Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If England had accepted Edwards wish for Lady Jane Grey to succeed him, what do people imagine would have happened? I think she would have been a good Queen, certainly preferable to Mary. But then we probably wouldn't have had Elizabeth, and I can't help thinking what may have happened if (or perhaps, when) the Spanish and/or Mary Queen of Scots would attempt to invade.

I think her husband Lord Guilford Dudley would have attempted to oust her, or at least undermine her power. He did after all demand she make him King, which she wisely refused. Of course, one may argue that she wouldn't have lasted because she and her dynasty would face many years of conflict due to her shaky claim to the throne. It quite possibly would have led to an age of civil conflict, and even an early reformation of the rules of English monarchy. I certainly think that England and Scotland would have remained separate powers.
Last edited:
Interesting thought. I doubt that with another regent, England would have become one of the world's biggest powers - at least not that early.
I'm under the impression, that unlike Elizabeth, Jane hadn't been such a strong, independent (perhaps even intelligent) individual. She probably would have been influenced too much, by others.
.. one never knows; look at Queen Victoria - she was bullied in her youth by her mother and that man .. and what a formidable Lady she became ...

Lady Jane Grey was very well educated, keen to learn and intelligent by all we know. She was highly praised by her teachers and the people she corresponded with.
I love Elizabeth, she is my favorite monarch of England. But in reading about her, I think her quirks about other people around her marrying really angers me. And although I admire her, I don't like the way she treated Jane's sisters; well the youngest, Mary, most of all. Catherine was pushing some buttons.
I think that ,that boy that prince that her father always wanted that healthy baby boy was Elizabeth she wasn't a boy but she was in every way what Henry wanted in a son and she was a great monarch just like her father .
I found some recent articles questioning the possibilty that Elizabeth I had a child.The two most likely candidates for the illegitimate child of Elizabeth are Arthur Dudley and Edward De Verre.There is even an idea that two kids raised by Robert Dudley's lover were the children of their union with the Queen.Could Elizabeth I have been secretly married to Robert Dudley?
After all,she was a Queen,that was witty enough to cover and arrange all these things.
The Elizabeth Files » The Arthur Dudley Myth
Did the Virgin Queen have a secret love child? | Mail Online
That was allready discussed in this Forum ... people do and write anything to get attention and earn their bread ....
Elizabeth I was supposedly a "virgin queen" and never married though she fell in love so she may have had a child that was never known in history and if these two are supposedly her children a DNA test with a decendent of a Tudor to be done somehow unless you can't reopen a royal tomb::whistles::
Last edited by a moderator:
what kind of relationship did Elizabeth have with her father knowing that he killed her mother?
what kind of relationship did Elizabeth have with her father knowing that he killed her mother?
After a lot of exterminations and executions operated by Henry VIII,all people feared him and his family members were not exceptions,we could suppose.When her father died she was 13-14 ,I think she had mixed feelings,she hardly remembered her mother,being a little child at the time of her execution.At that time Elizabeth probably decided for herself never get married,but she felt protected by her father,while the real dangers appeared later.
Elizabeth worshiped her father. The fate of her mother was somewhat veiled for several years. When her father's fifth wife, Catherine Howard, was executed, she truly freaked. When she went through the scandal involving her stepmother Catherine Parr and her husband Thomas Seymour, that sealed it. She would never marry, and I can't say I blame her!
Elizabeth worshiped her father. The fate of her mother was somewhat veiled for several years. When her father's fifth wife, Catherine Howard, was executed, she truly freaked. When she went through the scandal involving her stepmother Catherine Parr and her husband Thomas Seymour, that sealed it. She would never marry, and I can't say I blame her!

I am not totally convinced on that based on reading quite a number of the documents from the time over recent years.

Had a suitable candidate for her hand have been found who would be be ruled by her but wasn't a subject she would have married but she was also saved once Mary had James as there was an heir (and a protestant heir at that).
Elizabeth did not marry for various reasons; one of those reasons being she did not want to share her power. As Queen she was the monarch and if she married people would expect her to submit to her husband.
she definitely stood her ground by not marrying in a time where marrying and producing heirs was a woman's main job as a royal! (though it's still the same idea nowadays lol)
Having done a little research,I came across the interesting fact.The present heir of the Duke of St.Albans,Charles Beauclerk,wrote some historical books.Basically,Dukes of St.Albans descend from Charles II and Nell Gwyn's natural son.They are also descendants of Edward de Verre,17th Earl of Oxford.In 2010 he published "Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom:The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth",in which he espouses the theory that Edward de Verre was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth I .
His theory could sound fantastic,but many suppose that Elizabeth contracted a legitimate marriage with Robert Dudley,and was the mother of two children ,one called Robert Devereux .I do think that if that's true,their son could be Robert Dudley (the explorer) who was not the son of Douglas Sheffield in that case.
Just my opinion.
Charles Beauclerk, Earl of Burford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shakespeare's lost kingdom: the true ... - Google Books
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The other question that brings my attention is the question of probabilty and accuracy of DNA analysis brought from a dead peron and compared to the others or maybe the supposed descendants.
she definitely stood her ground by not marrying in a time where marrying and producing heirs was a woman's main job as a royal! (though it's still the same idea nowadays lol)

I recall reading that Queen Victoria wanted to pull an Elizabeth and not get married, until she fell in love with Albert. It took a lot of bravery for Elizabeth to stand her ground in refusing to get married and some manipulation. Women today who don't want to get married, or have kids are looked upon as some kind of alien life form. It seems that even in royal circles, the men are seen as having to get married and have children as part of their duty; don't know what kind of situation would arise if Elizabeth II had just said "you know what not looking forward to getting married, might not want to do it" :eek:
And yet, Victoria wasn't even twentyone years old, when she got married, and had nine children. :whistling:

But yes, it's hard enough to be single today (just ask yours truely), even if you're not royal. So being an unmarried queen (or king, for that matter) centuries ago, who didn't produce heirs to the thrown, must have been hard. But of course, Elizabeth must also have earned some respect from many people for standing her ground. And in the 16th century, it was dangerous to criticize your regent anyway.
Last edited:
And to think that her father went into all that trouble just to have a son.
Elizabeth's problems started really young, and that's not even considering the death of her mother and deprivations in childhood and to her household. She was accused at approximately age 14 to have plotted with Sir Thomas Seymour to marry him without permission of the Council and stories were circulating about her indiscreet behavior with Sir Thomas when living with Sir Thomas and Queen Katherine Parr. Her beloved governess Kat Ashley and her purser were removed from her household and thrown in the Tower of London for questioning at that time, and Lady Tyrell was placed in Elizabeth's household to act as spy for her husband who wanted to implicate Elizabeth. She wrote to the Council to quash rumors that she was pregnant with Sir Thomas' child and to have her servants released, which was accomplished on both counts. I've always been fascinated by the fact that Elizabeth had the composure, wit and strength of character in one so young to have survived the first of many trials and tribulations in her life, which basically could have led to her death if incriminated. And for some reason, this particular incident in Elizabeth's life for me shows how formidable she was when only a teenager. A fascinating person and arguably the greatest monarch in British history, IMO.
Last edited:
Queen Elizabeth I: Contingency Plans In Case of Death By Assassination/Disease

I just finished re-watching "Elizabeth: The Golden Age." I've also read quite a number of books on QE1. Was there ever a "secret" contingency plan to succeed her, in the event of assassination (or war .....as in the case of the Invasion of the Spanish Armada). I get the sense that she had no great liking of the Scottish King James VI. If she had succumbed to an assassin or some disease, was it always James as the heir. I've read that as much as she (seemed) detested the son of Mary Stuart, she liked her own Tudor relatives even less. I imagine she tolerated, somewhat, James I, as he lived at a distance in Scotland. Her own Tudor relatives proved to be problematic in a variety of ways. Any thoughts on this matter?
I don't know that there was a contingency plan in place but I believe that with Elizabeth's death, the crown would go to the next closest relative which would have been James VI of Scotland. Henry VIII had no surviving brother or a brother who had descendants. His oldest sister, Margaret, married into the Scottish royal family and his sister Mary had descendants. But Mary's claim was subordinate to her sister Margaret's claim and thus Margaret's heirs could claim the throne.

Henry VII-Henry VIII-Edward-Mary-Elizabeth

Henry VII-Margaret-James V-Mary Queen of Scots-James VI
The only problem with that was Henry VIII's will - which clearly put the younger sister's claim ahead of the elder - because Margaret had married into the Scottish royal family. Henry clearly didn't want the thrones merged. Probably because the leading claimant from Mary (the younger sister) was another woman while from Margaret Henry's will and legislation (Third Succession Act Third Succession Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was overlooked in favour of James.
My dear Iluvbertie,

I was not aware of Henry's will. Thanks for pointing this out.

I wonder why he would not want the thrones merged? One would think Henry would think this to be the elimination of much headache and woe on England's northern border. I read the link but did not see where it said Henry wanted Mary's heirs to be dominant over Margaret's. Where can his will be found?
Henry's will was not a single document of the sort a private person would execute.

It was endorsed and enacted by an Act of Parliament (two Acts of Succession). In 1543 Henry presented his will to Parliament, who enacted it as the Second Act of Succession (or Succession Act of 1543). It is likely there were many copies made.

I have no idea where any originals of that document might be (British Library?).

I don't see anything in the Act itself about dominance of one set of heirs over Margaret or anyone else.
Henry VIII of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this is says 'Finally, if Elizabeth's line became extinct, the crown was to be inherited by the descendants of Henry VIII's deceased younger sister, Mary. The descendants of Henry's sister Margaret Tudor—the royal family of Scotland—were therefore excluded from succession according to this act. This final provision failed when James VI of Scotland subsequently became James I of England upon Elizabeth's death.'

Unfortunately the Wikipedia article on the Third Succession Act - doesn't include the details of what was to happen in the case of all three of the children dying without issue but his will and this legislation do - they both stated that the throne was to bypass Margaret's line and pass to Mary's - why I don't know but it was the fact.

In fact it is Mary's descendents who were actually regarded by many people as the heirs/heiresses presumptive until very late in Elizabeth's reign. I think this fact gets overlooked in the story because of the trouble Mary Queen of Scots gave Elizabeth and the fact that Mary was the logical heir coming from the elder sister but...in fact legally the heirs were the descendents of Mary.

In 1603 the Succession Act was changed to have James as the King Succession to the Crown Act 1603 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but interestingly enough it was done by James and not by Elizabeth.
I understand that the Scots line was to be excluded - but exclusion doesn't mean dominance (probably the hope, though).

Thanks for the information on the Third Act - I realized after reading a bit further that Wikipedia is sorely lacking in detail about that Act.

Weren't Mary's progeny also the offspring of King Henry VIII's very good friend, Charles Brandon?

So, if I'm getting it right, the plan would be that Queen Elizabeth's proper successor would have been Mary, Queen of Scots...had Elizabeth not taken the actions she did?
Yes Mary's progeny were the descendents of Charles Brandon.

Until very late in her reign the recognised heir was, in fact, Mary's line not the Scots line. They kept very quiet and went about their business. At the time of her death the claimant just kept on doing his own thing, kept his head down - and kept it, allowing James to become King.

Had Elizabeth died earlier or had that line decided to challenge James the country would have descended into civil war because Henry's will and the Act of Succession didn't follow normal inheritance laws.

When I used the term 'dominance' I really meant that Mary's line was to be above Margaret's - like William's line will dominate Harry's line in the future.

Elizabeth basically did nothing - she never named an heir officially and just allowed people to make their own ideas. Fortunately for the country the leading claimant from this line at the time of Elizabeth's death - William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby - decided to accept James as the King. His mother was heiress presumptive until she died in 1598 and then his older brother. He never put forward his own claim and supported James quite strongly.
Last edited:
Top Bottom