Talk:Elizabeth I/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A Question About QE I

I have but one question that's been bothering me off and on for a good while now.Where did Queen Elizabeth I reside during Her 45 year reign? Kevin

She had several palaces in and around London, and also went on tours over much of the kingdom, being put up by courtiers. The Palace of Whitehall was her main base, and Richmond Palace was a favourite, also Greenwich. See Category:Tudor royal palaces in England. Unlike her father, she did very little building herself. The article doesn't seem to cover this. Johnbod (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

While the above were her mainstays, she would often go to Nonsuch, Oatlands, Hampton Court, Havering, Enfield, Kew. However, if she was on Progress, she would often have many nobles fighting for her to stay there and often to great expense (she was sometimes known to pity a poor noble and reimburse him too). She's known to have stayed at Kenilworth, Cowdray House, Theobalds House, Gorhambury House and Levens Hall.

• from The Palaces and Progresses of Elizabeth I by Ian Dunlop.

Danny (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Settlement of James's succession

The article over some important aspects of the succession of James to the English throne in 1603. The Third Succession Act of 1543 in combination with Henry VIII's testament, had excluded James' Scottish line (from Henry's elder sister Margaret) from the succession, in preference for the line of Henry's younger sister Mary Tudor. This Act (which played an important part in the succession of Mary I and Elizabeth herself, as the article adequately covers) had not been repealed by 1603 (despite several attempts to have Elizabeth settle the succession, as the article points out). The heir presumptive was therefore Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven. Nevertheless, this claim was never pressed, apparently. The coup d'état the article correctly describes brought James smoothly to power. However, one wonders if James would have rested easy, if the legitimacy of his accession could be put in doubt. Indeed, the matter was "rectified" by the Succession to the Crown Act 1603 (1 Jac. I, c. I) which explicitly ignores Henry's testament, but apparently implicitly repealed the 1543 Act. Also, this Act implied that (like Elizabeth) James succeeded by Act of Parliament and not just by right of inheritance. I wonder if it would be useful to put these developments in the article?--Ereunetes (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC

We could add the following note, from the James I of England article: "James's claim to the English throne, as the great great grandson of Henry VII, was far superior to any other. However, Henry VIII's will had passed over the Scottish line of his sister Margaret Tudor in favour of that of their younger sister Mary Tudor. In the event, Henry's will was disregarded." (Stewart, pp 159–161; Willson, pp 138–141)

But I don't think this needs labouring in either article, since James's succession was so straightforward. If the article "glosses" over the potential challenges to the succession, then so were they glossed over at the time. The bottom line is that Henry's provisions were ignored. In a sense they had become redundant, superseded by the assumptions about the succession that had revived with Mary's victory over Jane Grey—namely that the oldest-heir principle (males first, then females) was accepted as trumping the wills or devices of monarchs. This tradition, and not Henry's succession acts, was the key to the succession of Mary and Elizabeth, though the fact that it produced the same result was legally convenient. After all, Henry's statutory provisions were an innovation and an anomaly: English monarchs did not traditionally have the right to choose their successors, as the astute Elizabeth knew. So the succession issue proved in the end to be something of a non-problem—even more so since the only potentially viable claimant from Henry's younger sister's line, Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp, was of challengeable legitimacy. For this reason, James's succession is not usually regarded as a coup d'état but as a legitimate handover of power from Elizabeth to her rightful successor. qp10qp (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It could also be argued that Elizabeth named James as her successsor so as to appease the guilt she harboured over the execution of his mother Mary, Queen of Scots. Besides, there was little love lost between Elizabeth and Beauchamp's mother, Catherine Grey, illegitimacy notwithstanding. Henry only excluded Margaret's descendants from his will due to his deep hatred of the Scots.--jeanne (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was inspired by the historical analogies between the successions of the Lady Jane Grey and James I, and the diametrically opposed outcomes. In both cases the Third Succession Act and Henry's Will were ignored by the Privy Council, at least initially. As the articles on the Tudors point out, Edward VI (on his own initiative or not) tried to disqualify his elder sisters (he even issued letters patent as to their "illegitimacy") and to put his own candidate on the trone. The Privy Council went along, until a popular revolt (caused by the "illegality" of the Council's proclamation in view of the 1543 Statute) forced them to retrace their steps. So the statute was important in 1554 to help Mary gain the throne. (see also Talk:Alternate successions of the English crown#The Third Succession Act). Again, the statute helps explain why in 1558 Philip (and the dying Mary herself) meekly acquiesced in Elizabeth's succession. Now, in 1603 we see a repeat of the events of 1554. The 1543 statute and Henry's last will are still in force. Again, the Privy Council acts to put a different candidate on the throne than the one whose claim is based on the 1543 statute. The only difference is that in this case that candidate did not try to mobilize popular feeling. Nevertheless, the new situation is "regularized" after the fact by the first Act of Parliament of James's reign (which would have been superfluous if his succession had been as self-evident as the act studiously pretends). In this context the claim that Elizabeth herself "verbally," (or even "nonverbally") indicated her preference for James on her deathbed (which may or may not be apocryphal) is of much value as Edward's much more explicit preference for Lady Jane Grey turned out to be when Edward's will came up against the 1543 statute.

The point of all this is that something remarkable took place in 1603: the rights of the heir presumptive were disregarded and this caused hardly a ripple (though Cecil apparently took precautions against protests from the followers of another potential claimant, Arbella Stuart; see e.g. [1]), whereas in 1554 an analogous event almost led to civil war. Of course, the wish to avoid civil war is probably the main reason for this remarkable quietude. But my point is that all of this could be made explicit in the article, providing an answer to questions that undoubtedly rise by students of the era.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are as entitled as anyone to add something to the article; but I disagree with your general argument. For me, it was the acts of Henry that were extraordinary and the choice of the traditional heir that was conventional. (In this respect Mary's and James's successions were the same and James's not extraordinary.) James's parliament had to make this clear, whereas Mary's and Elizabeth's had not needed to because the heir was the same according to both statute and tradition. (And I don't think many of the people who flocked to Mary's standard were thinking about Henry's statutes.) qp10qp (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To show that my remarks are not frivolous, but historically germane, let me quote a scholarly article on the subject that is accessible online: "Although James I was not seriously opposed as successor,[65] it was necessary to reinforce his title by statute, since it contravened an earlier Act.[66] The Act of Recognition of the King’s title 1603-4[67] was an attempt to explain the contravention of the Succession to the Crown Act 1543-4,[68] an assertion of the hereditary title as stronger than the statutory one.[69]"[2]. The context of this quote contradicts your argument as it shows that both Mary and Elizabeth needed Acts of Parliament to justify their respective successions to the crown in view of the mess Henry had created (it turns out to be even more complicated than we thought). But let's not digress and limit ourselves to the legal quandary in 1603.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course your argument is not frivolous, and you have a technical point. But the political reality was that no one could come to the throne in Tudor and early Stuart England except by male-preferrred primogeniture. For this reason, James's succession was not remarkable; his parliament merely brought the legislation up to date, superseding the anomalous provisions of Henry VIII, passed at a time when the political reality had been something akin to tyranny but which had served well enough for the successions of Mary and Elizabeth. qp10qp (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not politically relevant? In "The Sovereignty of Parliament" (Oxford U.P., 1999, ISBN 0198268939,p. 145)" Jeffrey Denys Goldsworthy says: "Whether or not Parliament could control the royal succession was highly controversial throughout the century. As previously noted, the Stuarts had every reason to deny that it could, because James I had succeeded Elizabeth contrary to the terms of Henry VIII's will, and therefore to the statute that authorized the making of the will." (he goes on to argue that this is part of the general struggle between the "Divine Right" and the "Parliamentary Supremacy" ideologies). So the point is highly relevant for the later succession problems, even the Act of Settlement 1701. I grant you that Henry's attempts to let statutory law supersede canon and common law was anomalous at the time, but even in James' day it had already become less so and soon would become the reigning doctrine. But apart from this somewhat arcane aspect of the history of Constitutional law I think it is useful to point out that James was not "the only option" (as there were several other potential claimants), or that the dying Queen could legally designate him her successor by a "nod of the head," (in answer to Cecil's question) as some myths will have it. --Ereunetes (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read specialist books or articles, you are bound to find specialist points. But while I've been discussing this with you, I've been consulting a large number of books on Henry and James—most general but including Elton's The Tudor Constitution and Graves's Elizabethan Parliaments—and I do not find this issue addressed. In fact, it is hard to find any worthwhile evidence that Elizabeth overtly recognised James as her successor: instead, she seemed to wish the natural succession to take its course, and the general books concentrate on Cecil's communications with James. The books all seem to assume that James was the inevitable successor and waste little ink on the alternatives. Having said that, I appreciate your discussing this here and would not challenge any addition you might wish to add to the article on the matter, so long as it was not disproportionate (the article is a highly condensed version of the reign, to say the least). qp10qp (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I limited myself to one paragraph :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How old is she?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.114.110 (talk) 1907, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

{HARRIET LP} In one of the paragraphs I think that someone should add in the nicknames of her admirereg Sir Robert Dudley- Sir eyes. One of the French Dukes- Frog. I also thimk that the bit on the French admirers is to breif. Could someone edit it please? (I can't work out how.) Thanks.

The article does report that Elizabeth wore a frog-shaped earring that the second Anjou gave her. Also, the caption to his image says: "Elizabeth called the duke her "frog", finding him "not so deformed" as she had been led to expect". Yes, the courtships are dealt with briefly, but so is everything in the article. This has to be so in condensing the events of her long and complex life to a single article. Ideally, articles about Elizabeth's suitors, private life, etc. will spin off from this one. qp10qp (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This article glosses over the 1st Anglo Spanish War that lasted from 1585 to 1604. As is almost uniformly usual with English language articles about Elizabeth I's war against Spain, the only episode ever mentioned is the Armada sea battle of 1588. Nobody, icluding this author, ever wants to tell what happened over the next 15 years of that war. To sum it, it was an almost total failure from Elizabeth I'1 point of view. The privateering she bankrolled failed, England lost most of the sea and land battles. And James I, her successor, was forced by his country's own poor curcumstances to sign a peace treaty in 1604 that was mostly on Spain's terms, where the Spanish lost no territory and still navally dominated the English channel. Scipio-62 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth's Translation of Horace

Here in the Horace article is a mention of Elizabeth I translating one of his works into English.

This is certainly noteworthy as a sign of her education and intellect, and as an extremely unusually academic/literary effort by a woman of this age.

Was the work published, was it popular? Was she the first woman translator in British history?

THE BISLEY BOY

No mention is made of this myth/rumor/legend whatever it is. It's interesting if for no other reason than it reveals a certain attitude towards women in power.

Bad Bess

(This was a quote from Terrible Tudors.): Ye don't mess with Queen Best!

Regnal number

In her time, was she referred to as "Queen Elizabeth I of England", or just "Queen Elizabeth of England"? I've heard it said that the regnal number isn't used until the 2nd monarch of that name comes along, because up till then, there was by definition only one monarch of that name, and thus no need to disambiguate that monarch from any other. For example, Queen Victoria is never known as "Victoria I". But if there were ever another one, then the first one would be renamed "Victoria I" and the new one would be "Victoria II". Same is true of King John, who is never "John I". If that policy held with Elizabeth I, she would have been known as just "Queen Elizabeth" right up till 1952, and only then would she have become "Elizabeth I". Is this actually the case, and if not, why would the regnal number have been used before it was actually necessary? Or is there more to regnal numbers than mere disambiguation. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, JackofOz! As late as 1934, she was simply Queen Elizabeth, as is shown in the original title of a very popular biography by J. E. Neale. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

u relly need 2 make the last bit betr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.61.202 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth and Mary - stepsisters or half-sisters?!

I can't believe that we (have) had an article claiming that Elizabeth and Mary were stepsisters and not half-sisters. The article I'm talking about is Beware, Princess Elizabeth. I removed the claim but User:Alwpoe reinserted it saying that I was biased. Can you please exlain to him/her that Elizabeth was Mary's half-sister and not her stepsister, which every way you look at it? Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

See discussion page for novel Beware, Princess Elizabeth. --Alwpoe (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

A couple of editors of this article seem very incensed over any suggestion that Mary and Elizabeth were stepsisters instead of half-sisters (of course, the third possibility is they weren't even stepsisters if Henry's later claim that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was illegitimate). The suggestion is not mine; it was one made in Anne Boleyn's time and led to her death. She may have died for trumped-up charges, I don't know, nor does anyone living now know for certainty. I merely present the dilemma as a historical fact, and more importantly, as a plot point for this novel, which is not necessarily governed by strict historicity anyway. For clarity of record, I'm copying all remarks here. --Alwpoe (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Alwpoe! Elizabeth I of England and Mary I of England were half-sisters. No serious historian doubts that. Please read the articles about them and also read stepfamily. If you wish to prove otherwise (which would be impossible), please start a discussion at Talk:Elizabeth I of England. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually had this discussion before, q.v., thanks. [earlier discussion]Alwpoe (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your recent removal from the article on Beware, Princess Elizabeth of the clause differentiating whether Mary and Elizabeth are half- or step-sisters. This is a real historical dilemma, even involving the scandal of accused incest on Anne Boleyn's part, and a significant plot point in the novel. No doubt you were attempting to simplify or clarify, but this is too great a loss of substance to let stand.--Alwpoe (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth and Mary I are half sisters. Anne Boleyn never commited incest or adultery. That was simply a tanact used by Henry so he could marry someone else. You probably should do more research on the subject. Warriormartin (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not there, and I doubt you were either, so I am suspicious of your certainty. Besides, I was not claiming Anne Boleyn committed adultery or incest, only that the accusation was there, that it is a plot point in the novel, and that English history turned on whether it was accepted or not. Had it been widely accepted, Elizabeth never would have come to the throne, and probably not have survived. So don't be snide about my research needs, just read and consider more carefully before you edit.--Alwpoe (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That was not a real discussion. You've discussed with one user. I'll start a discussion at Talk:Elizabeth I of England. Two persons who share one parent are half-siblings. I sincerely hope you'll learn the difference between half-siblings and stepsiblings. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is not about whether Elizabeth and Mary are legitimate half-sisters or not, but whether there was an accusation they were not. Anne Boleyn died because of these accusations. This is both a historical fact and an integral plot point to the novels. You are welcome to your opinion about the historical truth of Elizabeth's legitimacy, but you can't change history or the novel by your bias or your vehemence. I have returned this crucial point to the article about Beware, Princess Elizabeth. Thank you, Alwpoe (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth was definitely illegitimate. But Henry was definitely the father of both Mary and Elizabeth. When Henry had Elizabeth declared illegitimate, he did it because he had had his marriage to Anne declared null and void, not because he questioned Elizabeth's paternity. Anne did not die because Henry questioned Elizabeth's paternity. That "point" is so crucial that it's not mentioned in the articles about Elizabeth and Mary. Please take part in the discussion I started at Talk:Elizabeth I of England. Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that Elizabeth was "definitely illegitimate" any more than I know she was even Henry's daughter. Nor do you. It's all speculation at this point, however much you weigh the historical record. However, this discussion is not really about Mary and Elizabeth, but the novel, so the discussion should be here. However, you are welcome to discuss anything anywhere. --Alwpoe (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know for sure that Henry VIII was the son of Henry VII? Do we known anything for sure? The fact is that Elizabeth is considered to be Henry's daughter by every serious historian. Please don't try to impose your original research into Wikipedia articles. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course they were half-sisters, as they had one and the same father. And this has nothing to do with both of them being declared illegitimate by their father. BUT it is stated by some historians (for example by David Starkey, I think) that Mary I of England believed, or at least accused, Elizabeth of being Anne Boleyn's child with another man than Henry VIII! There certainly exist sources as to such a notion, whether true or not, and it is perfectly believable that a novel might use such accounts. If this were the case in this novel, then they are stepsisters rather than half-sisters as regards the plot of the novel. Buchraeumer (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The claim is not related to the novel. The article describes Mary as Elizabeth's stepsister as if it were a historical fact. Mary believed Anne to be a whore and a witch; it's only natural that she accused Elizabeth of being fathered by a man other than Henry. Yet I doubt she ever truly believed that; if she had believed that, she would have had Elizabeth executed after the plot to restore Jane Grey, she wouldn't have had invited her to the court when she believed that she was pregnant and she would have tried to designate her cousin (Mary I of Scotland) as her heir instead of allowing the crown to pass to Elizabeth. Anyway, all historians agree that Elizabeth was Henry's daughter. That's a fact. What they believe that Mary believed is relevant only to the article about Mary I of England, if relevant at all. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe that anyone would seriously consider that Mary and Elizabeth were stepsisters when any encyclopedia or book on the Peerage would confirm that they were indeed half-sisters. Had there been any truth to the rumours Mary allegedly spread about Elizabeth's paternity, the people would have never supported the latter's claim to the throne. In fact, it was her startling resemblance to Henry VIII that was partially responsible for her popularity with her subjects.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet we have an article (Beware, Princess Elizabeth) that claims that, perhaps, they were not related at all. Perhaps they weren't. But perhaps it was Catherine of Aragon who was naughty? As Alwpoe says: It's all speculation at this point. I was not there, and I doubt you were either, so I am suspicious of your certainty. Which one of use was there, in their bedroom, when Henry and Catherine conceived Mary? Why do we need history if it's all speculations? Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's beside the point to discuss the plot of a novel on this talkpage. The problems of that novel's article can only be solved on its talkpage. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing the plot of the novel, Buchraeumer. That would be pointless; how could I say that the novel doesn't say something if it does say that? The problem is that the article claims that Elizabeth may not have been Mary's half-sister. The article doesn't say that the novel says that. The article presents that information as if it were a historical fact. That's why we need to discuss it here, where more users will come and confirm that it is entirely ridiculous to claim that Mary may not have been Elizabeth's half-sister. Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when has a novel written for children been considered a reliable source?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth I was Henry VIII biologicial daughter. Mary I was Henry VIII's biological daughter. What's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is another editor is requiring that we provide a DNA test to prove this was the case on account of having read something in a novel written for children. Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Jeanne, the bigger problem is that the editor uses Wikipedia articles such as Beware, Princess Elizabeth to promote original research such as saying that Elizabet may not have been Henry's daughter. Why? Because nobody was there to witness Elizabeth's conception! I still can't believe we're really discussing this! Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What's next? Harry isn't Charlie's child? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture

I have just reverted the deletion of this image because of an inline note to editors requesting it be kept as a featured picture. Following the link I find it isn't, so (i) apology to the editor I reverted and (ii) open to further suggestions as to the image to be used for the lede. Whatever the outcome, I do think this one should be in the article somewhere. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I put the procession picture further down and the featured lead pic in again; it looks much better than some entirely superflous Tudor box (all this info is in the succession box anyway). Buchraeumer (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Van Meulen portrait

Why not replace the Van Meulen portrait with either one of these? The Van Meulen doesn't really show her that clearly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Close-up of Elizabeth in 1560-65 which shows her in her late 20s, early 30s

The Rainbow Portrait which shows her with loose hair and is very splendid

I tried the rainbow picture instead of James I. The article is extremely crowded; most especially at the start. It's getting difficult for smaller screens; I personally would throw out the coronation pic, but I realize that's a bit absurd: then there would be more space for Hatfield House. The van der Meulen is one of the more interesting pictures, and not in such a crowded section. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You fitted the Rainbow Portrait into the article beautifully, Buchraemer. She has so many portraits, sometimes it's hard to choose between them!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

5. Religion

"Unfortunately for historians, Elizabeth's personal religious convictions will never be definitely known."

"Unfortunately for historians" is unprofessional and unnecessary information. It ought to be stricken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.240.109 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because... --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, this talk page took quite a long time to load for me, does some of it not need archiving. Alot of the dicussion are sorted and finished.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 09:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth persecutions

I've heard and read that Elizabeth I killed more Catholics during her long reign than Mary did Protestants. Is that in the article because I didn't see it.

References: The Faith of Our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons (chapter 18), Triumph by H. W. Crocker III at least talks about it (Chapter 15) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "killed". Elizabeth fought against Catholics in Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Ireland, and I'm sure many Catholics were killed, often in cold blood. But she only burned two heretics. According to historian J. M. Richards, who does her best to rehabilitate Mary but hardly attempts it on this question: "However they are reckoned, the numbers burned in Mary's reign were exceptional in English history, even before the very short time over which they occurred is taken into account" (Mary Tudor, 2008: p. 193.).

This will give you a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05474a.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that if you decide to count Catholics executed for other reasons than heresy, then, by the same token, you would have to increase Mary's tally with Protestants executed for other reasons than heresy. qp10qp (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Qp10qp; besides Mary I didn't earn the sobriquet Bloody Mary for nothing, especially when you consider the ruthlessness of the era.--jeanne (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing Elizabeth feared more than anything was Civil War over Religion. France and what we call today Germany were often bloodbaths. Besides, Elizabeth had a curious way of looking at enemies. Dead Catholics don't pay Taxes, don't work in fields or factories (such as they were), don't sail your ship or serve in your Armies. So long as Catholics were prepared to obey the Law, Elizabeth was happy to leave them alone.Johnwrd (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Until they began plotting to kill her and put Mary Stuart on the thone (Babington, Ridolfi, Throckmorton...). Her govenment went after the Catholics then, targeting Jesuits mainly. Danny (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not all Catholics that were martyred plotted to overthrow Elizabeth I. No mention of the Catholics that Elizabeth had killed because they were executed under treason laws is a false argument. The almost 300 that Mary had executed were viewed as traitors to England and to English Catholic society. So there should be no mention of them in the article on Mary. The fact that there is no mention of the Catholics martyrs who were executed during Elizabeth's reign is anti-Catholic bigotry.SwordBrethren (talk3:00, 25 JULY 2010(UTC)

As the last editor to rv SwordBrethren's material, may I apologise for the absence of an explanatory edit summary? As a Twinkle user and a rollbacker my screen is decorated with two "rollback" links, and mistakenly I clicked on the wrong one; one allows an edit summary but the other doesn't, for speed. Now that's out of the way, the problem with the edits (example here) is is lack of reliable sources: one that gives both the figures and the "increasing severity" comment.

Editors' motivation here is retention of the "featured article" status, which can be removed if too much unsourced stuff finds its way in, not the exercise of "anti-Catholic bigotry". Please remember WP:CIVIL.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Might I add that the 300 or so Protestants Mary I burnt at the stake were executed under heresy laws, not for High treason. These last were people like the Wyatt rebels or Lady Jane Grey, who are not included in the 300.

In section Later years an increase in persecution is mentioned, though numbers could be added of course, if it is made clear that these were mostly Jesuits. In face of the papal bull of 1570 (see section "Scotland") the government could not treat them as harmless missionaries. The others were people like the would-be regicide Babington, all of whom are included in the "almost 200". Incidentally, in the long Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article about Elizabeth I can't find any numbers either. Buchraeumer (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, accept my apology, editors. Also, I just read the three revert rule in 24 hours and will follow it. SwordBrethren (talk12:05pm, 27 JULY 2010(UTC)

There was indeed practically nothing about this in the article; I've rearranged some material, since many headings were rather misleading, and added some sentences about Northern rebellion, priests, executions etc. The section titled "Church settlement" is meant to be about the first years of the reign, not later developments. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors,

Anne Somerset stated in her book Elizabeth: I, that the "majority of priests" were not concerned with politics. Further more, she mentioned that executed Jesuit priest Edmund Campion stated that he was "under orders to abstain from politics,"and that "false evidence was concocted alleging that he had conspired to murder the Queen." The executions of Catholic priests under treason laws was purposely done by the Elizabethan government "to avoid the stigma of persecutions in the name of religion,"according to Anne Somerset. Also, Historian C. Hibberts supported this point of view in his book The Virgin Queen. On page 392 of Anne Somerset's book Elizabeth: I, she states that "In all one hundred and eighty-three Catholics were executed during Elizabeth's reign. One hundred and twenty-three of them were priests, and of the sixty lay victims three were women." SwordBrethren (talk1:15pm, 10 August 2010(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwordBrethren (talk • contribs)

Neutral sentence?

Isn't the sentence "Nevertheless, Dudley retained a special place in Elizabeth's heart." a bit more romantic novel than encyclopedia? Could it be changed into something more neutral and verifiable? /--Idunius (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try to tone down that sentence (I didn't write it). However, this is not at all difficult to verify: No serious historian would doubt it, and many, especially professors, say so. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really mean to question the fact, just the language. Thanks for considering, and changing! /--Idunius (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Parliament speech question

From Elizabeth I of England#Political aspects:

"The House of Commons threatened to withhold funds until she agreed to provide for the succession. In 1566, Sir Robert Bell boldly pursued the issue despite Elizabeth's command to desist and became the target of her anger, saying, "Mr. Bell with his complices must needs prefer their speeches to the upper house to have you my lords, consent with them, whereby you were seduced, and of simplicity did assent unto it."[81]"

If the passage in italics is that important could someone rephrase it so that it is intelligible to the reader? The grammar implies that Mr. Bell is speaking, not Elizabeth. Why is Elizabeth chiding the House of Lords when it's the Commons who hold up the money? This quote is clearly out of context and beyond the scope of this artice, anyway. Thanks. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Funeral procession

In the Royal Arms of England Talk page: The armorial and genealogical research by Tamfang on the banners depicted in the image of the funeral procession, (which I have just edited into this article), has raised a question as to why the banner of Cicely Neville is depicted incorrectly as azure (blue), rather than the correct gules (red). The current discussion of such can be seen here, any viable explanations would be most welcomed. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Some error

I just wanted you to note that William Cecil and Lord Burghley are actually the same person. Burghley is the name Cecil took when he became a Lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.170.120.78 (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonably clear in the article already, and the links should be adequate in case of doubt. —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Elizabethan Irish Wars

I think I need to highlight a few problematic lines regarding the above:

... and only half-heartedly supported a number of ineffective, poorly resourced military campaigns in the Netherlands, France and Ireland...

This is a bit misleading: in terms of mortality, the Nine Years War was the largest conflict fought by England in the 16th Century. While it is largely true that Elizabeth tried to fight wars on the cheap in Ireland, in the last years of her rule a single-minded and expensive effort was made to pacify the Gaelic Insurgents.

...Elizabeth faced a hostile—and in places virtually autonomous Catholic native Irish population that was willing to plot with her enemies...

Again, the line is somewhat misleading. One of the drivers behind the Irish Rebellion of 1641-42 was a feeling of betrayal by those Irish families who had remained loyal to the Crown during the long wars of the Elizabethan era. When James came to the throne these Royalists realised they had been deluding themselves, no longer needed, they became the subject of sectarian suspicion. These were mostly Old English families but also included Gaelic families such as the Mac Giolla Phádraig/ FitzPatricks.

