Elizabeth I (1533-1603)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It would b terribly hard for Elizabeth to hide a baby bump. Even if she did the child would probably be put over Mary's son James who eventually came after her
 
To me Queen Elizabeth I looked like her father. I do not think she would be called plain if her hair was shown more.:flowers:
 
I was wondering, if Elizabeth had a child and there would still be survivors of the Tudor dynasty walking around, would they be able to claim the throne?
 
It wouldn't matter how many Tudors were walking around. The Succession was laid down by Parliament in the Act of Settlement and it remains the law to this day.
By this Act succession to the British Crown falls to the heir of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, that heir today being Elizabeth II.
 
An illegitimate child would not have had any impact on the legal succession. If she had been married to the father, however, that would open an interesting debate.
 
It wouldn't matter how many Tudors were walking around. The Succession was laid down by Parliament in the Act of Settlement and it remains the law to this day.
By this Act succession to the British Crown falls to the heir of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, that heir today being Elizabeth II.


But had she been able to legitmate a child, who could then have succeeded her, the Stuarts wouldn't have become the monarchs anyway and everything after 1603 would be different.

As Henry VIII hadn't been able to legitimate his son it would have been difficult but ... Henry's case was of course different as he wasn't married to the mother of the child so there could be a question about the paternity whereas a Queen Regnant giving birth raises no questions about the royal ancestry .... The chances of her actually having a child are very slim and then for her to get that illegitimate child declared the heir would have been difficult (but with an autocratic monarch not impossible for her to get the child recognised). Then again if she did get pregnant I feel sure that she would have married pretty quickly to secure the succession.... A lot of 'what ifs' that never happened and me just speculating about possibilities....

It is sometimes good to wonder 'what might have been' ...
 
Does Windsor Castle or any museun have any of Elizabeth I clothes and jewellery? i mean they must be somewhere. I think it would be amazing to see them. I doubt the Palace throws them out.

I have read somewhere and don't now recall where that Anne, wife of James I got some of Elizabeth's gowns ( the ones around at the time of her death) and then had them remade in more current styles. I believe I read this in an older biography of Anne.
 
:previous:
Elizabeth I was definitely a Tudor, what with that pale complexion and small, what many chroniclers called, "piggy" eyes. In my opinion, and beauty is subjective, I do not think Elizabeth I, Henry VII and Henry VIII were good-looking. I think in Henry VIII and Elizabeth's case, it was their personalities which many found attractive but also feared.
 
With that long red hair and pale complexion Elizabeth must
have been quite ravishing in her teens and 20s...
Add to that her wealth ...aristocracy and Royal title...

it must have been a heady mix .... she must have
had courtiers falling at her dainty feet !
 
One of Elizabeth's nicknames is "Gloriana".
After Mary Queen of Scots' execution, Elizabeth was not highly regarded by her subjects.
The "Gloriana" myth was created around the time of the defeat of Philip of span's Armada. It showed Elizabeth as "invincible", iconic, even divine, and it transformed her into a legend, similar to Princess Diana.

There is a book on the Gloriana myth, by David Loades

Also, this article from the Telegraph newspaper:
Gloriana for all seasons - Telegraph
Gloriana for all seasons - Telegraph
 
Noel Coward was fascinated by the Virgin Queen and
voraciously read every book that came out about her
(and there were quite a few )
He was equally fascinated by Marie Antoinette and her aweful fate .

A friend of Noels was........ Edith Sitwell ... a poetess and aristocrat with very unusual looks.....
" I look like Queen Elizabeth 1st " she once said on TV .
She was frequently painted by the leading artists of the day.
 
...he really could have been preparing his daughters a little better.
I agree with most of what you said except about King Henry VIII not preparing his daughters a little better. Queen Elizabeth shared a tutor with her brother and was extremely well educated, especially for girl of her time. She could speak and write many languages including Latin and it would be hard for anyone to be her equal as far as education goes. King Henry certainly did nothing to stop his daughter´s education and she proved she was very capable of ruling indeed when the throne did come to her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I know that the two daughters Mary and Elizabeth - especially Elizabeth - were educated well enough, I guess I meant attention wise more than education. To show them how to rule... then again he did that by example I think. I greatly admire Elizabeth for her involvement in her own education.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elizabeth was the best educated monarch in English history (and will probably only loose that title when Charles becomes King as he has a degree from Cambridge). Whether he is as highly educated is another issue altogether.
 
Henry obviously didn't think, that women should become regents (it was the 1500s after all), so he always wanted a son, who could inherit his thrown. So it's ironic, that Edward died very young, while Elizabeth became one of the most powerful monarchs of the era.
 
One of the reasons Henry VIII didn't like the idea of being succeded by a woman was that the only precedent in England's history of a reigning Queen was Matilda, in XII century; and her reign caused several political troubles at the time, so he didn't like the idea of one of his daughters succeding him.
 
He did know that there was no law against female regnants, unlike France who did have such laws but he also didn't believe that they could do so effectively. He didn't have the example that we have, or even that the Stuarts had, of the successful Elizabeth I.

He did think and even know that women could become regents as that had already happened in England during his own reign when he had appointed Catherine of Aragon to be the regent while he went to France.

What he had doubts about was the idea of a Queen Regnant which had never successfully happened in England before but had been disastrous when Matilda had claimed the throne on the death of her father Henry I and the resultant anarchy under Stephen ensued.

The present Queen is a Regnant but if she were to be incapacitated Charles would be a Regent in the same way that George IV was Prince Regent before becoming King Regnant. Semantics maybe but the terms aren't interchangeable as they have different meanings.

A regent acts for a monarch who is incapable of carrying out the duties of monarchy for themselves or are a minor.
A regnant is the monarch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry. English isn't my first language, Swedish is, so I make mistakes some times.
 
I agree with most of what you said except about King Henry VIII not preparing his daughters a little better. Queen Elizabeth shared a tutor with her brother and was extremely well educated, especially for girl of her time. She could speak and write many languages including Latin and it would be hard for anyone to be her equal as far as education goes. King Henry certainly did nothing to stop his daughter´s education and she proved she was very capable of ruling indeed when the throne did come to her.
Elizabeth - was educated - yes, obviously wasn't talking about her education. Should have been more clear... I guess I was talking about Mary which is interesting because I started reading "The First Queen of England" by Linda Porter and there was this quote on pg 30.
Many writers have seen Vives as a malign influence on Mary's entire life. In effect, he has been accused of taking an intelligent girl and denying her the chance, through his theories, of developing as an independent, confident woman. This fits well with the long-held view of Mary as a victim; at the point in time when she began the more serious part of her schooling, she was trussed into the straightjacket of Vives's ideas and emerged permanently damaged, believing she was inferior to men and could not trust her own judgment. In this interpretation, she never stood the chance of being a successful ruler since her education had alienated her from the very qualities needed to become one. Nearly a generation later, her much younger half-sister, Elizabeth, benefiting from the new ideas that spread with the Reformation, was not so encumbered and was thus better equipped to take the reins of government.
 
^^
I read that even if she has lovers (which I don't doubt) she had a anomaly in her genitals that meant that she would be always half virgin. I think that her hymen couldn't be totatally broken or something like that.
 
There's lots of theories but most commonly accepted is that after so many heartbreaks she simply decided to be a born again virgin lol. I think that's probably the most lkogical explanation.
If you consider her weakened position when she first became queen, any inkling of a condition like this would have seen her removed. Don't forget that Queens were checked frequently to make sure they would be able to produce. It would be much easier to cover up being a non virgin than having a "disability" like this (remember any form of disability back then was seen as a devils curse) and with her mothers track record they'd have had a field day with something like that.
 
The only positive thing I can say about Elizabeth I, which I've heard may not even be true, is that she remained a virgin, and was devoted to her country. Other than that...well, nothing, really.
 
The only positive thing I can say about Elizabeth I, which I've heard may not even be true, is that she remained a virgin, and was devoted to her country. Other than that...well, nothing, really.

Really? She's one of my favs. I think she really improved England's position in the world. Also, it wasn't easy being a woman in that time period and she managed to not get her head cut off.

And if (along side being devoted to her country which is usually the fall back "positive thing" people say about monarchs who didn't do all that much good or bad) being a virgin is (you say) her main positive quality... well I can understand how in the sixteenth century virginity was seen in a positive light and Elizabeth used that to her advantage, but it's downright sexist in this day and age to say that a woman's main positive (or negative quality) has anything to do with her sexual history (or lack thereof). If Elizabeth was a virgin, that has no bearing on her personality, intelligence, or ability to rule. If she wasn't, that also has no bearing. I suppose either way her discretion when it came to her personal life, indicated by how all these years later we don't know exactly what she was up to, could be praised, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Personally, I was absolutely fascinated by the whole virginity debate when I first got interested in her, but now I'm rather sick of it. It doesn't really matter in the long run, unless she had a child. Which she didn't, as far as we know. Catherine the Great managed to hide a child, but people found out eventually. Same for Thyra of Denmark. If Elizabeth had had one I think it would've come out eventually.
 
The only positive thing I can say about Elizabeth I, which I've heard may not even be true, is that she remained a virgin, and was devoted to her country. Other than that...well, nothing, really.


You clearly need to read more about the woman then, because you obviously don't know much about her.


There are many positives to take away from the Elizabethan era, the Queen's alleged virginity has nothing to do with any of them.
 
The only positive thing I can say about Elizabeth I, which I've heard may not even be true, is that she remained a virgin, and was devoted to her country. Other than that...well, nothing, really.

I am curious why you can say nothing positive apart from Elizabeth's virginity and devotion to her country. I can come up with any number of positive attributes for most people, despite my personal dislike for them, and with historical subjects, contemporary sources and historical treatises afford us the ability to examine their lives closely.
 
Back
Top Bottom