Elizabeth I ever kept a Diary?

I'm curious about this because I read her fictional Diary in The Royal Diaries series, and because of that, I want to know if she really had kept a diary in real life, especially her reign as Queen. I read the Diary of Queen Victoria in The Royal Diaries series also, and it said in it that Victoria herself had kept a diary in real life, but it never really said in Elizabeth's "Fictional" Diary that she had kept a diary in reality or not. So I like answers from you, as good as you can to answer this question of mind. Thanks.-Jana

_

I don't believe Elizabeth did. At least there's no evidence of it. Parts of Queen Victoria's diary were published and can be found on ebay, if you're interested. J.A.

Source needed for removed paragraph

Would someone be willing to source the following? Who says that there is intense controversy over Elizabeth's religious beliefs? Who says she sympathised with Catholicism? These seem rather controversial statements in their own right, without sources, so I've removed the text pending discussion and proper sourcing.

(There is intense controversy over what Elizabeth's true religious beliefs where, and it has been suggested that in many ways she sympathized with Catholicism.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reverse Gear (talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know of any sources for that. Certainly Calvinists and Presbyterians criticised her on account of the episcopal structure of the state church and the traces of catholic rites that remained. But she was thoroughly against papal authority, and from about 1580 the mere presence in the realm of a catholic priest invited a charge of treason and a certain death sentence.--Shtove 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add " I shall not set a window to look into men's souls". This is not a declaration of sympathy towards Catholicism, merely an active policy of seeking not to persecute, akin to modernday "don't ask, don't tell" with regard to homosexuality within US forces. To be a Roman Catholic in Elizabeth's reign was to acknowledge a higher temporal ruler, not just in the field of religion, but in the field of active power politics. This would have undermined the Elizabethan settlement, her authority, and ultimately her life should she not have demurred. Please also remember that the Anglican religion is also Catholic and properly the adherents of the Bishop of Rome should be termed ROMAN Catholics.Jatrius 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This article makes no mention of the lead-based cosmetics which 'ate away at her face'?

 

Two things. First, next time you edit a talk page, you might want to use a short subject header and include additional text in a paragraph directly after it. (It's a lot easier to tell what's a reply that way.) Second, and more to the point, what are your sources? I know Elizabeth used cosmetics, but do we knw that the ones that she used had lead in them? And where did you get the reference to them eating away at her face? I'm not trying to sound mean here, but I tend to think that the higher the popularity/noteriety, the more careful you gotta be about including (reliable) sources.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

no mention of revaluation of english coin

This article makes no mention of Queen Elizabeth's bold, decisive and ingenious plan that brought the english economy from the ruins of her father's reign, to world powerhouse. When she recalled english currency to be revalued, she had made a move that basically astonished everyone because she was a woman, and had the wisdom, and the guts to make such a bold move. Too much of this article sounds like opinion, rather than fact ("short-tempered and indecisive??") all one has to do is look at political decisions she made to refute that claim. An Historical figure like queen Elizabeth deserves much more thought and depth to an bographical article that we see here presently. much of the story is left untold, and therefore fails to convey the absolute genius of one of, if not the greatest leader history has ever produced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.253.131.90 (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

The article now says that she was decisive. I am no expert, but I can source a reference (Simon Schama's A History of Britain) who thinks she was indecisive, and gives examples. Can't find a tilde on the keyboard I am using, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.102.84 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mary of Scots

I added some detail about her trial and execution. I thought it was important to have this because it was a big deal to Elizabeth and the trone. Mary would no longer be threat. If I left out anything or added something that cannot be proven, I apologize. I tried to keep it short but have the important facts. If you do chage anything, let me know because I would be interested in how you expand or curtail it. Thanks Beautiful1749 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Inadvertent sexism

I assume that since we hear this phrase so much that this line was written without much thought:

"Henry would have preferred a son to ensure the Tudor succession, but Queen Anne failed to produce a male heir."

Sex is determined by the male, not female. The truth is that Henry failed to provide a Y chromosome. Queen Anne may have failed to produce a male heir by miscarrying, but is there any evidence of the sex of the children? So I'm changing this line just a bit.

Colby 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could rewrite that passage, explaining that at that time, women were blamed for the lack of male heirs.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Virginity

I'll wait a little bit to see if anyone has objections, but shouldn't the part about her virginity go at the end of the article? Right now, its between her early reign, and the conflict with France and Scotland; it appears out of place and it disrupts the flow of the article.

66.253.48.83 seems to have had a problem with it. the childish fool has writted "she obviously fucked everything which walked through". sad. just because his own life is so bad he goes and insults dead people.

The "Golden Speech"

I was surprised to find so little about one of the most famous speeches of her illustrious reign, except a red link, so I've gone and added a quotation, although I must admit to having some trepidation about editing a FA! JGHowes 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'Legislative Firsts'

"In 1563, Queen Elizabeth I re-enacted the Buggery Act 1533. It was first passed by Henry VIII in 1533, but was repealed just 20 years later - in 1553 - by Mary I of England." I have removed this, which had been given a section to itself, from the article. Not because I think it should not be in the article - if it is verifiable, it should - but because it is not notable or important enough to be in a section to itself (and the the section title - 'Legislative Firsts' - seems odd, if it had already been passed by Henry VIII). Rather, it should be integrated into the main text, or a section on laws passed in her reign should be implemented. Thanks. Michael Sanders 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Her Early Life

"One companion, to whom she referred with affection throughout her life, was her cousin, the Irishman Thomas Butler, later 3rd Earl of Ormonde (d. 1615)." Are you sure? Thomas Boleyn's title would have fallen to his viscount son, but he predeceased him and the title of Earl of Ormonde was reinstituted for the Butlers but I'm not aware of any blood relationship, in fact it is not made explicit by the Wiki's own entry to the title. In what way was she his cousin, or is this a misconstruction from the contemporary 'My Dear Cousin', in the same fashion as monarchs addressed each other as 'My Dear Brother'. Jatrius 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Boleyn, Elizabeth's grandfather, was a grandson of Thomas Butler, 7th Earl of Ormonde: indeed, Boleyn claimed the title 'Earl of Ormonde' (and, officially at least, eventually got it) because Butler died without sons, and Boleyn was one of his closest male heirs. The later Thomas Butler was a grandson of Piers Butler, 8th Earl of Ormonde, who was the closest male to the 7th Earl. According to Antonia Fraser, the Butlers and the Boleyns were reasonably involved with each other (although they scrapped over the Ormonde title); it was suggested that Anne Boleyn marry one of the Butlers (James Butler, 9th Earl of Ormonde, I presume) to sort out the inheritance issue. Michael Sanders 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Irish blood relations and degrees are a bit of a head banger. I think Thomas Boleyn established himself in Ireland during the 1520s, and I've come across an assertion that Anne Boleyn (or, Bullen) was born there - can't recall the source, but her biogs are too vague to discount this. The Boleyn connection to Ormond is clear - H8 even ordered the assassination of several Irish in-laws after Anne's execution. You could see it as a severing of the feudal connections, since it coincided with the beginning of the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland, during which the established order in Ireland was gutted and filleted. This article is stuffed with romantic tosh and protestant jubilation - the reality is more interesting, but a lot more difficult.--Shtove 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stage

I removed the mention of a stage production based on Elizabeth's life, since it was one put on by a university, and is of limited appeal to a wider audience. Someone can revert it if they think it's relevant. 24.59.112.218 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Poet and Writer

This article say that she was writer and poet but can somebody tel me more about that??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.57.226 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Refrained From Childbirth

Can you really refrain from child birth?

Yes, it's called abstinence!

SMUpony 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well not really, abstinence is refraining from the cause of birth. A teatotaler does not refrain from hangovers. I suggest saying that she refrained from sexual activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.102.84 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Definite Religious Bias in this article

I encourage Wikipedia to re-evaluate the text of this article. There is a strong religious bias in and about it. Below are a list of examples:

1. The Church of England was started by King Henry so he could divorce Catherine and marry Anne. The Church of England is'nt really a "Protestant" church like the Lutheran, etc. England was wholly Catholic prior to King Henry's act in which he appointed himself as head of the church in England. King Henry then proceeded to take all of the Catholic holdings (property and treasure) to fill his coffers.

2. Queen Mary (Elizabeth's predecessor) is noted as being labeled "Bloody Mary" for her supression of Protestants. However, little or no mention is made of the extremely bloody persecution by Elizabeth of the Catholics in England. There is only glancing references to it, "the Act of Supremacy 1559 ... or face severe punishment..." Many people were killed by the Queen during and after this time (religious and leity, affluent and commoner).

