Talk:Elizabeth I/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Minor mistake in Thomas Seymour section?

I'm no historian, but I spotted what I think is an error:

....in January, 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow his brother.

Shouldn't it be HER brother? I mean, Thomas Seymour had to have been arrested for trying to marry Elizabeth and thus overthrow Edward VI and not Edward Seymour, as the article seems to suggest.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. Just checking....

vinayg18 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's correct; some historians believe that Seymour never tried to kidnap the King at all, and those that do suggest it was to get control of the country during Edward's minority. There has never been any conclusive evidence that Seymour was plotting to seduce/marry Elizabeth, and these rumours may well have been spread by his rivals. I have never read a suggestion that Thomas Seymour was planning to overthrow Edward VI, just to get his brother's position - custody of the king may have given him this, without him having any evil intentions.Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was suspected of plotting to overthrow his brother, who was the Lord Protector. The prize was control of the king, not the overthrow of the king. qp10qp (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Martial or marital

"from political and martial misalliances."

This in para three after the Latin motto video et taceo. I suggest that to be exact it should read marital rather than martial - just a typo, but confusing.

I would change it myself but the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.212.170 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. It used to say "marital" and someone had changed it. This article gets hit by a lot of that sort of thing. Changed back. qp10qp (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

I feel that http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-CEO-Strategic-Lessons-Leader/dp/0735201897 should be added? Could anyone verify this and maybe add it to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cniessen (talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issue

This has already been mentioned below, but sometime ago and the discussion seems to have fallen away. The intro to this article claims:

Historians, however, tend to be more cautious in their assessment. They often depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered,[4] sometimes indecisive ruler,[5] who enjoyed more than her share of luck. Towards the end of her reign, a series of economic and military problems weakened her popularity to the point where many of her subjects were relieved at her death.

1) The intro to any wikipedia article is not the place to make such strong criticisms of any person (or equally strong praise). They can be argued about lower down in the article, but putting them in the introduction gives them overly authoritative weight. 2) Looking at the discussion below, the "relieved at her death" section seems to be based entirely on Loades, who is well known amongst historians for his pro-Catholic (i.e. anti Elizabeth) personal bias - the American Historical Review called his biography of Elizabeth "in its conceptualization, use of evidence, and scholarship, lacking the competence of some of his other many publications". If you look at Roy Strong's work on Elizabeth, you'll find arguments that Elizabeth's death really did result in Diana-style personal grief for her citizens.

Obviously, lots of people have put work into this and I wouldn't chop and change it without discussion, but I really think these problems have to be addressed.Oriana Naso (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is essential, in my opinion, that the lead reflect the content of the body of the article and encapsulate the different strands in the scholarship. I cannot comment on Loades' biography of Elizabeth because I have not read it, but, as a history graduate, I have full confidence in Loades' scholarship as demonstrated in the book of his that I did use, Elizabeth I: The Golden Reign of Gloriana, which is a National Archives publication based on analysis and facsimiles of some of the most important documents of the reign. I have read Gloriana and The Cult of Elizabeth by Roy Strong, and I find nothing in them to contradict Loades: remember that Strong is talking of the cult of Elizabeth, and of course this was intense at the time of Elizabeth's death and took the form of "Diana-style grief", as you aptly put it, and it revived again in the 1620s. As Strong says, the 1620s were the time of "the revival of interest in her ... There was little or none before that date as the country was entranced with the phenomenon of a royal family replacing a virgin queen" (Gloriana, 164): the question is whether there was any substance behind it. Were the people mourning the political Elizabeth or the icon? We should not be deceived by the consequences of this revival, which have ever since informed a tradition of Elizabeth as the ideal monarch: in this retrospective glow, sealed by the anti-Stuart commonwealth historians of the seventeenth century who held Elizabeth up as a parliamentary paragon, it is easy to overlook Elizabeth's unpopularity in the last years of her reign, a time of repressive monopolies, economic hardship, and repeated defeats in war.

It is not correct to assume that, when I worked on the article for FAR, I relied on Loades alone for this balancing view. In fact, I had a good few books open before me, and I tried to achieve a balanced article while making sure that quirky views of Elizabeth were omitted. The notion that Elizabeth's death met with "relief beneath the grief", so to speak, came up repeatedly in the scholarship. For example, take this from Christopher Haigh's Elizabeth I: "Elizabeth died unloved and almost unlamented, and it was partly her own fault ... her reign had been 30 years of illusion, followed by fifteen of disillusion ... As the gap between image and reality widened, so resentment spread, for the English had never loved the real Elizabeth ... she was a ruler overtaken by events—'a lady who time had surprised', as Ralegh remarked" (Elizabeth I, 170–71). In the last paragraph of Anne Somerset's biography (also called Elizabeth I), she says: "Towards the end of her life her reputation suffered as a number of her subjects gave reign to 'discontentments in their private opinions, though perhaps none in truth' ... She cannot have failed to have been saddened by the fact that her hold over her subjects' affections had proved less absolute than in the past" (Elizabeth I, 733). Somerset also reports The Queen's Master of Requests as noting in his journal: "The people, both in the city and counties, finding the just fear of forty years, for want of a known successor, dissolved in a minute, did so rejoice as few wished the gracious Queen alive again" (Elizabeth I, 724). Somerset goes on to say of the funeral: "It was an impressive spectacle, and there were tears from some of the crowd, above all from the women. By no means all the spectators were so sentimental: as the cortege wound its way through the streets to Westminster Abbey ... there was some muttering against her"; she quotes John Clapham's reasons for the muttering, which included that the people "could not lightly be in worse state than they were, considering that the people generally were much impoverished by continual subsidies and taxes ... that little or no equality was used in those impositions, the meaner sort commonly sustaining the greater burden" (Elizabeth I, 723–24). The view of Somerset and Haigh is not just a recent reading. In his A Jacobean Pageant: The Court of King James I (1962), G. P. V. Akrigg wrote: "In a few years the English were to become nostalgic about the great days under Elizabeth, but now they were glad to be done with her and confidently expected all their discontents to vanish before this paragon coming from the North" (Jacobean Pageant, 17).

In short, I feel that both the lead and the article has this right. We owe it to Wikipedia readers to inform them that Elizabeth's death was greeted with some relief and that the revival in her reputation did not seriously kick in until twenty or more years after her death. The unpopularity and political, military, and economic failures of her later years are part of the story we must tell; and we should not shirk this in the lead, which, as the guidelines require, summarises not only the facts but the analysis in the article. qp10qp (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a long time since I've read much on QEI but my recollection is that both an impatience with a ruler clearly in decline (especially among the elite) and fears and uncertainties about a new ruler replacing the only one many could remember (especially among the people) were felt, no doubt often both together. As far as I remember this was the standard view of Neale et al. The lead should summarize the whole article. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two facts that need to be emphasised in the article that are not mentioned. Firstly, relating to alleged relief that Elizabeth was dead, it is important to remember that the date of her accession to the throne (17th November 1558) was celebrated as a public holiday until the 1730's. Secondly, as far as Mary of Scotland being her successor, it needs to be remembered that Henry's Succession to the Crown Act (35 Hen VII, c1), which was the act thay placed Elizabeth on the throne, also proveded for her successor, and was not Mary. It is true that Mary's son James succeeded her, but this was technically illegal. ([[User talk:plerdsus 20:19 17th August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.11.196 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly those who welcomed James (most of the government and most of the people), did not think so. As in 1547 with the failure of Lady Jane Grey, legitimacy was then seen to reside in the normal laws of inheritance and not in the wills or legislation of monarchs or in the religion or nationality of heirs. The attempts by Henry VIII and Edward VI to alter the succession were what was illegal. Monarchs had no right to do that under the English system, however they might bully or be bullied by parliament or their councils, and it was doomed to failure. Elizabeth was astute enough to grasp that. qp10qp (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - a)"historians tend to be more cautious in their assessment" clearly implies that the majority are critical, which is not accurate or NPOV b) relieved at her death? really? it certainly needs to be looked at again...86.137.208.114 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

a)Most historians are critical of Elizabeth, some strongly so. Even the most pro-Elizabeth biography of Elizabeth that I have read, J.E. Neale's (1934), says: "The truth was that a sense of ennuie, tinged with sex prejudice, was stealing over Court and country, 'for things of long continuance, though never so good, are tedious'. There was a 'credulous desire of novelty and change, hoping for better times, despising the present, and forgetting favours past'" (p. 386).

b)A sense of relief often comes up in the sources (see my comments above, which show that this has been "looked at again"). For example, Keith M. Brown writes: "There was widespread optimism at the start of a new reign, and general relief that the tired, old queen had gone, the myth of the Elizabethan golden age only gaining ground later, when memories of her dithering and failure had faded" ("Monarchy and Government, 1603–1637", in The Seventeenth Century, ed. Jenny Wormald, p. 14). This last quote also speaks to plerdsus's point above about the celebrations of Elizabeth in later centuries: they do not reflect the feeling in the country in 1603. qp10qp (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Split foreign policy section?

Anyone else think the foreign policy section should be a separate page like the religious settlement? TheKaplan (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth and education

At this Peer Review about the early days of Jesus College Oxford (founded 1571), the question has been asked whether it was founded as part of some national educational/religious policy. Can any Elizabethan scholars assist? Bencherlite^Talk 06:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been looking some things up, and it seems to me that the context was the Protestantisation (and expansion overall) of national education. In order to make the Elizabethan settlement stick, the government needed vast numbers of Protestant priests and the only means was to have them educated. J. B. Black, in his biography of Elizabeth, gives a list of the major educational foundations in her reign: Repton (1559), Merchant Taylors' (1561), Rugby (1567), Uppingham (1584), Harrow (1590), Jesus College, Oxford (1571), Emmanuel College, Cambridge (1584), Gresham College, London (1596). Cambridge University was given new statutes in 1571, with Cecil pulling the strings as Chancellor. Leicester, as Oxford Chancellor, secured an act of incorporation for Oxford (see J. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 1936, 273–74). In addition, I think Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, was founded in 1596, like Emmanuel as a Protestant seminary. The authorities had problems with Catholicism in certain colleges, particularly at Merton and New College, Oxford, and at King's and Caius, Cambridge. Oxford, according to Christopher Haigh, was aggressively protestantised through university statutes.

MacCulloch links the Jesus foundation to the success of the Tudors in Wales, where the Reformation was particularly strong. "A significant factor in binding the Welsh cultural and social elite into the agenda of a Protestant government was the foundation in 1571 of a new college in Oxford University, Jesus College, which immediately augmented an already significant Welsh presence in the university and proved to be a seedbed for Protestant Welsh clergy and gentry" (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation, 2003, 395–96). MacCulloch suggests that the Reformation took hold so readily in Wales because the Tudors accommodated bardic culture and because it was believed that the throwing off of Rome represented a restoration of ancient Celtic Christianity. The founding of Jesus would have helped secure this success.

Christopher Haigh suggests that the Elizabethan educational policy was a missionary one, to secure the Reformation. "The success of the missionary campaign was assisted by changes in the provision of schooling, what some have called an 'educational revolution' ... Protestant clergy emphasized the role of learning in Christian understanding, and some Elizabethan bishops—Parker, Grindal, Pilkington, Sandys, and others—founded schools themselves. It seems that admissions to universities increased markedly" (Christopher Haigh, Reformations, 1993, 276).

The point about the expansion in student numbers has, however, been disputed. According to John Guy: "Although admissions figures suggest that freshmen figures soared from an average of 317 per annum in the 1550s this is trompe-l'oeil: whereas in Henry VIII's reign it was possible to be a student without leaving any trace in either university or college records, Elizabethan matriculation statutes enforced the registration of all students, including those not taking degrees. It is obvious that the creation of new university registers resulted in increased numbers of students recorded as present in the universities. Also the expansion of colleges and halls at both universities during the sixteenth century marked a change from earlier practice, when Oxford and Cambridge were not essentially collegiate universities. As the century progressed, town-dwelling and loosely attached students were resettled and registered at undergraduate colleges where teaching was increasingly concentrated" (John Guy, Tudor England, 1988, 422–23). There was, however, a tremendous rise in literacy by the 1580s, which can only have resulted from more education of some sort, in my opinion.

I'll revisit my comments at the PR in the next day or two. qp10qp (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a scholar of Elizabethan history, and this is my first post, specifically to answer your question, so excuse me if I don't know all the rules of ettiquette here! Firstly, it's important to note that one of Elizabeth's primary concerns in making appointments to universities (which she had the power to do) was to keep out the extreme Puritans from intellectual influence, particularly those who had been radicilized by exile under Mary Tudor (a great little study of this is The Influence of the English Protestant Refugees in Geneva on England in the XVIth Century, by René Hoffman-De Visme, but it's only available at the Bodleian Library, at New College Oxford and at the British Library, to my knowledge). Also try having a look at Oxford and Cambridge in Transition 1558-1642 by Mark H. Curtis in The English Historical Review, Vol. 76, No. 298 (Jan., 1961), pp. 102-104 , which should be available online. Elizabeth was a committed moderate, who trod an uneasy path between a liberalising freedom of religion to a limited, 16th century extent, and keeping the extremist elements out of the new Protestant establishment. Although Hugh Price isn't really my field, he was certainly an Anglo-Catholic enough force to get Elizabeth's approval. (After all, his entry on this very site points out that in his youth he was a judge of James Bainham, who was condemned for Tyndale-esque Protestantism).

It's also worth looking at the 1571 Oxford and Cambridge Act of Parliament in full. It incorporated both universities in royal charter, which lead to Oxford (under Leicester) instituting tests to determine undergraduate's loyalty to the Act of Settlement. So certainly a full programme of bringing the universities into the Anglican status quo was underway. And generally, I'd agree with everything Qp10qp has said, with a bit of skepticism about John Guy. And Protestantism, of course, placed great stress on the education of as many individuals as possible, hence the massive expansion in access to education (including amongst women) that followed the Protestant reformation in Britain.Kat Ashley (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All interesting stuff, thanks; a particular thanks and welcome to Kat Ashley. It sounds as though there's scope for an "Education in the reign of Elizabeth" article, which I'm sadly completely under-qualified to write! Any volunteers? I'll see which of these sources I can track down (sadly never being around the Bod these days...) for an extra bit of context in the Jesus College article. Bencherlite^Talk 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture portrait not used in article

a featured picture.

Hi, is there a reason why the portrait that's a featured picture is not in use at this biography article? It appears at the biography of the artist. Occasionally featured pictures get removed from articles accidentally, so instead of readding this one immediately, posting here to ask whether non-use is a deliberate editorial choice. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just that the featured picture is a failry recent addition and there's already a good selection of portraits in the article. - PKM (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice it. Well done PKM. I think it should be the lead picture: it's pointing the right way, and the Darnley is so browny and drab. Most of all, the fact it's a featured picture would give us an excuse to stabilise the lead picture, which editors keep changing. qp10qp (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it for a long time, the head doesn't seem to sit right for me—a sign of a copy from a pattern? The heads usually nestle better into the collars in paintings I've seen by this artist, I think, including other versions of this one. The head is fine but the dress seems a little naively painted to me, as is the setting in space and the pose. Well, there I go with my amateur theorising again (smacks wrist). Still want it for lead picture, though. qp10qp (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally' I'd rather get a really good scan of the ermine portrait and try to push through a FP for that - but I've had no luck finding a high-quality source. I won't object to using this one. There's also a head-and-shoulders detail from it in the commons. - PKM (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In a way, I'd prefer a head and shoulders, but then we'd not be able to cry "Featured image"! I should take back saying that the Darnley is browny and drab: it is only that way in our image—the original has many delicate golds, whites, and oranges, and redder lips. Anyway, I shall do the swap. qp10qp (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More portraits

We now have a high-res scan of the Hardwick Hall portrait (left). - PKM (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And of the Pelican Portrait (right). - PKM (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since editors are bound to continue juggling lead images, perhaps we could say here which ones are good quality and ask them to consider sticking to those. On this basis, that would look to be these two and the Van Meulen, so far. (Difficult to believe that the Hardwick and the Pheonix are both connected to Hilliard.) qp10qp (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the Darnley. It took me hours to remeber where it was. I found it late last night, will scan today. I am thinking of putting it up for FP if it comes out well. - PKM (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And here it is. I recommend this as the lead portrait for this article; as the origin of the face pattern called "The Mask of Youth" by art historians, this is the source image for many of the iconic portraits of the queen. - PKM (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is so superior to the other browny grey one. It's looking to the right, though, which is why I find it uncomfortable for the lead picture. However, I would not oppose it on those grounds, particularly as it seems to be the portrait that most people want there. qp10qp (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also uploaded this one (moving thumbnails of these new high-res images to a gallery).

• 
  Hardwick Hall
• 
  Phoenix
• 
  Darnley
• 
  c1585-90

- PKM (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture nom

I have nominated Elizabeth I of England - Darnley Portrait for Featured Picture status - comments encourage on the nomination page. - PKM (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Van Der Meulen

Quite frankly I think the Van Der Meulen is ridiculous as the first image. How many people would be able to correctly identify the lady as Elizabeth I at a glance? Similarly this image is used as the first photo of Queen Victoria. No, it may not be as pretty as this lovely one but at least its Victoria through and through. --Cameron* 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See the thread above for a potential alternative: the Darnley portrait looks very likely to be featured shortly, and you may prefer that. Remember that this is a featured article, and it is important that the lead image in particular is of an appropriate standard: in other words, that it is high resolution and that the description page is as well sourced as the article. qp10qp (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I like all of the images in the above gallery. I believe most people would be able to identify them as Elizabeth on a glance. The one atm is fine too. --Cameron* 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

New Featured Picture

The Darnley Portrait is now also a FP, I will add it as the lead image. - PKM (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashing. I wish I knew how to work in a hidden note to the infobox to persuade people not to remove featured lead images. I've moved the van Meulen to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England, so as not to waste it—and there I was able to add a hidden message. (There used to be an image of Cate Blanchett there, but it must have been illegal: no reason why cultural depictions have to be modern ones, though.) qp10qp (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the hidden note. - PKM (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Images of her parents needed

I think that portraits of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn should be included in the article. Does anyone else agree with me ?--jeanne (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle, yes. In practice, where could they go? The "Young Bess" portrait is essential. One solution might be a split picture of Henry and Anne (using the Madrid portrait of Henry), with Young Bess going where the embroidered book is and the latter moving down to the Thomas Seymour section (since it was made for his wife). qp10qp (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree a split picture replacing the embroidered book. Images of Henry and Anne are needed.--jeanne (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are wonderful portraits. They look good where they are placed as well.--jeanne (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put it on my list to upload higher quality versions of those two images and redo the job. Feel guilty about cutting a strip off the bottom of the Holbein, and won't do that next time. qp10qp (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A pity there isn't the "peacock" portrait in the article. That was a beautiful portrait of Queen Elizabeth. I suppose there isn't space for it though.--jeanne (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are so many portraits. PKM and I have talked about doing an article on the portraits, but, given the density of the sholarship, it's a daunting task. My favourite portrait of her is the coronation portrait, which I have guarding my talk page. Typically, there's a complex story behind it and the other versions of it. qp10qp (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an entire article on the clothing in the Coronation Portrait by Janet Arnold in the Nov 1978 Burlington Magazine. I have a copy. We really must do the Portraiture of Elizabeth, but as you say the challenge is distillation, not a dearth of material. I need a break from Pre-Raphaelites; maybe when I get back from my next trip out of town I can start this.

An honest section in reelation to the wars in Ireland is needed. Lets face it - hew wars were genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.253.241 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the title be Portraiture of Elizabeth I or Portraits of Elizabeth I? I am inclined to the first. - PKM (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Grammar

"On the other hand, marriage offered the chance of an heir" i could not change "an" to "a", as this is a locked article.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgmclennan (talk • contribs) 05:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's been changed

Danny (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper article preceeding a word starting with "h" (especially a silent one) is "an" not "a". It's an historical fact :-) CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hampden portrait

I added this back into the article, as its encyclopedic value is zero in Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. At the very least, please keep it in the article until the painting is off the Main Page as POTD (Template:POTD/2008-10-20). Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the Hampden portrait is discussed in the new article Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Dudley

I was thinking we should add that t has been suggested she had a son with Robert Dudley. There is some very good evidence to suggest it. Im saying she definatley did or anything, but i think we should mention it somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? Chloe2kaii7 (talk)

I had always read in various books- not novels, whose names I cannot recall (and the books are no longer in my possession) that Elizabeth had a daughter by Seymour and a son by Dudley. But we would need to cite the exact books to include this speculation in Wikipedia.--jeanne (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you got the evidence that you can quote and is it from a reliable source? If so, mention it here on the talk page.--jeanne (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are some books

Elizabeth and Leicester, Sarah Gristwood

The Secret Life of Elizabeth I, Paul Doherty <- That was also turned into a tv programme that aired on Channel Five, in June 2006

I cant think of anymore right now, but just google "arthur dudley elizabeth i" then you can find a lot of information, here are some good sites:

http://www.dudleygenealogy.com/arthur.html

http://www.five.tv/programmes/revealed/secretelizabeth/

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/femail/article-390593/Did-Virgin-Queen-secret-love-child.html

Chloe2kaii7 (talk)

Portraits

I have started a skeleton of Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This Link

I think that Queen Elisabith 1 has great leadership. She had to deal with Mary 1 in her teens. She went through a lot since her mom was beheaded when she was only three. I bet she had to deal with tons of stuff by herself with noone to help her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gina gao (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion

"Elizabeth was fortunate, however, that many bishoprics were vacant at the time, including the Archbishopric of Canterbury.[52][53]" that's not right, right? it should just be bishops...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.40 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

bishopric is the post, (though nowadays it would be more normal to say Diocese) and when one is vacant a new bishop is required. ϢereSpielChequers 00:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

More normal perhaps, but wrong. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, are you saying that the beginning of diocese "It is also referred to as a bishopric" is wrong? If so you may want to change diocese. ϢereSpielChequers 09:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Queen of France?

It is true that all English/British/UK monarchs from (I think) Edward II to George III claimed to be King/Queen of France, I recognise this was important enough to be mentioned on coins etc.. However it is ficticious to treat this as something really seperate from the monarchy of England. She was also Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, do we give them their own succession box? The most important (arguably) of her secondary titles, Queen of Ireland, just gets mentioned under Queen of England. Lots of monarchs and other royals have secondary titles which are really just an offshoot of their primary title, e.g. Elizabeth II is also monarch of several countries, and Prince Charles is (off the top of my head) Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland, and Baron Renfrew. Do these titles really all get their own succession box? PatGallacher (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Plus we can't really have two succession box sequences running for the same title. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth I was really a unifying force in England. Because of her father Henry VIII's desire to divorce Katherine of Aragon and his subsequent split from Rome, the country of England was ripped in two. A person cannot merely abandon their religious zeal because their state religion has changed. The country was divided between those loyal to their king and those loyal to Katherine and Catholicism. As if this switch from Catholicism to a newfound Anglicanism wasn't bad enough, when Edward came to the throne he further changed the religion to following a much more Protestant model. When his health failed and he was succeeded by Mary, she reverted the nation back to a violent Catholicism, burning all "heretics" who clung to their protestantism at the stake, thus earning her name "Bloody Mary". Elizabeth, however, took the throne and united the kingdom peacefully under protestantism. State religion provided a unifying force that allowed England to flourish in all other areas.

Ashamarie12 (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)asha

There were plenty of Catholics in England-and in Europe who considered Mary, Queen of Scots to have been the rightful queen of England. The Pope excommunicated Elizabeth, and his successor in 1588 sanctioned Philip II's Armada to invade England, depose Elizabeth and return England to Catholicism. I wouldn't say the kingdom was so peaceful. Elizabeth constantly feared her own assassination at the hands of Catholic fanatics as well as foreign agents. one only has to recall the Babington Plot. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

When Protecting an Article, You Must Indicate Why

Anyone who semi-protects an article must indicate (verifiably so) why here in Talk so we know it isn't an attempt to block legitimate other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.199.130 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A new age was born at her death?

The section headed "Legacy" begins with these sentences:

"Elizabeth was lamented, but the people were relieved at her death.[140] A new age was born, and at first the signs were good, with the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes."

The clause "A new age was born" is naive, not something any historian I know would say. It takes more than the death of a single person, however powerful and eminent, to give rise to a new age. On a lesser note, referring to all of England as "the people" as if they were ever of one mind is also naive.

This article is so excellent - perhaps the best I've seen in many, many happy hours surfing Wikipedia - that I'm not going to attempt any change.

However, I would suggest an edit like this:

"Elizabeth was lamented, but many were relieved at her death[140]. At first those who hoped that her passing would inaugurate better policy were heartened by the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes."

Douglas Barber (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded as follows: "Elizabeth was lamented, but many people were relieved at her death. Expectations of King James were high, and at first they were met, with the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes." There is plenty of mention of "the people" in both the contemporary and secondary sources, but I take your point. There is also mention enough in books of the end of the Elizabethan age (Roy Strong, for example, says "In this way, forty-five years of the rule of Elizabeth Tudor came to an end and a new era began" (The Cult of Elizabeth, 14). However, it does no harm to change this, as the concept of an "age" is essentially retrospective, and the "golden age" propaganda did not set in till the 1620s; a slight queasiness of viewpoint did, I see now, give the impression of a direct statement by the article, rather than, as intended, an encapsulation of the popular hope at the time, which is documented. qp10qp (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Poetry

How come there is no mention (at least a line) about any of her (bad) poetry? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeths War

she faught in the war against the spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.95.142 (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth

Queen Elizabeth executed her Roman Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.3.196 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavery sourcing

The "Slavery" section of this article has only one source, a link to "History Learning Site" which describes itself as having been entirely written by a high school teacher in the UK. I tend to dispute that this is a reliable source, and the entire section strikes me as a bit badly phrased and possibly misplaced (seems to be all about Hawkins, and no real relation to Elizabeth). I myself am no expert on the topic, however, and am not going to remove content without seeing what other users of the page think. Opinions? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, lets remove it. I have. The people who want to insist on this section being added to the article need to do better than that. First, they need to show that the topic is an important aspect of Elizabeth's reign, and then they need to provide good academic sources. qp10qp (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The remark "no real relation to Elizabeth" is wildly untrue. She benefited financially from

Hawkins's second and third slaving trips. See the web-site of Plymouth Coucil, already

mentioned by me earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.182.155 (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

On the section "Barbary States" that has been added

Note to PHG's takpage, copied here:

I think your addition unbalances the article, which was a necessarily compressed account of the key events in Elizabeth's life. The section you have added is not proportionately reflected in the biographies of Elizabeth, and I see you have referenced it from incidental sources, about literature. I cannot find the man whose image you have added to the article mentioned let alone illustrated in my biographies of Elizabeth, and so I don't believe your inclusion of it to be representative. Also, the subject is much more complex than your section indicates, because there were considerable fluctuations in the balance of power in that region during Elizabeth's long reign and the alliances of various Berber groups shifted considerably, as did control of certain ports and of the interior. I think the best place for this material would be in a separate article.qp10qp (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Qp10qp, I think you'll agree, however that the image of the Moroccan ambassador is wonderful. I've never seen it before. Is it contemporary?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the painting is contemporary indeed. It was displayed at the 2006-2007 Tate Gallery exhibition "East-West: Objects between cultures". Here is the summary of the Tate Gallery, which says "circa 1600": [1]. The Barber Institute of Fine Arts also says 1600: [2]. It is described as quite an important painting, visually relating the exchanges between Elizabeth and the Barbary States. Phg (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous portrait. I've put it on my user talk page. I'm glad it's contemporary as I was afraid it might have been done much later. I wonder who painted it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you say what you mean here by "The Barbary States"? As far as I know, they were not one political entity. Morocco is not the same as "Barbary States". Who did this man actually speak for? Who is "king Hamad"? Is this the same guy as Ahmad al-Mansur? Why is Elizabeth not mentioned in his article? Yes the picture is marvellous, but we shouldn't make the guy seem significant to Elizabeth's reign. The new section is misleading, and I propose to remove it, while leaving a mention of the embassy in the article. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Following the sailing of The Lion in 1551" ..." Where is that link supposed to lead, and what is the significance of this event of 1551 to this 1600 event? The political structure in north Africa was entirely different at that time.

For me, the watershed for English involvement with the Barbary Coast would be the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, after which the Ottomans largely withdrew from the western Mediterranean. From then on, and with the formation of the Levant Company and, to a lesser extent the Barbary Company, which the Levant Company crowded out, the English began to trade freely in the Mediterranean, supplying grain and tin. English consuls were set up in a series of Muslim centres, including several in Barbary, and the main purpose was trade. The shifting of Spanish military policy to the Atlantic coast meant that trade and safe-conduct agreements with Morocco were mutually beneficial. None of this is of fundamental importance to Elizabeth's biography, however, since she gave her companies considerable leeway.qp10qp (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And I see, looking at your source Performing Blackness on the English Stage, that the writer says: "Muly Hamet wanted an English fleet to help him invade Spain, a design too quixotic for Elizabeth's pragmatic diplomacy; his ambassador had to be content with trade agreements instead". I think this much would be appropriate to add to the article. Indeed, Elizabeth spent her whole reign rejecting grand military schemes.

The other source you cite, Last Plays, by Allardyce Nicholl, from Shakespeare Survey II, fudges the matter, in my opinion, by referring to Barbary as if it were a state. This forces the impression that the embassy was more representive than it was—but this is an article in a literary annual. qp10qp (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. And thanks for spotting the spelling discrepancies for Ahmad al-Mansur, I'll correct them... I'll also try to make a specific article about The Lion in 1551... In a chapter about "Foreign policy" it should be normal to be able to include areas beyond Europe which had rather intense commercial and diplomatic contacts with Elizabeth. The Barbary States are one such area, but I have been also planning to add a paragraph about the Ottoman Empire as well, which had many important commercial and diplomatic exchanges with England at that time. I have found two other extensive sources regarding the relations of Elizabeth with the Barbary States and the Barbary embassy:

• Speaking of the Moor by Emily C. Bartels [3]
• The Jamestown project by historian Karen Ordahl Kupperman [4] in which she states that following the embassy "Elizabeth agreed to sell munitions supplies to Morocco, and she and Mulai Ahmad al-Mansur talked on and off about mounting a joint operation against the Spanish before both died in 1603" (page 39)
  

I'll try to incorporate this new material in the short paragraph. Thank you for the constructive comments. Cheers Phg (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly improved the section now, but you've made it even longer. Of course it is possible to find extensive sources on particular aspects of Elizabeth's reign, but the finer judgement is to incorporate only what is appropriate to a very general summary article. The material you are adding is not representative of general histories of Elizabeth's reign: believe me, I have spent some time looking today and I can't even find these people in the indexes. I've also looked through several histories of Spain at this time with the same result. The principle with Wikipedia is to place material this incidental and detailed in a separate article. I like the article you have done on the ambassador, by the way, but I don't know why you want to place the material here as well, where it is disproportionate. Elizabeth's relations with Morocco, and with the Ottomans (I see you have now started a section on the latter) for that matter, are not comparable to those with France, Spain, etc. in the least. qp10qp (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now tried to shorten the paragraph in question, summary-style, so that only the most essential information remains, and people who are interested in these relations can at least find the relevant links. The two paragraphs about the Barbary States and the Ottoman Empire are now the shortest ones of the "Foreign policy" section, which I hope will better satisfy balance. Phg (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The section on the Barbary states is still too long. In fact, I doubt it even warrants as part of a title of a section. Its importance is negligible. Nothing more major than the exportation of weapons seems to have been the result of Anglo-Barbary relations. The subject is given undue weight in a biographical article on Elizabeth I.--Johnbull (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

????

Where is she born at ??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.84.167 (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. She was born at Greenwich Palace.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Hello (apologies if this is in the wrong place - not sure where to put it here), I hesitate to become involved here but in the interests of accuracy may I explain new evidence that has been discovered in the past nine years. [1] Elizabeth's first Lady Mistress was Lady Bryan but by the time of Prince Edward's christening Lady Bryan was in charge of the new prince and Elizabeth was in the care of Blanche Herbert Lady Troy (reference available, account of Prince Edward's christening). [2] When Prince Edward joined Elizabeth's household, Lady Troy was the Lady Mistress for both children (reference Elegy for Lady Blanche (of Troy) by Lewys Morgannwg - see www.blancheparry.com and new biography and Lady Troy on Wikipedia) [3] Lady Troy remained Elizabeth's Lady Mistress until she retired to Troy House, Monmouth in c.late 1545 or early 1546. Elizabeth sent her a pension (Household Accounts, Hatfield, 1551-1552). [4] Lady Troy dies c.1557 before Elizabeth's accession (Elegy above). [5] Lady Troy had trained her niece Blanche Parry as her successor but in the event Kate Ashley was appointed (Letter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt). [6] Note: Kate Ashley was appointed Elizabeth's governess in 1536 (Letter to Thomas Cromwell) but she did not become Lady Mistress until c1545-1546, after her marriage and after Lady Troy's retirement. [7] Blanche Parry came to Court with her aunt Lady Troy. She was with Elizabeth from her birth until Blanche died aged 82 years (epitaph in Bacton Church, see www.blancheparry.com, biography 'Mistress Blanche, Queen Elizabeth I's Confidante' by Ruth Elizabeth Richardson, Logaston, available from amazon, Blanche Parry on Wikipedia). [8] Blanche was second in the household from c.1545-46 to 1565 when Kate Ashley died. Then she became Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber (in control of access to the Queen)and Keeper of her Majesty's jewels (epitaph on her tomb in St. Margaret's Westminster). [9] Blanche's responsibilities also included the Great Seal of England (for two years), the Queen's personal papers, clothes, furs, linen and books - she received books given to the Queen in the New Year Gifts. She also received money on behalf of the Queen. She passed information and the presentation of Parliamentary bills to the Queen. She supervised 'other things belonging to her majesty' and these included 'our musk cat', probably a ferret. The Queen treated Blanche Parry as a baroness (everything mentioned is verified). [10] Blanche's cousin and close friend was Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who actually wrote out her Wills himself. This facilitated Burghley's close working relationship with the Queen. [11] Re Elizabeth being a virgin - Blanche actually says this in her Bacton epitah dated to before November 1578. Point here is that this is Blanche's testimony to God and if Elizabeth had not been a virgin Blanche would simply have not mentioned it. Blanche Parry was the one person who was in a position to know the truth. [12] Re religion - Blanche Parry's family and her aunt, Lady Troy's family had ancestors and land connections with the Lollards and the descendants of Sir John Oldcastle. This is suggestive of a residual Lollard influence in the family of the two ladies who brought up Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Both would have conformed to Henry VIII's religious ideas. However, this residual influence may have helped both children towards a wish to read the Bible for themselves. [13] Re Bible in Welsh - there is a possibility (discussed fully in Blanche's biography) that she helped finance the translation of the Bible into Welsh.

