Talk:Elizabeth I

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:LOCEcomplete

Archives
January 2004-November 2007

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)

The second paragraph of this article claims that as Queen Elisabeth was instrumental in creating what would become the Church of England (CoE), however the Wikipedia page on CoE ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England claims history 5th para.) that the CoE originated with King Henry VIII and his wish the annul a marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which the Papacy of the Catholic Church denied, causing Henry to splinter and create the CoE. One of these pages needs to be changed. (preferably the inaccurate one) Thank you for the wonderful work you editors do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.98.129 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the fact that her reign is known as the Elizabethan era is a relevant fact on its own, worthy of the emphasis of that a standalone sentence would give it - because it indicated the significance of the era, and the dominance of her own personality in our historical associations with the timeOriana Naso (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote" helped forge a sense of national identity" endquote, surely, we are studying a kingdom in a world without nations. Dmermerci (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Coat of Arms

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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." -- 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, sometimes indecisive ruler, who enjoyed more than her share of luck.

Elizabeth policy in Ireland was genocide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.253.241 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• "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.

• "many of her subjects were relieved at her death." -- and WP:WEASEL: And many others were not.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Early Life

I believe the artist for the painting of young elizabeth with the empty book was painted by Levina Teerlinc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnsprig (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I will say I was the one that put the Darnley portrait in place, it's one of my favourites.

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)

On the contrary, you need the permission of the portrait holder. The portrait itself may be in the public domain but the the houses that hold the portraits own all rights to display said portrait. That's why permission had to be obtained to display the Rainbow Portrait. Which, surprisingly, happens to be the longest portrait to have "reigned" on this page. Danny Newman (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

There is a book and a television documentary dedicated to this subject. It's called The Secret Life of Elizabeth I. It was by Paul Doherty Danny Newman (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. But Doherty is a joke as a historian. He regularly writes books like this discovering all sorts of truths that have somehow eluded all the scholarly historians who (unlike Doherty, who writes several books a year) spend years, sometimes decades, researching each book. He's in it for the money, and good luck to him. qp10qp (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have a good quality scan of the Rainbow Portrait, with permission from Hatfield to use it on Wikipedia.

Danny (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maids of Honour

The article makes no mention of her Maids of Honour apart from Catherine Carey. Surely the article needs to mention Mary Sidney, Elizabeth Vernon, Helena Snakenborg, to name but a few.jeanne (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of things the article doesn't make mention of—you've seen how large the biographies are, and the article is an attempt at distilling the most significant material. A separate article on Elizabeth's maids of honour would be most useful, though. qp10qp (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Serious POV issue

As far as I can tell Loades writes for the The Catholic Historical Review and he appears to have a strongly Roman Catholic POV. Given that the Elizbethan settlement and her excommunication are objects of considerable disagreed between Roman Catholics and Anglo Catholics using such a POV source for all the claims about the motivation of E1 in splitting from Roman seems totally inappropriate. They should all be taken out until a neutral scholar's view can be found. --BozMo talk 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is rather thin gruel. Firstly, since when does religious adherence automatically disbar a respected academic from authority in his field? If his work has been criticized or disputed, then those disputed elements can be tackled- but this is the same process that we use for Anglican or irreligious sources- all sources, in fact. Secondly, the Loades book is a National Archives publication, and a little research indicates that it is principally original sources, with a comparatively minor narrative matrix. The use of the references seems to point to the original documents. Frankly, Loades should be praised for putting together such a volume- which is the kind of exacting and little-acknowledged labour that is the true value of academia. thought better of that comment, apparently it's a fairly small volume, which makes me doubt my assumption of academic value Gabrielthursday (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The book is of excellent value, and I thought it was a perfect volume to use for a Wikipedia article because it contains so many facsimile versions of the key documents (the academic value is that some appear in facsimile for the first time) and, to my eyes, little theorising. Loades has also written a full biography fairly recently. I have not noticed any POV in Loades and did not realise his scholarship had been questioned (could you produce some evidence of that for us to assess?). I hope it won't be necessary, but I have a heap of books on Elizabeth and could easily replace the Loades cites with equivalent ones if the case were proved. qp10qp (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have just gone through every Loades cite in the article, and none refs any POV information, as far as I can see. The book itself does not dwell much on religious matters, and certainly, now that I go through it, does not seem to show any Catholic POV. In the past, I've also read three other books by Loades in which I have not noticed any Catholic POV. When working on the article's FAR, I always had several sources open on the desk in front of me to help establish a standard reading. qp10qp (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain more. Clearly, I recognise two POVs. The English (Anglo) Catholic POV is that a primary motivation for E1 setting up a non-Roman settlement was to do with her sister ("Bloody Mary"), who under the Pope's authority martyred by burning more than 300 prominent and deeply religious christians within a few years under a heresy law (which I believe E1 revoked fairly early on). This was shocking even for the time. This and the reaction to it is well documented. The precedent of her father previously setting up a separate Catholic church from Rome allowed the creation of a via media on mature reflection, which was provoked by listening to the reactions to an earlier draft. The Roman POV is that the motivation was largely expediency, weakness of will versus advisors, politics and money. Obviously it is easy to assemble facts in support of either subjective position. Elsewhere in Wikipedia a balanced view of these POVs is generally given but here all the incidental context is about why she had political motivation to split with Rome, implying that they give a reasonable summary of the reasons. As to the issue of neutrality of scholars, sure for many issues but not on things which are so close to core RC beliefs (in this case it is central to the question of whether Roman Catholics or Anglicans are the better claimants to being the legitimate Catholic church in England) you have to be more careful. I guess the section needs at least a POV flag --BozMo talk 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the factors currently mentioned and cited are, as qp10qp notes, generally accepted by historians. I do not believe many historians speak of revulsion against the Marian Persecutions as being a factor in Elizabeth's decision per se. However, I note there is no mention of the Marian Persecutions in the article, and mention of them is appropriate to provide context. I also note that Elizabeth's personal conscience is mentioned in the article as a factor, which is hardly RC propaganda. If we plan on going much deeper into the different historiographies of the motivations of Elizabeth I think it is appropriate to do that on the Elizabethan Religious Settlement article, rather than this one.

Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I myself am (Roman) Catholic, with a substantial interest in the English Reformation, and I don't think that the motivation of Elizabeth makes much of a difference theologically. Nor does it among many Anglo-Catholic (I happened to listen to a lecture by a priest of the Society of the Holy Cross yesterday in which he said this very thing). Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, progress. So where should we put Mary's martyrs in? Also is the "generally accepted" your OR synthesis or can you find a non-partisan reference for it? If the former presumably we only need one reasonable reference for the alternative. Also, why in a section on E's religion does it not lead with her religion and instead lead with the influences on her? --BozMo talk 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am glad for the progress. I think it makes sense in the section on Queen Mary's reign. Skipping along, I think the section is not on E's religious belief, but her religious policy.

In putting together an encyclopaedia, determining what is generally accepted (particularly in history) is the essence of the job. It is not WP:OR, but the essence of WP:ENC. It should be noted that I was speaking of the particular factors in Elizabeth's decision already delineated in the article. I believe (and Qp10 would appear to have done the spadework) that they are generally accepted. If there are other factors which also command general acceptance, they should be included (at least in the Religious Settlement article). Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok lets try a shorter proposal based on the linked article. Since the section is title "Religion" it should start with her conscience not imply she was wind-blown: "Elizabeth had not supported the papacy during the reign of her father and was known to have protestant sympathies (<assume you could support this>). However early on she revoked the heresy law under which the Marian Persecutions took place and was relatively tolerant. Many of her powerful lords were keen to split with Rome for which a precedent had been set by her father. An initial proposal based on the strongly protestant settlement of her brother was drafted but during the legislative process it was changed toward the (largely Catholic) settlement of her father: the liturgy was changed to allow for belief in transubstantiation in the Communion, robes were allowed and as a woman her title was changed from Supreme Head of the Church to Supreme Governor. In the end it became the Elizabethan Settlement which largely stands today and is viewed by it supporters as a unique "via media" embracing both Catholicism and Protestantism" That would do (with a bit of polish)? --BozMo talk 19:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't anything close to NPOV. I reiterate that the protestant settlement's conformity with Elizabeth's conscience is already in the text of the article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what protestant settlement was that? I have never heard the Elizabethan Settlement called the protestant settlement although that term is sometimes used of her brother's --BozMo talk 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a talk page, and I am not herein bound to NPOV. As it happens, while I wish Anglo-Catholics well, I don't agree with the characterization of the Elizabethan settlement as non-protestant. I also wanted to avoid the infelicity of noting that Elizabeth's conscience was in tune with Elizabeth's settlement. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost with this conversation, because the religion section is innocuous, I would have thought, and doesn't seem to make any pro- or anti-Catholic points. Only one of the citations there is to Loades.

Could BozMo please make a list of sentences they are unhappy with and why, and then we can address them one by one. I am happy to use different references, if necessary (I have specialist books on the English Reformation and can cite those, rather than the present biographical ones, if wished). I am not wedded to any POV myself and am only interested in the quality of the article. qp10qp (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Like Catholic & fundamentalist, "protestant" means different things to different people. Where I worship it has associations with the considerable fundamentalist body who believes that "the Pope is the antichrist" and here we tend to shy away from the term as unecumenical (since we don't doubt the validity of the Roman faith, just doubt its uniqueness). I am I should add not a High Church Anglican. What an "Anglo Catholic" is, is also inconsistently used. Anyway, to the article apart from the missing Marian Persecutions which should be in the section on Mary I guess I am happy with the version which I entered last night and you punctuated. It does shorten the section here which is fine as there is a main article. It changes the order so as to lead with conscience which I think is fairer. Whatever I am, I am not (I might add) a fervent Anglo Catholic, and feel it should not be given undue weight versus the Roman machine but it does own a reasonable body of scholarship (and a good bit of my bookcase) and in general there are 70m (or however many) Anglicans whose church officially declares itself as "Catholic" however many Papal bulls say the reverse. But (talk page so opinion allowed as you say) I am sometimes annoyed by the RC version of history which often does not seem to me to be trying to be fair ("Catholic for Dummies" actually says in one place the CofE broke often because of Henry VIII's divorce and never again returned to Rome). If we cannot be trusted to be truthful about things we got wrong with Galileo (which doesn't matter) who might believe us on the resurrection (which does)? As an add on I also wonder about the excommunication of Elizabeth: is not this in fact the significant act which broke communion? Why did the Pope wait 15 years before doing it? Are we missing something here? --BozMo talk 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor mistake in Thomas Seymour section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martial or marital

"from political and martial misalliances."

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

Serious NPOV issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split foreign policy section?

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

Elizabeth and education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured picture portrait not used in article

a featured picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

More portraits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 
  Hardwick Hall
• 
  Phoenix
• 
  Darnley
• 
  c1585-90

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

Featured Picture nom

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

Van Der Meulen

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

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

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

New Featured Picture

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

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

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

Images of her parents needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Grammar

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

---

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

• It's been changed

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

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

Hampden portrait

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

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

Arthur Dudley

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

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

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

Yes there are some books

Elizabeth and Leicester, Sarah Gristwood

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

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

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

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

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

Chloe2kaii7 (talk)

Portraits

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

This Link

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

Queen of France?

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

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

A Question About QE I

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

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

When Protecting an Article, You Must Indicate Why

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

Elizabeth's Translation of Horace

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

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

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

A new age was born at her death?

The section headed "Legacy" begins with these sentences:

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

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

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

However, I would suggest an edit like this:

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

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

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

Poetry

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

Elizabeth persecutions

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

References: The Faith of Our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons (chapter 18), Triumph by H. W. Crocker III at least talks about it (Chapter 15)