Perhaps a more unbiased examination of the facts is in order. I strongly recommend that this article be labeled as "contested" at least. ```` jmsiino

It is true that the Church of England was not really "Protestant" but was more Anglo-Catholic. Testament to the Catholic beliefs of Henry VIII is that he paid two priests £600 to pray for his soul for eternity after he died. This was a highly Catholic practice. He was simply not Roman Catholic.

I'm afraid the belief that Elizabeth I 'persecuted' Catholics is a little misguided. She did not actively seek out to cause pain or suffering to Catholics in her country. It is true that she had some tortured or executed but this was in response to them breaking laws laid down by her and they would have known the punishments which would be incurred if they broke those laws. Mary I persecuted Protestants for the express reason that they were Protestants. Elizabeth punished people for political or legal reasons rather than religious reasons. The Death penalty was in use during the time and those who broke laws which incurred the death penalty were executed. The only times when Elizabeth could be seen to have people executed for slightly harsh reasons is after rebellions which threatened her position as Queen such as after the Rebellion of the Northern Earls of 1569. Besides, the Jesuits (fundamentalist, extremist Catholics) who arrived in England in 1580 actively saught to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I which was treason and, considering treason is one of only two crimes which are punishable by death in England today, it is hardly surprising that they would have been executed in the 16th Century.

Also, Elizabeth did punish Protestants not just Catholics who challenged her royal prerogative such as the suspension from office of Edmund Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury until his death in 1583 after he refused to suppress prophesyings (a Puritan practice) in England. Also the Act Against Seditoius Sectaries of 1593 punished those who refused to attend church or persuaded others not to attend, and those who denied the Queen's authority in religoius matters and was aimed at the seperatist movement (part of Puritan ideology). Therefore Queen Elizabeth did not persecute only Catholics but rather punished those who challenged her authority as Queen and those who refused to conform to her Religious Settlement. Therefore the contention that the Elizabeth I was more 'Bloody' than Mary I is not viable because there was no 'extremely bloody persecution by Elizabeth of the Catholics in England'. Elizabeth simply demanded that her Royal authority be respected. She did not punish people for Religious reasons but rather political ones. Elizabeth was actually incredibly tolerant of different religions and cared only that her subjects outwardly conform to her laws. Elizabeth, in fact, had several Catholic features in her private chapel such as a crucifix, candles and music. I do hope that this has cleared up this issue for you. Robsonm 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Not really Protestant? All other Protestant Churches thought it to be so until at least the 20th century. Henry a Catholic? See Hughes, Scarisbrick, Haigh, Duffy,Nichols, don't rely entirely on Protestant historiography, even that in its modern form ie. Dickens, regards the C of E as Protestant. Luther regarded himself as a catholic, so did Calvin, so did Bucer, Zwingli, and Cranmer.They all applealed to the authority of scripture, antiquity, and reason, just as much as did the C of E. I am sure it was a great comfort to those who while still alive had their bowels pulled out to realise that Elizabeth was "incredibly tolerant". Please could fundamentalist be banned as a term, the Jesuits merely believed the catholic faith. One assumes that the gentleman who describes them thus believes the fundamentals of his. Lutherans kept crucifixes, candles, and music as part of their services. so their retention by Elizabeth is no evidence of catholic sympathies. There is a clear division between Lutheran and Reformed on these mattters; with one exception, Elizabeth's bishops were Reformed rather than Lutheran.

"Porn Star?"

Under the heading "Virginity": "Long ago, there were rumors of her being a sexy porn star!!" ... Don't think that's right... 203.109.160.123 08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, if you see something like that, just remove it, no need to comment! Cop 633 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth project

can some one give me a good website to find out more about the queen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lionstigers23520 (talk • contribs) .

Try Google. 70.112.192.130 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Main image

I don't think allegorical image of the old Elizabeth painted after her death is a better choice for the lead image of this article than the "Ermine" portrait (above) that was there before, which is the iconic image of Elizabeth in her prime. I would vote to restore the prior image and move this one down toward the end of the article.