Inchiquin (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Lline" should be corrected to "verse"

The reference to "the 118th Psalm's twenty-third line" should read "the 118th Psalm's twenty-third verse." But the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.89.188 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Titles

I thought that after the two daughters of Henry VIII (Mary and Elizabeth) were reinstated into the line of succession that they were granted the right to call themselves Princess again. Why is it that on Elizabeth's page they have her listed as Lady Elizabeth up until she becomes Queen? Third Succession Act

• 7 September 1533 – July 1536: The Princess Elizabeth
• July 1536 – 17 November 1558: The Lady Elizabeth
• 17 November 1558 – 24 March 1603: Her Majesty The Queen

Also didn't she claim the throne of France as well? That is not listed either. It would obviously be "Titular" Queen of France, but I only bring this up because there was a claim to the throne up until the reign of George III of Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Meg (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were back in the succession (with certain provisos, they were to lose their right if they married without the consent of the privy council, e.g.), but expressively remained bastards, "unable to inherit" under common law, as the 1543 act specifically says. Mary was given back her arms and title of Princess in April 1553, Elizabeth not at all. Buchraeumer (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this coming from the wiki page or do you have a link or a book that has the bill?
Lady Meg (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Succession Act has the text of the act (external links). I've worked with books that discuss this, but I am not your gratis lecturer here. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary Queen of Scots

It would be interesting if this article had a description of the rivalry between Elizabeth 1 and Mary Queen of Scotts, who never actually met in their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yo.guess2010 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth's personality traits

Nothing on Elizabeth's personality, I wonder if there is more information about that and her overall way with people. In modern media she is often portrayed as a sarcastic ironic keen punchliner with a very clever (though rather arrogant) sense of humor. How would she behave with her subordinates, her commanders, her people and with other chiefs of state? In which sources (if any) they base this? --Spmoura (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• according to David Starkey's book, "Elizabeth", certainly in her early life Elizabeth I was very close to her Ladies-in-Waiting, some servants and her lifelong friend Kate Ashley was originally part of her staff. However, whether this trait survived to her ascension to the throne, I do not know. With her people she was known to be very showy, stopping to greet them and make sure they caught a glimpse of her. Again, this is info from Starkey's book, this was particularly shown during her coronation, where she made sure she was seen by as many people as possible and even took some gifts from the crowd.

"Too fringe for Elizabeth's article"

This comment from the page history describes these additions. As one of the guilty editors, there would be absolutely no objection from me should they all be deleted, together. As I said in the edit summary: "ridiculous", and that was sourced from one of the proponents! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd think the inclusion of Shakespeare Authorship Question material in this article is quite inappropriate (a "see also" link would perhaps do?). Apart from being a case of WP:FRINGE, it's certainly WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. There were indeed ubiquitous rumours about Elizabeth having children throughout her reign and, if wished, we could make mention of this with reference to scholarly sources. However, there is no shred of historical evidence that aynone before the 1950s believed she had children by the Earl of Oxford or that she was his mother. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would vote for deletion. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Buchraeumer, for fixing the latest outbreak. It must feel a bit like whac-a-mole after a while. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Drag Queen (No Pun Intended)

National Geographic Channel

Secrets of the Virgin Queen TV show.

They explore the the rumors of whether or not Elizabeth was a man. Even quoting a book by Bram Stoker.

I know nothing on the subject.

Apple8800 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring other users to talkpages while ignoring them themselves

See here, please. The problems of context (why is she addressing the House of Lords?) and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT are getting worse, if anything. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the part you've highlighted is confusing. Also, "the issue progressed" doesn't seem right, as no decision was made, the issue doesn't seem to have progressed but rather stalled. DrKiernan (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, DrKiernan. I've also been wondering about what happened next; in order to forestall any discussion on the succession, she declared before 30 members of each house: "And therefore I say again, I will marry as soon as I can conveniently, if God take not him away with whom I mind to marry, or myself, or else some other great let happen." She then dissolved the parliament. Maybe the Bell altercation occurred on the same occasion, referring to an incident with the Lords which had happened 14 days before. Susan Doran, in Monarchy and Matrimony, does not mention the Bell thing either, while this quote demonstrates Elizabeth's famous prevarication. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth quotes from Ps 118

I would suggest that the numbering of Psalms be reconsidered here, and for Wikipedia as a whole. Elizabeth is quoting Ps. 117, 23 of the Vulgate. Ps. 118 is not wrong, but the Latin suggests the Vulgate. As a general rule for refs to Psalms it might be worth considering the use of this convention: 'Ps. 117(118)'. It takes away the confusion, if only for people who cannot find these Latin words in Ps. 118, 23. bibh, Leiden NL 11:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibh wkp (talk • contribs)

Edward VI was Elizabeth I's half brother, not her brother

In the first paragraph of the article, it states that Edward VI was Elizabeth I's brother. It should say "half brother", not brother. Same Dad, different Mums! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.75.163 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noticing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of excommunication

E's excommunication from Rome is an important date, not least in that it is the date from which the current separation between Anglican and Roman communions starts. It is in the early 1570s but I was surprised not to find it in the article. Could someone find the right date and put in in with appropriate weight? --BozMo talk 06:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The bull was issued in 1570 and is in Mary and the Catholic cause. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Um. Sorry perhaps I am being dumb. I read that section before I posted and I have just read it again. Please point me to the words which say that E was excommunicated by that bull? --BozMo talk 11:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Added. (I don't think she cared much whether she would have been an excommunicated ex-queen and "servant of crime", or simply an ex-queen.) Buchraeumer (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To Dr Kiernan

I get that you may know your stuff but my edits were made properly and to add the information of the article not make it "repetitive". The daughter of Henry VIII, she was born a princess, but her mother, Anne Boleyn, was executed two and a half years after her birth for witchcraft and incest (I'd like to know right up front why her mother was put to death), and Elizabeth was declared illegitimate. Despite such declaration though, she was still placed in line to the throne following her half brother Edward VI and her half sister Mary I who was also declared illegitimate. (Again important info bc how are you going to know why she was made Queen if you don't know that she was placed into the act of succession, just after her brother and sister) Her half-brother bequeathed the crown to Lady Jane Grey, a lesser known cousin, to advert his sister Mary becoming queen and re installing Catholicism as the realm's religion. (You might ask why he would name someone else heir and I was saying why which is a huge part of why Mary's reign failed while Elizabeth's succeeded early on) Mary claimed the throne back from Lady Jane Grey (how else do you know that Mary was the one that had her executed) and had her executed in 1554. (And the bit about her being imprisoned will be covered later on and is actually repetitive...)In 1558 Elizabeth succeeded the Mary.

Beautiful1749 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The prose is misleading and unclear. Anne wasn't a witch. Edward wasn't illegitimate. "to advert his sister" makes no sense (one presumes you mean avert). Edward did not want to re-install Catholicism. I know you do not mean to say these things, but the way you've said them can be misread. "claimed the throne back, etc." is clearer and simpler as "Jane was deposed, and executed." DrKiernan (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism?

I feel that this article has a slightly anti-Catholic bias and does not adequately treat the horrors, punishments, torture, and executions she placed on Catholics during her reign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.204.233 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading and researching more on this, I do agree with you that the treatment of Elizabeth's persecutions are minimal in this article. But by any standard, at least at the beginning of her reign, Elizabeth’s sanctions were milder than Edward’s. Yet she most certainly did not share any of Mary’s ideals of her religious reform and it seems to me that Elizabeth saw herself as proposing a via media between what she believed as the extremes of the papist and puritanical ideals. However, it is quite true that this moderate outlook did not always present itself during her subsequent dealings with recusant Catholics. There are many primary sources recording the thousands of men and women who were imprisoned or executed. Persecutions against Catholics were extensive especially after 1570 when Pope Pius V issued the bull Regnans in Excelsis in which he formally excommunicated Elizabeth and released her subjects from any allegiance to her. There was most definitely an anti-Catholic bias then. Has it carried over to the modern historians of Elizabeth's reign? Perhaps. I can understand how you could think so and I can also see how one could make Elizabeth look like the "perfect" queen. But remember that the winners write the history books. Historians, like Eamon Duffy, are only now discovering the true facts of her reign and the horror she imposed on Roman Catholics. As the facts slowly come to light, Elizabethan England looks more and more like Communist Russia. Ustriestina (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

As I said in an edit summary, this article is already long and new material might be better placed in daughter articles. In particular, a lot of the new material is sourced to papers in academic journals, or a single academic, in which case surely the material is unlikely to be of sufficient general interest to appear in this article, which employs summary style? If material has not been covered in popular biographies, or the media, then it seems doubtful to me that it is of pressing importance for a general article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

it depends on the audience. If we want to reach university and advanced secondary students we need to include the scholarly literature rather than merely the popular biographies. As for middle school students, they can skip over the important advanced material and stick to the simple stuff, Meanwhile in terms of length, I have been trying to reduce less relevant material. Rjensen (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, why is this sentence not enough: "In an age of metaphors and conceits, she was portrayed as married to her kingdom and subjects, under divine protection. In 1599, Elizabeth spoke of "all my husbands, my good people".

The current seems unnecessary repetitive: "In an age of metaphors and conceits, she was portrayed as married to her kingdom and subjects, under divine protection. In 1599, Elizabeth spoke of "all my husbands, my good people". Coch (1996) argues that her figurative motherhood played a central role in her complex self-representation, shaping and legitimating the personal rule of a divinely appointed female prince."

Coch's viewpoint is her viewpoint; it can be argued however that all this husband of their people stuff was well-established since the later Middle Ages (Kantorowicz); all European monarchs were married to their people, and were also pater patriae. Importantly for this article, Doran downplays Elizabeth's 1559 husband speech in her intro to her standard work, Monarchy and Matrimony.

Buchraeumer (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Coch is not a "viewpoint" --it is the standard scholarship and ranges well beyond the 1559 speech. Elizabeth introduced the queen-as-mother theme to England in a way other Queens in England and Europe did not. (Kantorowicz did not talk about queens--the gender role is central here.) Rjensen (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mother of her people theme is, for example, neither mentioned by Collinson's ODNB article, nor in Loades' 410 pages biography (both scholarly "standard works" dating from 2003, seven years after Coch's article). Neither Collinson nor Loades list Coch's article in their bibliographies, in the case of Loades 14 tightly printed pages. I think her viewpoint is o.k. in a footnote, but does not warrant a subheading of its own, especially as the WP:MOS comes into play here, deprecating subheadings for very short sections. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Armada speech footnote

Please note that we must try to respect WP:NPOV, which implies that we can't say some scholars doubt the speech only to present one particular scholar who claims the speech was given as tradition has it. There survive in fact three versions of the speech, Sharpe's is only the latest, apparently stemming from a letter to the Duke of Buckingham in 1623. The two earlier ones seem to have been influenced by one another: “The Myth of Elizabeth at Tilbury” by Susan Frye from “The Sixteenth Century Journal”, Vol.23, No.1, Spring 1992, p95-114. I will for the moment revert to the citation by Doran (2003), which was an exhibition catalogue summarizing earlier findings, and as such an excellent overview for this WP article here. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

our job is to summarize the scholarship not to judge it. I summarized the most recent article without taking a stand. Rjensen (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

the text in Elizabeth I: Collected Works ed by Leah S. Marcus (2000) p xvii has been "verified" to "allay recent scholarly doubts."

Edit request from 222.252.103.22, 25 September 2011

In Thomas Seymour section: "In in January 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow his brother." Please remove the extra "in" 222.252.103.22 (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth and Devereaux

Thought that the section which discusses her relationship with Devereaux could be expanded. Right now all it says was that he was Robert Dudley's step-son. It does not mention that he was her fist cousin three times removed or that there is a chance that he was her great-nephew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A small point

queen elizabterht was a queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.130.86 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"By the time her formal education ended in 1550, she was the best educated woman of her generation" This is a wildly sweeping statement and should not be stated as an outright fact. I suggest something along the lines of the following as an amendment: "It has been suggested by the biographer David Loades that by the time her formal education ended in 1550, Elizabeth was the best educated woman of her generation."Ðœð (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

any reference to the insertion of the number I?

The British practice has been not to use I unless someone else comes along with that name. This queen Elizabeth was retroactively given the I when another Elizabeth became queen in 1952. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Error in date of Mary's death

Early in the article, Mary is said to have died in 1568. Later in the article, she is said to have been imprisoned for 19 years with a date of death of (I believe) 1586. Whether or not I have the exact dates correct, it appears the first mention of her dying is incorrect.

76.115.237.207 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Helix Fairweather 2/26/2012

I presume the Mary you are referring to is Mary, Queen of Scots. The date of her death (8 February 1587) is correctly given in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Languages

"[Elizabeth] possessed nine languages so thoroughly that each appeared to be her native tongue ... five of these were the languages of peoples governed by her: English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish ... and Irish." Letter from the Venetian ambassador in London, 1603. (reference - Williams, Derek R., A Strange and Unquenchable Race: Cornwall and the Cornish in quotations, Truran, 2007 - p19)

On Catherine Champernowne's page it says that she taught Elizabeth four languages - French, Flemish, Italian and Spanish.(this is found in a number of books, for example Alison Weir, The Children of Henry VIII, Random House, 1997)

Maybe there should be a section on her education, but for the minute I'll just add this info to the article. Bodrugan (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What did the Venetian ambassador say were the other 4 languages? Otherwise, this appears to be synthesis of two different sources. The statement that Elizabeth governed Scots can be misunderstood. Are you absolutely certain that "Scottish" to the Venetian means Gaelic? I find that highly dubious. DrKiernan (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I suspected, it was synthesis: the other 4 according to Scaramelli are Latin, French, Spanish and Italian[3]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I've just checked Stoyle and he doesn't give the other four. Any idea of what was meant by Scottish? Bodrugan (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tentatively suggesting Lallans, but I can't really see why she would need it (unlike her courtiers, after the succession of James!), or why the ambassador would think it a separate tongue. (Pace any users of Lallans reading this, of course.) --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to mean Scots, since that was the language of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Scottish government. I've put that as the link. There are some sources at Scots language#Etymology indicating that in the 16th century Scottish meant Lowland Scots and Irish meant Gaelic. DrKiernan (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

2 Picture Requests, small changes.

As i saw, that there was no statue picture of Elizabeth in the Legacy section. I request for my adding of the statue in St Dunstan-in-the-West in the Legacy Section. Small change, that's all i ask.

Statue of Elizabeth I at the Church of St Dunstan-in-the-West London

Also, for a new Portrait change instead of the Darnley Portrait. I was thinking of portrait in Jesus College, in Oxford, as for a new change of taste of Elizabethan.

Elizabeth c. 1590. Portrait hangs in the hall of Jesus College, Oxford.

Small requests, and that's all i hope to improve the page :) --Archchinook (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits as they deleted a large quantity of text. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Category

Hello, just letting people know that [Category:People of the Tudor period] now has 3000 articles, many of which have only been edited by one or two people. If anyone with knowledge of this period could help, they'd be very welcome. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Small grammatical correction proposed.

In the introduction, the article says that "One of her first moves as queen was the establishing of an English Protestant church". I propose that this be changed to "One of her first moves as queen was the establishment of an English Protestant church. --I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 13:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Philophobia

This addition suggests precedent from "historians" for announcing that Elizabeth "may suffer of philophobia". Apart from crying out for a {{who?}} tag, it appears to be supported only by a WP:SPS web page. After a brief search, I couldn't find anything, anywhere, to confirm. I suggest a RV here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan has fixed this—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Marriage project?

I see the phrase "marriage projects" was restored to the article after I had replaced it with "prospects". Is "marriage project" is a genuine idiom, in contemporary or modern usage? If only in contemporary usage, why here? If not either, in what sense is courtship of whatever variety a "project"? Sorry for my ignorance; I have never heard this term before. Thank you. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 16:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tried to clarify. The important point is that these were Elizabeth's marriage negotiations, not Robert Dudley's putative marriage prospects.

Reason for remaining unmarried

I believe it's also speculated that the reason Queen Elizabeth I never married was that if she did marry, most the power that came with her title as Queen of England would be lost to her husband. --Kodiak42 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearing things up

Should there be a reference to Mary being cut out of the succession because she was Catholic? I've always read that Edward and his overseers did not want to be thrown back into obeying the Pope. There's no date for when Mary wed Philip. A reference to Mary not being with child but instead being sick which most likely killed her, would be helpful.

There's an excellent website (IMO!) about Mary. It says she and Philip got married on July 25 1554. If you want to have a look at it, the link is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.39.58 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"For this reason alone, it was never in serious doubt that Elizabeth would embrace Protestantism." This sentence and it's placement make it seem that she adopted Protestantism after she became Queen when it was, in fact, part of her upbringing as a child.

The section titled Church Settlement needs some adjustments to punctuation, as well as other sections in the whole article. It might be nice to know why the Archbishop of Canterbury's seat was vacant.

Dudley was her Master of Horse I believe and if that's the case, mentioning it would be helpful to show their daily closeness since she was an avid equestrian. Put in Dudley's second wife' name. Don't just insert a link.

Why no talk of her maybe not being a virgin? It's documented enough that her people though she was having an intimate relationship with Dudley. It might be gossip but it does bear including because it was a point on contention in their long "friendship" and people's view of it.

In the Mary, Queen of Scots section, there's no reasoning stated behind Mary supposedly being the "true heir" to the throne. Her genealogy would be helpful. Same goes for Mary's husband, Henry. A brief add-on is all that would be needed. Not a lengthy paragraph. I wouldn't say she was so much defeated but captured fleeing.

I don't see mention of where Lord Burghley "retired" in favor of his son. There's talk of her councilors passing away but I thought he actually did step down before dying.

And a section or link to protrayls of her in film, television, novels etc should be included to illustrate the legacy that surrounds her even now around 400 years later.Beautiful1749 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

On the final point, there's one already. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it. Sorry if I'm blind today. Beautiful1749 (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have said: there's a link at the top of the "Legacy and memory" section. DrKiernan (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have seen a reference that on the 17th November 1588 there were two protestants at the stake at smithfield ready to be burnt, and that an official rode up to announce that Mary had died and that the death warrants had abated. Elizabeth's first action as queen was to decline to re-issue the warrants, and they were quietly released later. Is this story correct, and if so, should it be included? I cannot find the reference. Does anyone have it? Plerdsus (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Relatively tolerant?

The whole statement "In religion she was relatively tolerant, avoiding systematic persecution," is not only useless but factually inaccurate. Relatively tolerant by what standards? You are either tolerant or you are not. There is either persecution or there isn't. And in this case, there is definitely persecution, even "systematic" persecution. Or should we ignore the executions of missionaries? The Act of Uniformity? Let's examine the opening line from the article on this very site for the term "priest hole":

"'Priest hole' is the term given to hiding places for priests built into many of the principal Catholic houses of England during the period when Catholics were persecuted by law in England, from the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in 1558."

Frankly it's appalling that this article makes zero mention of her role as an active religious persecutor, let alone the fact that it glosses it over with a statement that I can only assume is attempting to insult my intelligence. 173.8.132.118 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Relatively tolerant likely means that either she was more tolerant than other countries or that she was more tolerant than her predecessors.--Kodiak42 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

More tolerant than either her brother or her sister.Eregli bob (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Her sister, Mary I of England. Edward VI's regime didn't execute Catholics or "Henricians". Buchraeumer (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012

The title should be changed to "Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland" as the she reigned as Queen over both Kingdoms all her life.

Alternatively, simply change title to "Queen Elizabeth I"

Thank you and keep up the great work! 2.100.84.35 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done This is a featured article which means that it is one of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. The process to attaining featured article status involve looking at a variety of topics including the title, which must conform to our guidelines on article titles. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahnentafel

What does Ahnentafel mean? It doesn't sound like an English word, but I might be wrong there ;). --92.21.39.58 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's German for "ancestor table". DrKiernan (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me- I had never come across that word before! --92.21.39.58 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So why don't we call it 'Family Tree', which everybody will understand? Or even 'Seize Quartiers' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seize_Quartiers , which people who know about genealogy, will understand? This is the English Wikipedia; is it too much to ask that titles be written in English? Kiltpin (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

An apocryphal story?

This story is often cited, although most sources preface it with 'It is said'. This version is in Christopher Hibbert's, The Virgin Queen; A Personal History of Elizabeth I, p. 20 [4]

When the governor of her household, Sir Thomas Bryan, broke this news to Elizabeth, the child, not yet four years old, gravely asked, ‘How haps it, Governor: yesterday my Lady Princess, and today but my Lady Elizabeth?’

The Wikipedia article on Sir Thomas Bryan [5] states that he died in 1518, so he was obviously never 'governor' of the household of the young Elizabeth, who was born in 1533.

Is this story apocryphal? NinaGreen (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Allison Weir states that the governor was Sir John Shelton. I haven't checked others. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's looking more and more as though the story is apocryphal. Two reliable sources, Hibbert and Weir, disagree completely as to the identity of the second person involved, and as to his office (Shelton was 'controller of the household', according to the ODNB, not 'governor', as Hibbert calls him, and in fact there seems to be no historical record of the office of 'governor' of the household). Are there any history buffs on Wikipedia who might be able to locate the earliest reliable source which mentions the story?

religous affinities

Henry VIII was a catholic and would almost certainly have had both his daughters baptized as Catholics. If Elizabeth did favour the Protestant cause there is no mention of her conversion to a Protestant.

Is it possible that Elizabeth realised or was informed that there was a serious medical problem with her older half sister and simply played a waiting game. The interest in languages and other subjects seem like somebody keeping themselves busy while waiting for something to happen.AT Kunene (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Very delayed funeral

Was her funeral really 35 days after her death (24 March --> 28 April)? How did they keep her from stinking? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The date is given at [6], among other places. The Annals of London: A Year-by-year Record of a Thousand Years of History by John Richardson says the body was "embalmed and enclosed in lead". DrKiernan (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May not have been told

We are told that "Mary may not have been told of every plot". If the article is going to include everything Mary might and might not have known or been told, it will get very long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.54.66 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Various dates

The date of Elizabeth's speech to the troops at Tilbury is said to be 8/8/1588, by the Old Style, in this article. In the article on the speech, it is said to be 9/8/1588, by the Old Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.122.155 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

See Speech to the Troops at Tilbury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.122.155 (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As the English troops never did any fighting and the Spanish never effected a land invasion of England, the speech, if any, is not very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.122.155 (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

More detail needed

Henry's affairs with the two Boleyn sisters should be mentioned in greater detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.122.155 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Elizabeth is said to have spoken Welsh and Cornish. She and her father persecuted speakers of these languages. So did the British government for centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.92 (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Welsh was persecuted by the government from 1535 to 1993. 1887 has also been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.26.92 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Counter-Armada

Dear fellow Wikipedians. I think that this article severely downplays the importance of the Counter-Armada and it's failure. I think that it is, at least, as relevant as the Armada. There should probably be a separate section on it. CheersJohn Caves Goldenbear (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Other Media - Doctor Who.

In the 50th anniversary special of Doctor Who, Day of the Doctor Elizabeth is seen marrying the 10th Doctor (David Tennant). She is also referenced as the 'not quite virgin' queen by the 10th Doctor in his last episode when talking to an Ood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.84.109.135 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

Just after the very first sentence, could you insert this? (omitting the quotation marks)

"(She was known simply as Queen Elizabeth during her reign, with the number I not being added until 1952, when Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne.)"

I don't find (or did I overlook) reference to "the first". The "I" is not always used for the first monarch to have that name; John, Anne, and Victoria currently have no numbers because no other British monarchs have used those names.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done you will need a reliable source for 1952 - AFAIK it was slightly earlier when it was obvious that Princess Elizabeth would be QEII. - Arjayay (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaelic not Scots language

The sentence 'By the end of her life, Elizabeth was also reputed to speak Welsh, Cornish, Scottish and Irish in addition to English' is slightly misleading. The 'Scottish' being referred clearly meant Gaelic, the older meaning of 'Scots'.

The actual quote says:

"She possessed nine languages so thoroughly that each appeared to be her native tongue; five of these were the languages of peoples governed by her, English, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, for that part of her possessions where they are still savage, and Irish". . From: 'Venice: April 1603', Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 9: 1592-1603 (1897), pp. 562-570. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.29.41 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Presumably your own baseless original research again "Cassandra". Dr. Ivan Herbison of Queen's University Belfast is clear that Elizabeth used Scots to communicate with James VI of Scotland (about 9 minutes in).

In regard to the quote though, I'm not sure where she'd have found significant numbers of speakers of Scots or Scottish Gaelic actually in "her possessions". Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth had a gaelic primer as a child, though it related to the Irish dialect. On balance I think the ambassador is referring to Scots gaelic. Yes, she was that learned.-Shtove 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Thomas Seymour affair

According to this article, Thomas Seymour's flirtatious relationship with Elizabeth was the "last straw" that turned the Regency Council against him, ultimately having him executed. But that is not quite right. It is a little more complicated than that. He was working to destableize and perhaps to overthrow the Regency council, take personal custody of the minor king, and possibly gain access to the throne by marrying Elizabeth, who was at the time, little more than an innocent child, unaware of these kinds of plots. Of course, I do not want to go overboard on the Thomas Seymour paragraph, but I think that the article could be a little improved, by adding a few more sentences.Grinbriar (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014

87.242.197.196 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

I have never edited a semi=protected page before, and very pages at all, but I suggest adding a comma between "... Elizabeth's birth" and the next word, "and," in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Introduction. The second half of the whole sentence is itself a compound sentence, and hus the comma I suggest. It might be even clearer to change the preceding semi-colon to a period and capitalize the "however" immediately following the semi-colon.

Please alert me to any comments or feedback, especially to best editing and talk-page practices. I am user whydonuts and eager to learn, thanks. Whydonuts (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2014‎

 Done Someone may complain about a comma before an "and", but the Oxford comma seems appropriate here; conversely starting a sentence with "However", would probably cause more complaints.
Grammar is rather personal and applied slightly differently in the US and UK - but as this is a UK article we stick with UK spelling and grammar.
Whydonuts, I wouldn't worry too much about semi-protected edit requests as, after two more edits, you should be able to make these changes yourself - Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Virginity Myth

Certain editors keep changing the page to imply that Elizabeth was a virgin, when there's no historical evidence that she was, and in fact it's probable that she was not. This needs to be solidly fixed. It's an absurdly controversial claim. — Kaz (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a valid reference that she wasn't? If so, put it up here so other editors can evaluate it. The ball's in your court.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth always insisted she was a virgin and historians have largely agreed--there is no conclusive evidence otherwise. (Loades p 144-45 is useful) There was gossip aplenty but as Neale (1935 ch 5) showed long ago, it was contradictory & based on speculation and mistranslation. (Black, Reign of Elizabeth p 49n) As King (see his article online); Berry (Of Chastity and Power: Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen) and Wagner emphasize, her cult of the Virgin Queen gave her unusual power and she was careful never to disrupt it. John Wagner, Historical Dictionary of the Elizabethan World (1999) pp 316-7; also pp 91-92, 109-10, 145, 314. Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Oriana" vs. "Gloriana"

I've always thought that her nickname was more typically "Oriana" as opposed to "Gloriana" mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. This is based on the collection of madrigals published in her honor by Thomas Morley in 1601, which was called The Triumphs of Oriana - 72.179.131.55 (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a minor mistake in the Thomas Seymour section...

...that was raised in 2008 in a post with the name, "minor mistake in the Thomas Seymour section" now maintained in Archive 2, but apparently never resolved. The fourth sentence of the second paragraph of this section reads as follows. "In January 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow his brother." The word "his" in this sentence should be changed to "her."

Elizabeth's brother, who was also Seymour's nephew, Edward VI is the king at this point, and the only one mentioned in this section who could conceivably have been overthrown in 1549. My suspicion is that when the editor examined the suggestion of a mistake in 2008, it seems that for whatever reason the editor dwelt on the question of whether Seymour was plotting the overthrow of the king, and not on the admittedly more pedestrian (but quite obvious) mistake in the gender of the pronoun used in this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnpedersen18 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Seymour was plotting to overthrow his brother, not Elizabeth's. DrKiernan (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014

why was mary beheaded. mary was innocent and mary should have not die. - i revolt against this

206.126.125.143 (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 17:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor Spelling Error

Introduction>Paragraph 4>Line 4

Manoeuvring is used where it should say maneuvering.

Context: "Elizabeth was cautious in foreign affairs, manoeuvring between the major powers of France and Spain."

This article uses British spelling. DrKiernan (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

An painting of her death, in the Louvre Museum, Paris. http://www.wga.hu/html_m/d/delaroch/1delaroc.html 92.51.204.183 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This is available at commons. I presume it has not been included here because it is a later imagination of the scene rather than from the time or drawn from life. The article is well illustrated already. DrKiernan (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits to the Thomas Seymour section

I can see that this is a very well written article, and I have little to criticize in it. I have already made an edit to the section on Thomas Seymour. In the section, it properly mentions that the Council arrested and executed Thomas Seymour, but it is not clear what Council has done this. I tried to make a brief remark that it was the Regency Council ruling in place of the 9 year old King. I also made a few minor grammatical changes, regarding the different relationships, which are a little complicated, and maybe hard to understand for non-students of this subject. I would also like to add a little more explanation of the entire incident that got Thomas executed and caused so much trouble for Elizabeth. For example, the text says, "that was the last straw..." but there is not much information leading up to this statement. I would like to add a sentence or two, to make it read a little more clearly. I am putting forth my ideas most respectfully, and have no intention of making major changes or edits to this article. My hope it to tweak this small section, to make it better. Sincerely, thanks Grinbriar (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It already said that Thomas Seymour was the Lord Protector's brother and Edward VI's uncle; the king's council was not a Regency council. I'd suggest to return to the previous text as it is much clearer, ans readers can always look up the linked articles. Buchraeumer (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The council referred to was the Regency Council that ruled in place of the minor King Edward VI who was nine years old when his father, King Henry VIII died. This council was specified in King Henry's will. The will specified that there should be no particular leader of the council. However, exploiting the difficulties of operating without a leader, Edward Seymour, also known as Lord Somerset, got himself appointed as "chief" councilor, and he got the council to give him an official title, "Protector." This gave him great power, to rule as the de facto regent for the minor king. He assumed the informal title of "Lord Protector" and ruled more or less as the king would rule. I think that this section on Thomas Seymour is not particularly well written, and that my changes made it better. I am disappointed that you changed it back so quickly. According to my reading of Wikipedia rules, changes are not supposed to be so reflexively reverted and so I will not automatically restore my changes at this time. However, I would like to make this section a little clearer. Another problem I have with this section, is the phrase, "... this was the last stray ..." for the council. For it is not clear who or what this council is, why something should be the last straw, and how can this council condemn Thomas Seymour to death and threaten the life of Elizabeth. Of course if the reader knows it is the ruling Regency Council, then it is a little clearer. Even you do not seem to know the nature of this council. And also, the actions of Thomas Seymour were seen to be "the last straw." But nothing is given that leads up to the last straw. If a couple of extra sentences cannot be added that leads up to the "last straw," then I do not think that the "last straw" is an appropriate wording and might be eventually changed. Grinbriar (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinbriar (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Spoken Article: Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

I've just finished creating a spoken-word version of this article but am unable to add it to the page. If someone could make this edit (all I've done is add the spoken word link at the bottom), that would be great! Lily5lace (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Section on Trade does not mention start of trade with India, debate on trade with Russia,Turkey, Barbary, Morocco plus new subsections on America plus finances

In the article on the British East India Company, it says "This time they succeeded, and on 31 December 1600, the Queen granted a Royal Charter to "George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses" under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading with the East Indies.[10] For a period of fifteen years the charter awarded the newly formed company a monopoly on trade with all countries east of the Cape of Good Hope and west of the Straits of Magellan." But there is no mention of trade with the East Indies in this article. Two sources are given for the statement: (1)The Register of Letters &c. of the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, 1600–1619. On page three, a letter written by Elizabeth I on 23 January 1601 ("Witnes o^r selfe at Westminster the xxiiij^th of Ianuarie in the xliij^th yeare of o^r Reigne.") states, "Haue been pleased to giue lysence vnto o^r said Subjects to proceed in the said voiadgs, & for the better inabling them to establish a trade into & from the said East Indies Haue by o^r tres Pattents vnder o^r great seale of England beareing date at Westminster the last daie of december last past incorporated o^r said Subjecte by the name of the Gou^rno^r & Companie of the me^rchaunts of London trading into the East Indies, & in the same tres Pattents haue geven them the sole trade of theast Indies for the terme of XV^teen yeares ..." and (2)Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. II 1908, p. 6. Is that enough to include this significant action of Queen Elizabeth I in this article, under Wars and Overseas Trade? --Prairieplant (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Support the request specially the creation of a section covering the financial and administrative policy of the queen, a must in a otherwise excellent article.Maryheavenelisa (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Both of you are editors; feel free to start the section.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent suggestion but it is important to have a consensus on this.Maryheavenelisa (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the sections on trade with Russia, Morocco and Turkey overplay those links, and it concerns me that the sources for those sections and the suggested addition are not biographies of Elizabeth, but works that have a focus elsewhere. This indicates that it might not be something generally covered in such depth in biographies of her. The article should reflect the relative importance of material as given in biographies. For example, this article only mentions the Americas once, in a single clause in one sentence, but the Barbary states get a paragraph and an image. I'm not sure that represents appropriate weight. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd support DrKay's position on this. I've seen many biographies, including scholarly ones, and they seem to ignore this aspect. Also, at least the proposed section on India is cited only to primary sources, which is usually a good thing, except on Wikipedia. Buchraeumer (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I also support DrKay and I propose that he rewrite the trade section scaling down the Barbary states, Morocco, Russia and Turkey, to add a subsection on America and another one on the administration and finances (budget, poor law of 1601, 1563 industrial regulations plus monetary stabilization)Maryheavenelisa (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources and references about administration and finances are available, in certain biographies there is a chapter about them, for ex the grant from parliament. This article is excellent, here we are talking about 10 to 20 lines max, not even a section which will make the article complete, it is not logic to talk so much about the trade relations with Russsia or morroco who are most of the time not mentionned in Elizabeth biographies and not mentionned in a few lines america and the finances of the queen which were so much important to her reign, as an example take any book about Us History, the first act which is mentioned on the modern period is the discovery of Virginia and Walter RaleighMaryheavenelisa (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Little control

We are told that Elizabeth had little control over Protestant piracy. We are not told that she benefited financially from slavery. Repeated attempts to put her slaving into the article have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.237.57 (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

She was involved financially in the second and third slaving voyages of John Hawkins. The web-side of Plymouth Council is frank about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.237.57 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2015

5.64.222.42 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,  Not done because you haven't detailed what your request is. If there's a specific edit you'd like to make to the article, please feel free to post it here, along with any references required to support it, and it can be considered for including in the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

It says her 44 year reign when she was Queen for 45 years. Its minor but just looks bad. 131.109.73.5 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

44 years is closer to the actual length (44 years 4 months and 7 days) than 45 years. DrKay (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

RMS Queen Elizabeth

the ship was named after the Queen Consort to King George VI. Rjensen (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Brief conflict with Poland

The new Brief conflict with Poland section describes an ultimatum but there is no mention of an actual conflict, or indeed what the resolution or outcome was. It required some copy editing, which I have attempted but there are parts remaining in which the meaning is not clear or which are awkwardly expressed, so could probably do with some more ce. It appears to originate in the similarly- or identically-worded Brief conflict with England section at Sigismund III Vasa, which is consequently similarly affected. A point is made in regard to Sigismund's marriage but I believe this had not yet taken place. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If the section is to go from this article, it ought to go from Sigismund's as well presumbly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have provided other credible sources for the section. Although I agree that it is an insignificant and largely forgotten event, it should still be mentioned, even as one sentence in the foreign policy section. I will work towards rewording the section and fixing any mistakes. The section in the article Sigismund III Vasa will also be modified so that they are not the same. - Oliszydlowski (TALK) 15:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A worldcat record of a primary source and a wikipedia mirror are not credible sources. Since the event is "insignificant and largely forgotten", it doesn't belong here. As with any large subject, this article is a summary of the main and most important material about Elizabeth's life: the sort of content that would be found in any biography of her. DrKay (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DrKay: very poor sources. The RS on Elizabeth all ignore this trivial episode and so should we. Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

She Actually Died in 1602 (OS)

DrKay This needs to be reflected in the lead along with the NS date. Simply leaving it as 1603 is factually inaccurate and there are plenty of RS sources attesting to the date of her death. If there is concern over confusion I'm fine with removing the links and just leaving the NS and OS as plain text. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added a footnote explaining the calendar. Just using NS is ambiguous. If you use OS in its fullest form, including the March 25 beginning of year, and the Julian calendar, she died in 1602. But if you introduce either or both aspects of NS, either the Gregorian calendar or the January 1 beginning of the year, she died in 1603. As for DrKay's edit comment about lack of a reliable source demonstrating the importance of pointing this out, I point out that American National Biography considered it necessary to point out their conventions about old and new style dates on pages xxi and xxii. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Examine my edits, e.g. [7][8][9]. It is never wise for an editor to try to explain another editor's viewpoint. Leave it for them to do lest, as in this case, you get it wrong. DrKay (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with the footnote which I think works. I have also restored a paragraph on the dating issue that was removed. The edit summary is somewhat confusing since it basically restates what the paragraph says. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Opium addict

Can it be included that she was an opium addict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.205.98 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide a citation for any new content. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Celia Homeford (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth I of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228082016/http://mimsy.bham.ac.uk:80/detail.php?t=objects&type=related&kv=101212 to http://mimsy.bham.ac.uk/detail.php?t=objects&type=related&kv=101212

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

so in sypnosis September 7, 1533: Anne Boleyn is having a child. King Henry VIII is awaiting the news about his son and heir to the throne. Then, Elizabeth I is born that day, and she is female! King Henry VIII was furious. Why hadn’t he had a male child?!? Why? Why? Why? Little did the outraged king know that this woman would become Queen Elizabeth I, the greatest queen ever, Good Queen Bess, and most famous The Virgin Queen. However, like most great rulers in any history, Queen Elizabeth I had her fair share of struggles, but she also had the privilege of being queen of England during its glory days, destroying the Spanish armada, and starting expeditions to the new world. Queen Elizabeth I (September 7,1533- March 24, 1603) was not actually King Henry VIII’s first child to be born. Mary was the oldest and second in line to the throne, and Edward VI the third child was first in line to be the ruler of England. Anne Boleyn was King Henry VIII’s second out of his six wives. Because some officials in the church said it was adultery, King Henry VIII had Anne Boleyn executed on charges of treason when Elizabeth was just a three year-old girl. Even after going through this, and basically being neglected as a child, she became the greatest queen England had or will ever see. After the death of King Edward VI, Queen Mary took his place. Little did England know that this queen would not be a good queen at all. Queen Elizabeth was an English Reformist and a stubborn strong- willed person who always held steadfast to her beliefs and ideas. When Queen Mary took the throne she tried to make all of England Catholic. Accused of treason for being rebellious to Queen Mary and the Catholic religion, Queen Elizabeth was placed in the tower of London. Two months later they were unable to prove that Queen Elizabeth I was not Catholic, therefore they put her in the woodstock for a year. After the death of Queen Mary on November 17, 1558, Queen Elizabeth I became the Queen of England. A man wept in the crowd for the new queen, for he knew Queen Elizabeth I would bring England back to the Protestant Reformation. Men fell for Queen Elizabeth I left and right. Queen Elizabeth I was very self-conscious about her look; she was always seen wearing beautiful gowns, dresses, and jewelry. Queen Elizabeth I also had a good brain and could speak Latin, Greek, French, and Italian fluently. Man after man tried to persuade her to marry him, but Queen Elizabeth I disliked the idea of being married and never married in her seventy-nine long years. Queen Elizabeth I had a man that she had a crush on named Robert Dudley. After Robert Dudley’s wife mysteriously died from a fall, it was clear to everyone that Queen Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley were a perfect match for each other. Queen Elizabeth I , however, refused to marry Robert Dudley, and in October 1562 Queen Elizabeth I nearly died of smallpox ending the relationship between Robert Dudley and Queen Elizabeth I. After all Queen Elizabeth I did said, “I would rather be a beggar and single than a queen and married.”(Katie) Queen Elizabeth I also said, “I do not want a husband who honours me as a queen, if he does not love me as a women.”(Katie) Elizabeth I, the queen, was the leading role in turning England back to the Protestant Reformation. This came with many a struggle and much danger. When Pope Gregory XIII said that he would rid the whole entire Earth of the sin that is the Protestant Reformation, Queen Elizabeth I started to fear the threat of assassination. This threat was tripled when William of Orange the other main leader of the Protestant Reformation revision was assassinated.The Privy Counsel made a sort of an English secret service were they would kill anyone who made an attempt on Queen Elizabeth I’s life and whomever sent the assassin. One day the Babington Plot, another attempt plan on Queen Elizabeth I’s life, was discovered. The person behind it was Mary- Queen of Scots. Mary was found and executed for high treason against the crown. This wasn’t the only war Queen Elizabeth I fought. During the July of 1588 the Spanish Armada reached the English Channel, planned to go to Netherland, go amass forces, and finally then attack England. Queen Elizabeth I scraped together some money and built a fleet to take on the invincible Spanish Armada. When the Spanish Armada reached the English channel, England attacked with full force. There were cannonballs flying left and right. Ships being boarded, the clank of metal from clashing of swords, the sounds of guns firing, and ships sinking and exploding as far as the eye can see. There were screams of men wounded from battle, blood splattering the decks where men had been killed, and dead corpses floating in water.There were flanks and ambushes,and men were puking from the rocking of the waves mixed with the smell of blood, rotting corpses, the sight blood, and the feeling you get when you kill someone or see a comrade die. This fight lasted to nearly the end of the English Channel. England had won! The retreating Spanish Armada was sunk on the way home by huge waves, high wind, and lightning destroying the mast and setting the ship on fire. When England was not at war, Queen Elizabeth I was probably at a feast or party. Of course she wore a very beautiful dress there or wherever she went. During Queen Elizabeth I’s reign of 45 years(1558-1603) she gave England and even the world many contributions during this time.Queen Elizabeth I made laws allowed poor people to get a job by lawing it that a laborer had to hire a needy person and pay them fair wage. Queen Elizabeth I also made a law that required a physician or doctor to have an actual education in medicine and health.She also succeeded in bringing England back to the Protestant Reformation. Queen Elizabeth I was an amazing woman as well as queen. Between being born in Greenwich, England, on September 7, 1533, and sadly dying in Richmond, England, on March 24,1603, she did amazing things and had a grand adventure while doing it .Being third in line for the crown and gaining it at age 24 years old and ruling for 45 years. She survived the tyranny of her Catholic zealot sister Queen Mary. Queen Elizabeth I being a strong-willed person kept her faith and begot the fruits of her labor. Sir Francis Drake,the infamous Sea Dog, defeated the invincible Spanish Armada in a horrendous in the English Channel under command of Queen Elizabeth I. She defeated Mary- Queen of Scots during Mary’s many attempts to assassinate her. Queen Elizabeth I also ridded England of Catholics and brought back the Protestant Reformation to England. Queen Elizabeth I, England’s greatest queen, good queen bess, and finally the Virgin Queen became one of, if not the most notable, rulers of England. From her grand rule to her beauty and virginity, This was Queen Elizabeth I. Maddox carr (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Not an improvement on the current synopsis. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth I' secretary Davidson should be Davison, William Davison

There is a spelling error in the name of Elisabeth's secretary. It should be Davison and not Davidson: After Mary's execution, Elizabeth claimed not to have ordered it and indeed most accounts have her telling Secretary Davidson, who brought her the warrant to sign, not to dispatch the warrant even though she had signed it. The sincerity of Elizabeth's remorse and her motives for telling Davidson not to execute the warrant have been called into question both by her contemporaries and later historians. A link with the Wilipedia article William Davison can be made: William Davison (c. 1541 – 21 December 1608) was secretary to Queen Elizabeth I. He played a key and diplomatic role in the 1587 execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, and was made the scapegoat for this event in British history. As a Secretary of some influence, he was active in forging alliances with England's Protestant friends in Holland and Scotland to prevent war with France. Nicolaj2 (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)