Elizabeth I (1533-1603)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Good article, but it's very sad to read about little religious freedom there was in those days. :sad:
 
A piece of fabric described as the Holy Grail of fashion history will become one of the star attractions at Hampton Court Palace after it was identified as the only surviving piece of clothing worn by Elizabeth I.

The country’s leading experts on royal garments have spent the past year piecing together clues about the provenance of the beautifully embroidered textile, which had been cut up and used for hundreds of years as an altar cloth in a Herefordshire parish church.
Click to expand...
Read more: Queen Elizabeth I’s long lost skirt to go on display after being found on a church altar in Herefordshire
 
Did you know that Elizabeth I who wore vast amounts of pearls had a team of seamstresses dedicated entirely to sewing pearls onto her clothes?

To Marry or not?

If Queen Elizabeth I named either Catherine or Mary Grey as heir, there would be Protestants who supported Henry Hastings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I watched a public television show last night about Cecil and Earl of Essex relationship with Queen Elizabeth. The part that was focused on was around the 1598 until the early 1600's until her death and James the IV crowned King of England. So Queen Elizabeth did not have an heir as she was an unmarried "virgin" Queen. Now that I am in my 40's I can see the benefits and especially in that era when childbirth was often fatal. Sorry I was not watching carefully and am not familiar with this piece of English history. So Cecil seemed to win at this game. Earl of Essex was eventually jailed over a failed attack with 100 men. He did escape after torture and eventually befriended Guy Faulkes but that is another tale and if anyone can elaborate on the relationship between Essex and Faulkes I would be interested. James the IV was Protestant and had 3 children. The other potential heirs were either Catholic, too old didn't have heirs. So it was James the IV the King of Scotland who became king of England. He as reported to easily sleep with men as women and very much wanted to be King. The TV show had Cecil asking Elizabeth on her death bed if James the IV was the heir. She was unable to speak but threw her hand up to her face and this normally would be a no but Cecil said oh that mean yes. I am confused on some points as I don't know the history but if anyone knows about Cecil and James past. Did Cecil order James mothers death or anything that would be difficult to overcome? I found then entire thing interesting. Now if anyone knows the story about the Duke of Essex and Guy Faulkes relationship. I have a vague understanding about Guy Faulkes day. I would like to hear it.

Earl of Essex was returned to the Tower, where he begged to be executed privately, not in front of a mob on Tower Hill. This was granted and on the Wednesday morning he was taken out to the courtyard of the Tower, acknowledging with unaccustomed humility that ‘he was thus justly spewed out of this realm’. It took three strokes of the axe to sever his neck and the headsman held the head aloft by its long, fair hair, saying ‘God save the Queen!’ The messenger who took the news to Elizabeth at court found her playing the virginals. At the news she stopped and there was silence. No one uttered a word. Presently she began playing again. I read a little about Cecil insert long title that I don't know here. And he seems to have masterminded Protestantism and inheritance rule to solidify the Monarchy. I read that he did this with zero sense of human justice but within the framework of the stability of this system some justice prevailed later. Heavy on the some because really if you are royal you usually prevailed over commoners. Sorry my history is so limited but I am always interested in these historical stories. As they do impact our todays.

Not Duke but Earl.

I would greatly appreciate any added historical comments here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing I've noticed too that even with public television, unless its a straightforward documentary, the shows that they run that are kind of reenactment oftentimes use a bit of poetic license to dramatize the subject and its not always 100% historically accurate.

Mary was arrested and tried in a court of 26 nobles on the grounds of committing treason against Queen Elizabeth I. She was found guilty and her execution was then ordered. Elizabeth I wasn't solely responsible nor was any other one person.

On a more recent note about the Treason Act in the UK that it is still in force. Its been suggested and talked about that Diana, having an affair with James Hewitt was committing high treason. Actually the discussion is here at:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/charles-and-diana-2444-54.html

Check out Iluvbertie's post #1070

On another note, to find this information again (posts going back a few years are fuzzy memories and hard to pinpoint), I did a search for "Diana" and "treason" and the TRF posts popped up in the search. This is another reason to keep discussions at a factual level. There's been many times I've searched for something royally related and information from The Royal Forums appear at the top of the search list. That's how good this place is for information. ;)
 