What do others think? - PKM 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be happier with the Ermine image, or with the Pelican or Armada portraits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was bold. -- SECisek 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. -PKM 02:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation

I find it remarkable that the article should talk of the BCP of 1559 as including both of these theologies. The author of the 1549 an 1552 liturgies believed in neither, as he was a Zwinglian ( see MacCulloch, Dix, Couratin, Ratcliffe). Only one Bishop under Elizabeth was a Lutheran(Cheney of Gloucester), the rest were Calvinists and even Zwinglians. Transubstantiation was condemned by one of the Articles agreed upon by these people. Refer to the Wiki article on The Elizabethan Settlement, and also the one on the Book of Common Prayer, they are rather more theologically informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.128.124 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Anglican High Churchmen until the 19th century did not believe either in consubstantiation or transubstantiation, they were usually receptionists (Nockles " The Oxford Movement in Context").

I believe Wiki puts in nothing for which authoriy cannot be cited. Please what is the authority for the remarkable first paragraph on the Religious Settlement? It appears to me to be fiction. Please check it against eg Dickens "The English Reformation" Chapter on the Revolution of 1559. There appears to be no Reformation Bill. == Image I removed a bunch of images/screenshots from films/programmes about Elizabeth from the bottom of the article as they were unfree and could only be used to illustrate the programme/film that they were from. Quite a lot of them lacked fair use rationales or the rationale did not include use here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

James I Link

Shouldn't the link under the picture for James I really link directly to his page, rather than the disambiguation page for the name James I? It would really make more sense that way. 203.173.225.217 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i think i fixed what you were talking about Klimintine 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth the early years

Not sure but I think the beginning of the paragraph may be an opinion! Ya think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.83.12 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This page needs to be protected

I suggest that someone put this page up for semi-protection. There seems to be a very high level of vandalism in light of the new movie, so this is obviously a high-profile target for vandals. Okiefromokla•talk 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Big article and easy for vandal edits to get lost somewhere. Now semi-protected for a month. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I put in the request. PKM 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No need - done already (I am an admin) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Overkill fellas. Think of all the potential new wikipedia editors that may be turned away by this. We're perfectly capable of dealing with vandalism. Casliber maybe you should take a break from admin actions? Yabbadabbawho 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I added into the "Conflict with Spain" section

I added a little note next to the 300,000 pounds she sent to the French King, a aprx. value in that money for today's money.

See this website: http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/

Oui, non? PatrickJ83 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Key-ring?

This line looks exactly like one of those descriptions you find on key-rings which are supposed to explain what someone with your name is like. "Elizabeth was resourceful, determined, and exceedingly intelligent. She loved learning for its own sake. Like her mother and father, she was flirtatious and charismatic. She also inherited their sharp tongues and fiery tempers." Was this copied off a key-ring? And can this be made more encyclopedic? Because it sounds stupid. 131.111.186.96 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I will do this. May take some time. qp10qp (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

queen liz

she is not queen elizabeth the first as there is no queen elizabeth the 2nd she is queen of england, after her the crown went to james 1 of england and 6th (or was that 7th of scotland) during queen anne the crowns of england and scotland became one and from then on they have one crown instead of one for soctland and england.

no english family has been crowned since her, and no english family has held the british crown, the english racist propaganda that the present queen is the second, shows comtempt for scotland and the facts, wikipedia should get their act together -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

See WP:FRINGE -- SECisek (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review edits

The article has become enormous (85 kb). I've moved all the lists of films, fiction, video games etc. to a new article Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England (crossed fingers it doesn't get deleted). I intend instead to add some good material about Elizabeth and depictions of her during her reign, using Strong, etc.

I've cut the section "Patrilineal descent". This is a recent and superfluous (in my opinion) addition, since we already have a family tree. You don't even get lists like that in the history books. We shouldn't be influenced into keeping it by the fact that these lists have appeared all over British monarchy articles. The "styles" section is another one you don't see in history books: those too are dumped everywhere, presumably by the one-man royalty project. qp10qp (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I zapped the ahnentafel as I see no reason to include that. A cull of the external links is called for, so I think I'll do that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Book lists

I'm going to trim the bibliography down to a few good books. As I edit the article, the list will grow longer again, but with the addition of different books—the ones used to reference the text. In case anyone thinks this is a little drastic in the short term, I will list the removed books here where anyone can read it and check it against what I am doing. If you wish to add anything back, please be selective, because there are some dreadful books here (I suspect someone just pasted a list from a website). I am also going to change the format to author-first, and add more details about the books still listed. In the short term, one or two footnotes (not many, because most of these books do not seem to have been used to source the text) may be slightly stranded, but I will sort this out when referencing the information. qp10qp (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Books I have cut from the bibliography

