Talk:Speech to the Troops at Tilbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject England (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

A piece of propaganda?[edit]

Am I wrong in thinking that this speech was first recorded in print many years later, when Elizabeth's reputation was being rehabilitated in protest against Stuart rule? I recall reading that the speech became significant in Camden's histories. Worth looking in to.--Shtove 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The speach was recorded only once by someone many years later. I don't think the gentleman was even there and I think it was even out of living memory of the event. There are no contempory records of Elizabeth even making a speech. I suppose it was made up for a political purpose.--86.20.247.36 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

there was a second version recently discovered from 1612. The other one we have (the one on this page) was in a letter by Leonel Sharp.Cptjeff 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Did she say it?[edit]

I think it should be noted in the article that most notable historians regard this speech as apocryphal since the only known record of it comes from a letter dated 40 years after the speech was given.82.5.123.162 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you name these "most notable historians"? J. E. Neale (an expert on the Elizabethan age) and her Oxford DNB biographer Patrick Collinson both acknowledged the authenticity of the speech. Also Garrett Mattingly, who wrote the standard account of the Spanish Aramada, uses the speech.--Johnbull (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious[edit]

The claim that there are "primary sources" "available" from some project is dubious. Sound recording was not invented until centuries later, so if a "primary source" exists, it would have to be the Queen's script in her own hand, or something like that. If such "primary sources" existed surely they would have been much better known and would have been prominently noted in the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that: "primary source" does not mean "holograph manuscript"; it means something which is not produced by scholarly study or journalistic reporting from other documents (i.e. is not derived or secondary). The Bible is generally considered a primary source for purposes of Wikipedia articles, but there are no holograph manuscripts of the Bible. AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I am aware of the meaning of "primary source". In the context of a historical speech, a "primary source" for that speech must be something which is, as you say, not derived or secondary. A verbatim record by a contemporary would be a primary source. Any other type of reporting must, by definition, be secondary. Nowhere above did I mention "holograph manuscripts" or "the Bible", so I am not sure how the second part of your comment is relevant, or why you would consider yourself justified in removing a tag on that basis. In any case, the Bible is a primary source only for itself, it is not a primary source for, for example, the historical question of the actual words spoken by Moses on the mount.
My point is, if another primary source exists for the speech, then it would be expected to be much better known and should be reported in the article. It seems dubious that not only one, but *two* primary sources exist in addition to what is already reported in the article, but such sources are so little known that the reader needs to be directed to some project in order to read about them. And if the "primary sources" referred to are already dealt with in the article, then there is no cause to mention them again simply because they are included in some project which would otherwise have little connection with this article.
My suspiciou is that the line is simply an ad for the said project to increase traffic to the Wiki article on the project and thence to its own website.
If you disagree that the statement is dubious, then I can agree to it being replaced with a "citation needed" tag plus a "clarifyme" tag, but I cannot agree to leaving that sentence unchallenged. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
If you think that link is promotional/spammed, or is linked in the wrong way, then by all means proceed on that basis, but it seems extremely pointless to try to define the term "primary source" to have a meaning which different from the accepted Wikipedia meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The two versions catalogued at the Women Writers' Project are the two versions already quoted in full in the article, there seems to be no need to link to this particular source for them.Ghughesarch (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake - the first of the two versions catalogued at the WWP is the long version quoted in the article, the second, "Aske's Version" as it's rather misleadingly catalogued, is the poetic reinterpretation of the speech in James Aske's "Elizabetha Triumphans", written in the Armada Year but certainly not a verbatim quote of what the Queen actually said:
We will them know that now by proof we see
Their loyal hearts to us their lawful Queen.
For sure we are that none beneath the heavens
Have readier subjects to defend their right:
Which happiness we count to us as chief.
And though of love their duties crave no less
Yet say to them that we in like regard
And estimate of this their dearest zeal
(In time of need shall ever call them forth
To dare in field their fierce and cruel foes)
Will be ourself their noted General
Ne dear at all to us shall be our life,
Ne palaces or Castles huge of stone
Shall hold as then our presence from their view:
But in the midst and very heart of them
Bellona-like we mean as then to march;
On common lot of gain or loss to both
They well shall see we recke shall then betide.
And as for honour with most large rewards,
Let them not care they common there shall be:
The meanest man who shall deserve a might,
A mountain shall for his desart receive.
And this our speech and this our solemn vow
In fervent love to those our subjects dear,
Say, seargeant-major, tell them from our self,
On kingly faith we will perform it there…
Ghughesarch (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Historicity[edit]

This article really needs expanding to discuss the historicity of the speech. It's likely that she gave some kind of speech, but unlikely that these three versions of the text are what she actually said. Presumably there's been plenty of academic discussion of it over the centuries, we need a section on this.Gymnophoria (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of speech[edit]

This article says, 9 August. The Armada article says, 8 August. Are there arguments for both? I wonder if 8/8/88 appealed to Elizabeth.Fotoguzzi (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2015 edits and capitalisation[edit]

There is no good reason to remove the wikilinks to Parma and Spain which help in explaining who is being referred to in the speech.

I have reverted some other changes which are based on a misunderstanding of MOS:CAPS

armada = Armada (see MOS:NAMECAPS - it's the specific Armada not a generic armada, in the same sense as the example given at NAMECAPS of the Three Great Gardens of Japan)

master of the horse = Master of the Horse, a specific formal title, see MOS:JOBTITLES, ditto for Duke of Buckingham and pope = Pope as it's a specific one, not the generic role.

Ghughesarch (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Serious historical doubt as to whether she ever gave such a speech[edit]

The only sources for the speech were written down 30 years after the event.
Citations re doubt: Real Britannia,
"The Myth of Elizabeth at Tilbury" The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 95-114.;
Glory and Bollocks: The Truth Behind Ten Defining Events in British History;
Elizabethan Silent Language p285 81.152.137.214 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)