Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth I/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Davison instead of 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.

should be changed to: After Mary's execution, Elizabeth claimed not to have ordered it and indeed most accounts have her telling Secretary Davison, 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 Davison not to execute the warrant have been called into question both by her contemporaries and later historians. Nicolaj2 (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Grammar correction

Why is this locked down? Anyway: in Elizabeth_I_of_England#Wars_and_overseas_trade : " An element of piracy and self-enrichment drove Elizabethan seafarers, over which the queen had little control" -- surely should be "who". 202.81.248.226 (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to 'whom'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Tolerance"

In religion, she was relatively tolerant and avoided systematic persecution.

Huh? What peace of propaganda is this? The friendliest possible objective account would be that she was every bit as intolerant as Mary the Catholic, only in favor of a side that was more fashionable to a lot of later Englishmen. I guess to some that makes all the difference.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:B0EC:D0DC:FC65:2796 (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

what do the scholars say? 1) "Her ascension at the age of 25 was therefore greeted anxiously by Catholics but with relief by her mostly Protestant subjects, as whatever her ceremonial trappings she ended the persecutions of Protestants carried out by Mary and was more tolerant of religious difference" Cathal Nolan (2006); 2) Anne Somerset - 2010 - ‎"The Queen took the view that religion was merely being used as an excuse for disobedience, for as she pointed out, Irish Catholics could not complain of being persecuted for their faith. Sir Robert Cecil said that she hoped to bring about their reformation “rather by prayer to God than by violent compulsion” and, when the first Earl of Essex was about to set off for Ireland in 1573, she had specifically cautioned him that he “should not seek hastily to bring people, that hath been trained in another religion, from that which they had been brought up in." 3) Nicola Tallis - 2017: "Elizabeth would take a very different course; though she was a Protestant queen she was prepared to tolerate Catholics in her realm." 4) Mary M. Luke - 1973 "Instead of religious persecution, Elizabeth answered her critics with a religious proclamation, and it was a masterpiece of compromise." Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, what does the law say? To quote Wikipedia,
Under laws passed during the reign of Elizabeth I, it was high treason for an individual to attempt to defend the jurisdiction of the Pope over the English Church for a third time (a first offence being a misdemeanour and a second offence a felony),[15] or for a Roman Catholic priest to enter the realm and refuse to conform to the English Church,[1] or to purport to release a subject of his allegiance to [the Crown or] the Church of England and to reconcile him or her with a foreign power., the latter presumably including the papacy.
So it was emphatically not only the case that some Catholics were hanged, drawn and quartered as actual traitors like Babington (though that was provoked), nor just the prejudice that might have led some other Catholics to be deemed, though wrongly, actual traitors in the sense we understand the word.
It was the official policy of Elizabeth I, first, not to allow anyone defend the Catholic Church in England in public, and second, to make sure as far as she possibly could that these silent Catholics couldn't be served by priests. If that is avoidance of systematic persecution, then what for all things in the world is systematic persecution? In fact, if it is true what Ms Somerset writes that Elizabeth I says in her defense that they could freely exercise their religion in Ireland, that is, if true, the exception that proves the rule: she all but herself admits that in England and Wales they cannot. --2001:A61:260D:6E01:B0EC:D0DC:FC65:2796 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
British Catholics who practised their religion quietly at home and did not conspire to murder the Queen were left alone. That is called tolerance and compares favourably with the treatment of religious minorities in Spain, France, Italy and Austria. What the pope was sponsoring is suggested in Wikipedia Babington Plot The Babington Plot was a plan in 1586 to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I, a Protestant, and put Mary, Queen of Scots, her Roman Catholic cousin, on the English throne. It led to the Queen of Scots' execution, a direct result of a letter sent by Mary ...in which she consented directly to the assassination of Elizabeth. The long-term goal of the plot was the invasion of England by the Spanish forces of King Philip II and the Catholic League in France, leading to the restoration of the old religion....At the behest of Mary's French supporters, John Ballard, a Jesuit priest and agent of the Roman Church, went to England on various occasions in 1585 to secure promises of aid from the northern Catholic gentry on behalf of Queen Mary. Rjensen (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought I had made myself sufficiently clear, but whether or no we can call it "tolerance" if "British Catholics who practised their religion quietly at home and did not conspire to murder the queen are left alone", the fact is that this was not the case. Leaving them alone to practise their religion would have included not hindering their access to priests. St. Edmund Campion didn't conspire to murder the queen, but acknowledged her as such. He was killed nonetheless, because he was a priest and wouldn't convert to Anglicanism. Would you call it "leaving them alone to practice in private" if, say, a law told Anglicans "yes, you may be Anglicans; but you must not hear any sermon?", or if it told Muslims, "yes, you can be Muslims, but pork is the only meat we allow in this realm?"--2001:A61:260D:6E01:E116:8772:EE65:4D70 (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been quoting the RS about tolerance. Here's some quotes (in italics) from a major RS The Oxford "Dictionary of National Biography" (2017) --it explains why Jesuit missionaries were treated as subversives by the british govt: they would be regarded as the pope's political agents, attempting to enforce Pius V's bull which, in 1570, had excommunicated Elizabeth I. This danger was heightened as Campion and Persons began the Jesuit mission in 1580, because Nicholas Sander, another Englishman and a papal nuncio, was in Ireland, supporting Spanish-assisted rebels against English rule. The Brit. govt declared war on the Jesuit missionaries sent by the pope. Campion was directed to go to England by the pope in person. He was caught, tortured, and found guilty of treasonable conspiracy, first hatched in Rome and Rheims, to raise rebellion, invite foreign invasion, overthrow and kill the queen, and alter both the government and religion. Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe Lord Howard of Effingham was a Catholic. Edmund Plowden, qv, was certainly one. Both these were able to have careers under Elizabeth. Plowden is said to have defended Catholics on religious charges. These are not signs of active persecution. Seadowns (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Writings

Elizabeth wrote some decent poetry, and I believe some prose also. To be mentioned? Seadowns (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. But as per Surtsicna, it might be worth a discussion at WP:NCROY to see whether more concise titles would be possible. Number 57 16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Elizabeth I of England → Elizabeth I – The title is more concise and recognisable. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the nominator is saying we should shorten the name, and move the page to the already-in-place redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the naming conventions of European monarchs (WP:SOVEREIGN). This maintains consistency with the other royal articles - Elizabeth I could theoretically be shortened, but many others could not be, including Henry II, John, Charles II, James II, William III, Anne, and George I, and that's just for England/Britain. For other monarchs who have the clarifier even though they don't "need" it, see Louis XVIII of France, not Louis XVIII; Pope Benedict XVI, not Benedict XVI; Juliana of the Netherlands, not Queen Juliana; Felipe VI of Spain, not Felipe VI; Haakon VII of Norway, not Haakon VII; Gustaf V of Sweden, not Gustaf V; Christian X of Denmark, not Christian X; Umberto II of Italy, not Umberto II; Ivan VI of Russia, not Ivan VI; Zog I of Albania, not Zog I; Donald III of Scotland, not Donald III. It also helps prevent unnecessary nationalistic arguments over primary topics, since we don't really need long discussions about whether or not a Charles II or Henry IV is "clearly the most important" Charles II or Henry IV and the like. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think for the sake of consistency, the title should remain Elizabeth I of England. That's the common method for naming the monarchs, and I can't quite understand why this monarch should be an exception. As Egsan Bacon pointed out, changing the title of this article would lead to unnecessary discussions as to whether the names of other monarchs need to be changed or not, and/or which ones have more significance, etc. Keivan.fTalk 02:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not an outrageous idea at all. In fact, it is quite sensible, but it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:NCROY. Egsan Bacon's explanation that the current naming practice helps us avoid nationalistic arguments seemed reasonable to me at first, but then I thought of cases where it actually stirs such debates, e.g. James II of England. James II already redirects there, but the "of England" part has been very contentious for years. It should also be noted that the bare names, i.e. without the realm, are more often unambigious or clearly primary topic than not. Of the 37 indisputable English monarchs between Æthelstan's conquest of York and the Union of the Crowns, only 10 need be called "of England" for disambiguation. We already have Edmund I, Eadwig, Harthacnut, and all the pre-Conquest kings at titles that exclude the realm name, and we could easily have all three Richards, all six Edwards, Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I with no questions of ambiguity. Keivan.f brings up consistency but there is hardly any of that now anyway; that ship has sailed with William the Conqueror, Stephen, King of England, John, King of England, and all the pre-Conquest kings. Not to mention James VI and I and everyone from Queen Victoria to Elizabeth II! In reality, all British monarchs but Anne could be at simple [Name] [Ordinal] title. On a wider scale, the consistency argument loses even more ground. For example, special naming rules have been wrestled out for Polish monarchs even though nothing sets them apart from other European rulers. I think it's time for a revision of WP:NCROY, time to recognize the reality of the situation and to allow for more consistency by adopting a convention that makes the Edward VII format the rule rather than an exception. Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, what you said sounded reasonable at first first, but I doubt we can name all of the English, Scottish and British monarchs based on the naming practice that you have suggested. For example, moving Mary I of England to Mary I will cause confusion because as you know Mary, Queen of Scots, was also known as Mary I. We also can't move Henry VII of England to Henry VII because we have another famous monarch with that name Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor. So why is it OK for the articles of the English monarchs to be simply titled as [Name] [Ordinal] but for the other monarchs across the Europe the kingdom has to be included? Keivan.fTalk 16:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I think it's time to ditch the realm from titles of articles about European rulers in general. I don't think there will be any confusion regarding Mary I, as that already redirects to Mary I of England and the Scottish queen herself isn't even at [Name] [Ordinal] of [Realm]. Her other namesakes with the same ordinal are conveniently called either Maria or Marie. Some disambiguation is bound to be necessary, of course, as exemplified by Henry VII, but such cases are less common, I think. We could do as Britannica does: have Louis XII, Louis XIV, etc. but Henry IV (king of France) or Alfonso XIII, Juan Carlos I, etc. but Philip V (king of Spain), for example. We already do exactly that with Mary, Queen of Hungary, Stephen, King of England, John, King of Denmark, etc. We currently have a guideline that's full of exceptions, probably because it's not the most natural solution. This would lead to more consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The format you have suggested looks fine to me, but I think instead of using brackets we could just use a comma and then include the title. For example, instead of Henry IV (king of France) we could use Henry IV, King of France. In that case, the current format that we are using for the living royal consorts (incuding Queen Letizia of Spain, Queen Maxima of the Netherlands, etc) has to change as well, although I believe this is not the right place to discuss these issues. Shouldn't this conversation be moved to another place so that a general discussion over the efficiency of the current guidelines could take place? Keivan.fTalk 19:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

i think it would be helpful if we put how old she was at key times like when she started getting depressed in 1602 she was 44 and died at 45 Zacjepps (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Those ages are wrong. The article already says she died 'aged 69' and includes phrases such as 'queen at the age of 25'. These are sufficient. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

This section does not have a source and imho needs one: "As she grew older, Elizabeth became famous for her virginity. A cult grew around her which was celebrated in the portraits, pageants, and literature of the day." 130.231.194.79 (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Added a [citation needed]. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Add Category

Elizabeth should be under "English Princesses", just thought I'd throw that out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.20.44 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Tomb image

Elizabeth as shown on her tomb at Westminster Abbey

I see no rational reason to remove this image from the Death section. "No room" does not look to me like a rational excuse to remove the only sculpture we know of, of Elizabeth's face, which is likely to be an accurate portrait. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The effigy is not mentioned in the article at all, while the funeral is discussed in detail. That suggests that the funeral deserves to be depicted more than the effigy. There is no indication in the article that the effigy is an accurate depiction (any more so than the paintings) and her face is hardly visible from that angle anyway.
You should not place images in random paragraphs. The depiction of her funeral is completely irrelevant to the paragraph that does not mention either the funeral or her death. The image of the effigy also has no place but next to the paragraph mentioning her tomb. For more information, see MOS:LAYIM. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I placed both images in the "Death" section, as anyone can see from history. I don't know why the grave has been moved out of there again later. Will fix that now, again.
If we are going to remove all the images of graves from the all WP articles just because the monuments are not described in the articles' texts, we're ging to be very very busy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved out of Death section again with this summary "I did not remove either image from the death section. I just placed each image next to the relevant paragraph, as required by the Manual of Style." ??? On my big modern screen, both images were well within the limits of th Death section, both yesterday & today, when I had put thewm there.
"You cannot put images in random places jut because you like them there." this accusation, thus, is totally incomprehensible to me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
You placed the images in the first paragraph of the section. The first paragraph does not discuss her funeral or her entombment. She is not even dead yet in the first paragraph. See MOS:LAYIM; you cannot place image in random places. If the tomb image is to be included, it should be next to the paragraph mentioning the tomb.
I am not saying that the grave image should be removed because it is not described in detail but because the article cannot support so many images. I believe I won't be very far from the mark if I say that there exist hundreds of depictions of Elizabeth. We even have a whole article about them: Portraiture of Elizabeth I of England. In this case, the tomb image, when placed where relevant, encroaches into the section below, creating a very messy layout. That mess is still better than having a tomb image in a random place. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hoping for some constructive help here. I believe that the gave image (1) is relevant, (2) can be placed within the death section where there is room for it and (3) does not need to be placed messy.
I also believe we can discuss this and almost anything in any article without mentioning each other at all. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Makes WP work much more pleasant for everyone, I think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
When did I mention your personality? Why make such a claim? If you are asking me not to comment on your contributions (e.g. you placed the image in the wrong place), you can forget it. Seriously :D Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
"Personality" ? We can discuss all these things without mentiioning each other, as per cited guideline. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
No, you cannot cooperate with someone without addressing them and their actions. Nowhere in the world is that expected. The guideline you cited advises not to comment on the "personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." I honestly cannot believe I have to say this. Surtsicna (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. Image should definitely stay. It is relevant to the article, a notable tribute to her legacy that stands in a notable location, and is easily expanded upon in text due to many acceptable sources that can be found about the tomb. I'd say placement of the image is a bit nitpicky; I think most editors would argue it is best as it is now, but is fine anywhere in the death section. I would suggest changing the caption to something more like "Sculptural depiction of Elizabeth on her tomb in Westminster Abbey". †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! On my computer, which I believe has a standard modern big screen, the grave image is not now withinin the death section, where it was before, for years, until recently when it was removed altogether. But there is still plenty of room for it there. Now, it falls between that section and the following section, which I think looks not too great. I cannot understand why that's necessary since there definitely is room for it in the Death section. If I move it back where I think it belongs, I'll be reverted at once. That has happened 3 times already in the last few days, with edit summaries that do not make any sense to me, according to how the article & section & image appear on my screen. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I moved the pictures around and left an edit note asking others to join the discussion here if they disagree. If edit-warring occurs you can pursuit other means of dispute resolution.†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that the image of the tomb is fine anywhere in the Death section. Her actual death is not mentioned until the end of the second paragraph. Having the image of the funeral procession in the first paragraph is absurd. It is not relevant there and looks out of place. The rest of the article adheres to the image placement guideline, with images placed only in relevant paragraphs. If you consider the tomb image more useful than the funeral one, we should remove the funeral one. I'll ping users who have worked on the article before, namely DrKay and Celia Homeford. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Vertical placement. Both images were always in the death section and both are pertinent to that section. The exact placement is always going to be somewhat personal because of differences in screen size, resolution, browser, and operating system: things over which we have no control. Personally, I prefer images to be adjacent to the text to which they refer and not just placed at the start of a section. While I think the images were fine further into the section, near to where the funeral and tomb are actually mentioned, I don't think that an image of a funeral at the start of a section entitled Death is too out of place either. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with shifting images up to the top of the section becomes apparent if you use mobile view, which is the view seen by most users of wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England. A minority of readers use a big screen, so it's not representative of most page views when we only look at the layout of images on one. You can see from the mobile view that the funeral image is way up at the top of the section, three paragraphs from where the text talks about the funeral. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to explain things that I found very confusing, using a standard library computer of the most modern kind. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I moved the image to the top to space them out a little. I personally don't think its a major issue to have the funeral picture at the top because it is contained within the death section; readers will obviously know she died and having some kind of funeral isn't an unexpected outcome. I think its close enough that readers can connect the content with the picture. However, I think there are ways we could rearrange them to be a little closer to the correct content if it is desired. I would strongly oppose deleting one of the photos because I think they both compliment the article well and I don't think its too cluttered or there are too many pictures.†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Religion and anti-catholicism

I´d like to add a part in her religious policy. I feel that her policy regarding cahtolicism was among the most relevant aspects of her reign, both by numbers, by the nobility it created and got rid of, and by the laws it left behind. It certainly is seen as such from outside England, considering that her legitimacy as queen depended on her aren´s marriage being valid to start with. Everything would be sourced of course. Is everyone ok with it?

Since I´m at it, I can add a section of relationships with Spain and Portugal, since Philip II has a section of relationships with England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We already have a section! Frankly, Cateyed, this is a WP:FA, and your English is so full of mistakes that you should suggest a draft wording here with anything you feel needs to be added. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I can do that if you want. And the article makes a mention to it, that is why I suggested a section. It mentions Mary. It mention her personal convictions, but there is not a word for the laws she introduced. It mentions that she got a "softer" version of the Act of Uniformity 8true) and repelled the previous heresy laws, but there is no mention of those of her own that she introduced, or for the prosecution aspect that authors such as Verstegan, Rudé or Coogan mention. I understand that those are not the main focus of the article, but the article essentially estates that "Mary was mean and everyone was happy when very tolerant Elizabeth came along", which is a really debateable subject at best. William Cobbet, for example, said that "Elizabeth alone killed more people than the Inquisition in all of their history". This is clearly not true (he estimates 1000 people, others estimate 800, the Inquisition got 1300, she got less by all counts, but still not bad) but said the numbers should be addressed, even if it is just to say that they have been checked and found to be false, and the many revolts she faced initially should also get some time, especially when both things contrast too much with the tone of the rest of the article, don´t you think? And yes, this is a WP:FA, and I am dyslexic. Neither one is an argument for how the bibliography is missing any critical voices, let alone from outside the English speaking world. I assumed that the idea of wikipedia was to get something as complete as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talk • contribs) 05:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Seymour

The language in the section "Thomas Seymour" should be edited, as the current section sugarcoats sexual abuse and seems to excuse it. I would argue that "Elizabeth experienced an emotional crisis" should be changed to "Elizabeth experienced sexual abuse". Likewise: "Thomas Seymour [...] engaged in romps and horseplay [...]" change to "Thomas Seymour, subjected the 14-year-old Elizabeth to "romps and horseplay". The fact that he was 40, or had charm or a powerful sex appeal has nothing to do with it and in fact makes it seem like it could have been consensual. Also: "However, after Parr discovered the pair in an embrace..." change to "However, after Parr discovered Seymour embracing Elizabeth..." - in a sexual abuse situation, one should not talk of "a pair" or "a couple" as that implies consent and equality.

It is also unclear from the text, why Elizabeth was interrogated as potentially guilty when Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth. This should be made clear or the section (see below) removed.

"In January 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow the Lord Protector. Elizabeth, living at Hatfield House, would admit nothing. Her stubbornness exasperated her interrogator, Sir Robert Tyrwhitt, who reported, "I do see it in her face that she is guilty".[27] Seymour was beheaded on 20 March 1549." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterVII (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

She was over the age of consent. The language in the article should reflect the sources, so we can only put any of this in if there are sources supporting it. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Family Tree

Henry VIII's sibling branch is incomplete: add his brother Arthur [1] to the branch. He was a pivotal figure considering that he was the first husband of Catherine of Aragon. Even so, that notwithstanding, I think it matters. Just sayin'!

Sscohn (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he's important here. He's not mentioned anywhere in the article and was dead decades before Elizabeth's birth. The purpose of the tree is to show connections to people relevant to Elizabeth's life not to give a full family tree of all her relations. DrKay (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur,_Prince_of_Wales

Over-illustrated article

Today, this article looks like a few pages in a school book, not a strictly biographical entry in an encyclopaedia. There are too many images that only peripherally illustrate it. Wikipedia, I believe, is not supposed to cram pictures into articles just because they (the pictures) exist, whether or not they look farfetched. An ambassador, e.g., looks that way. I'll be removing a few, unless someone objects convincingly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you believe about the roles of pictures in Wikipedia but I do not think this article in particular contains too many images. The images do not clash with each other, they are spaced out quite nicely, and do not squeeze the text into a "sandwich" anywhere. They also illustrate sections appropriately. The picture of the Moorish ambassador to Elizabeth is not essential but it is difficult to imagine a picture that would better illustrate the section that is specifically about Elizabeth's relations with Muslim states. This is, after all, someone with whom she interacted. Same thing can be said about the Irish chieftains submitting after a failed rebellion; what image would better illustrate a section that is specifically about Elizabeth's troubles in Ireland? I believe the images have been chosen with care and there is a reason behind each of them, though of course the reasons can be debated. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The images here have been much discussed & can be said to represent a consensus arrived at over the years. No removals based on a personal prejudice should be attempted. Myself, I don't think there are too many. Obviously, print encyclopaedias have/had to pay licence fees & are traditionally very sparsely illustrated. One of the great things about WP is that we can illustrate things properly (yes, like a "school book"). If we did have too many images, the next step might be to set up a mini-gallery or two, but this isn't needed here. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm convinced. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

please make this more accurate on the tudors! this needs checking and my sources say this is wrong 2601:600:8180:1010:99A6:DF0F:A240:746C (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Please specify the changes that need to be made. DrKay (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Rollback re: poison death

I just rolled back 2 edits with a theory about Elizabeth's death. Interesting? Yes. Reliable source? No. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Her poetry

Unless I have missed it, this article does not mention her poetry. She wrote some fine poems. Seadowns (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England → Elizabeth I – Commonname, existing redirect, consistent with articles for other monarchs. 17jiangz1 (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This has previously been rejected at a 2018 RM, so is not suitable for uncontroversial moving, but I would support the move. The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE than the current, and sufficiently precise too given that Elizabeth I already redirects here. In fact, given that she was also Queen of Ireland, it's arguably more precise. And it is also WP:CONSISTENT with Elizabeth II and the WP:COMMONNAME in sources. So all policy considerations seem to be satisfied, other than perhaps the WP:NCROY guideline, but we already have exceptions to that so doesn't seem a biggy to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Oxford, American Heritage, and Collins. Sixteen dictionaries say "Elizabeth I." Only Wikipedia calls her "Elizabeth I of England." Allan Rice (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There's no reason why the TV shows inspired by her life, which are the only other targets on the disambig page, showed be considered of equali notability to the woman herself. Kges1901 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. "Elizabeth I" is by far more common than "Elizabeth I of England". Using the common name is the policy of this encyclopedia. Furthermore, Elizabeth I is one of the absolute majority (27 out of 37) of English monarchs whose name is unambiguous or a clear primary topic. The disambiguative appendix "of England" serves no purpose. Supposedly it provides consistency but consistency has long gone out the window: her successor is at James VI and I and her namesake is at Elizabeth II. Monarchs with similarly unambiguous names that require no disambiguation include all three Richards, all six Edwards, Henry VIII and Mary I, i.e. all of the Tudors bar Henry VII.
    The outcome of the 2018 discussion looks very strange to me, with editors referencing a non-existent consistency as if it were a policy and that being accepted by the closer, so I will try to be much clearer and more illustrative this time. These are the works listed in this article that call her Elizabeth I in the title:
    MacCaffrey Wallace T. Elizabeth I (1993)
    Collinson, Patrick. "Elizabeth I (1533–1603)" in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2008)
    Somerset, Anne (2003), Elizabeth I (1st Anchor Books ed.), London: Anchor Books, ISBN 978-0-385-72157-8.
    Haigh, Christopher (2000), Elizabeth I (2nd ed.), Harlow (UK): Longman Pearson, ISBN 978-0-582-43754-8.
    Loades, David (2003), Elizabeth I: The Golden Reign of Gloriana, London: The National Archives, ISBN 978-1-903365-43-4.
    Howard, Maurice. "Elizabeth I: A Sense Of Place In Stone, Print And Paint", Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Dec 2004, Vol. 14 Issue 1, pp. 261–268
    Ridley, Jasper Godwin (1989). Elizabeth I: The Shrewdness of Virtue. Fromm International.
    Greaves, Richard L., ed. Elizabeth I, Queen of England (1974)
    Collinson, Patrick. "Elizabeth I and the verdicts of history," Historical Research, Nov 2003, Vol. 76 Issue 194, pp. 469–491
    Beem, Charles. The Foreign Relations of Elizabeth I (2011)
    Hodges, J. P. The Nature of the Lion: Elizabeth I and Our Anglican Heritage (London: Faith Press, 1962)
    McLaren, A. N. Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I: Queen and Commonwealth, 1558–1585 (Cambridge University Press, 1999)
    Haigh, Christopher, ed. The Reign of Elizabeth I (1984)
    Hulme, Harold (1958). "Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments: The Work of Sir John Neale". Journal of Modern History. 30 (3): 236–240. doi:10.1086/238230. JSTOR 1872838.
    Doran, Susan (1996), Monarchy and Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth I, London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-11969-6.
    McGrath, Patrick (1967), Papists and Puritans under Elizabeth I, London: Blandford Press.
    Williams, Neville (1972), The Life and Times of Elizabeth I, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 978-0-297-83168-6.

    And here are the works listed in the article that call her Elizabeth I of England:

    Surtsicna (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. By the way, in April 2011 there was a proposal to move her father's article to Henry VIII. It received 2 Supports and 1 Oppose, and seems to have gone nowhere. If this present move gets up, it would be timely to revive that move, methinks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Unambiguous common name. pburka (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT with Elizabeth II. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • weak support per WP:COMMONNAME, although it would have been better if the nominator had put other English monarchs under the same request to abide by the WP:CONSISTENT rules. Keivan.fTalk 06:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - clear common name. Interstellarity (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT with Elizabeth II.--Ab207 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose: All the monarchs of England before the Union of the Crowns (1603) are styled "of England", even for the names where there is no ambiguity. This situtation seems to suggest that the country name was dropped afterwards to avoid complications like "James VI of Scotland and I of England" or similar examples. The move would be a big disruption to the consistency of page titles for English sovereigns—potentially she could end up being the only monarch of England after William the Conqueror (who was from Normandy) not to have any provenience in the name.
    Finally, the supposed consistency with Elizabeth II is useless, since we are actually talking about two different kingdoms (in fact she is not styled as "HM The Queen of England"). --Foghe (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Getting hung up on minor technical details practically nobody reading would care about does not do the article any benefit. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arthur Dudley claims

I see there's been some discussion and a bit of an editing argument going on about the Arthur Dudley claim that he was her son. I found this to be a relevant addition to the article that's referenced in academic literature, even though I agree that having some critical secondary sources was important. I've attempted to rewrite the paragraph in question so it's not just the same two people going back and forth, and am happy to discuss. Any opinions? -- Arcaist contribs • talk 20:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wooing by King Frederick II of Denmark

It mentions that Elizabeth was wooed by King Frederick II of Denmark in 1579. The problem however, is that he married Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow in 1572. She gave birth to a son in Dec. 1578 and a daughter in Apr. of 1580, thus suggesting that Frederick was not looking to put aside Sophie.

131.93.13.24 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Anika Cobriana131.93.13.24 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted - the source used actually says "After the hands of Elizabeth of England, Mary of Scotland and Renata of Lorraine had successively been sought for him, the council of state grew anxious about the succession, but he finally married his cousin, Sophia of Mecklenburg, on the 20th of July 1572" so I don't know where the "1579" in our article comes from. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Was Elizabeth an opium addict?

Was Elizabeth an opium addict?

"Ships chartered by Elizabeth I are instructed to purchase the finest Indian opium and transport it back to England."

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.219.215 (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Literary Works

She wrote some good poetry, and prose too, I think. Haven't her works been published? Seadowns (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Spanish Armada but neglecting the equally important English Armada is misleading and comes of as an attempted whitewash

Not mentioning the English Armada disaster in the lead, while associating her with the victory over the Spanish armada not only gives undue weight that gives the false impression of her being some sort of great military tactician, but also whitewashes history. the fact that English leadership tried to whitewash the disaster is even mentioned in the English Armada page. Belevalo (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

She's not associated with the English Armada in the popular imagination, and so I'm not convinced it belongs in the lead. It is covered in the article body. I do think that the current lead is too effusive as the Spanish Armada was defeated by the weather as much as or more than tactics, which is why I toned it down to The failure of the Spanish Armada instead of England's victory against the Spanish Armada. I also think it's more in line with scholarly consensus to say that the failure of the Spanish Armada is portrayed as a great military victory instead of stating in wikipedia's voice that it was one, which is why I changed one of the greatest military victories in English history to an event portrayed as an indication of English unassailability. DrKay (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree - I don't think it needs to be in the lead. The text should note the two further Spanish fleets, call it the "Counter-Armada I think, & remove the double link. And can we use the English-language edition of Elliott (& link him)? I don't think there's anything wrong with calling the SA a victory - there was significant fighting as well as the weather. And a serious invasion attempt by Europe's largest power at the time was prevented, which is naturally very important. But no one thinks she was the tactician. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

Change manoeuvring in paragraph 4 to maneuvering Jam3268 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Why would we want to use American spelling here? Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: per WP:ENGVAR Elli (talk | contribs) 04:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


Religious Convictions

Elizabeth I was faced with scrutiny for religious ideals, mainly by John Knox. In John Knox's "First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women", he states that women who take royal power are attempting to go against God's word. He believes that they are rebelling.[1] This work was released shortly before Elizabeth's rule, so its reach spread around her accession to the throne. He later issued an apology, stating that he was not directly attacking her character, but that he still stood by his ideas that women should not be in power, that they are inferior.[1]

One person who supported Elizabeth in her religious endeavors was Dr. Richard Cox. A "colourful but not always reliable reporter," Schifanoya, said that Cox believed Elizabeth to be the only one "divinely ordained" to change monasteries and purify churches.[2] Elizabeth did not believe in extremes. She wants discussions of religion to be properly argued. She asked her subjects to avoid arguments that were unnecessary or crude. She also asked that they avoid extreme insulting words, such as "heretics". Elizabeth was believed to have feared Catholicism. She was inheriting a country that was officially completely catholic, and her views leaned more towards Protestantism. This was part of the reason for her encouragement of calm discussions.[2]

Elizabeth I was a queen that refused obedience and modesty.[1] She believed that those ideas were not fit for that of a queen. In The Book of Homilies there were many statements about women in lavish clothing and their obedience to husbands which were all ideas that Elizabeth refused.[1] She agreed to the publication of the book, but with exceptions of vague mention of her authority and only picking and choosing which sermons to read.[1]

Elizabeth I had a major role in the Church of England. She was deemed to be the "Supreme Governor" over the Church of England. She had refused to be the "Head" of the Church because of an exiled Marian named Thomas Lever, who convinced her that a woman should not be the Head of the Church of England.[1] Many people believed that by not taking the role of Head was against God's word, but she ended up refusing the title in the end. She took the role seriously, but on the other hand would sit silently in the back and have her archbishops do all of the fighting for hierarchy and structure of the Church.[1] She used her role to help the people of her nation by "healing" them with her touch. A century before hand, it was believed that women did not have the touch to heal people, but she proved that her royalty gave her the upper hand and allowed her to heal by the hand of God.[1]

The view of Elizabeth I as the "Virgin Queen"[1] became paramount in her rule. Many people believed that her presence was that of a religious figure. They formed a cult around her virginity and rule.[1] Many believed that but having her presence was similar to being blessed. They replaced "Virgin Mary" with Elizabeth. Instead of a "Hail Mary!" they would shout "Long live Eliza!"[1] Many of the followers also replaced symbols typically used for Virgin Mary with symbols to use for Queen Elizabeth. They would pray to God for blessings of Elizabeth and curses to those that opposed her. Her birthday, September 7th, fell on the eve of Blessed Virgin Mary's feast of the nativity.[1] Many took this as another sign of her religious makings. Her followers believed that she should share the dare with Virgin Mary. English Catholics were left unhappy with this coincidence.[1]

In her quiet first months as queen, Elizabeth made a few strides. Her predecessor, Queen Mary, was of a high catholic faith. The country was of catholic faith in legal documents and law.[2] During her reign, though, she made changes to how things were run before her accession. She made challenges to the current religion and the idea that everyone must coincide with it. On an Easter Sunday Elizabeth changed the routine of a normal Easter Sunday. She changed the language of the mass, the presence of the stone altar, and she led the communion herself.[2] A debate was held by Catholics and Protestants to argue the validity of the religious reforms happening under her rule. In the end, Protestantism won. Elizabeth, in turn to her belief in Protestantism, had won. She made subtle changes that would effectively combine old and new practices. Her goal was unity. She did not want there to be extremes of both religions, but a middle ground where both sides could be welcomed. [2]

In the church, Elizabeth made strides greater than her intentions. The church turned into the Elizabethan Church, much more protestant than her original idea.[3] The protestants, though, we seen to be less conservative than Catholics or Puritans. They were more comprehensive and open. Elizabeth's intentions build on this, as she rarely wanted to intervene on people's ideas and beliefs. She wanted to create an environment where they could be openly explored. When challenges arose to this new way of life, many were quick to shut it down. Although there were disagreements from both sides, they did not want an entirely new religious reformation, which is what the Puritans were attempting to achieve before migrating to the United States.[3]

This new section is written in a different tone to the rest of the article, uses American spelling, doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and introduces names (such as "Schifanoya") without explaining who they are. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Levin, Carole (1994). The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 10–38. ISBN 0-8122-3252-6.
  2. ^ a b c d e Starkey, David (2001). Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers. pp. 275–288. ISBN 0-06-018497-3.
  3. ^ a b Rouse, A.L. (1950). The England of Elizabeth. United States of America: The MacMillan Company. pp. 386–413.

Elizabeth the Great

Should the above page link -- either as a redirect or a DAB entry -- link here? At present it doesn't, according to an editor's interpretation of WP:DABMENTION. Related question: should that be mentioned in this article? It's not uncommon as a descriptor. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots (lack of this page/voice)

Mary refused to ratify the treaty. [ADD HERE] In 1563 Elizabeth proposed her own suitor, Robert Dudley [...]

[ADD HERE]: In Scotland Mary's mother Mary of Guise, who had ruled Scotland as regent, attempted to increase French influence in Britain by granting the French army fortifications in Scotland. A group of (Protestant) Scottish lords allied with Elizabeth deposed Mary of Guise and, pressured by the British, Mary's representatives signed the Treaty of Edinburgh, under which French troops were to be withdrawn from Scotland. Although Mary refused to ratify the treaty, it had the desired effect and the French threat was driven away from England.[1]

After the death of her husband Francis II, Maria Stuart returned to Scotland, while the period of religious wars was beginning for France: fearing further possible threats from the French side, Elizabeth secretly gave support to the Huguenots, helping and supporting the revolts of Prince Louis I of Bourbon-Condé[2]. This aid was intended to find support among French Protestants in order to later claim the French throne. She made peace with France in 1564, renouncing the last English possession in French territory, Calais, but did not abandon the formal claim to the French throne that English monarchs had held since Edward III's reign during the Hundred Years' War, and which was abandoned only by George III, in 1802 with the treaty of Amiens. 95.244.253.106 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The information reported here is missing, it is very important. 95.244.253.106 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Antonia Fraser, Maria Stuart. La tragedia di una regina, Milano, Mondadori, 1996, ISBN 88-04-41332-8
  2. ^ "Blair's Chronological and Historical Tables from the Creation to the Present Time" John Blair - year 1844 - tab. N°52 (A.D. 1531-1600), 1844. "Queen Elizabeth declines the sovereignty of the Dutch provinces.- Hugenots receive supplies from Elizabeth , through the Prince of Conde."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_I/Archive_4&oldid=1210777121"