Non-fiction books about Elizabeth Tudor

• Elisabeth I: Herrin der Meere by Mary Lavater-Sloman (1st edition 1956) ISBN 978-3404610396
• A Crown for Elizabeth by Mary M. Luke (1970)
• Gloriana: The Years of Elizabeth I by Mary M. Luke (1973) ISBN 0-698-10543-5
• Elizabeth I — A Tudor Queen (Focus on Tudor Life S.), by Liz Goglery (March 2006) ISBN 0-7496-6449-5
• Elizabeth I CEO: Strategic Lessons from the Leader Who Built an Empire by Alan Axelrod (April 2002) ISBN 0-7352-0357-1
• Behind the Mask: The Life of Queen Elizabeth I by Jane Resh Thomas (October 1998) ISBN 0-395-69120-6
• Elizabeth I: Queen Of Tudor England by Myra Weatherly (August 2005)
• Elizabeth Tudor: Portrait of a Queen by Lacey Baldwin Smith (February 1977) ISBN 0-316-80153-4
• Elizabeth and Leicester by Elizabeth Jenkins (October 2002) ISBN 1-84212-560-5
• Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart: Two Queens in One Isle by Alison Plowden (October 1984) ISBN 0-389-20518-4
• Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens by Jane Dunn (January 2005) ISBN 0-375-70820-0
• England's Elizabeth: An Afterlife in Fame and Fantasy by Nicola J. Watson and Michael Dobson (November 2002) ISBN 0-19-818377-1 (I've added this to the new Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England page.)
• Gloriana: The Years of Elizabeth I by Mary Irwin (July 1996) ISBN 0-8317-5612-8
• Lives of the Queens of England, Vol. 8, by Agnes Strickland, Philadelphia, digitised at Carnegie Mellon University
• The Long Reign of Elizabeth I by David Hume (History of England, volume IV, 1754–62, reprinted 1984) ISBN 0-86597-031-9 (David Hume was an 18th century English philosopher, author of the standard History of England until that of Thomas Babington Macaulay)
• Elizabeth and Essex: A Tragic History by Lytton Strachey (2002) ISBN 0-15-602761-5

Elizabeth Tudor in historical fiction

• Legacy by Susan Kay (1985) ISBN 0-517-56064-X (added to cultural depictions page)

qp10qp (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

List of historical fiction books

I've removed the list of historical fiction books and added it to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. qp10qp (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"References"

I have removed the eccentric section called "References"; I can't find a useful source here. The list is below, with my comments, in case anyone disagrees and would like to put something back. I am going to proceed with a "Notes and references" section, linked to citation tags. The citations will be to books listed alphabetically in the bibliography. I believe this will be the most comfortable system for the reader.

• Eakins, Lara E. (2004) Elizabeth I. (Who is Lara Eakins? Seems like just a random webpage.)
• Fraser, George MacDonald: The Hollywood History of the World, Fawcett, 1989, ISBN 0449904385. (Added to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England.)
• Thomas, Heather (2004). Elizabeth I. (Thomas admits on her site that this is just a thesis; we can do better.)
• Hasler, P. W., History of Parliament, House of Commons 1558–1603, HMSO 1981. [1] (Dead link; and I don't think we need this.) (Update: now back in, for one ref: a rather specialist but good-quality source.)
• Jokinen, Anniina (2004). Elizabeth I (1533–1603) (Another website; Jokinen doesn't tell us who she is.)
• Perry, Maria. (1990). The Word of a Prince: A Life of Elizabeth I from Contemporary Documents Woodbirdge: Boydell Press. (A published book, but seems to be a lightweight author, to judge by her publications on Amazon.)
• Roanoke Heritage Education Program; Elizabeth Tudor - National Park Service - Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (Amateur-looking site.)
• Strickland, Agnes, Lives of the Queens of England, Vol. 8, Philadelphia, digitised at Carnegie Mellon University (Seriously outdated, mid-nineteenth century book; and Strickland writes like a novelist.)
• Queen Elizabeth I: Biography, Portraits, Primary Sources (Just a website.)
• Queen Elizabeth I |Queen of England (Lightweight website.)

qp10qp (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Style and arms" section

I've removed this section as being too obscure for a general article (I don't see this stuff in my history books, so I don't see why a Wikipedia article should suffer it). It isn't reffed, and I wouldn't know how to ref it (I'm guessing that it comes from specialist sources, but this is a general article). Some nuggets of information, such as the motto and emblem, might go into the main article, if they pan out. I place the section here for scrutiny.

