![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Given her appearance and her not marrying or having children, is it safe to assume that she was a lesbian? It would not be that unusual during the period.
A key problem eith this theory (and others of the same ilk) is that a reigning monarch is never entirely out of the public eye. Any pregnancy approching full term (which this would have to be, given 16th-century medicine) would be dang near impossible to hide. And remember, conspiracies have a way of leaking, and nothing credible along these lines has leaked. — AnnaKucsma ( Talk to me!) 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is Wikipedia's guidance on the term, Roman Catholic, especially in this period of history? Surely the term, as widely and casually used as it is in Wikipedia, betrays systemic bias. The terms Roman rites, Roman authority - these are legitimate descriptions. But it is a necessary inference from the use of the term Roman Catholic that the church is not universal; the universality of the church is a matter for theological debate, and therefore the inference is not legitimate. In fact, the use of the term in a Wikipedia article that isn't dealing with that theological debate is ignorant.
What drivel. The Catholic church had divided long before the period of Elizabeth. To suggest by the use of the single word "Catholic", which simply means universal, that this was not the case would be ignorance and propaganda.
A church that is divided, or described as Roman, cannot be described as catholic - it's not a matter of propaganda, but of accurate terminology. The discussion page on the article Roman Catholic Church, and its equivalent in French Wikipedia, demonstrate the controversy over this. And why describe a reasoned argument as drivel?-- shtove 21:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
"Catholic" can surely reflect an intent or aim rather than the current actuality, can it not? Regardless of that, the original poster's assertion that the division of the Catholic church (into "Roman" and other sects) is a matter of debate is drivel and not a reasoned argument since it flies in the face of the facts without any support whatsoever. It is nonsense. 213.78.235.176 13:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
A few points in response to the above comments:
1. "Roman Catholic" is not a precise term. The Catholic Church actually contains many rites, one of which is the Roman or Latin rite. There are other Eastern rites, which are still in communion with Rome. For example, Coptic Catholics from Egypt are no less Catholic than are Roman Catholics, despite the fact of a different rite. In other words, there are Catholics in communion with Rome, who are not part of the Latin rite. In the West (Europe), after the Protestant Reformation, they became known as "Roman Catholics", or "Papists", because Europe, on account of its geography and history, contained Latin rite Catholics. Unfortunately, this belies an ignorance that there are other non-Latin rite Catholics in the world.
2. The Catholic church has never "divided". Division assumes that you have two of the same thing after the process of division is completed. Clearly that's not the case since what causes division is that one group believes differently than another group. People have separated themselves, for whatever reason, from communion throughout history. This is not an argument that the Catholic Church is not universal. The invitation is always made to all people. Yet people are always free to reject the invitation. That's free will. Many have done so. In some cases, however, the case of Elizabeth I being a good example, people are not free to accept the invitation, because that invitation carries a death sentence, banishment, loss of property, and/or a charge of treason. That doesn't make the Catholic Church less universal in its availability. What Christ offers, no man can take away, try as they might. There are still Catholics in England, in spite of the murders of St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Edmund Campion, and the persecutions, suppressions and murders of countless English Catholics in the run up to and during the Protestant Reformation.
24.6.123.226 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)C. Sand
The term 'Roman Catholic' is, in fact, entirely necessary when discussing the Elizabethan Church or the Church at any point after the reign of Henry VIII. The common misconception of Henry VIII's reform of the Church in England was that he moved away from Catholicism and towards the establishment of Protestantism in England. This view is entirely incorrect as he merely moved away from Roman Catholicism and established a kind of 'Anglo-Catholicism' in England. He still believed in the doctrine and practices of the Catholic Church but disagreed with the idea of the church of his realm be ruled over by an external power. He wanted to ensure that he had control over the church in his country because he recognised the tremendous power which it wielded as well as realising the enormous wealth and revenue which he could have gained from it.
"1066 and All that" says that "the Pope and all his followers seceded from the Church of England, that was called the Reformation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.220.59 ( talk) 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Read this article and tell me if you think it is biased against Catholicism. If you agree, please change it.
I don't think that it is particularly biased against Catholicism, but I do think that in the "Religious Settlement" section there is an error in a hyperlink in regard to "Consubstantial" as opposed to "Transubstantial" views of the Eucharist in the 1559 religious settlement changes. The hyperlinked "Consubstantial" should take the reader to the entry on "Consubstantiation" rather than the entry on the definition of consubstantial in terms of the relative nature of the three persons of the Holy Trinity (homoousious). I do not know how to edit the link but please someone DO edit it. Consubstantiation refers to the doctrine (espoused by Luther) that the consecrated elements of bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ WITH and IN the bread and wine and remain so for a period limited to the reception of them by the faithful, rather than the Catholic view of the consecrated elements becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ (body, blood, soul and divintiy) in a corporeal sense UNDER the APPEARANCES of the species of bread and wine. the doctrine of Transubstantiation is (in my view) much maligned and generally misunderstood, drawing as it does so much on the philosphical concepts of "accident" and "substance", however the link to "Consubstantial" will presently do NOTHING to inform the reader. The difference in the link is VITAL to the sentence. Wombala 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The author of the religious settlement section appears not to know the difference between a liturgy and a litany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.149.248 ( talk) 09:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC) The French at least enacted the Edict Of Nantes protecting protestanst during the same era as Elizabeth 1 reign. However under her reign 20,000 English Catholics were hanged per year 20k times 40 = 800,000. No doubt this was due to the English law if you denounce a Catholic you get his property. And hanging then was a very slow process of dying. The good news the Odious Cromwell met his fate in the Tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.108.45 ( talk) 12:41, May 14, 2007 Should a sober work of history use the word "odious"? He was certainly a cruel person, but so was Henry VIII, both his daughters, Elizabeth's minister Walsingham, and many others. Why single out Cromwell ?
not enough information and it stinks
Under "Death", section 7: In later years[...] she showed an inclination towards her nephew, ironically the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, whom she had executed; but she never officially named him. [...] She was succeeded by James I of England, who was already James VI of Scotland.
Is James I the same nephew mentioned in that first sentence? He seems to be, from his own page, but it's not terribly clear. -- Suitov
Yes they are the same people, as Elizabeth had no children, her nearest heir was her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, who could have expected to inherit the English throne had she not been executed. Therefore the line passed down to Mary's son (Elizabeths nephew)James who was already King of Scotland and became King James I of England.
James wasn't really Elizabeth's nephew. As Mary, Queen of Scots was her first cousin once removed, James would have been her first cousin twice removed, correct? Not disagreeing with the line of succession, just the terminology, and I would want to have it correct in case of any future editing. Prsgoddess187 15:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
YEah be more specific
I think that there should be more information on who, what, were, when, and why, and the exeptional how!! it is a wonderful sight but that would really make it stand out
In the process of adding a new link to additional text on the page Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, pointing to robert dudley son of leycester, duca de northumbria, the page created was named Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester, CONSEQUENTLY REDIRECTING THE LINK Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester on this page TO THE WRONG ADDRESS.
Correct page being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley%2C_1st_Earl_of_Leicester
Faedra.
Hey Emsworth, I realise that Wikipedia:Captions says that captions may be ommitted for biographical articles, but that doesnt mean they have to. I often prefer reading image captions rather than the introductory paragraph. If you feel there's too much clutter, we could cut it down some. Deepak 23:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I absolutely oppose captions for main images in biographical articles. They are, I think, utterly redundant; all important information should be given in the article text. The caption should merely indicate that the individual depicted is indeed the subject of the article. Captions are only appropriate, I believe, where the subject of the image is not, completely and exactly, the subject of the article. -- Emsworth 23:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So can we evolve a consensus on this now? How about this? Deepak 16:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Disagree: the exception noted above is appropriate. All information in the caption will just be redundant with the introduction paragraph. In non-biographical articles, the caption should indicate the relationship of the picture to the article. But in biographies, the relationship is quite clear to almost every user. Captions are meant to identify, not tell the story—that role is to be played by the article itself. -- Emsworth 13:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that is good, but to retain some of the pleasing consistency between the captions for the various English monarchs, how about:
To maintain the consistency, the other royal protraits will also need a short caption along these lines. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That, I am afraid, seems even more inelegant (esp. due to the insertion of "Queen of England and Ireland"). The general format, I think, should be: King N. is depicted in the [special name of portrait if any/ above portrait] by X. in Year. [Comments specific to portrait included as appropriate.] -- Emsworth 23:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Extensive captions are needed for historical portraits: all of Elizabeth's portraits were part of her propaganda, contributing ultimately to the perception of her as Gloriana and the Virgin/Faerie Queen: as a document, each should carry at least a date and an attribution. Turn to the article on the Spanish armada and you will find such information for the picture displayed there (Battle of Gravelines), which allows you to understand that the picture is representative merely of an exaggerated early-Romantic appreciation of the historical event. Elegance in an article rests with the thought and expression, not in the attractions that the wrapper may hold for some sparkly twit.-- shtove 21:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Cite sources specifically says:
- Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi,
Elizabeth I was also Queen of France. Since the 100 years war, the English monarch was also king (or queen) of France. It's only George III who cancelled that title, after the French revolution. Of course, that title was purely nominal, the true king of France being the French monarch. -- User:62.161.27.52
What about Wales however? I cant see it mentioned anywhere in the article even though the Tudor dynasty is of Welsh ancestry and that the Kingdom of England since the reign of Henry VIII meant England and Wales?