Well - there is a lot more (fully referenced) in the biography. Shall I add a few sentences to mention Lady Troy and Blanche Parry, and to slightly correct the information about Kate Ashley, to this entry on Elizabeth I please? It is all accurate and is new information. If you want to ask me about any of it please do so here, or use the Contact page on www.blancheparry.com Thank you. REHopkins (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved your text to this place, as it was diffcult to find where it was before. I am afraid I cannot comment on your proposed additions, I just make a few remarks on some points you mentioned. Blanche Parry's epitaph is very well known. There is quite a lot of mention of Elizabeth's virginity and virginity cult in several sections of the article already, so I think this needs not to be augmented any further, especially as then the very considerable evidence to the contrary would as well somehow have to be addressed in order to keep some sort of balance. The old argument that people wouldn't say this and that before God or under oath simply isn't really a valid one. There are examples, for example in the late Middle Ages, where it can be easily seen that people have sworn totally false oath's on the sacrament at mass directly before they would certainly die (without a chance of last repentance) in trial by single combat, God deciding the outcome (ordeal). They did this because of honour. Percieved honour to the world, even after death, meant everything, possibly much more than thruthfulness before God! Historical theories on what people purportedly believed tend to simplify such things. Then, an epitaph is made of stone after a persons death, just one such very public thing, very useful for propaganda, not good evidence for this kind of question. Lastly, Blanche Parry was evidently not "the one person in a position to know the truth", why should she be that person?

As regards the Welsh Bible I understand that the author of the book you mention only speculates on this. It is of course in vogue with authors to attribute such positively seen achievements to their particular heroes; I don't say that Blanche didn't contribute to the Welsh Bible project financially. My point is, this project was patronized by Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and then that also would have to be mentioned in the article and so on. And very probably it hadn't anything to do with Elizabeth personally. This article is by necessity a summary. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This information should take up no more than a sentence or phrase, if you want to add that Blanche Herbert was a Lady Mistress to Elizabeth. This article needs to be kept very tight. You might consider a new article on "Lady Mistress". I don't think Blanche Parry demands mention here, since so much else is necessarily left out. qp10qp (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay - thank you. I'll leave out details re virginity and Welsh Bible as you suggest. However, Blanche Herbert Lady Troy does need to be mentioned to correct the position re Kate Ashley. Also Blanche Parry needs to be mentioned as succeeding Kate Ashley and being the cousin of Lord Burghley. Will this do? Very short and slight additions. Thank you. 86.128.125.25 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Buchraeumer, for this edit: it was puzzling me before. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

REHopkins, IP8..., IP8..., I am afraid we can't clear the confusion of Elizabeth's early governesses, "guardians" (what's that?), Lady Mistresses. Being absolutely no expert on Elizabeth's female household, I still thought that passage should not completely contradict itself, for the benefit of the occasional reader. Now, as I've tried to re-instate Kat Ashley as governess/teacher, it's again somewhat confusing. I have given a date for the beginning of Blanche Parry's service as Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, although this section is supposed to be about Elizabeth's earliest years. Still there is now the question why we don't mention e.g. Catherine Knollys, nee Carey (Chief Gentlewoman of the Bedchamber) or Mary Sidney, who nursed Elizabeth during her smallpox (to her own considerable cost)...and so we could go on and on...I am afraid there is no room for the club of Elizabeth's female friends in this article, even her male friends don't figure greatly here...Buchraeumer (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Buchraeumer - All I want to do is give people the opportunity to become aware if they wish that new evidence exists. Therefore, somewhere the names of Lady Troy and Blanche Parry should be mentioned. Re Lady Mistresses: Elzabeth had three - Lady Bryan, Lady Troy, Kate Ashley. Kate Ashley began her time in the household as governess and then became Lady Mistress on Lady Troy's retirement. Lady Troy's funeral Elegy describes her as the 'guardian' of Henry VIII's children and as you removed 'Lady Mistress' and 'governess' isn't correct, I put in 'guardian'. (I am happy to follow your suggestion and include a new category of Lady Mistress but I am not sure of procedure - it should be wide enough to include the position for others no matter what the title used.) Re Blanche Parry - she really was the person who was with Elizabeth the longest, from Elizabeth's birth to Blanche's death in 1589 (1590 in our terms because of change of beginning of the year). She was second in the household until she succeeded Kate Ashley as Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, a post she therefore held for more than 24 years. She was Lord Burghley's cousin and friend and her position at the centre of the court was accepted by everyone. It is perfctly true that the first depiction of Elizabeth as an icon, as Gloriana, is on Blanche Parry's monument in Bacton Church which is now securely dated to before November 1578. Blanche Parry is far, far more than simply a member of the 'club' of Elizabeth's friends. I really don't mind where you allow mention to be made of Blanche Parry and Lady Troy, and I really don't mind how short the references to them are - all I want is for their names to be there so anyone interested can find more if they so wish. I certainly do not want to change anything people have written but, in the interests of accurate research (and that is my sole aim) these names should be in this article somewhere. So please, I should be most grateful if you would be kind enough to help me in this. Yours sincerely REHopkins (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have know put the title "Lady Mistress" back into the article instead of "guardian" and ventured to make Lady Bryan a Lady Mistress instead of a governess (only for clarity). You first wrote "Lady Mistress" after a slash behind "governess", so I thought that it was another word for the same thing. Now there is no longer a problem with Kat Ashley being her governess from 1537. Elizabeth/Gloriana on Blanche Parry's epitaph is now mentioned in a footnote (for the main article, this info was simply too special, especially as the word "icon" was only explained one sentence later). I used the sentence from the Blanche Parry article as a basis. Blanche is now twice mentioned in this article here (once in a footnote), and in both instances linked. Now, it's all there and I hope understandable. It would be useful to add the page numbers, then it's fine. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Buchraeumer - Thank you for your help - very much appreciated. I'll add page numbers tomorrow as you suggest. If you would like to see a picture of Blanche's monument in Bacton Church it is on the website's gallery. This is the one she actually mentioned in her First Will and originally it was coloured. The local people must have been vastly impressed especially in a time when it wasn't easy to know what the monarch looked like.REHopkins (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

INAPPROPRIATE EDITORIALIZING

Hope I'm doing this right. I find the following passage very silly: "Elizabeth was happy to play the part,[157] but it is possible that in the last decade of her life she began to believe her own performance. She became fond and indulgent of the charming but petulant young Robert Devereux..." If the first sentence had been followed up with some evidence that she was delusional, that would be one thing. But all that follows is a statement that Elizabeth was interested in a charming man. The implication is unwittingly sexist. Who says an older woman has to be convinced she's young and beautiful just to be interested in a younger man? And the queen of England, no less!