Elizabeth I used the official style ' Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, Queen of England, France and Ireland, Fidei defensor, etc." Whilst most of the style matched the styles of her predecessors, Elizabeth I was the first to use "etc." It was inserted into the style with a view to restoring the phrase "of the Church of England and also of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head", which had been added by Henry VIII but later removed by Mary I. The supremacy phrase was never actually restored, and "etc." remained in the style, to be removed only in 1801.

She has been retroactively known as Queen Elizabeth I since the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952. Prior to that time, she was referred to as Queen Elizabeth.

Elizabeth's arms were the same as those used by Henry IV: Quarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lys Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England). Whilst her Tudor predecessors had used a gold lion and a red dragon as heraldic supporters, Elizabeth used a gold lion and a gold dragon. Elizabeth adopted one of her mother's mottoes, Semper Eadem ("Always the Same") and also her mother's emblem as her emblem (The eagle on top of a tree trunk).

qp10qp (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All good work, today. -- SECisek (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The arms can be found in most decent works on heraldry, such as Fox-Davies or Boutell. The point about etc. in the style is probably actually historically significant; try a history of Anglicanism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Style info box

Removed this style box thingy, which I found lurking in the middle of the article. (Might have been useful if I was going to meet Queen Liz any time soon, but she died a few years ago.)

Royal styles of Elizabeth I/Archive 1 Reference style Her Majesty Spoken style Your Majesty Alternative style Her/Your Grace, Her/Your Highness

qp10qp (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Good; it isn't at all clear to me that Her Majesty was more common than Her Grace; but I may just be thinking of [[A Man for All Seasons" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

These thing are useless and often wrong. I would love to see them all killed. I will be bold in the future, we all should. -- SECisek (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Succession

I thought that Elizabeth's successor should have been specified by the Succession Act of 1543, (the descendants of Mary Tudor), with the Scottish line being excluded. It would be interesting to know why this was not followed.Plerdsus 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII had stipulated in his will that the Scottish line of his older sister Margaret should be passed over in favour of the line of his younger sister Mary. One reason this was disregarded is that a sovereign's wishes about successors were not legally binding (Edward VI's will, which left the throne to Lady Jane Grey, was also disregarded). Legally, the succession defaulted to the strictly next-in-line: Henry, Edward, Mary, Elizabeth, James. In the case of James, this was not only legally correct but the most sensible solution, since Mary Tudor's line had not produced anyone in the slightest bit promising as a monarch: James, on the other hand, was a mature adult and already an experienced king. He was also a Protestant. The rules were changed after the reign of James II to ensure that the throne always went to the next-in-line who was a Protestant. qp10qp (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

legacy = film roles ?

Should legacy really include Elizabeth in film roles ? Should this be placed in a separate heading of "Elizabeth in film" ? Surely her legacy is more important and more serious than being the main character in a few films four centuries later ?

it said in bbc history magazine that when she died her death was widley unmourned and the legend of 'Gloriana' only came later during Victorian times ect 217.43.156.247 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Brian

Well, it was Edmund Spenser who gave her legendary form in The Faerie Queene of 1590, with the name "Gloriana". This name was picked up during her lifetime. It's true that there was some relief when Elizabeth died and that her popularity had been waning for a decade; it's also true that the Victorians revived her legend and renewed it for modern times. But it is also true that the people mourned her death extravagantly at the time. Stow says that "Westminster was surcharged with multitudes of all sorts of people in their streets, houses, windows, leads and gutters, that came to see the obsequy, and when they beheld her statue lying upoon the coffin, there was such a general crying, groaning and weeping as the like hath not been seen or known in the memory of man". qp10qp (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Source of info

See http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/hawkinsthirdvoyage, which gives full details of the slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the edit "Elizabeth and Hawkins were in the slave trade, with a ship called the "Jesus".". Good source but the addition needs to be integrated into the article, not stuck at the end of a section. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 87.194.4.21 (talk · contribs), I'm not disputing the 'facts' when I removed the unsourced and contentions statement. I was disputing the lack of any attribution to a reliable and verifiable source for a statement that is contentious. The statement is not common knowledge. Please include the source in the text and as NeilN (talk · contribs) points out, integrate the text in a 'pleasing manner' into the surrounding text. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2007 (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 sidebar, 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. DrKay (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. DrKay (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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Elizabeth I/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations plange 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)