Wales remained a principality, not a kingdom Jatrius 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is not to use ordinals where they are redundant -- for instance the article Victoria I of the United Kingdom was moved to Victoria of the United Kingdom. This article is therefore anomalously titled and should really be moved to Elizabeth of England since there never was an Elizabeth II of England. -- Derek Ross | Talk
You point out that there was never an "Elizabeth II of England." You would be correct; there is no "Elizabeth I of England," either; both titles are inventions of Wikipedia policy. But, now, since there is no "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" other than Elizabeth II, do we move Her present Majesty's article to "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom?" Shall we move "William IV of the United Kingdom" to "William of the United Kingdom?" Of course not. As the numbering of the British and English monarchs has been continuous, it would be appropriate to use the first ordinal. Your example with Victoria, I believe, is not applicable here, as there has not been an English or British monarch of the same name since. But, there has been a second Queen named Elizabeth (the present Queen, of course), and therefore there must have been a first Queen of the same name: Elizabeth I. -- Emsworth 12:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As I understand it, the three crowns (England, Ireland and Scotland) are, and always have been, inherited separately, though conferred on coronation together. Wales, I suppose, remains a royal principality.-- shtove 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
No, Wales is was part of the Kingdom of England from the reign of Henry VIII until the Act of Union in 1707 created Great Britain. The Principality of Wales is a title granted by the English/British Crown.
Elizabeth I has a lot of mention in various trivia books of varying authenticity, and some downright weird stuff is going around. Any truth to any of this?
I had always heard that despite her nickname, Elizabeth's actual virginity was questionable. Has anyone else heard anything of the sort? -- BDD 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, when she was 17, she had an affair with a palace guard. She also had many other things like that thoughout her life.-- The Republican 00:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)The Republican
What about her infatuation with Thomas Seymour when she was sent to live with Catherine Parr? It certainly establishes her as a passionate woman ... is there any truth to that story? I've also read that Thomas Hatton was a favourite. 59.93.245.85 06:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Mrs S.
What if she didn't exactly favor men opposed to women?
I would like to state that the title "Virgin Queen" shouldn't be taken so litteraly. She has been known to court with a few young/older men, but the fact is that the name is established because she was never married. She was the Virgin Queen because she never had a King. Her position was too awkward to marry anyone. Virginia is also named after the "Virgin Queen" when the english colonized that region.
The text doesn't seem to flow well. It's almost like I'm reading bullet points, except they're grouped together into rather random-feeling paragraphs! Or is it just me? -- Rebroad 20:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous edits of 12 September 2005 have improved this - more like it are needed; but is it right to Americanise (Americanize?) the spelling?
"Elizabeth has also been criticised for supporting the English slave trade." Is this history? Historians don't write or think like this. -- Wetman 28 June 2005 05:25 (UTC)
See the most recent para. in this Talk page, on 29/11/2007. See "Source of Info".
This is getting silly. Please take this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and find out what the consensus is before you make further changes to the names in this and several related articles. Rl 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of being a "featured article", the history page for this article is another display of Wikipedia's weaknessess and why such projects can never rival a "real" encyclopedia with real editors. The article may as well be deleted for all the use it will be to anyone researching the topic and looking for reliable information.
Elizabeth is long gone but there is still a regular attempt to spin the article in a pro-(specific type of) Catholic way. The idea that "Bloody Mary" was not remarkable for the rate at which she had enemies executed, and the similar repeated uses of the words "spurious" or "dubious" in the section on the evidence at MQoS's trial are things that an editor would prevent. The "spurious" example is the worse of the two because it shows how easy it is to undermine an article. If someone has a reason to make that statement about the evidence, a real editor in a real encyclopaedia would surely request more information than that one word. But on Wikipedia anyone can come along and slot such a thing in and then wander off again. Once such an oversight is corrected, a real encyclopaedia editor does not have to check every day to make sure it hasn't come back.
Subtle issues like this are the bane of Wikipedia, far more than the obvious vandalisms which even an naive researcher would spot. To go away from an article on Elizabeth with the impression that historians regard her as no less bloody or tolerant than her sister, or that there are good reasons to doubt the evidence at MQoS's trial, or any one of a million other simple revisions that could slip through the review process for days or weeks, would be a failure of the system. Yet it is a very real possibility even here on an article one would have thought was reasonably uncontentious. What hope is there for an article about, say, the causes of 911, or the troubles in Northern Ireland, which are very much live and sensitive issues? 12:40, 10 Oct 2005
It is important to avoid value judgements in historical work. " a successful monarch" whose "record was blemished" is not history but opinion. It is interesting that E was seen as successful, but the term is completely subjective - successful in defending whose interests ?
Her own. She was successful in keeping her head attached to her body in a time when many factions wished to remove it, which makes her a successful politician if nothing else. 213.78.235.176 13:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a problem, not with editors putting in points of view, but with such points of view as are not neutral. This is my understanding of WikiWorld - am I mistaken?-- shtove 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe two slight corrections could be made to the article.
Instead of Quote: After two months in the Tower, Elizabeth was released but kept under house arrest in the care of Sir Henry Bedingfield at Hatfield;
Read: After two months in the Tower (18 March-19 May 1554), Elizabeth was released but kept under house arrest at Woodstock, Oxfordshire, then was allowed to stay at her residence in Hatfield, Hertfordshire.
And instead of Quote: Though Philip II aided her in ending the Italian Wars with the Peace of Cateau Cambrésis, Elizabeth remained independent in her diplomacy.
Read: Elizabeth ratified the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis established on 3 April 1559, bringing peace with France.
(England and Elizabeth I were not involved in the Italian wars.)
Is there any basis for the description of the Baron wearing scarves? Ariasne 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
From what I recall, Henry VIII was only fat in his later years. The armour he wore as a young man (still preserved) shows he was muscular but not vast. Also, artists probably increased his physique to make him look more intimidating. Perhaps this should be edited?
I believe that what you are saying is quite correct. But, when Her Royal Highness (later Her Majesty) was living as a teenager, her father was quite obese. In other words, because he lived through Elizabeth's life as a fat person, it shouldn't need editing.
There as been a movement in recent years to give her the honor of being a Great. This was started by Elizabeth Jenkins, an authoress. Please keep my refernce to this in the article. I'd be much obliged.
Why has flirtatious just been changed to saucy?-- shtove 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added in the list of language flemish, as she was fluent in it.
Don't like this edit (in bold, l.39):
It's a repetition of propaganda and should be deleted.-- shtove 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Mary is not cousin of Elizabeth. Mary's grandmother Margaret Tudor is the elder sister of Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father. So Mary should be Elizabeth's niece.-- Heroyog 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The WP article on this artist (which needs work) doesn't attribute this portrait to her. Christopher Haigh Elizabeth I (2001) ISBN 0582472784 states it's probably by William Scrots in 1546. Perhaps the Coronation Portrait, in which the crowned queen has her left hand on an orb, is the one that is possibly attributable to Teerlinc?-- shtove 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the article on Francis Drake, he was the first person to circumnvaigate the globe, not just the first Anglo, Magellan having died en route. Fishhead64 21:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is true that Magellan died en route, but he certainly was not the only person on board. According to the article on Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate would be either Juan Sebastián Elcano or Magellan's servant Henry the Black (in addition to 17 other crew members). Although Drake might be the first "famous" person, he certainly was not the first absolutely. Massimo377 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the various names given to the Queen, there have been several changes to this section of the introduction in the past few months. For instance, within the past few days an edit was made that identified E.R.I as "The Faerie Queen", changed from "The Faere Queen", the latter of which I suspect is the correct nomenclature. In the absence of proof of some definative, I am editing to return the article to its former state. Of course there should be as much input on the subject as possible, but to justify the reversion I would point out that Elizabeth, who was "The Virgin Queen" was not a Faerie or any other kind of mythical beast. I am assuming of course that a modern interpretation of "The Faere Queen" would be "The Fair Queen". I thank you in advance for your consideration. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hamster sandwich, having made my first contribution to the wikipedia today, with an edit of the Elizabeth I page, I can assure you that the name Faerie queen does indeed come from the famous poem written about her by Edmund Spenser. See for example, http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/texts.htm many thanks, Elisabeth.
Was Elizabeth recently categorised as a Monarch of Canada because of the British Colonies in what would later become Canada during her reign? If so, is that really correct categorisation - my Canadian history isn't very good, but I didn't think there was really anything that could be called "Canada" at the time. Advice of the more informed requested. :-) -- Estarriol talk 08:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that Henry VII of England was the first English monarch in Newfoundland. Did you know that Mary I of England was a joint monarch in New Spain? IP Address 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Since Newfoundland only became part of Canada in 1949, Elizabeth was certainly not monarch of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.224.153 ( talk) 20:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Added a reference to Robert Dudley's wife which was missing, her existence being one of the bars to Elizabeth marrying Dudley had she really been committed to do so.
Alibi 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Elisabeth is currently the subject of an HBO Mini Serie: "Elisabeth I". http://www.hbo.com/films/elizabeth/index.html
I just watched the 2 part series on HBO "Elizabeth 1(st)" I have to say that I was totally enthralled. I as an american, don't know much at all about the history of the British Monarchy, and found it to be a very moving portrail. Well acted, excellent writing, a supurb piece of cimematic Storytelling. It's just that it glossed over some areas, (as ofcourse it must have or I'd still be watching to now.) It was a 2 part movie both parts lasting about 3 hours. It made me realize the heartaches, trials and tribulations, a member of the Monarchy goes through, especially if you're a woman back in those days. It left the ending of her life though, a bit vague. How did Elizabeth The 1st Die? According to the movie, it seemed as though she more or less "willed" herself to death, due the heartache of her having to cause the execution of one of the men she loved dearly and privately. I think it was the Earl of Lester, and his stepson. In history, whats written as her cause of death?
P.S. I suggest to anyone that wants to see a good piece of acting, writing and directing, as well as the costumes, to see it. Now I'm currious as to what other movies that actress has played, she kept me glued to the screen, (as did the story itself) and there aren't many films being made today, with such care to detail, and excellence. I feel for her, never having married, and not being allowed to marry the men she did fall in love with due to her position. Now I'm going to be looking more deeply into the British Monarchy of the 15 and 16 hundreds.
Thank You
Bruce
I have just recently edited AGAIN. The abuse of English is horrible. A sentence should never be more than 2 lines long and yet people are writing things that seem to go on for days. I made 4 sentences out of one. What's going on? And some people deleting references attached to certain people like Anne Boleyn's title of Pembroke? Henry gave it to her to elevate her more before he married her so it wouldn't seem like that bad of an idea. Why would someone delete it? I do agree about some things being taken out because they misleading and subjective. But some things, like well-known rumors that well-respected authors include in their books, should be left in. They are part of who Elizabeth is and what makes her so fascinating. All the drama and the fact that we'll probably never know is what attracts some people. Everyone has their own version of the story. As a place dedicated to informing people, we should present every side, not just the one we like best. Get it? beautiful1749 6/15/2006
Does any user know the referencing method used on the article? (As there are little or no citations throughout the article except for a few references at the very bottom). -- AJ24 July 12, 2006
i'am confuse between Elizabeth I(the queen after Queen Mary I)and Elizabeth(the queen after the King James I ).Can you tell me more about their matter during both their reign.
You may be referring to James' daughter Elizabeth, named after the queen that left him the throne, who became the Queen of Bohemia for a year, also known as the Winter Queen. However, she was never Queen of England, so that is merely a guess.
Are details available for Elizabeth's life prior to her early reign? -- SparqMan 05:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree, glad to see someone did something about it.
Beautiful1749 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a rather extensive persecution of Catholics during Elizabeth's reign, especially of priests, including such famous martyrs as Southwell and Campion. Perhaps something about this should be mentioned in the article.
I just wish to note that while Elizabeth did kill many more people in her reign, she was not on a religious crusade like her sister was; should Mary have lived I have no doubt she would have surpassed Elizabeth's final score, but more importantly Elizabeth most often framed her revenge in treason to the realm or throne. William Byrd, a devout Catholic, lived a peaceful life at court because he never engaged in plots to depose Elizabeth or betray the realm to foreign (including Popish) powers. Thomas Howard the Duke of Norfolk, however, was closely connected to the Northern Rebellion, which attempted to overthrow Elizabeth, the Church of England, and invite foreign rulers to invade the realm. Catholic threats to the safety of the realm were punished - 900 peasants were killed after the Northern Rebellion - but quiet practicers of the Old Faith were largely left alone by the queen. Here it is important to specify the difference between treasonous actions and religious practice.
these "facts"
are straight out of the fictional movie Elizabeth ...
Hey, the picture used in the Early Reign section is running over the top of some of the text.
66.57.225.77 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Shakespeare aside, the English -did- lose that war and thus all of Henry's gains within a bit more than a generation. While England remained at a national level decisively protestant into the 20th century. So the mention of Henry V as a pivotal monarch or any other claims of influence save the lasting impression his memory made on Englands idea of itself is strange. Wilhelm Ritter 03:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC) But self-image IS important, even, or especially, when it is in conflict with reality. That's why Richard I, who spent less than a year in England during his reign, remains important etc.. Jatrius 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
All this talk about grammar leaves me wondering if anyone's minding the store. There's a glaring 'vandalization' here: "The King enjoyed a string of affairs, one of which involved a woman named Dana who was a daughter of a suitor of the king's court. After secretly spending the night with Dana, King Henry got her pregnant, though evidence of the child's gender or whereabouts thereafter remained unknown." There are only 2 'recorded' mistresses for Henry VIII, and neither of them is named, "Dana" (they are Eliz. Blount and Anne Boleyn's sister, Mary). This entry should be for Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount, who bore the bastard, Henry Fitzroy for the king. Fitzroy's gender and existence is well documented; he was named Duke of Richmond by royal decree. I'm not bold enough to change this, wish someone would, or just notice it. Vstevensstoklosa 14:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Vstevensstoklosa 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
On the 5th paragraph down, it reads:
channi is the biggest bitch the only surviving child of King Henry VIII of England by his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Marchioness of Pembroke.
Can someone repair this?
4.225.208.209 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about this because I read her fictional Diary in The Royal Diaries series, and because of that, I want to know if she really had kept a diary in real life, especially her reign as Queen. I read the Diary of Queen Victoria in The Royal Diaries series also, and it said in it that Victoria herself had kept a diary in real life, but it never really said in Elizabeth's "Fictional" Diary that she had kept a diary in reality or not. So I like answers from you, as good as you can to answer this question of mind. Thanks.-Jana
_
I don't believe Elizabeth did. At least there's no evidence of it. Parts of Queen Victoria's diary were published and can be found on ebay, if you're interested. J.A.
Would someone be willing to source the following? Who says that there is intense controversy over Elizabeth's religious beliefs? Who says she sympathised with Catholicism? These seem rather controversial statements in their own right, without sources, so I've removed the text pending discussion and proper sourcing.
(There is intense controversy over what Elizabeth's true religious beliefs where, and it has been suggested that in many ways she sympathized with Catholicism.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reverse Gear ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
Just to add " I shall not set a window to look into men's souls". This is not a declaration of sympathy towards Catholicism, merely an active policy of seeking not to persecute, akin to modernday "don't ask, don't tell" with regard to homosexuality within US forces. To be a Roman Catholic in Elizabeth's reign was to acknowledge a higher temporal ruler, not just in the field of religion, but in the field of active power politics. This would have undermined the Elizabethan settlement, her authority, and ultimately her life should she not have demurred. Please also remember that the Anglican religion is also Catholic and properly the adherents of the Bishop of Rome should be termed ROMAN Catholics. Jatrius 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of Queen Elizabeth's bold, decisive and ingenious plan that brought the english economy from the ruins of her father's reign, to world powerhouse. When she recalled english currency to be revalued, she had made a move that basically astonished everyone because she was a woman, and had the wisdom, and the guts to make such a bold move. Too much of this article sounds like opinion, rather than fact ("short-tempered and indecisive??") all one has to do is look at political decisions she made to refute that claim. An Historical figure like queen Elizabeth deserves much more thought and depth to an bographical article that we see here presently. much of the story is left untold, and therefore fails to convey the absolute genius of one of, if not the greatest leader history has ever produced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.253.131.90 ( talk) 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
The article now says that she was decisive. I am no expert, but I can source a reference ( Simon Schama's A History of Britain) who thinks she was indecisive, and gives examples. Can't find a tilde on the keyboard I am using, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.102.84 ( talk) 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I added some detail about her trial and execution. I thought it was important to have this because it was a big deal to Elizabeth and the trone. Mary would no longer be threat. If I left out anything or added something that cannot be proven, I apologize. I tried to keep it short but have the important facts. If you do chage anything, let me know because I would be interested in how you expand or curtail it. Thanks Beautiful1749 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume that since we hear this phrase so much that this line was written without much thought:
"Henry would have preferred a son to ensure the Tudor succession, but Queen Anne failed to produce a male heir."
Sex is determined by the male, not female. The truth is that Henry failed to provide a Y chromosome. Queen Anne may have failed to produce a male heir by miscarrying, but is there any evidence of the sex of the children? So I'm changing this line just a bit.
Colby 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait a little bit to see if anyone has objections, but shouldn't the part about her virginity go at the end of the article? Right now, its between her early reign, and the conflict with France and Scotland; it appears out of place and it disrupts the flow of the article.
66.253.48.83 seems to have had a problem with it. the childish fool has writted "she obviously fucked everything which walked through". sad. just because his own life is so bad he goes and insults dead people.
I was surprised to find so little about one of the most famous speeches of her illustrious reign, except a red link, so I've gone and added a quotation, although I must admit to having some trepidation about editing a FA! JGHowes 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"In 1563, Queen Elizabeth I re-enacted the Buggery Act 1533. It was first passed by Henry VIII in 1533, but was repealed just 20 years later - in 1553 - by Mary I of England." I have removed this, which had been given a section to itself, from the article. Not because I think it should not be in the article - if it is verifiable, it should - but because it is not notable or important enough to be in a section to itself (and the the section title - 'Legislative Firsts' - seems odd, if it had already been passed by Henry VIII). Rather, it should be integrated into the main text, or a section on laws passed in her reign should be implemented. Thanks. Michael Sanders 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"One companion, to whom she referred with affection throughout her life, was her cousin, the Irishman Thomas Butler, later 3rd Earl of Ormonde (d. 1615)." Are you sure? Thomas Boleyn's title would have fallen to his viscount son, but he predeceased him and the title of Earl of Ormonde was reinstituted for the Butlers but I'm not aware of any blood relationship, in fact it is not made explicit by the Wiki's own entry to the title. In what way was she his cousin, or is this a misconstruction from the contemporary 'My Dear Cousin', in the same fashion as monarchs addressed each other as 'My Dear Brother'. Jatrius 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the mention of a stage production based on Elizabeth's life, since it was one put on by a university, and is of limited appeal to a wider audience. Someone can revert it if they think it's relevant. 24.59.112.218 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This article say that she was writer and poet but can somebody tel me more about that??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.57.226 ( talk) 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
Can you really refrain from child birth?
Yes, it's called abstinence!
SMUpony 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well not really, abstinence is refraining from the cause of birth. A teatotaler does not refrain from hangovers. I suggest saying that she refrained from sexual activity. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.11.102.84 (
talk) 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I encourage Wikipedia to re-evaluate the text of this article. There is a strong religious bias in and about it. Below are a list of examples:
1. The Church of England was started by King Henry so he could divorce Catherine and marry Anne. The Church of England is'nt really a "Protestant" church like the Lutheran, etc. England was wholly Catholic prior to King Henry's act in which he appointed himself as head of the church in England. King Henry then proceeded to take all of the Catholic holdings (property and treasure) to fill his coffers.
2. Queen Mary (Elizabeth's predecessor) is noted as being labeled "Bloody Mary" for her supression of Protestants. However, little or no mention is made of the extremely bloody persecution by Elizabeth of the Catholics in England. There is only glancing references to it, "the Act of Supremacy 1559 ... or face severe punishment..." Many people were killed by the Queen during and after this time (religious and leity, affluent and commoner).
Perhaps a more unbiased examination of the facts is in order. I strongly recommend that this article be labeled as "contested" at least. ```` jmsiino
It is true that the Church of England was not really "Protestant" but was more Anglo-Catholic. Testament to the Catholic beliefs of Henry VIII is that he paid two priests £600 to pray for his soul for eternity after he died. This was a highly Catholic practice. He was simply not Roman Catholic.
I'm afraid the belief that Elizabeth I 'persecuted' Catholics is a little misguided. She did not actively seek out to cause pain or suffering to Catholics in her country. It is true that she had some tortured or executed but this was in response to them breaking laws laid down by her and they would have known the punishments which would be incurred if they broke those laws. Mary I persecuted Protestants for the express reason that they were Protestants. Elizabeth punished people for political or legal reasons rather than religious reasons. The Death penalty was in use during the time and those who broke laws which incurred the death penalty were executed. The only times when Elizabeth could be seen to have people executed for slightly harsh reasons is after rebellions which threatened her position as Queen such as after the Rebellion of the Northern Earls of 1569. Besides, the Jesuits (fundamentalist, extremist Catholics) who arrived in England in 1580 actively saught to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I which was treason and, considering treason is one of only two crimes which are punishable by death in England today, it is hardly surprising that they would have been executed in the 16th Century.
Also, Elizabeth did punish Protestants not just Catholics who challenged her royal prerogative such as the suspension from office of Edmund Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury until his death in 1583 after he refused to suppress prophesyings (a Puritan practice) in England. Also the Act Against Seditoius Sectaries of 1593 punished those who refused to attend church or persuaded others not to attend, and those who denied the Queen's authority in religoius matters and was aimed at the seperatist movement (part of Puritan ideology). Therefore Queen Elizabeth did not persecute only Catholics but rather punished those who challenged her authority as Queen and those who refused to conform to her Religious Settlement. Therefore the contention that the Elizabeth I was more 'Bloody' than Mary I is not viable because there was no 'extremely bloody persecution by Elizabeth of the Catholics in England'. Elizabeth simply demanded that her Royal authority be respected. She did not punish people for Religious reasons but rather political ones. Elizabeth was actually incredibly tolerant of different religions and cared only that her subjects outwardly conform to her laws. Elizabeth, in fact, had several Catholic features in her private chapel such as a crucifix, candles and music. I do hope that this has cleared up this issue for you. Robsonm 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Not really Protestant? All other Protestant Churches thought it to be so until at least the 20th century. Henry a Catholic? See Hughes, Scarisbrick, Haigh, Duffy,Nichols, don't rely entirely on Protestant historiography, even that in its modern form ie. Dickens, regards the C of E as Protestant. Luther regarded himself as a catholic, so did Calvin, so did Bucer, Zwingli, and Cranmer.They all applealed to the authority of scripture, antiquity, and reason, just as much as did the C of E. I am sure it was a great comfort to those who while still alive had their bowels pulled out to realise that Elizabeth was "incredibly tolerant". Please could fundamentalist be banned as a term, the Jesuits merely believed the catholic faith. One assumes that the gentleman who describes them thus believes the fundamentals of his. Lutherans kept crucifixes, candles, and music as part of their services. so their retention by Elizabeth is no evidence of catholic sympathies. There is a clear division between Lutheran and Reformed on these mattters; with one exception, Elizabeth's bishops were Reformed rather than Lutheran.
Under the heading "Virginity": "Long ago, there were rumors of her being a sexy porn star!!" ... Don't think that's right... 203.109.160.123 08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
can some one give me a good website to find out more about the queen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lionstigers23520 ( talk • contribs) .
Try Google. 70.112.192.130 ( talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think allegorical image of the old Elizabeth painted after her death is a better choice for the lead image of this article than the "Ermine" portrait (above) that was there before, which is the iconic image of Elizabeth in her prime. I would vote to restore the prior image and move this one down toward the end of the article.
What do others think? - PKM 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I was bold. -- SECisek 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation
I find it remarkable that the article should talk of the BCP of 1559 as including both of these theologies. The author of the 1549 an 1552 liturgies believed in neither, as he was a Zwinglian ( see MacCulloch, Dix, Couratin, Ratcliffe). Only one Bishop under Elizabeth was a Lutheran(Cheney of Gloucester), the rest were Calvinists and even Zwinglians. Transubstantiation was condemned by one of the Articles agreed upon by these people. Refer to the Wiki article on The Elizabethan Settlement, and also the one on the Book of Common Prayer, they are rather more theologically informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.128.124 ( talk) 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Anglican High Churchmen until the 19th century did not believe either in consubstantiation or transubstantiation, they were usually receptionists (Nockles " The Oxford Movement in Context").
I believe Wiki puts in nothing for which authoriy cannot be cited. Please what is the authority for the remarkable first paragraph on the Religious Settlement? It appears to me to be fiction. Please check it against eg Dickens "The English Reformation" Chapter on the Revolution of 1559. There appears to be no Reformation Bill. == Image I removed a bunch of images/screenshots from films/programmes about Elizabeth from the bottom of the article as they were unfree and could only be used to illustrate the programme/film that they were from. Quite a lot of them lacked fair use rationales or the rationale did not include use here. Spartaz Humbug! 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the link under the picture for James I really link directly to his page, rather than the disambiguation page for the name James I? It would really make more sense that way. 203.173.225.217 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
i think i fixed what you were talking about Klimintine 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure but I think the beginning of the paragraph may be an opinion! Ya think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.83.12 ( talk) 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that someone put this page up for semi-protection. There seems to be a very high level of vandalism in light of the new movie, so this is obviously a high-profile target for vandals. Okiefromokla• talk 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Overkill fellas. Think of all the potential new wikipedia editors that may be turned away by this. We're perfectly capable of dealing with vandalism. Casliber maybe you should take a break from admin actions? Yabbadabbawho 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a little note next to the 300,000 pounds she sent to the French King, a aprx. value in that money for today's money.
See this website: http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/
Oui, non? PatrickJ83 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This line looks exactly like one of those descriptions you find on key-rings which are supposed to explain what someone with your name is like. "Elizabeth was resourceful, determined, and exceedingly intelligent. She loved learning for its own sake. Like her mother and father, she was flirtatious and charismatic. She also inherited their sharp tongues and fiery tempers." Was this copied off a key-ring? And can this be made more encyclopedic? Because it sounds stupid. 131.111.186.96 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I will do this. May take some time. qp10qp ( talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
she is not queen elizabeth the first as there is no queen elizabeth the 2nd she is queen of england, after her the crown went to james 1 of england and 6th (or was that 7th of scotland) during queen anne the crowns of england and scotland became one and from then on they have one crown instead of one for soctland and england.
no english family has been crowned since her, and no english family has held the british crown, the english racist propaganda that the present queen is the second, shows comtempt for scotland and the facts, wikipedia should get their act together -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The article has become enormous (85 kb). I've moved all the lists of films, fiction, video games etc. to a new article Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England (crossed fingers it doesn't get deleted). I intend instead to add some good material about Elizabeth and depictions of her during her reign, using Strong, etc.
I've cut the section "Patrilineal descent". This is a recent and superfluous (in my opinion) addition, since we already have a family tree. You don't even get lists like that in the history books. We shouldn't be influenced into keeping it by the fact that these lists have appeared all over British monarchy articles. The "styles" section is another one you don't see in history books: those too are dumped everywhere, presumably by the one-man royalty project. qp10qp ( talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to trim the bibliography down to a few good books. As I edit the article, the list will grow longer again, but with the addition of different books—the ones used to reference the text. In case anyone thinks this is a little drastic in the short term, I will list the removed books here where anyone can read it and check it against what I am doing. If you wish to add anything back, please be selective, because there are some dreadful books here (I suspect someone just pasted a list from a website). I am also going to change the format to author-first, and add more details about the books still listed. In the short term, one or two footnotes (not many, because most of these books do not seem to have been used to source the text) may be slightly stranded, but I will sort this out when referencing the information. qp10qp ( talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
qp10qp ( talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the list of historical fiction books and added it to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. qp10qp ( talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the eccentric section called "References"; I can't find a useful source here. The list is below, with my comments, in case anyone disagrees and would like to put something back. I am going to proceed with a "Notes and references" section, linked to citation tags. The citations will be to books listed alphabetically in the bibliography. I believe this will be the most comfortable system for the reader.
qp10qp ( talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section as being too obscure for a general article (I don't see this stuff in my history books, so I don't see why a Wikipedia article should suffer it). It isn't reffed, and I wouldn't know how to ref it (I'm guessing that it comes from specialist sources, but this is a general article). Some nuggets of information, such as the motto and emblem, might go into the main article, if they pan out. I place the section here for scrutiny.
Elizabeth I used the official style ' Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, Queen of England, France and Ireland, Fidei defensor, etc." Whilst most of the style matched the styles of her predecessors, Elizabeth I was the first to use "etc." It was inserted into the style with a view to restoring the phrase "of the Church of England and also of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head", which had been added by Henry VIII but later removed by Mary I. The supremacy phrase was never actually restored, and "etc." remained in the style, to be removed only in 1801.
She has been retroactively known as Queen Elizabeth I since the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952. Prior to that time, she was referred to as Queen Elizabeth.
Elizabeth's arms were the same as those used by Henry IV: Quarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lys Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England). Whilst her Tudor predecessors had used a gold lion and a red dragon as heraldic supporters, Elizabeth used a gold lion and a gold dragon. Elizabeth adopted one of her mother's mottoes, Semper Eadem ("Always the Same") and also her mother's emblem as her emblem (The eagle on top of a tree trunk).
qp10qp ( talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Removed this style box thingy, which I found lurking in the middle of the article. (Might have been useful if I was going to meet Queen Liz any time soon, but she died a few years ago.)
|
qp10qp ( talk) 18:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
These thing are useless and often wrong. I would love to see them all killed. I will be bold in the future, we all should. -- SECisek ( talk) 22:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Should legacy really include Elizabeth in film roles ? Should this be placed in a separate heading of "Elizabeth in film" ? Surely her legacy is more important and more serious than being the main character in a few films four centuries later ?
it said in bbc history magazine that when she died her death was widley unmourned and the legend of 'Gloriana' only came later during Victorian times ect 217.43.156.247 ( talk) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Brian
See http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/hawkinsthirdvoyage, which gives full details of the slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 ( talk) 13:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Her brother, Edward VI, cut her out of the succession." should be changed to read "Her half-brother..." since he was the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour and not her full brother. July 5, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.212.123 ( talk) 05:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 time Oriana 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)
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)
English Royalty |
House of Tudor |
---|
![]() |
Henry VIII |
Elizabeth I |
I've removed this template from the article. Though I'm not in favour of them (don't see such things in history books or in other encyclopedias), my real objection is that this one doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. And I haven't a clue how to edit it. What are its principles? What are the two grey bands for, for example? Why is Elizabeth's name repeated? Why is Henry VII, the founder of the dynasty, omitted? Why include Henry, Duke of Cornwall (and which one are we talking about?), but not Arthur, Prince of Wales? Come to that, why not include Margaret Tudor, since her line extended to the throne? And why are Henry VIII's children in age order rather than reign order (Edward VI reigned before Mary and Elizabeth)? If someone wants this back in, could they please find a way to alter it appropriately first? qp10qp ( talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
Error 203.166.99.230 ( talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Jamie
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)
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)
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. DrKay ( talk) 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
It must've been taken off, thank goodness. Warriormartin ( talk) 22:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Writtenonsand ( talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth policy in Ireland was genocide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.253.241 ( talk) 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
The Portrait Elizabeth Tudor c 1545 by an unknown artist is attributed to William Scrots. http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?imgbuttonsearch=&radioAll=0&startYear=&searchText=william+scrots&title=&rccode=&makerName=&category=&collector=&endYear=&pagesize=20&object=404444&row=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancydrew50 ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
How can you count Neale´s biography as scholarly?? There are plenty of examples in it where he distorts and even lies, and HE does not give his sources!! It´s always AD FONTES!! Reading general overviews is not the thing. Buchraeumer ( talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (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)
Mr Seymore is said by most historians to have done no more than 'wrestle with the teenage Elizabeth at best, at worst tried to Pet her'. The idea that a pregnansy of someone as famouse as Elisabeth could be keppt secret belongs with; 'George Bush did 911', and Oswald never shot Kennedy'. Pure madness. Johnwrd ( talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because this section is called "Illegitimate Daughter", I would like to give the original source where a daughter is mentioned (which the biographers seem to have overlooked): "They would then raise to power the son of the earl of Hertford whom they would marry to a daughter of Leicester and the queen of England, who, it is said, is kept hidden, although there are bishops to witness that she is legitimate. They think this will shut the door to all other claimants. This intrigue is said to be arranged very secretly. London, December 1574." So much from the report of the Spanish ambassador Guaras (Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs...from...Simancas vol.II p.491). Of course I don't believe Elizabeth had children (I am not sure Guaras believed it), but there were always such rumours in all classes, and that says something about what people thought of her private life with Robert Dudley (the children of the rumours are always by him). It is interesting that Guaras stresses the "daughter" to be legitimate. Sadly, many biographers use only those sources which suit their purpose and only repeat themselves again and again, they often just don't give the climate of the times. Therefore always check the sources if you can, and read as well books (including the very scholarly ones) about other people of the times. It's really worth it! Buchraeumer ( talk) 12:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
OK no worries, but it is referenced??...and like I said, I'm new... Sweetlife31 ( talk) 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
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 found ukpress.google.com, Rare portrait of Elizabeth I found -- Florentino floro ( talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I noticed that while Mary I's page links to a list of Protestants executed under her, Elizabeth's page does not link to the "40 Catholic martyrs of England and Wales" page, or even mention that any Catholics were executed at all under her. It seems an inconsistency not to at least link to the "Catholic Martyrs" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.67.96 ( talk) 20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Elizabeth I/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
needs inline citations plange 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Given her appearance and her not marrying or having children, is it safe to assume that she was a lesbian? It would not be that unusual during the period.
A key problem eith this theory (and others of the same ilk) is that a reigning monarch is never entirely out of the public eye. Any pregnancy approching full term (which this would have to be, given 16th-century medicine) would be dang near impossible to hide. And remember, conspiracies have a way of leaking, and nothing credible along these lines has leaked. — AnnaKucsma ( Talk to me!) 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is Wikipedia's guidance on the term, Roman Catholic, especially in this period of history? Surely the term, as widely and casually used as it is in Wikipedia, betrays systemic bias. The terms Roman rites, Roman authority - these are legitimate descriptions. But it is a necessary inference from the use of the term Roman Catholic that the church is not universal; the universality of the church is a matter for theological debate, and therefore the inference is not legitimate. In fact, the use of the term in a Wikipedia article that isn't dealing with that theological debate is ignorant.
What drivel. The Catholic church had divided long before the period of Elizabeth. To suggest by the use of the single word "Catholic", which simply means universal, that this was not the case would be ignorance and propaganda.
A church that is divided, or described as Roman, cannot be described as catholic - it's not a matter of propaganda, but of accurate terminology. The discussion page on the article Roman Catholic Church, and its equivalent in French Wikipedia, demonstrate the controversy over this. And why describe a reasoned argument as drivel?-- shtove 21:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
"Catholic" can surely reflect an intent or aim rather than the current actuality, can it not? Regardless of that, the original poster's assertion that the division of the Catholic church (into "Roman" and other sects) is a matter of debate is drivel and not a reasoned argument since it flies in the face of the facts without any support whatsoever. It is nonsense. 213.78.235.176 13:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
A few points in response to the above comments:
1. "Roman Catholic" is not a precise term. The Catholic Church actually contains many rites, one of which is the Roman or Latin rite. There are other Eastern rites, which are still in communion with Rome. For example, Coptic Catholics from Egypt are no less Catholic than are Roman Catholics, despite the fact of a different rite. In other words, there are Catholics in communion with Rome, who are not part of the Latin rite. In the West (Europe), after the Protestant Reformation, they became known as "Roman Catholics", or "Papists", because Europe, on account of its geography and history, contained Latin rite Catholics. Unfortunately, this belies an ignorance that there are other non-Latin rite Catholics in the world.
2. The Catholic church has never "divided". Division assumes that you have two of the same thing after the process of division is completed. Clearly that's not the case since what causes division is that one group believes differently than another group. People have separated themselves, for whatever reason, from communion throughout history. This is not an argument that the Catholic Church is not universal. The invitation is always made to all people. Yet people are always free to reject the invitation. That's free will. Many have done so. In some cases, however, the case of Elizabeth I being a good example, people are not free to accept the invitation, because that invitation carries a death sentence, banishment, loss of property, and/or a charge of treason. That doesn't make the Catholic Church less universal in its availability. What Christ offers, no man can take away, try as they might. There are still Catholics in England, in spite of the murders of St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Edmund Campion, and the persecutions, suppressions and murders of countless English Catholics in the run up to and during the Protestant Reformation.
24.6.123.226 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)C. Sand
The term 'Roman Catholic' is, in fact, entirely necessary when discussing the Elizabethan Church or the Church at any point after the reign of Henry VIII. The common misconception of Henry VIII's reform of the Church in England was that he moved away from Catholicism and towards the establishment of Protestantism in England. This view is entirely incorrect as he merely moved away from Roman Catholicism and established a kind of 'Anglo-Catholicism' in England. He still believed in the doctrine and practices of the Catholic Church but disagreed with the idea of the church of his realm be ruled over by an external power. He wanted to ensure that he had control over the church in his country because he recognised the tremendous power which it wielded as well as realising the enormous wealth and revenue which he could have gained from it.
"1066 and All that" says that "the Pope and all his followers seceded from the Church of England, that was called the Reformation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.220.59 ( talk) 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Read this article and tell me if you think it is biased against Catholicism. If you agree, please change it.
I don't think that it is particularly biased against Catholicism, but I do think that in the "Religious Settlement" section there is an error in a hyperlink in regard to "Consubstantial" as opposed to "Transubstantial" views of the Eucharist in the 1559 religious settlement changes. The hyperlinked "Consubstantial" should take the reader to the entry on "Consubstantiation" rather than the entry on the definition of consubstantial in terms of the relative nature of the three persons of the Holy Trinity (homoousious). I do not know how to edit the link but please someone DO edit it. Consubstantiation refers to the doctrine (espoused by Luther) that the consecrated elements of bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ WITH and IN the bread and wine and remain so for a period limited to the reception of them by the faithful, rather than the Catholic view of the consecrated elements becoming the body and blood of Jesus Christ (body, blood, soul and divintiy) in a corporeal sense UNDER the APPEARANCES of the species of bread and wine. the doctrine of Transubstantiation is (in my view) much maligned and generally misunderstood, drawing as it does so much on the philosphical concepts of "accident" and "substance", however the link to "Consubstantial" will presently do NOTHING to inform the reader. The difference in the link is VITAL to the sentence. Wombala 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The author of the religious settlement section appears not to know the difference between a liturgy and a litany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.149.248 ( talk) 09:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC) The French at least enacted the Edict Of Nantes protecting protestanst during the same era as Elizabeth 1 reign. However under her reign 20,000 English Catholics were hanged per year 20k times 40 = 800,000. No doubt this was due to the English law if you denounce a Catholic you get his property. And hanging then was a very slow process of dying. The good news the Odious Cromwell met his fate in the Tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.108.45 ( talk) 12:41, May 14, 2007 Should a sober work of history use the word "odious"? He was certainly a cruel person, but so was Henry VIII, both his daughters, Elizabeth's minister Walsingham, and many others. Why single out Cromwell ?
not enough information and it stinks
Under "Death", section 7: In later years[...] she showed an inclination towards her nephew, ironically the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, whom she had executed; but she never officially named him. [...] She was succeeded by James I of England, who was already James VI of Scotland.
Is James I the same nephew mentioned in that first sentence? He seems to be, from his own page, but it's not terribly clear. -- Suitov
Yes they are the same people, as Elizabeth had no children, her nearest heir was her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, who could have expected to inherit the English throne had she not been executed. Therefore the line passed down to Mary's son (Elizabeths nephew)James who was already King of Scotland and became King James I of England.
James wasn't really Elizabeth's nephew. As Mary, Queen of Scots was her first cousin once removed, James would have been her first cousin twice removed, correct? Not disagreeing with the line of succession, just the terminology, and I would want to have it correct in case of any future editing. Prsgoddess187 15:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
YEah be more specific
I think that there should be more information on who, what, were, when, and why, and the exeptional how!! it is a wonderful sight but that would really make it stand out
In the process of adding a new link to additional text on the page Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, pointing to robert dudley son of leycester, duca de northumbria, the page created was named Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester, CONSEQUENTLY REDIRECTING THE LINK Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester on this page TO THE WRONG ADDRESS.
Correct page being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dudley%2C_1st_Earl_of_Leicester
Faedra.
Hey Emsworth, I realise that Wikipedia:Captions says that captions may be ommitted for biographical articles, but that doesnt mean they have to. I often prefer reading image captions rather than the introductory paragraph. If you feel there's too much clutter, we could cut it down some. Deepak 23:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I absolutely oppose captions for main images in biographical articles. They are, I think, utterly redundant; all important information should be given in the article text. The caption should merely indicate that the individual depicted is indeed the subject of the article. Captions are only appropriate, I believe, where the subject of the image is not, completely and exactly, the subject of the article. -- Emsworth 23:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So can we evolve a consensus on this now? How about this? Deepak 16:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Disagree: the exception noted above is appropriate. All information in the caption will just be redundant with the introduction paragraph. In non-biographical articles, the caption should indicate the relationship of the picture to the article. But in biographies, the relationship is quite clear to almost every user. Captions are meant to identify, not tell the story—that role is to be played by the article itself. -- Emsworth 13:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that is good, but to retain some of the pleasing consistency between the captions for the various English monarchs, how about:
To maintain the consistency, the other royal protraits will also need a short caption along these lines. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That, I am afraid, seems even more inelegant (esp. due to the insertion of "Queen of England and Ireland"). The general format, I think, should be: King N. is depicted in the [special name of portrait if any/ above portrait] by X. in Year. [Comments specific to portrait included as appropriate.] -- Emsworth 23:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Extensive captions are needed for historical portraits: all of Elizabeth's portraits were part of her propaganda, contributing ultimately to the perception of her as Gloriana and the Virgin/Faerie Queen: as a document, each should carry at least a date and an attribution. Turn to the article on the Spanish armada and you will find such information for the picture displayed there (Battle of Gravelines), which allows you to understand that the picture is representative merely of an exaggerated early-Romantic appreciation of the historical event. Elegance in an article rests with the thought and expression, not in the attractions that the wrapper may hold for some sparkly twit.-- shtove 21:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Cite sources specifically says:
- Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi,
Elizabeth I was also Queen of France. Since the 100 years war, the English monarch was also king (or queen) of France. It's only George III who cancelled that title, after the French revolution. Of course, that title was purely nominal, the true king of France being the French monarch. -- User:62.161.27.52
What about Wales however? I cant see it mentioned anywhere in the article even though the Tudor dynasty is of Welsh ancestry and that the Kingdom of England since the reign of Henry VIII meant England and Wales?
Wales remained a principality, not a kingdom Jatrius 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is not to use ordinals where they are redundant -- for instance the article Victoria I of the United Kingdom was moved to Victoria of the United Kingdom. This article is therefore anomalously titled and should really be moved to Elizabeth of England since there never was an Elizabeth II of England. -- Derek Ross | Talk
You point out that there was never an "Elizabeth II of England." You would be correct; there is no "Elizabeth I of England," either; both titles are inventions of Wikipedia policy. But, now, since there is no "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" other than Elizabeth II, do we move Her present Majesty's article to "Elizabeth of the United Kingdom?" Shall we move "William IV of the United Kingdom" to "William of the United Kingdom?" Of course not. As the numbering of the British and English monarchs has been continuous, it would be appropriate to use the first ordinal. Your example with Victoria, I believe, is not applicable here, as there has not been an English or British monarch of the same name since. But, there has been a second Queen named Elizabeth (the present Queen, of course), and therefore there must have been a first Queen of the same name: Elizabeth I. -- Emsworth 12:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As I understand it, the three crowns (England, Ireland and Scotland) are, and always have been, inherited separately, though conferred on coronation together. Wales, I suppose, remains a royal principality.-- shtove 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
No, Wales is was part of the Kingdom of England from the reign of Henry VIII until the Act of Union in 1707 created Great Britain. The Principality of Wales is a title granted by the English/British Crown.
Elizabeth I has a lot of mention in various trivia books of varying authenticity, and some downright weird stuff is going around. Any truth to any of this?
I had always heard that despite her nickname, Elizabeth's actual virginity was questionable. Has anyone else heard anything of the sort? -- BDD 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, when she was 17, she had an affair with a palace guard. She also had many other things like that thoughout her life.-- The Republican 00:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)The Republican
What about her infatuation with Thomas Seymour when she was sent to live with Catherine Parr? It certainly establishes her as a passionate woman ... is there any truth to that story? I've also read that Thomas Hatton was a favourite. 59.93.245.85 06:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Mrs S.
What if she didn't exactly favor men opposed to women?
I would like to state that the title "Virgin Queen" shouldn't be taken so litteraly. She has been known to court with a few young/older men, but the fact is that the name is established because she was never married. She was the Virgin Queen because she never had a King. Her position was too awkward to marry anyone. Virginia is also named after the "Virgin Queen" when the english colonized that region.
The text doesn't seem to flow well. It's almost like I'm reading bullet points, except they're grouped together into rather random-feeling paragraphs! Or is it just me? -- Rebroad 20:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous edits of 12 September 2005 have improved this - more like it are needed; but is it right to Americanise (Americanize?) the spelling?
"Elizabeth has also been criticised for supporting the English slave trade." Is this history? Historians don't write or think like this. -- Wetman 28 June 2005 05:25 (UTC)
See the most recent para. in this Talk page, on 29/11/2007. See "Source of Info".
This is getting silly. Please take this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and find out what the consensus is before you make further changes to the names in this and several related articles. Rl 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of being a "featured article", the history page for this article is another display of Wikipedia's weaknessess and why such projects can never rival a "real" encyclopedia with real editors. The article may as well be deleted for all the use it will be to anyone researching the topic and looking for reliable information.
Elizabeth is long gone but there is still a regular attempt to spin the article in a pro-(specific type of) Catholic way. The idea that "Bloody Mary" was not remarkable for the rate at which she had enemies executed, and the similar repeated uses of the words "spurious" or "dubious" in the section on the evidence at MQoS's trial are things that an editor would prevent. The "spurious" example is the worse of the two because it shows how easy it is to undermine an article. If someone has a reason to make that statement about the evidence, a real editor in a real encyclopaedia would surely request more information than that one word. But on Wikipedia anyone can come along and slot such a thing in and then wander off again. Once such an oversight is corrected, a real encyclopaedia editor does not have to check every day to make sure it hasn't come back.
Subtle issues like this are the bane of Wikipedia, far more than the obvious vandalisms which even an naive researcher would spot. To go away from an article on Elizabeth with the impression that historians regard her as no less bloody or tolerant than her sister, or that there are good reasons to doubt the evidence at MQoS's trial, or any one of a million other simple revisions that could slip through the review process for days or weeks, would be a failure of the system. Yet it is a very real possibility even here on an article one would have thought was reasonably uncontentious. What hope is there for an article about, say, the causes of 911, or the troubles in Northern Ireland, which are very much live and sensitive issues? 12:40, 10 Oct 2005
It is important to avoid value judgements in historical work. " a successful monarch" whose "record was blemished" is not history but opinion. It is interesting that E was seen as successful, but the term is completely subjective - successful in defending whose interests ?
Her own. She was successful in keeping her head attached to her body in a time when many factions wished to remove it, which makes her a successful politician if nothing else. 213.78.235.176 13:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a problem, not with editors putting in points of view, but with such points of view as are not neutral. This is my understanding of WikiWorld - am I mistaken?-- shtove 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe two slight corrections could be made to the article.
Instead of Quote: After two months in the Tower, Elizabeth was released but kept under house arrest in the care of Sir Henry Bedingfield at Hatfield;
Read: After two months in the Tower (18 March-19 May 1554), Elizabeth was released but kept under house arrest at Woodstock, Oxfordshire, then was allowed to stay at her residence in Hatfield, Hertfordshire.
And instead of Quote: Though Philip II aided her in ending the Italian Wars with the Peace of Cateau Cambrésis, Elizabeth remained independent in her diplomacy.
Read: Elizabeth ratified the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis established on 3 April 1559, bringing peace with France.
(England and Elizabeth I were not involved in the Italian wars.)
Is there any basis for the description of the Baron wearing scarves? Ariasne 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
From what I recall, Henry VIII was only fat in his later years. The armour he wore as a young man (still preserved) shows he was muscular but not vast. Also, artists probably increased his physique to make him look more intimidating. Perhaps this should be edited?
I believe that what you are saying is quite correct. But, when Her Royal Highness (later Her Majesty) was living as a teenager, her father was quite obese. In other words, because he lived through Elizabeth's life as a fat person, it shouldn't need editing.
There as been a movement in recent years to give her the honor of being a Great. This was started by Elizabeth Jenkins, an authoress. Please keep my refernce to this in the article. I'd be much obliged.
Why has flirtatious just been changed to saucy?-- shtove 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added in the list of language flemish, as she was fluent in it.
Don't like this edit (in bold, l.39):
It's a repetition of propaganda and should be deleted.-- shtove 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Mary is not cousin of Elizabeth. Mary's grandmother Margaret Tudor is the elder sister of Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father. So Mary should be Elizabeth's niece.-- Heroyog 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The WP article on this artist (which needs work) doesn't attribute this portrait to her. Christopher Haigh Elizabeth I (2001) ISBN 0582472784 states it's probably by William Scrots in 1546. Perhaps the Coronation Portrait, in which the crowned queen has her left hand on an orb, is the one that is possibly attributable to Teerlinc?-- shtove 23:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the article on Francis Drake, he was the first person to circumnvaigate the globe, not just the first Anglo, Magellan having died en route. Fishhead64 21:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is true that Magellan died en route, but he certainly was not the only person on board. According to the article on Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate would be either Juan Sebastián Elcano or Magellan's servant Henry the Black (in addition to 17 other crew members). Although Drake might be the first "famous" person, he certainly was not the first absolutely. Massimo377 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the various names given to the Queen, there have been several changes to this section of the introduction in the past few months. For instance, within the past few days an edit was made that identified E.R.I as "The Faerie Queen", changed from "The Faere Queen", the latter of which I suspect is the correct nomenclature. In the absence of proof of some definative, I am editing to return the article to its former state. Of course there should be as much input on the subject as possible, but to justify the reversion I would point out that Elizabeth, who was "The Virgin Queen" was not a Faerie or any other kind of mythical beast. I am assuming of course that a modern interpretation of "The Faere Queen" would be "The Fair Queen". I thank you in advance for your consideration. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hamster sandwich, having made my first contribution to the wikipedia today, with an edit of the Elizabeth I page, I can assure you that the name Faerie queen does indeed come from the famous poem written about her by Edmund Spenser. See for example, http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/spenser/texts.htm many thanks, Elisabeth.
Was Elizabeth recently categorised as a Monarch of Canada because of the British Colonies in what would later become Canada during her reign? If so, is that really correct categorisation - my Canadian history isn't very good, but I didn't think there was really anything that could be called "Canada" at the time. Advice of the more informed requested. :-) -- Estarriol talk 08:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that Henry VII of England was the first English monarch in Newfoundland. Did you know that Mary I of England was a joint monarch in New Spain? IP Address 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Since Newfoundland only became part of Canada in 1949, Elizabeth was certainly not monarch of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.224.153 ( talk) 20:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Added a reference to Robert Dudley's wife which was missing, her existence being one of the bars to Elizabeth marrying Dudley had she really been committed to do so.
Alibi 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Elisabeth is currently the subject of an HBO Mini Serie: "Elisabeth I". http://www.hbo.com/films/elizabeth/index.html
I just watched the 2 part series on HBO "Elizabeth 1(st)" I have to say that I was totally enthralled. I as an american, don't know much at all about the history of the British Monarchy, and found it to be a very moving portrail. Well acted, excellent writing, a supurb piece of cimematic Storytelling. It's just that it glossed over some areas, (as ofcourse it must have or I'd still be watching to now.) It was a 2 part movie both parts lasting about 3 hours. It made me realize the heartaches, trials and tribulations, a member of the Monarchy goes through, especially if you're a woman back in those days. It left the ending of her life though, a bit vague. How did Elizabeth The 1st Die? According to the movie, it seemed as though she more or less "willed" herself to death, due the heartache of her having to cause the execution of one of the men she loved dearly and privately. I think it was the Earl of Lester, and his stepson. In history, whats written as her cause of death?
P.S. I suggest to anyone that wants to see a good piece of acting, writing and directing, as well as the costumes, to see it. Now I'm currious as to what other movies that actress has played, she kept me glued to the screen, (as did the story itself) and there aren't many films being made today, with such care to detail, and excellence. I feel for her, never having married, and not being allowed to marry the men she did fall in love with due to her position. Now I'm going to be looking more deeply into the British Monarchy of the 15 and 16 hundreds.
Thank You
Bruce
I have just recently edited AGAIN. The abuse of English is horrible. A sentence should never be more than 2 lines long and yet people are writing things that seem to go on for days. I made 4 sentences out of one. What's going on? And some people deleting references attached to certain people like Anne Boleyn's title of Pembroke? Henry gave it to her to elevate her more before he married her so it wouldn't seem like that bad of an idea. Why would someone delete it? I do agree about some things being taken out because they misleading and subjective. But some things, like well-known rumors that well-respected authors include in their books, should be left in. They are part of who Elizabeth is and what makes her so fascinating. All the drama and the fact that we'll probably never know is what attracts some people. Everyone has their own version of the story. As a place dedicated to informing people, we should present every side, not just the one we like best. Get it? beautiful1749 6/15/2006
Does any user know the referencing method used on the article? (As there are little or no citations throughout the article except for a few references at the very bottom). -- AJ24 July 12, 2006
i'am confuse between Elizabeth I(the queen after Queen Mary I)and Elizabeth(the queen after the King James I ).Can you tell me more about their matter during both their reign.
You may be referring to James' daughter Elizabeth, named after the queen that left him the throne, who became the Queen of Bohemia for a year, also known as the Winter Queen. However, she was never Queen of England, so that is merely a guess.
Are details available for Elizabeth's life prior to her early reign? -- SparqMan 05:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree, glad to see someone did something about it.
Beautiful1749 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a rather extensive persecution of Catholics during Elizabeth's reign, especially of priests, including such famous martyrs as Southwell and Campion. Perhaps something about this should be mentioned in the article.
I just wish to note that while Elizabeth did kill many more people in her reign, she was not on a religious crusade like her sister was; should Mary have lived I have no doubt she would have surpassed Elizabeth's final score, but more importantly Elizabeth most often framed her revenge in treason to the realm or throne. William Byrd, a devout Catholic, lived a peaceful life at court because he never engaged in plots to depose Elizabeth or betray the realm to foreign (including Popish) powers. Thomas Howard the Duke of Norfolk, however, was closely connected to the Northern Rebellion, which attempted to overthrow Elizabeth, the Church of England, and invite foreign rulers to invade the realm. Catholic threats to the safety of the realm were punished - 900 peasants were killed after the Northern Rebellion - but quiet practicers of the Old Faith were largely left alone by the queen. Here it is important to specify the difference between treasonous actions and religious practice.
these "facts"
are straight out of the fictional movie Elizabeth ...
Hey, the picture used in the Early Reign section is running over the top of some of the text.
66.57.225.77 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Shakespeare aside, the English -did- lose that war and thus all of Henry's gains within a bit more than a generation. While England remained at a national level decisively protestant into the 20th century. So the mention of Henry V as a pivotal monarch or any other claims of influence save the lasting impression his memory made on Englands idea of itself is strange. Wilhelm Ritter 03:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC) But self-image IS important, even, or especially, when it is in conflict with reality. That's why Richard I, who spent less than a year in England during his reign, remains important etc.. Jatrius 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
All this talk about grammar leaves me wondering if anyone's minding the store. There's a glaring 'vandalization' here: "The King enjoyed a string of affairs, one of which involved a woman named Dana who was a daughter of a suitor of the king's court. After secretly spending the night with Dana, King Henry got her pregnant, though evidence of the child's gender or whereabouts thereafter remained unknown." There are only 2 'recorded' mistresses for Henry VIII, and neither of them is named, "Dana" (they are Eliz. Blount and Anne Boleyn's sister, Mary). This entry should be for Elizabeth "Bessie" Blount, who bore the bastard, Henry Fitzroy for the king. Fitzroy's gender and existence is well documented; he was named Duke of Richmond by royal decree. I'm not bold enough to change this, wish someone would, or just notice it. Vstevensstoklosa 14:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Vstevensstoklosa 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
On the 5th paragraph down, it reads:
channi is the biggest bitch the only surviving child of King Henry VIII of England by his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Marchioness of Pembroke.
