Talk:Elizabeth I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth I of England article.
Article policies

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 7, 2004.

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 15:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC). The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.

Copyedited by Galena11 (talk) – 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Proofread by Adacore (talk) – 15:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth I of England is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
  1. January 2004-November 2007

Contents

[edit] Intro

Elizabeth's reign is referred to as the Elizabethan era.

Does this need a sentence of its own? Would it not be better to incorporate it into the next sentence: During the Elizabethen era etc.? RedRabbit 11:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We meet again, sir Rabbit. I'm working my way through the article for the FAR (at my habitual slow pace). The lead is the last thing on my list, as usual. By all means copy edit away, but I have my eye on changing the lead considerably, getting rid of all that stuff about lordships, etc. Once I've finished referencing the article (couple of sections to go), I intend to give it a deep copy edit, resulting, I hope, in simpler, perhaps more elegant, prose. qp10qp 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishops at parliament in 1559

I noticed that the following:

"Elizabeth was fortunate that many bishoprics were vacant at the time"

was changed to

"Elizabeth saw to it that many bishoprics were vacant at the time"

with the edit summary "this wasn't good fortune, in every case but Pole's they resigned or were deposed".

I have now restored the original wording because the new wording no longer derives from the source. To reinforce the verifiability of this edit, I have added quotes in the note from both Somerset and Black, as follows (in context):

The House of Commons strongly backed the new proposals, but the bill of supremacy faced opposition in the House of Lords, particularly from the bishops, though Elizabeth was fortunate that many bishoprics were vacant at the time, including the archbishopric of Canterbury<ref|>"It was fortunate that ten out of twenty-six bishoprics were vacant, for of late there had been a high rate of mortality among the episcopate, and a fever had conveniently carried off Mary's Archbishop of Canterbury, Reginald Pole, less than twenty-four hours after her own death." Somerset, 98; "There were no less than ten sees unrepresented through death or illness and the carelessness of 'the accursed cardinal' [Pole]." Black, 10.</ref|> The Protestant peers were consequently able to outvote the bishops and conservative peers.

Elizabeth did not start to actively deprive bishops of their offices until after the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity became law. That was when a bunch of resignations happened too. qp10qp (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, sir. -- SECisek (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms

English Royalty
House of Tudor

Royal Coat of Arms
Henry VIII
   Henry, Duke of Cornwall
   Mary I
   Elizabeth I
   Edward VI
Elizabeth I

I've removed this template from the article. Though I'm not in favour of them (don't see such things in history books or in other encyclopedias), my real objection is that this one doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. And I haven't a clue how to edit it. What are its principles? What are the two grey bands for, for example? Why is Elizabeth's name repeated? Why is Henry VII, the founder of the dynasty, omitted? Why include Henry, Duke of Cornwall (and which one are we talking about?), but not Arthur, Prince of Wales? Come to that, why not include Margaret Tudor, since her line extended to the throne? And why are Henry VIII's children in age order rather than reign order (Edward VI reigned before Mary and Elizabeth)? If someone wants this back in, could they please find a way to alter it appropriately first? qp10qp (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It's a House template, of significant members of the house to whom the subject was closely related. The full versions of each House template (Template:House of Stuart, Template:House of Hanover etc.) show each monarch in a mauve header band, followed by his descendants. The broken-up versions use only one monarch's section.
However, Elizabeth had no descendants, so hers includes her father's section too, and, subsequently, her siblings (in birth order).
And, incidentally, that you've seen no such thing in any other encyclopædiae will not wash, so don't even go there. † DBD 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that isn't my reason for removing, just my reason for disliking. My reason for removing is that the box's meaning isn't readable. Clearly this is not the whole dynasty (ideally it would simply give the five monarchs). It's odd to have Elizabeth's name appear twice. The duke of Cornwall seems irrelevant to the article; and there were anyway two babies so named.qp10qp (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, keep this out. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. I think it should be in the article, but the points are valid and I can't edit this thing either. -- Secisek (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genealogical table

I have restored the shorter genealogical table (can't bring myself to refer to it as "Ancestors", but maybe that's just me). The larger one was overkill, in my view (it wasn't referenced, either, and would have demanded more work than it was worth to do so—genealogy is laborious). More importantly, I believe we should provide information in the style presented in the reference books: if you look at the tables in Black, Somerset, Weir, Starkey, and Williams (the other biographies I have don't give any), you will see that they go back no further than Henry VII. I don't think Wikipedia should take it upon itself to be different, especially as this is a general article that doesn't overdo the detail elsewhere. The place for such extra genealogical detail is Tudor dynasty or specialist genealogical articles. qp10qp (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth and arts

"The notion of a great Elizabethan age, however, depends partly on the great builders, dramatists, poets, and musicians who were active during the reign, though they did not owe much directly to Elizabeth, who was never a major patron of the arts."

"Like her father, Henry VIII, Elizabeth was a writer and poet."

Isn't this a bit contradictory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.113.209 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But the latter bit has gone anyway now. I am going to work on the lead over the next day or two and address any disjunctions between the lead and the main article. My understanding is that the patronage of the arts mostly came from Elizabeth's lords and ladies. She was certainly accomplished in the arts herself, but that's a different thing. qp10qp (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Error 203.166.99.230 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Jamie

[edit] Discussion on material Re: Marriage Question

Why this particular information and in such detail, since Elizabeth was repeatedly petitioned to marry? The article needs to summarise such events as a group rather than picking one out and losing the reader in unclear quotations. I base my opinion on the choice of material in several biographies of Elizabeth. qp10qp (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I see you decided to edit out the material before discussing the issue.

I happen to think the "stuff" that you have deleted compliments the article. Please share what biographical resources you based your choice on.

There might be many more items you will need to edit out of the article.


User:Jediforce 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The material is still there. I was starting a discussion about it here. If you insist on a mention of Robert Bell, we could include him as a particular example of the general point. But you need to justify the inclusion of the quotation. I find it unclear; but the real point is that you need to source the quotation from a secondary source that chooses that quote to make the general point. You ask below what my principles are: they are to include in this article the most well-known information, theories, and quotations, as they appear in the most general works. qp10qp (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Please look again. I did not remove your addition, I merely copyedited it, and it remains substantially the same. qp10qp (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I see, that you did not in fact remove the material which remaied before your editing endeavors, and Fair enough. (User: Jediforce) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have spent a somewhat interesting morning going over the 516+ or - edits that you have contributed to this article since November 18 2007. I find that it is not necessarily that I insist on including Robert Bell in the article, but rather, that according to the 500 + edits that you have contributed, he appears to be the only example of a Tudor subject that you have insisted on removing. You state that "we could include him" should I or all of us other Wikipedians consider that you are laboring in proxy for a group? if so, whom do you claim to be representing?
With respect to the justifing the inclusion of the quotation, it should be generally understood as it has been presented, in that the succession issue was pressed to the point that Elizabeth vented her frustration at Robert Bell, who was speaking for the House of Commons. I am left to ponder and scratch my head at your definition of well-known information, theories, and quotations unitl you share specifically what works you consider to cover the Elizabeathian 'stuff' in General. I would consider the History of Parliament House of Commons Series, (where the quote was taken from) a more or less general work, backed by an authoritive presence. User: Jediforce 07:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The expression "we could include him" is consensual, surely. If you insist on including the material, we should find a way of integrating it better, in my opinion. The books referenced for the article are in the bibliography. They appear in the usual bibliographies on the subject: I've avoided popular biographies and stuck to ones with academic support (on the whole). I tried to include information that was mentioned in several of them at once. qp10qp (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please excuse the misunderstanding. For what its worth, sometimes the making of a good article requires that it strives to offer either more or less information, and or a fresh appraisal of any particular point concerning the subject matter. I try to learn at least two or three new things daily, so perhaps a few other documented, however, not so general or common details, properly blended, would enhance the gravity of the article and help to form it into a very good read. I will make an attempt to rework the material.User: Jediforce 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you possibly give some more context for the quote you included ("Mr. Bell with his complices must needs prefer their speeches to the upper house to have you my lords, consent with them, whereby you were seduced, and of simplicity did assent unto it")? The significance of it is not entirely clear, I feel: in particular "prefer their speeches to the upper house" and "did assent unto" need to be clarified, I suggest. I cannot do this myself because even though I have a deskload of books, this quote isn't given in any of them, even the ones on Elizabethan parliaments. If you have Hasler, which has everything somewhere in its three volumes, could you please provide the context from that? qp10qp (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid that I do not have access to the volumes, I only referenced the article covering him on Wikipedia, however, I know a fellow researcher who has a copy of the CD version of these volumes and will place an inquiry about this.
If it will help please find the following context from the article covering Robert Bell as it appears in the New ODNB:
..."Although he does not figure in the recorded Commons' proceedings in 1563, he was busily engaged in the parliamentary search for a settled succession during the second session in 1566. He was active in debate, with lengthy arguments in favour of a bicameral petition to the queen and the need for a royal answer; he was also one of the Commons' spokesmen who put its case to the Lords. He was the target of the queen's anger when she addressed a joint delegation on 5 November. She referred to ‘those unbridled persons’ in the Commons, in particular ‘Mr. Bell with his complices’. William Cecil too regarded him as a leading parliamentary nuisance."
"In the parliament of 1571 Bell once again presented the image of a trouble-maker. He made provocative attacks on promoters and royal purveyors and, on the second occasion, sought redress...."
Michael A. R. Graves, ‘Bell, Sir Robert (d. 1577)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004-.User: Jediforce 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the value of the insertion. The event is notable from Bell's perspective, but not so much in hers, considering the grand sweep of things. DrKiernan (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote could be removed since the same information is found within the article about Sir Robert Bell,although, I also think it has some value as it is used in this article; being effective in demonstrating a climax from Elizabeths perspective concerning this specific issue. On a seperate topic, I have also long wondered if this event could be the scene that is portrayed in the popular film Elizabeth, but this is more for an entertainment curosity, not necessarily historical. Han 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquotes

Twice recently, a huge section of quotations has been added from Wikiquote. Last time, User:Civil Engineer III removed it, and this time I have. One doesn't find a list of quotes in history books: they are integrated into the text, as in this article (including some of these very ones). The quotes are are also not sourced (we need to know who says that she said these things: Wikiquote is not a reliable source in itself); and there are textual issues with some of them. The intervening comments seem like unsourced original thought and are inaccurate and misleading at times (how could Elizabeth have addressed a "small crowd" during her coronation, for example, when every inch of London was teeming?) I also removed the huge signature that was added at the same time: we already have that signature higher up the page, at an appropriate pixel size. qp10qp (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Link...

The one that suposedly 'proves' that Elizabeth was married, since we all know that couldn't possibly be farther from the truth, be removed? I find it a bunch of worthless junk that to me makes absolutly no sense and is based off of rumors from the Spanish court! I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriormartin (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any link like that, so hopefully somebody has removed it. It sounds awful and must have been added very recently. qp10qp (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It must've been taken off, thank goodness. Warriormartin (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Need some cleanup for neutrality

  • Removed "she was also a whore."66.235.35.137 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Kthompson
  • "Historians, however, are often more cautious in their judgement." -- WP:WEASEL
  • "They depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered, sometimes indecisive ruler, who enjoyed more than her share of luck." -- "They"?? WP:WEASEL: Some do, and some don't.
  • "many of her subjects were relieved at her death." -- [citation needed] and WP:WEASEL: And many others were not.
  • "Elizabeth is however acknowledged as a charismatic performer and a dogged survivor..." -- By whom?

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a question of cleanup but of word choice. One has to somehow make evaluations based on the overall scholarship, of which I would argue that the points above are all a fair summary.
  • "Historians, however, are often more cautious in their judgement." -- WP:WEASEL
  • "They depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered, sometimes indecisive ruler, who enjoyed more than her share of luck." -- "They"?? WP:WEASEL: Some do, and some don't.
To be honest, I can't find any that don't. But to leave more room for the possibility, I have now adjusted the wording slightly, as follows: "Historians, however, tend to be more cautious in their judgement. They often depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered,[1] sometimes indecisive ruler,[2] who enjoyed more than her share of luck.
  • "Elizabeth is however acknowledged as a charismatic performer and a dogged survivor..." -- By whom?
By historians. This paragraph is about the assessments of historians, as its introductory sentence shows, and I assumed that the antithesis introduced by this sentence was clear enough. However, to make that clearer, I have changed it to "Elizabeth is however acknowledged by historians as a charismatic performer and a dogged survivor". In other words, though historians nowadays pick holes in her achievements (and all the ones I have read do), they still give her credit for her convincing performance of the role of queenship, which her subjects bought into, and for her determination to survive. Without these personal attributes, I don't think she would have survived at this time in English history: but this achievement was partly illusory, as historians have shown.
The use of cautious phrases in history articles is not, in my opinion, anything to do with weasel words: it is a necessary aspect of the historian's vocabulary, unless history is to be reduced to a set of certainties.
The use of the word many here leaves room for the notion that others were not, surely. However, she was unpopular at the end: Christopher Haigh, Elizabeth I, says, "Elizabeth died unloved and almost unlamented"; and David Loades, Elizabeth I: The Golden Reign of Gloriana, writes, "When Elizabeth I died on 24 March 1603, the lamentations were theatrical, but there were also audible sighs of relief". There is no perfect wording to quantify this sort of thing precisely, so words like "many" and "some" must needs be called into service. qp10qp (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms

Removed recently added coat of arms for the time being. It was stuck rather unaesthetically under the infobox, without any caption. If it is to go in, it needs a caption and a reference to a secondary source, surely. qp10qp (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right! Plus do we need the Anglican template, which is badly placed, creating a big white space for me? On the other hand the new Mirrour book might be better opposite the contents, where there is a space for a pic. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like Anglican templates, Lutheran templates, etc., because you don't find them in history books. I hesitate to make an issue of it, though, being already somewhat at loggerheads with the royalty project. qp10qp (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It creates a big white space for me too. I think if it remains here it should be placed in the "See also" section, which is where links to other related articles usually go. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nail

Shortly before she died, the Queen of Hearts with a nail though its head was found in a chair in Elizabeth's apartments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.99.135 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have heard this but it is total conjecture with no evidence to support it. Also, it is believed that shortly after her coronation, she had Dr. John Dee perform some kind of rite on all of her palaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Newman (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I completed a copyedit of the article. I mostly had minor punctuation and prose changes for clarity. However, there were some issues I couldn't resolve; see hidden notes in the text labeled COPYEDITOR NOTES for details. Thanks! Galena11 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks; you've done a good job.
You are strictly correct at the moment to change centuries to figures, but the MoS is over-prescriptive on that one just now. In fact, all the sources referenced in the article use "sixteenth", etc. As a history graduate, I am used to that. There is at present a long debate about the issue on the MoS talkpage, and I am confident that soon the MoS, as it used to do, will allow editors the choice. qp10qp (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. I understand what you mean about the MOS...as an editor, I just try to go with the version that is currently in use. Once a decision is made on numbering centuries, feel free to change it to comply. :o) Galena11 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism/gobbledygook inserted by IP address 209.183.5.31 RockStarSheister (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Is this currently accurate? I'm doing a report and don't need vandelised info -.-; -To lazy to login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.81.253 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very accurate. Vandalism slips through occasionally, but it is usually obvious. Doubtful additions tend to have no citation and are regularly removed, or, if useful, given citations. (If you click the small blue note numbers in the text, they will take you to the notes at the bottom of the page, which show the sources; there is also a bibliography of the books and articles on which the piece is based.) qp10qp (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis Drake and John Hawkins should be listed properly as Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.81.142 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII is given a date of death as 1548 in this section. It should be 1547. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelli83 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. This is one of those nasty little pieces of vandalism that people insert to spoil articles. qp10qp (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Minor Corrections Needed in Religion Section

I am a registered user, but obviously not a recognized one since I haven't been active here that long. So I'm assuming I cannot make these changes myself. So here they are, if anyone else wants to make them.

In sentence beginning "She also knew that the papacy would never recognize her..." the style throughout for spelling of words like "recognize" has been the British style with "s" instead of "z" (as in the second paragraph in this section, the word "practised," which in American style is spelled with a "c" rather than an "s").

Also in that second paragraph, the phrase "... subjected to enormous fines, imprisonment and execution," should take a series comma as that style was used previously (or vice versa, but consistent either way).

The last sentence in that second paragraph is a fragment. 69.249.39.224 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was not logged in when I posted the above minor corrections to be made. I realized when I saved and saw only my IP address and not my username. So here I am again! Kathy (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Actually, that last bit seems to have been added without references (and sneaked in behind the existing reference), so I've removed it.
By the way, you can edit the article whenever you like. None of us are recognized. Or recognised, come to that!qp10qp (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

The lead image of Elizabeth seems to be changed by someone every couple of months. I'm not happy with the Rainbow portrait, as it's heavily symbolic like masquing costume, and does not represent the queen as she would have really looked in life.

I would prefer the Siena "Sieve", "Ermine", or "Darnley" portraits as a lead image (the Darnley is believed to have been painted from life and is widely influential on subsequent portraits). We might also use a head-and-shoulders crop from the Steven van der Muelen "Hampden" portrait.

"Darnley"

Siena "Sieve"

"Ermine"

"Hampden" (detail)

The Rainbow portrait deserves its own article and one of these days will get one, no doubt.

Thoughts? - PKM (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I did the FAR, I put in the Ermine, and someone changed it to the Rainbow: what I don't like about it is that it makes her look very different—one gets a sense of her appearance from most portraits. Unfortunately, this article gets messed with a lot, so I doubt we can make one portrait stick. I prefer an inward-facing portrait for the infobox, and therefore I wouldn't be keen on the Darnley. qp10qp (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the Ermine, myself. - PKM (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have noticed that the lead portrait changes in accordance to whomever is editing the page. It has been the Darnley portrait, the Ermine portrait, the Ditchley portrait, the Coronation portrait and the Peace portrait. You have to remember that to display the portraits you need permission of the portrait holder. The Rainbow portrait is displayed with the kind permission of Hatfield House.
    • I have noticed the text has also changes in accordance with whomever is editing the page. I have seen this page shift between being pro-Elizabeth and anti-Elizabeth and vice versa. This article needs to be completely neutral to give an accurate depiction of England's greatest monarch.
    • Are not all of the portraits of Elizabeth filled with symbolism? The Ermine portrait, the Sieve portrait are steeped in symbolism. I think the Rainbow portrait is perfect. It symbolises Elizabeth and her England perfectly. The wildflowers on her brocade represent Astraea the Virgin. The eyes and ears on her gown represent the fact that she saw and heard all. The pearls symbolise her virginity and the crown, naturally, her royal stature. The serpent on her left arm symbolises wisdom and carries a heart-shaped ruby in it's mouth which symbolises her love. The celestial sphere above it's head represents Elizabeth's command over nature. Elizabeth's right hand holds a rainbow with the Latin inscription 'Non sine sole iris' ('No rainbow without the sun'). The rainbow symbolizes peace, and the inscription reminds viewers that only the queen's wisdom can ensure peace and prosperity. Elizabeth was in her late sixties when this portrait was made, but for iconographic purposes she is portrayed as young and beautiful, more than mortal. In this portrait, she is ageless. (http://www.marileecody.com/eliz1-images.html)
- Danny Newman (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
All portraits of Elizabeth and any photographs of them publoshed in the US are public domain per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., and we should not thank anyone for permission to use them here. UK copyright law differs. - PKM (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible redundancy in marriage section?

In this sentence: "When Dudley's wife, Amy Robsart, was found dead in 1560, uncertainly of natural causes, and under suspicious circumstances, a great scandal arose," should "uncertainly of natural causes" be taken out? It would seem to be redundant if the death was under suspicious circumstances, no? Kathy (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is another clumsy addition. qp10qp (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illegitimate daughter

I have always read in numerous biographies of Elizabeth that rumours were rife that she bore Thomas Seymour a daughter who was hidden away in a French convent.She did go into seclusion for a year or so after Seymour's execution.The article makes no mention of the rumour.jeanne (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many things that can be covered in a 500 (or even 20!) page biography that of necessity will be left out of a one-page summary of a life. The trick here is to cover the important and significant, verifiable facts. - PKM (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a number of sources for the rumor it might warrant a section of its own. Otherwise our partial memories from various books are not sources in themselves. Dimadick (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

When working on the FAR for this article, I spent some time choosing which biographies to use, and none of the ones (6) I used mention this. There are many popular biographies of Elizabeth out there, but I thought it best to avoid that sort of book for the purposes of this article.
Our knowledge of the Seymour-Elizabeth affair depends on the confessions of her servants Kat Ashley and Thomas Parry under interrogation; they were frightened and spilled a lot of beans, so I don't see why they would have kept quiet about something like this. I see nothing mysterious about Elizabeth's movements after leaving Katherine Parr's house: she stayed with Sir Anthony Denny and his wife and continued to be tutored and visited there. qp10qp (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Who interrogated them? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
My History teacher mentioned the rumour(stressing the word "rumour") and I have read that she may have had a child by Dudley;however as to the rumour about a daughter by Seymour, that was given far more credence by the author.I cannot remember who the author was-perhaps Mary M. Luke.Unfortunately,I no longer have the book in my possession.I used to own many bios on Elizabeth,but they've been misplaced over the years.Kat Ashley would never have revealed a secret of that sort.She was passionately devoted to her mistress.It's possible Katherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk was in on the secret,seeing as she was such a devout Protestant.jeanne (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Cameron: Ashley and Parry were interrogated by officials commanded by the Privy Council. I don't think we know any names, but Sir Robert Tyrwhit interrogated Elizabeth. Jeanne: to be fair to Kat Ashley, she wasn't the first to sing. Parry confessed first and the interrogators confronted Ashley with him and then the two spilled the lot. Can one blame them, given Tudor methods of interrogation? Apparently, Ashley was given good accommodation in the Tower to start with, but then thrown into a dungeon. I think her confession was understandable; but I find it unlikely that she and Parry would have held back on a pregnancy, since they enumerated the embraces, horseplay, marriage talk etc. They thought they were going to be executed and were trying to save their own necks. qp10qp (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
However,a pregnancy can be successfully concealed.For instance,Hortense de Beauharnais hid her pregnancy from the world-and she was the Queen of Holland!!!jeanne (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the wikipedia article page dealing with Francis Bacon contributors have added a lengthy section claiming that he was Elizabeth's unacknowledged son. Is there any evidence for this or does it need to be amended? Contaldo80

When I was working on the FAR for this page, I used six biographies, and there was no mention of pregnancies in them, not even to dismiss the idea: these were all academic biographies, by Neale, Black, Loades, Somerset, Williams, and Haigh. I have just checked through a popular biography of Elizabeth by Alison Weir, and she makes no mention of this either; to be fair, she is a good sourcer. There are two types of biography of Elizabeth: scholarly and popular; apart from Weir, I have read none of the latter. I daresay they are full of speculation, but in Wikipedia, we should use the best sources.
I have not read any books about Francis Bacon, and so I don't know what evidence has been proposed; but the idea that he was Elizabeth's son is counter-intuitive to me for two reasons. Firstly, Elizabeth did not live her life in private, and so would have been unable to keep secrets of this kind. Secondly, Bacon came from a particular class of officials, and this class never mixes blood with royalty, who preferred the landed nobility. Bacon was the son and nephew of high officials: Sir Nicholas Bacon and William Cecil. In my opinion, Wikipedia editors should fight tooth and nail to present the public with history that is cleansed of persistent myths and rumours of this sort: good sources trump bad ones, and we need to put our foot down on that. My suggestion would be to read three or four of the most recent works on Bacon by university scholars; if they don't mention this, cut the claims entire. qp10qp (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of namesakes?

There's a list of things named after Elizabeth, but I can't find where it is. Anyone remember the name of that article? -- SEWilco (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Earl of Leicester

Just wanted to tell everyone that I just added a subheading titled the 1st Earl of Leicester. I'm new here so please feel free to make any changes since its not top notch quality, but please don't delete it!!! Sweetlife31 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It has to be deleted because it is not referenced. Nor is most of it referenceable to good academic sources, in my opinion. The affair is already summarised and this large addition unbalances the proportions of the article.
The thing to do is to start a new article on their love affair, where you can put in as much material as you like. But I strongly advise finding good academic references first. I don't want to put you off as a newcomer from contributing to articles, but, particularly with a featured article like this, it is best to propose large-scale changes on the talk page. I will leave the material in for a while to see what others think. qp10qp (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries, but it is referenced??...and like I said, I'm new...Sweetlife31 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken it out now. There were no citations or references given. If you need any help in editing Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to ask. qp10qp (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rare portrait

I added this extremely rare copy of original to be on display AugustAn extremely rare 1650 to 1680 portrait of Queen Elizabeth I as teen princess with Edward VI and Mary I, father Henry VIII and his jester, Will Somers, was found in the Duke of Buccleuch's collection at Boughton House, Northamptonshire. A copy of an original early 1550s panel painting, the picture will be displayed at the house in August.news.bbc.co.uk, Rare Elizabeth I portrait foundukpress.google.com, Rare portrait of Elizabeth I found --Florentino floro (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this because it is neither important nor reliable enough to go in the article. Who would go to popular historians Alison Weir and Tracy Borman to comment on the importance of a painting? The fact that it is such a late copy makes it a poor candidate to include here, given the many other portraits of these monarchs. It is certainly interesting that these five should be portrayed together, but the fact that the three children were rarely all legitimate at once makes it highly unlikely that the original was a royal commission. In fact there was a craze in Tudor times for collecting portraits of royals, and many artists, from good to poor to naive, peddled this sort of thing. My guess is that it was a copy of copies of copies, amalgamated from different patterns, and that the first combination of these five patterns was done around the 1590s, when the popular market for royal portraits exploded. qp10qp (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Today's Times has slightly better coverage. I suppose the portrait would fit with a date around 1543, when Catherine Parr reunited the Tudors as one happy family. Personally I wouldn't object to the picture itself going in with a suitably cautionary caption - on my screen there is a big white space opposite the TOC. But Qp10p is certainly right on it's likely degree of authenticity, and quality, and there is no need to cover it in the text. We don't seem to have an article on portraits of Elizabeth, unfortunately Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England seems to cover everything except these. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Some articles on various sets of portraits would be good. Maybe at or in co-ordination with Commons? Which historical figure has the most number of authentic portraits, I wonder? Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the original could have been painted in 1543, because surely the pattern for Mary, judging by the collar and sleeves, comes from the Flicke or Mor portraits of 1555 to 1558, and the high-collar style is not Henrician. The Master John portrait of Mary of 1544 looks very different. I think the idea of placing Will Somers in the picture may well have derived from the famous fantasy group portrait of 1545, though, but the costumes are from later. Given the conflation of ages and the political aspects, I strongly suspect that the original was painted in Elizabeth's reign. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
We must do that Elizabeth portraits article sometime: it's not as if there's a lack of material. qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed we must. PKM (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)