This article is gradually being mashed up and swollen with insertions. You are right that the second sentence doesn't follow from the first. qp10qp (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The fake more cautious historians

Usually I do not take a hand with starred articles but this statement struck my attention.

"Historians tend to be more cautious in their assessment"

I do not know when this self-righteous and pompous generalization was slipped in there but it is not true. It implies that all glowing accounts were of non-historians and historians know better. Non-sequitur. Glowing historians are among historians so "historians" are not more cautious in their assessment. This is slanted writing and is not encyclopedic. It is easily fixed so I will fix it - no editorial bias please.Dave (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Allegorical painting of Elizabeth

The 'death' painting of Elizabeth seems to be missing its artist from the image caption. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Founding of Virginia

The sentence.... "Her reign also saw the first colonisation or "planting" of new land in North America; the colony of Virginia was named by her when she modified the name of a Native American regional "king" named "Wingina" that had been recorded in 1584 by the Sir Walter Raleigh expedition, noting her status as the "Virgin Queen".

Forgive me for saying this, but the Colony and Dominion of Virginia was not founded during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England. Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in North America, was founded in 1607, precisely 4 years after Queen Elizabeth I died. It was James I of England and VI of Scotland who was on the throne during the founding and the beginnings of Virginia. Also, Sir Walter Raliegh sailed and reached the shores of present-day North Carolina as he founded the Roanoke Colony in 1585, which two years later was abandoned by the colonists. So the sentence above is very misleading. The Colony (and state) of Virginia were named after the Virgin Queen, but only after the colony's founding in 1607 and after the Queen's death in 1603. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth could not have possibly have named Virginia in honor of herself simply for the fact that the place did not exist or was known until after her death! --Yoganate79 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Virginia was named by Sir Walter Raleigh and his colleagues during Queen Elizabeth's reign, but he did not necessarily mean the same area as the current Commonwealth of Virginia. Raleigh's Roanoke Colony was in that "Virginia", even if now in the State of North Carolina.

The first successful settlement, the first English settlement in today's Virginia, was in King James's reign, but the colonists came to a place already named. The boders of the colonies would have to wait until King Charles's reign to be settled. You cannot say "Virginia was not named in Queen Elizabeth's reign" just because its borders changed later; you migh as well say it was not named until the retrocession of southern DC!

Spencer dedicated his Faerie Queene to Queen Elizabeth as "Queen of England, France, Ireland and Virginia". In a portrait of 1632, she is entitled, Serenissima ac Potentissima Princeps Elizabet D.G. Angliae, Franciae, Hiberniae et Virginiae Regina Fidei Christianae Propugnatrix Accerima.

Howard Alexander (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

First biography

I've removed the section called First Biography because it was unreferenced (this is, after all, a FA) and because I don't think it is relevant. Other articles do not mention the first biography of their subjects and I don't see why this one should. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the text:

---

Frontispiece and titlepage from a 1675 edition of William Camden's biography of Queen Elzabeth I.

When William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, aka Lord Burghley, was nearing death in 1597, he suggested to William Camden, author of Britannia (1596), to write a biography of Elizabeth's reign. Legend has it that Burghley gave Camden access to all his personal and state records concerning the queen. Camden published the first edition of his biography in Latin, "Annales Rerum Gestarum Angliae et Hiberniae Regnate Elizabetha", the first part appearing in 1615 and the second part in 1617. The complete work in English was published in 1625. It went through several subsequent editions throughout the 17th century. Although the work is heavily biased against the perceived threat of "Papists", those loyal to the Roman Catholic Church, Camden's biography upholds as one of the great primary sources of Elizabeth's reign.

---

Poem

I have not read the entire article, but does it say anything about Elizabeth's poem?

"My care is like my shadow
Laid bare beneath the sun.
It follows me at all times
And flies when I pursue it.

I freeze and yet am always burned
Since from myself again I turn.
I love and yet am forced to hate.
I seem stark mute; inside I prate.

Some gentler love doth ease itself
Into my heart and mind.
For I am soft and made of snow
Love, be more cruel or so be kind."

I think it should. —93.122.135.17 (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is a hash up of a poem written by Elizabeth called On Monsieur's Departure. This looks like the version sung by the Mediaeval Baebes for the 4 Part miniseries The Virgin Queen. Danny (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jargon

The sentence "Elizabeth reacted by sending Howard to the block."? What is "the block"? I know what it is, but I think that many don't. Also, it sounds like this conflicts with "WP: Words to avoid". I would recommend changing it to "Elizabeth reacted by having Howard beheaded" (decapitated is also a good choice)

96.243.206.236 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong links to preceeded by...succeeded by...

At the bottom of the article there is a chart showing the preceeded by... succeeded by for a number of different categories.

Somehow, Edward VI is shown as having succeeded Eizabeth I, even though he was two monarchs before her in succession.

There seem to be two categories for monarch, one of which shows Elizabeth I preceeded by Mary I, which is right, and one of which shows her preceeded by Lady Mary Tudor... not sure of the reason for the difference in title... surely Mary I is right in both cases?

I do not appear able to alter this, and leave it to those who can to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliandris (talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been four months and this problem has not been fixed. I wish I knew how to fix it. (Eeyore22 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC))