Elizabeth I (1533-1603)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Henry did plan to wed his son Edward VI (then the Prince of Wales) to Queen Mary however the Scots refuse to give him the Queen and he began another war against and a very vicious one at that. He also fought previously against his brother in law James IV and nephew James V.

I'm assuming those events contribute to his dislike of the Scottish royal family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to the documentary "Monarchy with David Starkey" (it's streaming on Netflix for those in the States), Henry VIII did exclude Queen Margaret of Scotland's line and favored Mary, Duchess of Suffolk's line after his own. However for Elizabeth, Mary's line included the very people who had tried to usurp her sister Mary I's throne and Elizabeth's own status as heiress with Lady Jane Grey. Thus Elizabeth was not a fan of her father's will and, according to Starkey, ignored/hid the documents which favored Mary's line over Margaret's. Out of sight, out of mind.
 
Last edited:
The problem with that theory is that Mary's heirs were acknowledged as the presumptive heirs at the time. As good as Starkey is he does make mistakes.
 
Thank goodness Elizabeth ended up Queen! If it's true,who knows what the "secret daughter" would have done for England.
 
Too me this is much ado about nothing.

Unless this daughter was born while Henry was married to her mother (and not married to Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn) it doesn't really matter.
 
Exactly. And if anyone was going to inherit the throne, it would have been Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, Henry's son. The problem was that he was also illegitimate and that barred him. If he was denied because his mother wasn't married to Henry, then Elizabeth Tailboys definitely would also have been.
 
Last edited:
Baroness of Books said:
Exactly. And if anyone was going to inherit the throne, it would have been Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, Henry's son. The problem was that he was also illegitimate and that barred him. If he was denied because his mother wasn't married to Henry, then Elizabeth Tailboys definitely would also have been.

Also, didn't this son die during Henry VIII's lifetime?
 
The 1971 BBC series Elizabeth R is on YouTube. It's absolutely riveting. Here's the first part.
Elizabeth R 1 [1/7] - YouTube

I think Glenda Jackson is the best at portraying Elizabeth, though I was blown away by Geoffrey Rush's Walsingham in Elizabeth (1998). Unfortunately, that film isn't entirely historically accurate.
 
Last edited:
I have the entire Elizabeth R production, and you're absolutely correct -- it's amazing. Glenda Jackson was so convincing as Elizabeth I, that she reprised the role in the film Mary, Queen of Scots starring Vanessa Redgrave. You seldom see that outside of sequels.
 
Glenda was the best; she just chewed up the scenery as Elizabeth. That was an astounding series.
 
Last edited:
How image of Elizabeth I's security chief was painted over Catholic drawing of Virgin Mary by subversive artist | Mail Online
He was Queen Elizabeth's I's spymaster, protector and the deeply-Protestant man bent on crushing all those who supported the Pope in Rome.
But 500 years on it appears a cunning plot by a subversive Catholic artist may have been uncovered - because below a priceless portrait of Sir Francis Walsingham lies a secret image of the Virgin Mary holding a baby Christ.
An interesting article and I hope this is the correct thread, but if not maybe the mods can move it.
 
Nice article but I don't necessarily see it as an act by a subversive artist. As the article states near the end, the Tudors appeared to recycle wooden panels by painting over them. What better way than for Walsingham to show his distaste for Catholicism than by having his portrait painted over what was formerly a painting with Catholic overtones.
 
Nice article but I don't necessarily see it as an act by a subversive artist. As the article states near the end, the Tudors appeared to recycle wooden panels by painting over them. What better way than for Walsingham to show his distaste for Catholicism than by having his portrait painted over what was formerly a painting with Catholic overtones.
I agree 100 percent
 
You may not have liked the Duchess of Cambridge’s first official portrait – but at least she got off more lightly than Elizabeth I.
A painting of the Tudor monarch has gone on display which, rarely, shows her with unflattering wrinkles.
The work portrays Elizabeth in her sixties, resplendent in her regal glory, but with no attempt to hide the ravages of time.
It was painted in the late sixteenth century by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger who was a renowned artist of the Tudor court.
Portrait of Elizabeth I showing off her wrinkles goes on display | Mail Online
 
What an exciting, important find! What a shame that the previous owner never knew what he/she had.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if I believe it either. It makes an interesting theory though.
 
I don't know if I believe it either. It makes an interesting theory though.

What an interesting read and for sure stuff that historical thrillers are made of. I've read several of Steve Berry's book and he's very good at what he does. I will definitely be getting The King's Imposter.
 
This sounds like a book right up my alley; even if it stretches the truth by a long shot, it definitely sounds like a good read. I'll have to read it.
 
She definitely has very strong features in that mask, so it wouldn't be an impossibility to play with the theory that she could have been a man.......
 
Elizabeth I of England was born on this day in 1533


410px-Darnley_stage_3.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom