Talk:Elizabeth I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth I of England article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
Featured article star Elizabeth I of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Elizabeth I of England as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Chinese,  Portuguese or Swedish language Wikipedias.
Wikipedia CD Selection Elizabeth I of England is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Main Page trophy Elizabeth I of England appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 7, 2004.

Contents

[edit] Possible Heirs to Elizabeth

I remember that one of the possible successors was a young lady called Arabella Stuart who was under the wardship of Bess of Hardwick. From memory, she was a rather uncontrollable youth who contracted an unsuitable marriage without Elizabeth's permission, thus earning the Queen's dislike. The main article doesn't seem to mention her at all and i can't remember enough details to slot her in. Anyone out there who can pick up the baton?

More recently, a programme in June 2006 entitled The Secret Life of Elizabeth I aired on Five in England. The programme was the work of historian Paul Doherty. It centres on the a young protestant arrested attempting to enter Spain by Sir Francis Engelfield. The young man says he is Arthur Dudley. He states that his father is Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and his mother is Elizabeth, Queen of England.

The Engelfield papers say that Arthur Dudley was born around 1565. Records show that at the same time Elizabeth suffered dropsy and began to swell. She then briefly retire from the public eye. Did she have dropsy or was she pregnant? Records also indicate that, around the same time, a baby was hurriedly taken away from Hampton Court Palace.

A key problem eith this theory (and others of the same ilk) is that a reigning monarch is never entirely out of the public eye. Any pregnancy approching full term (which this would have to be, given 16th-century medicine) would be damn near impossible to hide. And remember, conspiracies have a way of leaking, and nothing credible along these lines has leaked.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic

What is Wikipedia's guidance on the term, Roman Catholic, especially in this period of history? Surely the term, as widely and casually used as it is in Wikipedia, betrays systemic bias. The terms Roman rites, Roman authority - these are legitimate descriptions. But it is a necessary inference from the use of the term Roman Catholic that the church is not universal; the universality of the church is a matter for theological debate, and therefore the inference is not legitimate. In fact, the use of the term in a Wikipedia article that isn't dealing with that theological debate is ignorant.

What drivel. The Catholic church had divided long before the period of Elizabeth. To suggest by the use of the single word "Catholic", which simply means universal, that this was not the case would be ignorance and propaganda.

A church that is divided, or described as Roman, cannot be described as catholic - it's not a matter of propaganda, but of accurate terminology. The discussion page on the article Roman Catholic Church, and its equivalent in French Wikipedia, demonstrate the controversy over this. And why describe a reasoned argument as drivel?--shtove 21:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic" can surely reflect an intent or aim rather than the current actuality, can it not? Regardless of that, the original poster's assertion that the division of the Catholic church (into "Roman" and other sects) is a matter of debate is drivel and not a reasoned argument since it flies in the face of the facts without any support whatsoever. It is nonsense. 213.78.235.176 13:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biased against Catholicism?

Read this article and tell me if you think it is biased against Catholicism. If you agree, please change it.

I don't think that it is particularly biased against Catholicism, but I do think that in the "Religious Settlement" section there is an error in a hyperlink in regard to "Consubstantial" as opposed to "Transubstantial" views of the Eucharist in the 1559 religious settlement changes. The hyperlinked "Consubstantial" should take the reader to the entry on "Consubstantiation" rather than the entry on the definition of consubstantial in terms of the relative nature of the three persons of the Holy Trinity (homoousious). I do not know how to edit the link but please someone DO edit it. Consubstantiation refers to the doctrine (espoused by Luther) that the consecrated elements of bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ WITH and IN the bread and wine and remain so for a period limited to the reception of them by the faithful, rather than the Catholic view of the consecrated elements becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ (body, blood, soul and divintiy) in a corporeal sense UNDER the APPEARANCES of the species of bread and wine. the doctrine of Transubstantiation is (in my view) much maligned and generally misunderstood, drawing as it does so much on the philosphical concepts of "accident" and "substance", however the link to "Consubstantial" will presently do NOTHING to inform the reader. The difference in the link is VITAL to the sentence. Wombala 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legacy = film roles ?

Should legacy really include Elizabeth in film roles ? Should this be placed in a separate heading of "Elizabeth in film" ? Surely her legacy is more important and more serious than being the main character in a few films four centuries later ?

[edit] not enough information and it stinks

not enough information and it stinks

Could you perhaps be a little more specific, anonymous user? Marnanel 19:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is James I the same nephew?

Under "Death", section 7: In later years[...] she showed an inclination towards her nephew, ironically the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, whom she had executed; but she never officially named him. [...] She was succeeded by James I of England, who was already James VI of Scotland.

Is James I the same nephew mentioned in that first sentence? He seems to be, from his own page, but it's not terribly clear. --Suitov

Yes they are the same people, as Elizabeth had no children, her nearest heir was her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, who could have expected to inherit the English throne had she not been executed. Therefore the line passed down to Mary's son (Elizabeths nephew)James who was already King of Scotland and became King James I of England.