Tweetybird said:
I watched a public television show last night about Cecil and Earl of Essex relationship with Queen Elizabeth. The part that was focused on was around the 1598 until the early 1600's until her death and James the IV crowned King of England. So Queen Elizabeth did not have an heir as she was an unmarried "virgin" Queen. Now that I am in my 40's I can see the benefits and especially in that era when childbirth was often fatal. Sorry I was not watching carefully and am not familiar with this piece of English history. So Cecil seemed to win at this game. Earl of Essex was eventually jailed over a failed attack with 100 men. He did escape after torture and eventually befriended Guy Faulkes but that is another tale and if anyone can elaborate on the relationship between Essex and Faulkes I would be interested. James the IV was Protestant and had 3 children. The other potential heirs were either Catholic, too old didn't have heirs. So it was James the IV the King of Scotland who became king of England. He as reported to easily sleep with men as women and very much wanted to be King. The TV show had Cecil asking Elizabeth on her death bed if James the IV was the heir. She was unable to speak but threw her hand up to her face and this normally would be a no but Cecil said oh that mean yes. I am confused on some points as I don't know the history but if anyone knows about Cecil and James past. Did Cecil order James mothers death or anything that would be difficult to overcome? I found then entire thing interesting. Now if anyone knows the story about the Duke of Essex and Guy Faulkes relationship. I have a vague understanding about Guy Faulkes day. I would like to hear it.

Earl of Essex was returned to the Tower, where he begged to be executed privately, not in front of a mob on Tower Hill. This was granted and on the Wednesday morning he was taken out to the courtyard of the Tower, acknowledging with unaccustomed humility that ‘he was thus justly spewed out of this realm’. It took three strokes of the axe to sever his neck and the headsman held the head aloft by its long, fair hair, saying ‘God save the Queen!’ The messenger who took the news to Elizabeth at court found her playing the virginals. At the news she stopped and there was silence. No one uttered a word. Presently she began playing again. I read a little about Cecil insert long title that I don't know here. And he seems to have masterminded Protestantism and inheritance rule to solidify the Monarchy. I read that he did this with zero sense of human justice but within the framework of the stability of this system some justice prevailed later. Heavy on the some because really if you are royal you usually prevailed over commoners. Sorry my history is so limited but I am always interested in these historical stories. As they do impact our todays.

Not Duke but Earl.

I would greatly appreciate any added historical comments here.
Click to expand...
It is Guy Fawkes day. I think you should read a biography of Elizabeth I..TV programmes are rarely accurate.
 
Denville said:
It is Guy Fawkes day. I think you should read a biography of Elizabeth I..TV programmes are rarely accurate.
Click to expand...

In fact, Guy Fawkes Night is still celebrated every year on November 5th. Bonfires and fireworks abound. A celebration to commemorate the foiled Gunpowder Plot of 1605. Its not a bank holiday but celebrated none the less. :D
 
Remember, remember the 5th of November
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.

The way I remember the date and event (and taught my students this year. They loved the Tudors so I set them a research task for fun on the Stuarts and they can't decide now which group they would rather study).
 
The Elizabethan reign and the subsequent reign by James VI/James I was only the beginning. it was by no means the end of the political fight between the Catholic and the Protestant sectors of Scotland and England. Hence the interest shown by Iluvbertie's students as they discovered the Stuarts along with the Tudors.

This takes us into the Jacobean era with the reign of James VI/James I. The Jacobite risings, also known as the Jacobite rebellions or the War of the British Succession, were a series of uprisings, rebellions, and wars in Great Britain and Ireland occurring between 1688 and 1746.

This is the area I'm most familiar with somewhat but not on a historically accurate level. I love the Outlander series of books by Diana Gabaldon and this is the time frame of the beginning of the series. :D

BTW: :google:
 
Last edited:
CyrilVladisla said:
If Queen Elizabeth I named Mary, Queen of Scots, as heir, there would be Catholics who supported Lady Margaret Douglas.
Click to expand...


The Countess was one of the leading Roman Catholics in Elizabethan England though she did not enjoy a good relationship with her cousin Elizabeth I and had been a close personal friend of Mary I.
 
Osipi said:
One thing I've noticed too that even with public television, unless its a straightforward documentary, the shows that they run that are kind of reenactment oftentimes use a bit of poetic license to dramatize the subject and its not always 100% historically accurate.

Mary was arrested and tried in a court of 26 nobles on the grounds of committing treason against Queen Elizabeth I. She was found guilty and her execution was then ordered. Elizabeth I wasn't solely responsible nor was any other one person.

On a more recent note about the Treason Act in the UK that it is still in force. Its been suggested and talked about that Diana, having an affair with James Hewitt was committing high treason. Actually the discussion is here at:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f38/charles-and-diana-2444-54.html

Check out Iluvbertie's post #1070

On another note, to find this information again (posts going back a few years are fuzzy memories and hard to pinpoint), I did a search for "Diana" and "treason" and the TRF posts popped up in the search. This is another reason to keep discussions at a factual level. There's been many times I've searched for something royally related and information from The Royal Forums appear at the top of the search list. That's how good this place is for information. ;)
Click to expand...

Would Charles have been guilty too or protected as a royal? He surely committed adultery as well. He admitted it finally.
 
Read “Elizabeth’s Women”this past week. Quite good. A lot of it covers her life as the many bios do, but there is more detail about the women closest to her throughout her life.
 
Lucy63 said:
Would Charles have been guilty too or protected as a royal? He surely committed adultery as well. He admitted it finally.
Click to expand...
No - the reason is that when the law was enacted it was easy to know who a child’s mother was, but to know who a child’d father was you had to trust that its’ mother was telling the truth about her partner.
Thus if Diana had borne a child fathered by a lover while married to Charles that child would be in the line of succession even though it had no royal blood.
Whereas any child Charles had by a lover would be illegitimate if the mother was unmarried, or presumed to be the child of his mother’s husband, if she was married, in neither case could they claim or try to claim the throne.
Even today Harry has to deal with claims that he’s Hewitt’s son because of his mother’s admitted adultry and physical resemblance to his mother’s lover.
Compare Elizabeth I’s situation with her Carey cousins.
If the claim that Elizabeth I was not the daughter of Henry VIII but the result of her mother’s affair with musician Mark Smeaton was true she would not have had a right to be Queen. If the rumor that Katherine and Henry Carey were the result of Henry VIII’s affair with their mother Mary Boleyn were true, it didn’t impact the throne as they were recognized legitimate offspring of their mother’s husband and never considered to be claimants to the crown.
Claiming that an aspirant or occupant of the throne was the product of adultry was a common tactic to discredit someone - eg: Richard III claimed his brother King Edward IV was the son of an archer, it was claimed Margaret of Anjou’s son wasn’t fathered by Henry VI but by a lover, John of Guant was claimed to be the result of adultry,etc..
Although in this day and age it’s pretty easy to establish paternity via DNA, and to avoid conception via contraception it was very different back in medieval times and harsh laws were enacted to prevent proverbial cuckoos from getting into the nest.
 
Last edited:
sndral said:
No - the reason is that if Diana had born a child fathered by a lover while married to Charles that child would be in the line of succession even though it had no royal blood.
Whereas any child Charles had by a lover would be illegitimate if the mother was unmarried, or presumed to be the child of his mother’s husband, if she was married, in neither case could they claim or try to claim the throne.
Compare Elizabeth I’s situation with her Carey cousins.
If the claim that Elizabeth I was not the daughter of Henry VIII but the result of her mother’s affair with musician Mark Smeaton was true she would not have had a right to be Queen. If the rumor that Katherine and Henry Carey were the result of Henry VIII’s affair with their mother Mary Boleyn were true, it didn’t impact the throne as they were recognized legitimate offspring of their mother’s husband and never considered to be claimants to the crown.
Claiming that an aspirant or occupant of the throne was the product of adultry was a common tactic to discredit someone - eg: Richard III claimed his brother King Edward IV was the son of an archer, it was claimed Margaret of Anjou’s son wasn’t fathered by Henry VI but by a lover, John of Guant was claimed to be the result of adultry,etc..
Although in this day and age it’s pretty easy to establish paternity via DNA, and to avoid conception via contraception it was very different back in medieval times and harsh laws were enacted to prevent proverbial cuckoos from getting into the nest.
Even today Harry has to deal with rumors that he’s Hewit’s son because of his mother’s admitted adultry and his physical resemblance to his mother’s lover.
Click to expand...

Right...I knew this but forgot :) dumb of me lol
 
Had the “Virgin Queen” on today...not my favorite Elizabeth film as it just focuses on Walter Raleigh and nothing else. But good enough, though it mangles the facts as Hollywood always did, especially in that era.

Watching the 2013 Swiss film Mary of Scots now...(partly subtitled but I watch loads of subtitled shows as I dislike most American Tv, though I live here.) Reviews not great but I try everything from this era.
 
Lucy63 said:
Read “Elizabeth’s Women”this past week. Quite good. A lot of it covers her life as the many bios do, but there is more detail about the women closest to her throughout her life.
Click to expand...
I always operated under the idea that Kat Ashley was the most important woman in Elizabeth's life, probably because she was with her the longest.

I don't recall The Virgin Queen being about Raleigh? I remember the Golden Age being too much about him and Bess.

Update, when online and found The Virgin Queen is from the 50s with Bette Davis; I wonder why Raleigh and Bess are so fascinating to Hollywood.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HMTLove23
George I (1660-1727)
2
Replies
54
Views
15K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
ysbel
Lady Jane Grey, Nine Day Queen (1537-1554)
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
25K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
norwegianne
1905-2005, February biography: Haakon
Replies
11
Views
10K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
EliseLadyofLancaster
The Anglo-Saxon and Danish Kings of England and their Consorts 802-1066
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
26K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
J
Queen Elisabeth Of The Belgians (1876-1965)
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
43K
maria-olivia
maria-olivia

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom