Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

[LordMountbatten]

I think most royalties have a lot of skeletons in their closets. But I don't think dragging them out now would be in everybody's best interests. Just a thought....But, it's a very interesting topic of those interested in conspiracies and other related things (like me). Don't you think?

[Anne-fan]

Originally Posted by LordMountbatten

I think most royalties have a lot of skeletons in their closets. But I don't think dragging them out now would be in everybody's best interests. Just a thought....But, it's a very interesting topic of those interested in conspiracies and other related things (like me). Don't you think?

Yes true, well at least I condsider them interesting as well. But what precisley are you referring to?

[kbear87]

was elizabeth really a virgin?? maybe not because they did have birth control back then. it isn't well known but they did have condoms made from pig/sheep bladders, they had herbs that prevented pregnancy and they also soaked sponges in vinegar and made a crude diaphram. there were probably other methods too. i have read that elizabeth was pregnant by thomas seymour and miscarried but that is pure speculation, not fact. would a healthy attractive woman with many men wanting to court her stay a virgin? seems doubtful..

[Furienna]

I guess we'll never know for sure.

[LadyNemesis]

452 years ago today was the ascension of Elizabeth I to the Throne of England

[Lenora]

I have a serious question based on facts and not my fantasy.Elizabeth I Tudor was called Virgin as was impossible in those times an independent queen without a husband and she told from childhood that she would never marry(the cause being probably the fear of be beheaded by husband as her mother was).She was said to have some lovers (Robert Dudley for sure).I've read some books of historians and watched the documentary "The Secret Life of Elizabeth I",so I've concluded that it was possible that she could have given birth to a child.Agree that maybe we'll never know exactly as we didn't live near her in those times .So I wonder:if she gave birth to a child,how could we find the name of this child and how could we trace her genealogy till nowadays.I've read this suggstions as well in Caroli Eriksen's book.The most likely candidate it could be Artur Dudley,her lover's son.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Lenora

I have a serious question based on facts and not my fantasy.Elizabeth I Tudor was called Virgin as was impossible in those times an independent queen without a husband and she told from childhood that she would never marry(the cause being probably the fear of be beheaded by husband as her mother was).She was said to have some lovers (Robert Dudley for sure).I've read some books of historians and watched the documentary "The Secret Life of Elizabeth I",so I've concluded that it was possible that she could have given birth to a child.Agree that maybe we'll never know exactly as we didn't live near her in those times .So I wonder:if she gave birth to a child,how could we find the name of this child and how could we trace her genealogy till nowadays.I've read this suggstions as well in Caroli Eriksen's book.The most likely candidate it could be Artur Dudley,her lover's son.

I do not believe that "Arthur Dudley" was an illegitimate son of Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester.

The only proven illegitimate son is Sir Robert Dudley, whose mother was Douglas Howard. This Robert was born in 1574, and his mother could not possibly have been Queen Elizabeth I. Sir Robert left his wife and daughters in 1605, "married" his lover and went to Italy. He lived quite a colorful life, having 13 more children with his "wife" Elizabeth Southwell. He never returned to England and died in Florence.

While anything is possible, I believe that Elizabeth was childless, although I seriously doubt she was truly a virgin. There are several rumors and speculations that she may have had a child with Dudley, but the evidence is very vague and relies on dubious contemporary witnesses and other unreliable material.

As a Queen, she was virtually never alone at court, and as a female ruler who was legally illegitimate herself, she would have been under intense scrutiny. Under such circumstances, I do not think she could hide a full-term pregnancy or keep such a thing a secret.

She did, however, have more freedom during the reign of her brother Edward, and this is the time frame for additional rumors.. which say that she had a child by Thomas Seymour, Baron Seymour of Sudeley. He was the 4th husband of Queen Katherine Parr after the death of Henry VIII.

"Arthur Dudley" was thought to be an English spy, and he was arrested and imprisoned in Spain in 1587, where he told this story of being the son of the Earl of Leicester and the Queen. In 1590, a report to England mentioned a man purporting to be Leicester’s son being imprisoned in Alcantara, but Arthur is never mentioned again after this.

Current thought on the matter is that this man was an agent of Sir Francis Walsingham, who was probably sent to discover the movements of the Spanish fleet and whether they were preparing for war. It is thought that after he was released from prison, he probably returned to England and resumed his real identity, since he is never mentioned again. It is a fact that this man existed.. but "Arthur Dudley" is not believed to have been his real name.. and unfortunately, he is lost to history after 1590.

[Morrobay59]

I searched and finally found the perported Christining gown of baby Elizabeth, Just google this....

Elizabeth I's Christening Gown, Sudeley Castle

Good luck and I still would be so excited to see any of the amazing gowns from her rein.

[Grandduchess24]

The daughter of king Henry viii and Anne boelyn seemed to have been the son that henry always wanted and England must be proud to have had a queen like elizabeth I except that she hated her cousin Mary in Scotland.

[Zonk]

I wouldn't say that Elizabeth hated Mary, Queen of Scots as so much as she didn't trust her. I think a lot of people (in Elizabeth's shoes) would think the same ---- Mary believed that Elizabeth was a bastard and an usurper with no right to the British throne, and that she (Mary) was in fact the rightful Queen of England.

Add to that the constant plots (those contrived by Mary as well as others on her behalf) to take the throne from Elizabeth and crown Mary in her stead.

Well, I am not sure I would trust her as well.

[Furienna]

Yeah, considering how things were back then, Elizabeth had no choice but to execute Mary to protect herself.

[Vasillisos Markos]

And don't forget that Elizabeth agonized over signing the death warrant because it was a difficult decision to make and Elizabeth also believed in the divine right of kings -- how would it be to execute one whom God had elevated to such a high position? If she executed a fellow queen, how would others react to this?

[Chris77]

Yes, I remember reading how she agonized over signing the death warrant and didn't do it for quite some time. Elizabeth's advisors kept persuading her to execute Mary.

[IloveCP]

What was her relationship like with her sister?

[Vasillisos Markos]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

What was her relationship like with her sister?

The sisters had a tenuous relationship, due to the circumstances in which they lived. Elizabeth supplanted Mary and Edward supplanted both of them in the eyes of the court. After Edward's death, and the failure of Lady Jane Grey's reign, Elizabeth rode by Mary's side when Mary came to London to be acknowledged as the rightful ruler. Mary sought to quash protestantism and Elizabeth played the role of a good Catholic, at least outwardly.

After Wyatt's Rebellion ended, Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower of London and interrogated, then placed under house arrest. I am sure that during this period of time, she feared Mary would have her executed but Mary was persuaded by advisors that there was no hard evidence against the princess. I think too that Mary would have been very reluctant to kill her sister; as proof, I point to Mary's vacillation on having Lady Jane Grey executed and Elizabeth's reluctance to sign the execution warrant for Mary Queen of Scots.

So their relationship, strained by external events, was prickly to say the least. And initially Mary had to be lady-in-waiting to the young Elizabeth while Anne Boleyn was Henry's wife. This must have galled and irritated the young woman who had been in her father's good graces for so long.

[Tsaritsa]

Elizabeth's virginal state probably sprung from her close contact with royal marriages and the knowledge that a royal wife was ever in a very precarious position, Always subservient to her husbands' whims, she lived in danger of divorce, decapitation or dying in childbirth as had Katherine, Anne and Jane. Having managed to stay alive by using her formidable wits, when she finally gained the relative safety of the throne, I imagine she determined never to hand over to any man the power she had waited so long to achieve. However, even brilliant minds require a little diversion from time to time, so I hope she managed to enjoy a few dalliences to take her mind off the burdensome affairs of state.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

Mary sought to quash protestantism and Elizabeth played the role of a good Catholic, at least outwardly.

Elizabeth had no problems with Catholicism, until she found out, the the Catholic Church still considered her illegitimate, with no right to the thrown. She might not have found out about that until after she already had become queen though.

[IloveCP]

Does anyone have a say in what england would look like if Elizabeth never was monarch?

[LadyGrinningSoul]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

Does anyone have a say in what england would look like if Elizabeth never was monarch?

Well I would assume that England would be certainly Catholic and the language would be more more Spanish tilted if Mary I and Phillip II had children. Of course William Shakespeare (whom as we all know was the greatest of influences on the English language) was of the Elizabethan era, and I am unsure what the Catholic monarchs would of made of his work. So the English language would not be what it is today.

In the circumstances of England being more Spanish and Catholic, I believe that England would not have the Empire/commonwealth or power it had and has. It would be shared with Spain.

In the likely event that there would be civil conflicts due to the Spanish influence in England, this would most probably weaken England evermore.

I could be wrong about all this, but we of course will never know. Thank God we did have Elizabeth, that's all I can say.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Personally, I would like to believe that if Elizabeth were never Queen, Edward VI lived to grow up and produce heirs of his own (in which circumstance, Mary would never have been Queen either).

If Edward had lived and had children, England would have avoided the reigns of Bloody Mary and the Stuart dynasty.. and since Edward was a Protestant, the Reformation would have continued under his reign and (presumably) the reigns of his heirs.

Scotland and England would have perhaps remained separate countries.. but could have joined their families into a single heir at some point (through marriage) and still become Great Britain and/or the United Kingdom.

If Elizabeth never reigned, we could still have Tudors on the throne today..