James wasn't really Elizabeth's nephew. As Mary, Queen of Scots was her first cousin once removed, James would have been her first cousin twice removed, correct? Not disagreeing with the line of succession, just the terminology, and I would want to have it correct in case of any future editing.Prsgoddess187 15:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As the daughter of one who is obsessed with his family tree, I know how to work out all this cousin business, and James VI is indeed the first-cousin-twice-removed, NOT the nephew, of Elizabeth I. A nephew/niece can only come from the child of one's siblings. However, I would suppose that in his or a similar situation one would call the elder by 'Auntie', simply as a term of endearment and that 'cousin' indicates that they are equal on the family tree, which he is not. If you sketch out the family tree (I'm not sure how to do that on Wikipedia) you can see that there are two lines, one culminating in Elizabeth, and the other twice as long, passing through Mary of Scots and ending in James. The lines are joined way back at Henry VIII, whose sister is James' great-Grandmother.
Of course, I'm splitting hairs here. Nephew works just as well, but it's worth mentioning on both pages that James is not the nephew, and is really a distant cousin, of Elizabeth. Lady BlahDeBlah 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


YEah be more specific

[edit] who, what, were, when, and why, and the exeptional how

I think that there should be more information on who, what, were, when, and why, and the exeptional how!! it is a wonderful sight but that would really make it stand out

Could you be more specific? To what section are you referring?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URGENT NOTE HELP:

In the process of adding a new link to additional text on the page Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, pointing to robert dudley son of leycester, duca de northumbria, the page created was named Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester, CONSEQUENTLY REDIRECTING THE LINK Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester on this page TO THE WRONG ADDRESS.

Correct page being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley%2C_1st_Earl_of_Leicester

Faedra.

You could just go to the redirect page and modify the link, you know. I've changed it now. Marnanel 15:38, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

Hey Emsworth, I realise that Wikipedia:Captions says that captions may be ommitted for biographical articles, but that doesnt mean they have to. I often prefer reading image captions rather than the introductory paragraph. If you feel there's too much clutter, we could cut it down some. Deepak 23:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose captions for main images in biographical articles. They are, I think, utterly redundant; all important information should be given in the article text. The caption should merely indicate that the individual depicted is indeed the subject of the article. Captions are only appropriate, I believe, where the subject of the image is not, completely and exactly, the subject of the article. -- Emsworth 23:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's a matter of opinion. So what if someone adds an interesting caption to a picture of a person in a biographical entry? I don't see any harm in it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Heh... the first thing I noticed about this article was the unusual (I thought) lack of caption. I'd have liked to have seen some info about when the picture was painted, by whom, and if it was to commemorate any particular occasion. PMcM 16:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Extensive captions near the introductory paragraph seem aesthetically displeasing. -- Emsworth 16:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I find having to type using a keyboard aesthetically displeasing, unfortunately I'm stuck with it until a better alternative comes along.
If you don't want a big caption, could you maybe add a lot more info to the image description page instead? (Wikipedia:Captions#Tips_for_describing_pictures)
I'm still inclined to agree with Wikipedia:Captions#Exceptions_to_the_rules: Images of the subject of biographical articles (A good caption is best, no caption is okay. A year for the photo is important).PMcM 11:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The reign of Elizabeth I(1533-1603), Queen of England and Ireland was remarkable for its political and religous stability.
Enlarge
The reign of Elizabeth I(1533-1603), Queen of England and Ireland was remarkable for its political and religous stability.

So can we evolve a consensus on this now? How about this? Deepak 16:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disagree: the exception noted above is appropriate. All information in the caption will just be redundant with the introduction paragraph. In non-biographical articles, the caption should indicate the relationship of the picture to the article. But in biographies, the relationship is quite clear to almost every user. Captions are meant to identify, not tell the story—that role is to be played by the article itself. -- Emsworth 13:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree, and neither does Wikipedia:Captions. People read articles in different ways: some may read the caption before the opening paragraph, so a proper caption sentence can draw them in read the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a picture book. I don't think that captions should be used as interest-catchers, for the purpose of the article is not to excite the reader, but to inform him (or her). You cite Wikipedia:Captions. According to it, however, "no caption is okay" for biographical articles. (It also says "A good caption is best"—this is subject to interpretation; as I see it, a caption indicating [a] the subject of the picture and [b] the relationship with the article is "good." The subject of the picture is clearly identified as "Elizabeth I"; the relationship is obvious and need not be re-iterated.) One of the primary participants in the project, User:Ke4roh, states on the talk page: "A caption's job is to tie a picture to an article." By identifying the image as that of Elizabeth I, our caption quite clearly ties the picture to the text. The same user also declares, "Nominative pictures (which simply serve as an example of the subject of the article with no further information) generally don't need captions at all." -- Emsworth 17:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(I note that, although previously opposed, I have accepted captions for other portraits on the page. But for the first image, the relationship with the article is abundantly clear; I strenuously oppose any extensive caption in this case. -- Emsworth 17:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC))
Other than Emsworth, who is implacably opposed, the consensus (the other four people to have commented) is to add one. Just as a point of information, someone has created a biography infobox - see Galileo Galilei. I don't like that particular implementation very much, but something along those lines could be a good idea. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, didn't realise that the tyranny of the majority was going to come in to effect; please let me register my concordance with Emsworth.
James F. (talk) 11:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tyranny - moi? Just trying to reach a consensus ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So the majority would like a caption, and Emsworth is against an extensive caption. A compromise seems to be in order; perhaps a caption that isn't too extensive. A single sentence would probably suffice. Something like "Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland, is also known as the Virgin Queen." That's short enough to not be aesthetically displeasing, it succinctly describes the subject of the photo and it draws people into the body of the article. Quoting Wikipedia:Captions, "Different people read articles different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through for other interesting information, looking specially at pictures and captions. For those readers, even if the information is adjacent in the text, they won't find it unless it's in the caption — but don't tell the whole story in the caption — use the caption to make the reader curious about the subject." We could probably come up with better captions that are interesting without being unnecessarily verbose. -- Nitishkorula 04:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes Im fine with that, although I would still like a little bit more in there, something to do with the remarkable nature of her reign, but i think this is a good compromise. Emsworth? Deepak 18:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about a description of the portrait, which would certainly not be redundant with the introduction (my main problem with the captions previously proposed)? Something like: 'In the "Ermine Portrait" (above) Elizabeth I is shown with an ermine, a symbol of royalty.' -- Emsworth 19:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's an good idea; it certainly provides interesting and non-redundant information. As a matter of fact, I had wondered about the ermine myself. Deepak's point about the remarkable nature of her reign is also worth considering, though, and closer to what I originally thought. In a perfect world, we would be able to combine the two in a natural way instead of concatenating two unrelated concepts. Would all royals be pictured with an ermine, or only strong / successful monarchs? Ermines are also a symbol of purity - would that have had anything to do with it? -- Nitish 05:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Elizabeth in the "Ermine Portrait" by Nicholas Hilliard, 1585 (at Hatfield House): the allegorical royal ermine wears a crown collar.
Enlarge
Elizabeth in the "Ermine Portrait" by Nicholas Hilliard, 1585 (at Hatfield House): the allegorical royal ermine wears a crown collar.
A better caption style (illustration, right), referred to in the text, as you see. Captionless images are just décor. Good captions make the reader look again at the image, identify the image precisely, give a link if necessary, (Nicholas Hilliard deserves an entry) and also relate the image to the text. Now that the frame of thumbnailed images is no longer cardboard gray, they are much less offending. Wetman 23:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that the caption proposed looks somewhat messy; moreover, it is not a complete sentence. I would prefer: Elizabeth I is depicted in the above "Ermine Portrait" (by Nicholas Hilliard in 1585) beside an allegorical royal ermine. -- Emsworth 00:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is good, but to retain some of the pleasing consistency between the captions for the various English monarchs, how about:

Elizabeth I
Queen of England and Ireland
depicted in the "Ermine Portrait" (by Nicholas Hilliard in 1585) beside an allegorical royal ermine.

To maintain the consistency, the other royal protraits will also need a short caption along these lines. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That, I am afraid, seems even more inelegant (esp. due to the insertion of "Queen of England and Ireland"). The general format, I think, should be: King N. is depicted in the [special name of portrait if any/ above portrait] by X. in Year. [Comments specific to portrait included as appropriate.] -- Emsworth 23:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Extensive captions are needed for historical portraits: all of Elizabeth's portraits were part of her propaganda, contributing ultimately to the perception of her as Gloriana and the Virgin/Faerie Queen: as a document, each should carry at least a date and an attribution. Turn to the article on the Spanish armada and you will find such information for the picture displayed there (Battle of Gravelines), which allows you to understand that the picture is representative merely of an exaggerated early-Romantic appreciation of the historical event. Elegance in an article rests with the thought and expression, not in the attractions that the wrapper may hold for some sparkly twit.--shtove 21:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

The Wikipedia:Cite sources specifically says:

Wikipedia has no shortage of space, so you need not abbreviate names; a good guideline is to list them as they are written in the original article/book.

- Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Queen of England, Ireland, and...France

From Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

Hi,

Elizabeth I was also Queen of France. Since the 100 years war, the English monarch was also king (or queen) of France. It's only George III who cancelled that title, after the French revolution. Of course, that title was purely nominal, the true king of France being the French monarch. --User:62.161.27.52

Anyone know what the convention is for putting things like this in the box? -- 217.42.48.241
"The box" -- what box? →Raul654 21:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Elizabeth, however, did not give up her claim to the French Crown, which had been maintained since the reign of Edward III during the period of the Hundred Years' War in the fourteenth century, and was not renounced until the reign of George III during the nineteenth century.
This sentence is in the article, and i think it's enoughIlluvatar 21:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about Wales however? I cant see it mentioned anywhere in the article even though the Tudor dynasty is of Welsh ancestry and that the Kingdom of England since the reign of Henry VIII meant England and Wales?

[edit] Article Title

Wikipedia policy is not to use ordinals where they are redundant -- for instance the article Victoria I of the United Kingdom was moved to Victoria of the United Kingdom. This article is therefore anomalously titled and should really be moved to Elizabeth of England since there never was an Elizabeth II of England. -- Derek Ross | Talk

You point out that there was never an "Elizabeth II of England." You would be correct; there is no "Elizabeth I of England," either; both titles are inventions of Wikipedia policy. But, now, since there is no "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" other than Elizabeth II, do we move Her present Majesty's article to "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom?" Shall we move "William IV of the United Kingdom" to "William of the United Kingdom?" Of course not. As the numbering of the British and English monarchs has been continuous, it would be appropriate to use the first ordinal. Your example with Victoria, I believe, is not applicable here, as there has not been an English or British monarch of the same name since. But, there has been a second Queen named Elizabeth (the present Queen, of course), and therefore there must have been a first Queen of the same name: Elizabeth I. -- Emsworth 12:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, the three crowns (England, Ireland and Scotland) are, and always have been, inherited separately, though conferred on coronation together. Wales, I suppose, remains a royal principality.--shtove 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Wales is was part of the Kingdom of England from the reign of Henry VIII until the Act of Union in 1707 created Great Britain. The Principality of Wales is a title granted by the English/British Crown.

[edit] Personal Trivia

Elizabeth I has a lot of mention in various trivia books of varying authenticity, and some downright weird stuff is going around. Any truth to any of this?

  • She only bathed twice in her life
  • She was totally bald
  • Her glass coffin exploded at her funeral, but her body somehow remained intact
I would believe a commoner of that time period bathing only twice in his life, but not a monarch. I also doubt that she was totally bald, but I would believe either of those two over the last one. If any of that did turn out to be true, though, it would certainly merit a mention here. --BDD 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


Elizabeth actually bathed rather often for someone of the time (monthly). She wasn't bald but towards the end of her life she did wear a variety of wigs which varied in color from strawberry blond to deep red. I guess this is where the bald myth came from. One true thing you missed was that she was missing most of her teeth by her early thirties and the few she had were black. She would stuff rags into her cheeks to keep them from having a sunken appearence. Never heard the exploding coffin myth though. Glass coffins were not typical for the era though. 5/12/05 MK

[edit] "The Virgin Queen"

I had always heard that despite her nickname, Elizabeth's actual virginity was questionable. Has anyone else heard anything of the sort? --BDD 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Depending on what you read, some say that her virginity was questionable (not that I can name any sources off the top of my head). She did have a few "favourites" in her time, including the Earl of Essex. Of course, she never gave birth, but I suppose there are other reasons of her not being pregnant but still having sex. Maybe someone else could clarify this further? ♪ Craigy ♫ 14:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, when she was 17, she had an affair with a palace guard. She also had many other things like that thoughout her life.--The Republican 00:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)The Republican

What about her infatuation with Thomas Seymour when she was sent to live with Catherine Parr? It certainly establishes her as a passionate woman ... is there any truth to that story? I've also read that Thomas Hatton was a favourite. 59.93.245.85 06:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Mrs S.

I don't think the infatuation with Seymour that you mention really can be used to establish a pattern. She was, I think, about 15 at the time and on the recieving end of Seymour's attentions – not the instigator of them. Catherine Parr participated to some extent, but apparently got worried about where it might end up, and sent Elizabeth elsewhere. As for Hatton, he was one of the Queen's favorites, but as such is one of several. The more "famous" of her favorites are Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and his stepson Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What if she didn't exactly favor men opposed to women?

I would like to state that the title "Virgin Queen" shouldn't be taken so litteraly. She has been known to court with a few young/older men, but the fact is that the name is established because she was never married. She was the Virgin Queen because she never had a King. Her position was too awkward to marry anyone. Virginia is also named after the "Virgin Queen" when the english colonized that region.

[edit] Doesn't read easily

The text doesn't seem to flow well. It's almost like I'm reading bullet points, except they're grouped together into rather random-feeling paragraphs! Or is it just me? --Rebroad 20:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous edits of 12 September 2005 have improved this - more like it are needed; but is it right to Americanise (Americanize?) the spelling?

No, it's against policy. Proteus (Talk) 23:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Americanizing spelling is against policy?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slave trade

"Elizabeth has also been criticised for supporting the English slave trade." Is this history? Historians don't write or think like this. --Wetman 28 June 2005 05:25 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring over titles

This is getting silly. Please take this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and find out what the consensus is before you make further changes to the names in this and several related articles. Rl 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionists

Regardless of being a "featured article", the history page for this article is another display of Wikipedia's weaknessess and why such projects can never rival a "real" encyclopedia with real editors. The article may as well be deleted for all the use it will be to anyone researching the topic and looking for reliable information.

I don't get the point - please expand.--shtove 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. I do like the concept behind open source, but Wikipedia is far from being a compedium of facts, just an open forum for ideological debate. I'm not even interested in labeling this article pro-Catholic or Protestant or whatever. The fact that these two figures are even being likened at all is asinine, given as has already been mentioned, the difference in the length of the reigns and certainly, the extent to which either actually governed and excercized their decision-making power (rather than allowing the royal cabinet de facto rule). --Jentizzle 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth is long gone but there is still a regular attempt to spin the article in a pro-(specific type of) Catholic way. The idea that "Bloody Mary" was not remarkable for the rate at which she had enemies executed, and the similar repeated uses of the words "spurious" or "dubious" in the section on the evidence at MQoS's trial are things that an editor would prevent. The "spurious" example is the worse of the two because it shows how easy it is to undermine an article. If someone has a reason to make that statement about the evidence, a real editor in a real encyclopaedia would surely request more information than that one word. But on Wikipedia anyone can come along and slot such a thing in and then wander off again. Once such an oversight is corrected, a real encyclopaedia editor does not have to check every day to make sure it hasn't come back.

Subtle issues like this are the bane of Wikipedia, far more than the obvious vandalisms which even an naive researcher would spot. To go away from an article on Elizabeth with the impression that historians regard her as no less bloody or tolerant than her sister, or that there are good reasons to doubt the evidence at MQoS's trial, or any one of a million other simple revisions that could slip through the review process for days or weeks, would be a failure of the system. Yet it is a very real possibility even here on an article one would have thought was reasonably uncontentious. What hope is there for an article about, say, the causes of 911, or the troubles in Northern Ireland, which are very much live and sensitive issues? 12:40, 10 Oct 2005

I disagree. The body of the article reflects traditional protestant views of Elizabeth, and I think at one stage the tiresome contrast of Mary's rabid catholicism to Elizabeth's shrewd protestantism was cemented in like a cenotaph. Academic historians have graduated beyond those views, as a result of deeper research in various collections of papers; they tend to view the old-style political glorification of the reign as distorting of the truth and, frankly, stodgy. For example, it is only in the past twenty years that significant space has been given in works published in Britain to Elizabeth's reign in Ireland, which yielded the most important setbacks and developments for crown government and foreign policy in the decade 1595-1605; prior to that, a book of 500pp on Elizabeth might have devoted a mere 10pp to this subject. I point this out to show that the historical picture is becoming more accurate and, in my view, the emphasis has become far more interesting. If it finds its way into the article then the emphasis should be welcomed (although a comparative head-count of persecution between the two queens is suited to journalism). It certainly isn't revisionism. If someone nips in every so often with an ill-advised point of view that goes against the facts or betrays bias, then there's a crowd of people out there to put it right: Eternal Vigilance. Also, I think if you avoid the bright lights and explore the alleyways, you'll find articles on the less well known figures from the period that are not subject to this, and which occasionally are more instructive than print sources.--80.4.252.22 16:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] objectivity

It is important to avoid value judgements in historical work. " a successful monarch" whose "record was blemished" is not history but opinion. It is interesting that E was seen as successful, but the term is completely subjective - successful in defending whose interests ?

Her own. She was successful in keeping her head attached to her body in a time when many factions wished to remove it, which makes her a successful politician if nothing else. 213.78.235.176 13:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a problem, not with editors putting in points of view, but with such points of view as are not neutral. This is my understanding of WikiWorld - am I mistaken?--shtove 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London Tower, then Woodstock, Oxfordshire, then Hatfield, Hertfordshire

Maybe two slight corrections could be made to the article.

Instead of Quote: After two months in the Tower, Elizabeth was released but kept under house arrest in the care of Sir Henry Bedingfield at Hatfield;

Read: After two months in the Tower (18 March-19 May 1554), Elizabeth was released but kept under house arrest at Woodstock, Oxfordshire, then was allowed to stay at her residence in Hatfield, Hertfordshire.

And instead of Quote: Though Philip II aided her in ending the Italian Wars with the Peace of Cateau Cambrésis, Elizabeth remained independent in her diplomacy.

Read: Elizabeth ratified the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis established on 3 April 1559, bringing peace with France.

(England and Elizabeth I were not involved in the Italian wars.)

[edit] Charles Blount

Is there any basis for the description of the Baron wearing scarves? Ariasne 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is, in Sean O'Faoilean's book The Great O'Neill - but the description is not appropriate to this article (my fault). Remove at will.--shtove 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'her father's enormous girth'

From what I recall, Henry VIII was only fat in his later years. The armour he wore as a young man (still preserved) shows he was muscular but not vast. Also, artists probably increased his physique to make him look more intimidating. Perhaps this should be edited?

[edit] the Great

There as been a movement in recent years to give her the honor of being a Great. This was started by Elizabeth Jenkins, an authoress. Please keep my refernce to this in the article. I'd be much obliged.


[edit] Saucy

Why has flirtatious just been changed to saucy?--shtove 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reinserting flirtatious. — Grstain 12:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

I have added in the list of language flemish, as she was fluent in it.

Just out of curiosity, what's your source for this? I know that Elizabeth was fluent in many langages, so I won't say Flemish wasn't one of them, but it's not really one of the "standard" languages one might expect someone to learn. (Perhaps it was nearer to being one of the "standard" foreign languages back then than it is now.)  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scurvy edit

Don't like this edit (in bold, l.39):

  • "Sometimes referred to as The Virgin Queen (since she was never married, to a man, although she was said to be married to her country)"

It's a repetition of propaganda and should be deleted.--shtove 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Elizabeth used this rationale herself. It might be a good idea to keep it in the article, but in such a way that makes it clear that this was the propoganda she used.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The relationship between Mary Stuart and Elizabeth I

I think Mary is not cousin of Elizabeth. Mary's grandmother Margaret Tudor is the elder sister of Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father. So Mary should be Elizabeth's niece.--Heroyog 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wootage. Aren't family trees fun. James VI is also Lizzie's first-cousin-twice-removed, as per my long ramble above (didn't know this was down here!!) Just remember though, if you ever see a diagonal line on a family tree, more often than not it means various family members were gettin' jiggy with it when they weren't supposed to!! XP Lady BlahDeBlah 15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
When I read Antonia Fraser's book on Henry VIII's wives, I noticed something interesting on the family tree at the front of the book: Henry and all six of his wives shared a common ancester — I'm pretty sure it was Edward I.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Levina Teerlinc

The WP article on this artist (which needs work) doesn't attribute this portrait to her. Christopher Haigh Elizabeth I (2001) ISBN 0582472784 states it's probably by William Scrots in 1546. Perhaps the Coronation Portrait, in which the crowned queen has her left hand on an orb, is the one that is possibly attributable to Teerlinc?--shtove 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drake

According to the article on Francis Drake, he was the first person to circumnvaigate the globe, not just the first Anglo, Magellan having died en route. Fishhead64 21:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Magellan died en route, but he certainly was not the only person on board. According to the article on Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate would be either Juan Sebastián Elcano or Magellan's servant Henry the Black (in addition to 17 other crew members). Although Drake might be the first "famous" person, he certainly was not the first absolutely. Massimo377 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

Regarding the various names given to the Queen, there have been several changes to this section of the introduction in the past few months. For instance, within the past few days an edit was made that identified E.R.I as "The Faerie Queen", changed from "The Faere Queen", the latter of which I suspect is the correct nomenclature. In the absence of proof of some definative, I am editing to return the article to its former state. Of course there should be as much input on the subject as possible, but to justify the reversion I would point out that Elizabeth, who was "The Virgin Queen" was not a Faerie or any other kind of mythical beast. I am assuming of course that a modern interpretation of "The Faere Queen" would be "The Fair Queen". I thank you in advance for your consideration. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume Faerie Queen comes from the allegorical poem of the same title, which Edmund Spenser dedicated to Eliz I.--shtove 08:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hamster sandwich, having made my first contribution to the wikipedia today, with an edit of the Elizabeth I page, I can assure you that the name Faerie queen does indeed come from the famous poem written about her by Edmund Spenser. See for example, http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/texts.htm many thanks, Elisabeth.

[edit] Monarch of Canada?

Was Elizabeth recently categorised as a Monarch of Canada because of the British Colonies in what would later become Canada during her reign? If so, is that really correct categorisation - my Canadian history isn't very good, but I didn't think there was really anything that could be called "Canada" at the time. Advice of the more informed requested.  :-) --Estarriol talk 08:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of the technicalities of this. On the same principle, she should be categorised as monarch of the United States because of the Roanoke colony. I don't fink so. There's an odd urge on WP among British nationalists and fellow travellers to claim credit for everyone and everything that's ever been in the last 1000 years eg. British Empire contains a claim to western France, the Netherlands, parts of Germany and Italy!--shtove 10:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Eliazbeth I was monarch over the colony of Newfoundland, which is today, of course, a part of Canada. It's true she was also monarch over territory in what is now the United States, but the difference there is that in becoming the United States ties to the Tudor/Stuart/Hanover/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor line were completely broken, whereas what is now known as Canada emerged under the relations of Elizabeth I, and they still form the line of succession to the Canadian Crown today. As Canadian Senator Serge Joyal said in his pamphlet Canada: A Constitutional Monarchy "Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development. Under the Crown, Canada developed first as a colony of two empires, originally the French and subsequently the British, then as an independent dominion, and now as an entirely sovereign nation."
Perhaps my naming of the category was unclear, but I based it on the section Monarchs of Canada in Monarchy in Canada, and thought it was sufficient to state that the list included monarchs of New France, British North America and Canada. --gbambino 15:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Humphrey Gilbert turned up in Newfoundland in 1583 and for a few weeks waved his papers about on behalf of Elizabeth - apparently annoying the hell out of the international fishing fleet who were there doing a real job - before grounding one ship and then going down with another on the return voyage. I'm not sure anything was done by the English after that until 1610. So, if it's okay to list a monarch of Canada from such an early period, I guess the first English one would be James I.--shtove 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Henry VII of England was the first English monarch in Newfoundland. Did you know that Mary I of England was a joint monarch in New Spain? IP Address 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Poor Amy Dudley, always forgotten

Added a reference to Robert Dudley's wife which was missing, her existence being one of the bars to Elizabeth marrying Dudley had she really been committed to do so.

Alibi 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Amy Robsart's existance was only a bar to the marriage for the first few years of the Queen's reign. Robsart died under suspicious circumstances in 1560, and the uproar would have made it dufficult, from a public-relations standpoint, for Elizabeth to marry Dudley. But really, the thing that really prevented Elizabeth from marrying Dudley was her insistance that she would not marry one of her subjects.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary films

Elisabeth is currently the subject of an HBO Mini Serie: "Elisabeth I". http://www.hbo.com/films/elizabeth/index.html

[edit] Lizzie The 1st's Death?

I just watched the 2 part series on HBO "Elizabeth 1(st)" I have to say that I was totally enthralled. I as an american, don't know much at all about the history of the British Monarchy, and found it to be a very moving portrail. Well acted, excellent writing, a supurb piece of cimematic Storytelling. It's just that it glossed over some areas, (as ofcourse it must have or I'd still be watching to now.) It was a 2 part movie both parts lasting about 3 hours. It made me realize the heartaches, trials and tribulations, a member of the Monarchy goes through, especially if you're a woman back in those days. It left the ending of her life though, a bit vague. How did Elizabeth The 1st Die? According to the movie, it seemed as though she more or less "willed" herself to death, due the heartache of her having to cause the execution of one of the men she loved dearly and privately. I think it was the Earl of Lester, and his stepson. In history, whats written as her cause of death?

P.S. I suggest to anyone that wants to see a good piece of acting, writing and directing, as well as the costumes, to see it. Now I'm currious as to what other movies that actress has played, she kept me glued to the screen, (as did the story itself) and there aren't many films being made today, with such care to detail, and excellence. I feel for her, never having married, and not being allowed to marry the men she did fall in love with due to her position. Now I'm going to be looking more deeply into the British Monarchy of the 15 and 16 hundreds.

Thank You

Bruce

Yeah, I thought that was well done. Eliz I seemed to lose the will to go on and just gave up the ghost. I'm not aware of any diagnosed cause. Certainly, in her last years she was under great pressure as the factions led by Robert Cecil and Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex jockeyed for position in preparation for the next reign. And living up to the propaganda probably sapped her. The actress, Helen Mirren, recently played Eliz II in another film, for which she has also been acclaimed. She's the one who stepped up to receive an award at this year's Emmys and said, "I nearly fell arse over tit coming up those steps". And didn't Judy Dench get an Oscar for playing Eliz I in the Shakespeare film?--Shtove 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proper english please

I have just recently edited AGAIN. The abuse of English is horrible. A sentence should never be more than 2 lines long and yet people are writing things that seem to go on for days. I made 4 sentences out of one. What's going on? And some people deleting references attached to certain people like Anne Boleyn's title of Pembroke? Henry gave it to her to elevate her more before he married her so it wouldn't seem like that bad of an idea. Why would someone delete it? I do agree about some things being taken out because they misleading and subjective. But some things, like well-known rumors that well-respected authors include in their books, should be left in. They are part of who Elizabeth is and what makes her so fascinating. All the drama and the fact that we'll probably never know is what attracts some people. Everyone has their own version of the story. As a place dedicated to informing people, we should present every side, not just the one we like best. Get it? beautiful1749 6/15/2006

I think the problem is that some stuff seems so strange people assume it's wrong. I've had to replace the fact that she was "Queen of France in name only" and can only assume someone thought it was a mistake. As for the bad english - well I'm afraid a lot of editors (including me) are not too strong on this so it's great that someone else reads it and improves it! BTW if you sign the end of your post with 4 tildas like this ~~~~ it will automatically expand into your username and th current time/date. Sophia 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a lot of edits come from fans of romantic fiction/films/TV - they keep nipping in with tidbits, which disrupt the flow.--Shtove 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there's some truth to that. Another possible source of such "nipping in" might come, inderectly, from historians. One of the reviews on Amazon.com of Retha Warnicke's book about Anne Boleyn said that some of Warnicke's weirder claims were blown out of proportion in one of the more recent fictional accounts of Boleyn's life. Said claims, for example, may work their way into inappropriate parts of the article in exaggerated form via the fictional work. They may also skip the fiction altogether, and appear — sourced and footnoted — from the original historical work.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] brief Question

Does any user know the referencing method used on the article? (As there are little or no citations throughout the article except for a few references at the very bottom). -- AJ24 July 12, 2006

[edit] Elizabeth I & Elizabeth?

i'am confuse between Elizabeth I(the queen after Queen Mary I)and Elizabeth(the queen after the King James I ).Can you tell me more about their matter during both their reign.

Elizabeth I was, as you said, Queen of England after her sister Mary I. This very same Elizabeth I was in turn succeded by her cousin, James I of England (VI of Scotland). King James was in turn succeded by Charles I, who, to my knowledge, did not marry an Elizabeth.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC); edited by the author, 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be referring to James' daughter Elizabeth, named after the queen that left him the throne, who became the Queen of Bohemia for a year, also known as the Winter Queen. However, she was never Queen of England, so that is merely a guess.

[edit] Early life

Are details available for Elizabeth's life prior to her early reign? --SparqMan 05:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Details of her earlier life were in previous versions but incredibly they have been deleted. It cannot be a full biography if it starts at the age of 25. Her relationship with her father, brother, sister, Katherine Champernowne and Katherine Parr are crucial elements of her life. JMcC 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic persecution

There was a rather extensive persecution of Catholics during Elizabeth's reign, especially of priests, including such famous martyrs as Southwell and Campion. Perhaps something about this should be mentioned in the article.

Go ahead! You can link the contribution to the articles on Robert Southwell and Edmund Campion. No doubt you'll get resistance from those who describe the persecutions as prosecutions of traitors.--Shtove 15:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, but don't lose perspective. Elizabeth's persecution of Catholics, while noteworthy, was nothing compared to her sister's persecution of Protestants.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Untrue - more catholics came under the cosh during Elizabeth's long reign, than did protestants during Mary's short reign. Plus, you're forgetting about the many slaughters and executions in Ireland, Elizabeth's forgotten realm. See Tudor re-conquest of Ireland.--Shtove 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wish to note that while Elizabeth did kill many more people in her reign, she was not on a religious crusade like her sister was; should Mary have lived I have no doubt she would have surpassed Elizabeth's final score, but more importantly Elizabeth most often framed her revenge in treason to the realm or throne. William Byrd, a devout Catholic, lived a peaceful life at court because he never engaged in plots to depose Elizabeth or betray the realm to foreign (including Popish) powers. Thomas Howard the Duke of Norfolk, however, was closely connected to the Northern Rebellion, which attempted to overthrow Elizabeth, the Church of England, and invite foreign rulers to invade the realm. Catholic threats to the safety of the realm were punished - 900 peasants were killed after the Northern Rebellion - but quiet practicers of the Old Faith were largely left alone by the queen. Here it is important to specify the difference between treasonous actions and religious practice.

Comparing head counts doesn't really help. The problem with Elizabeth's approach is that open practice of the catholic faith pretty much amounted to treason, depending on the will of the prosecutors (given that conviction on such a charge was a foregone conclusion). And William Cecil's Bloody Question - designed to put suspects on the spot - forced the faithful to deny their faith in order to affirm their allegiance to the Crown. And of course the priests were hunted, tortured, and put to death as traitors simply because of their presence in the realm. The distinctions are very difficult, and Elizabeth played an amazing hand in steering between the extremes. But she was not gentle by comparison with Mary. And that's even before we get started on Ireland.--Shtove 09:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Early reign

these "facts"

It is also said that Elizabeth first got the news of her sister's death when she was reading the bible sitting under a tree at Hatfield. A manservant came up to her and breathlessly said, "Your Majesty...". Elizabeth curtsied and replied, "It is God's doing and magnificent in our eyes."

are straight out of the fictional movie Elizabeth ...


Actually, what you describe is just one particular telling of an existing story (which, of course, may or may not be true). Elizabeth was said to have recieved the news of her accession while sitting under a tree — and I think it's been established at least that she was at Hatfield House — and to have replied to it with the Latin version of the phrase you give above. You might want to take a look at Alison Weir's The Life of Elizabeth I (ISBN 0345425502).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 21:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey, the picture used in the Early Reign section is running over the top of some of the text. 66.57.225.77 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya'know, creating this kind of article would be a good idea for Elizabeth I. Some historical figures (including Good Queen Bess and Joan of Arc) seem to be magnets for biopics and fictionalizations.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please create more of these kind of articles on cultural depictions! Thanks, --164.107.92.120 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry V Pivotal in Comparison?

Shakespeare aside, the English -did- lose that war and thus all of Henry's gains within a bit more than a generation. While England remained at a national level decisively protestant into the 20th century. So the mention of Henry V as a pivotal monarch or any other claims of influence save the lasting impression his memory made on Englands idea of itself is strange. Wilhelm Ritter 03:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone for historical accuracy?

All this talk about grammar leaves me wondering if anyone's minding the store. There's a glaring 'vandalization' here: "The King enjoyed a string of affairs, one of which involved a woman named Dana who was a daughter of a suitor of the king's court. After secretly spending the night with Dana, King Henry got her pregnant, though evidence of the child's gender or whereabouts thereafter remained unknown." There are only 2 'recorded' mistresses for Henry VIII, and neither of them is named, "Dana" (they are Eliz. Blount and Anne Boleyn's sister, Mary). This entry should be for Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount, who bore the bastard, Henry Fitzroy for the king. Fitzroy's gender and existence is well documented; he was named Duke of Richmond by royal decree. I'm not bold enough to change this, wish someone would, or just notice it. Vstevensstoklosa 14:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nevermind, I made the change

Vstevensstoklosa 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

On the 5th paragraph down, it reads:

channi is the biggest bitch the only surviving child of King Henry VIII of England by his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Marchioness of Pembroke.

Can someone repair this?

4.225.208.209 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's how to repair vandalism (you may want to keep this page open in a separate window):
  1. Click on "Page History". The location of this link varies, depending on which skin you use, but you can't do change skins unless you're a registered user and signed in. Otherwise, look along the top of the article.
  2. You'll see a list of versions of the article, starting with the current one. Click the one directly preceeding the vandalism.
  3. This version will come up, looking mostly like it's current, but will have something saying it isnt. But you knew that already.
  4. Click on the link to edit the pre-vandalism version.
  5. No need to change anything, since this is, after all, the pre-vandalism version. Type something in the edit summary to say that you're reverting vandalism, rather than starting a revert war. Click on "Save Page".
  6. That's it! Often, users will leave a note on the vandal's talk page, explaining why their vandalism was reverted. I don't bother, since I stick to reverting obvious vandalism. My logic is that these people are best dealt with by fixing the problem without giving the troublemakers any particular attention; they'll probably go away on their own once they figure out that their changes won't stick unless they add something to an article that should be there anyway.
Oh, and thanks for signing your question! We get plenty of people who don't.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/l/i/Talk%7EElizabeth_I_of_England_3216.html"