Can someone repair this?
4.225.208.209 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about this because I read her fictional Diary in The Royal Diaries series, and because of that, I want to know if she really had kept a diary in real life, especially her reign as Queen. I read the Diary of Queen Victoria in The Royal Diaries series also, and it said in it that Victoria herself had kept a diary in real life, but it never really said in Elizabeth's "Fictional" Diary that she had kept a diary in reality or not. So I like answers from you, as good as you can to answer this question of mind. Thanks.-Jana
_
I don't believe Elizabeth did. At least there's no evidence of it. Parts of Queen Victoria's diary were published and can be found on ebay, if you're interested. J.A.
Would someone be willing to source the following? Who says that there is intense controversy over Elizabeth's religious beliefs? Who says she sympathised with Catholicism? These seem rather controversial statements in their own right, without sources, so I've removed the text pending discussion and proper sourcing.
(There is intense controversy over what Elizabeth's true religious beliefs where, and it has been suggested that in many ways she sympathized with Catholicism.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reverse Gear ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
Just to add " I shall not set a window to look into men's souls". This is not a declaration of sympathy towards Catholicism, merely an active policy of seeking not to persecute, akin to modernday "don't ask, don't tell" with regard to homosexuality within US forces. To be a Roman Catholic in Elizabeth's reign was to acknowledge a higher temporal ruler, not just in the field of religion, but in the field of active power politics. This would have undermined the Elizabethan settlement, her authority, and ultimately her life should she not have demurred. Please also remember that the Anglican religion is also Catholic and properly the adherents of the Bishop of Rome should be termed ROMAN Catholics. Jatrius 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of Queen Elizabeth's bold, decisive and ingenious plan that brought the english economy from the ruins of her father's reign, to world powerhouse. When she recalled english currency to be revalued, she had made a move that basically astonished everyone because she was a woman, and had the wisdom, and the guts to make such a bold move. Too much of this article sounds like opinion, rather than fact ("short-tempered and indecisive??") all one has to do is look at political decisions she made to refute that claim. An Historical figure like queen Elizabeth deserves much more thought and depth to an bographical article that we see here presently. much of the story is left untold, and therefore fails to convey the absolute genius of one of, if not the greatest leader history has ever produced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.253.131.90 ( talk) 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
The article now says that she was decisive. I am no expert, but I can source a reference ( Simon Schama's A History of Britain) who thinks she was indecisive, and gives examples. Can't find a tilde on the keyboard I am using, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.102.84 ( talk) 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I added some detail about her trial and execution. I thought it was important to have this because it was a big deal to Elizabeth and the trone. Mary would no longer be threat. If I left out anything or added something that cannot be proven, I apologize. I tried to keep it short but have the important facts. If you do chage anything, let me know because I would be interested in how you expand or curtail it. Thanks Beautiful1749 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume that since we hear this phrase so much that this line was written without much thought:
"Henry would have preferred a son to ensure the Tudor succession, but Queen Anne failed to produce a male heir."
Sex is determined by the male, not female. The truth is that Henry failed to provide a Y chromosome. Queen Anne may have failed to produce a male heir by miscarrying, but is there any evidence of the sex of the children? So I'm changing this line just a bit.
Colby 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait a little bit to see if anyone has objections, but shouldn't the part about her virginity go at the end of the article? Right now, its between her early reign, and the conflict with France and Scotland; it appears out of place and it disrupts the flow of the article.
66.253.48.83 seems to have had a problem with it. the childish fool has writted "she obviously fucked everything which walked through". sad. just because his own life is so bad he goes and insults dead people.
I was surprised to find so little about one of the most famous speeches of her illustrious reign, except a red link, so I've gone and added a quotation, although I must admit to having some trepidation about editing a FA! JGHowes 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"In 1563, Queen Elizabeth I re-enacted the Buggery Act 1533. It was first passed by Henry VIII in 1533, but was repealed just 20 years later - in 1553 - by Mary I of England." I have removed this, which had been given a section to itself, from the article. Not because I think it should not be in the article - if it is verifiable, it should - but because it is not notable or important enough to be in a section to itself (and the the section title - 'Legislative Firsts' - seems odd, if it had already been passed by Henry VIII). Rather, it should be integrated into the main text, or a section on laws passed in her reign should be implemented. Thanks. Michael Sanders 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"One companion, to whom she referred with affection throughout her life, was her cousin, the Irishman Thomas Butler, later 3rd Earl of Ormonde (d. 1615)." Are you sure? Thomas Boleyn's title would have fallen to his viscount son, but he predeceased him and the title of Earl of Ormonde was reinstituted for the Butlers but I'm not aware of any blood relationship, in fact it is not made explicit by the Wiki's own entry to the title. In what way was she his cousin, or is this a misconstruction from the contemporary 'My Dear Cousin', in the same fashion as monarchs addressed each other as 'My Dear Brother'. Jatrius 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the mention of a stage production based on Elizabeth's life, since it was one put on by a university, and is of limited appeal to a wider audience. Someone can revert it if they think it's relevant. 24.59.112.218 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This article say that she was writer and poet but can somebody tel me more about that??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.138.57.226 ( talk) 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
Can you really refrain from child birth?
Yes, it's called abstinence!
SMUpony 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well not really, abstinence is refraining from the cause of birth. A teatotaler does not refrain from hangovers. I suggest saying that she refrained from sexual activity. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.11.102.84 (
talk) 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I encourage Wikipedia to re-evaluate the text of this article. There is a strong religious bias in and about it. Below are a list of examples:
1. The Church of England was started by King Henry so he could divorce Catherine and marry Anne. The Church of England is'nt really a "Protestant" church like the Lutheran, etc. England was wholly Catholic prior to King Henry's act in which he appointed himself as head of the church in England. King Henry then proceeded to take all of the Catholic holdings (property and treasure) to fill his coffers.
2. Queen Mary (Elizabeth's predecessor) is noted as being labeled "Bloody Mary" for her supression of Protestants. However, little or no mention is made of the extremely bloody persecution by Elizabeth of the Catholics in England. There is only glancing references to it, "the Act of Supremacy 1559 ... or face severe punishment..." Many people were killed by the Queen during and after this time (religious and leity, affluent and commoner).
Perhaps a more unbiased examination of the facts is in order. I strongly recommend that this article be labeled as "contested" at least. ```` jmsiino
It is true that the Church of England was not really "Protestant" but was more Anglo-Catholic. Testament to the Catholic beliefs of Henry VIII is that he paid two priests £600 to pray for his soul for eternity after he died. This was a highly Catholic practice. He was simply not Roman Catholic.
I'm afraid the belief that Elizabeth I 'persecuted' Catholics is a little misguided. She did not actively seek out to cause pain or suffering to Catholics in her country. It is true that she had some tortured or executed but this was in response to them breaking laws laid down by her and they would have known the punishments which would be incurred if they broke those laws. Mary I persecuted Protestants for the express reason that they were Protestants. Elizabeth punished people for political or legal reasons rather than religious reasons. The Death penalty was in use during the time and those who broke laws which incurred the death penalty were executed. The only times when Elizabeth could be seen to have people executed for slightly harsh reasons is after rebellions which threatened her position as Queen such as after the Rebellion of the Northern Earls of 1569. Besides, the Jesuits (fundamentalist, extremist Catholics) who arrived in England in 1580 actively saught to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I which was treason and, considering treason is one of only two crimes which are punishable by death in England today, it is hardly surprising that they would have been executed in the 16th Century.
Also, Elizabeth did punish Protestants not just Catholics who challenged her royal prerogative such as the suspension from office of Edmund Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury until his death in 1583 after he refused to suppress prophesyings (a Puritan practice) in England. Also the Act Against Seditoius Sectaries of 1593 punished those who refused to attend church or persuaded others not to attend, and those who denied the Queen's authority in religoius matters and was aimed at the seperatist movement (part of Puritan ideology). Therefore Queen Elizabeth did not persecute only Catholics but rather punished those who challenged her authority as Queen and those who refused to conform to her Religious Settlement. Therefore the contention that the Elizabeth I was more 'Bloody' than Mary I is not viable because there was no 'extremely bloody persecution by Elizabeth of the Catholics in England'. Elizabeth simply demanded that her Royal authority be respected. She did not punish people for Religious reasons but rather political ones. Elizabeth was actually incredibly tolerant of different religions and cared only that her subjects outwardly conform to her laws. Elizabeth, in fact, had several Catholic features in her private chapel such as a crucifix, candles and music. I do hope that this has cleared up this issue for you. Robsonm 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Not really Protestant? All other Protestant Churches thought it to be so until at least the 20th century. Henry a Catholic? See Hughes, Scarisbrick, Haigh, Duffy,Nichols, don't rely entirely on Protestant historiography, even that in its modern form ie. Dickens, regards the C of E as Protestant. Luther regarded himself as a catholic, so did Calvin, so did Bucer, Zwingli, and Cranmer.They all applealed to the authority of scripture, antiquity, and reason, just as much as did the C of E. I am sure it was a great comfort to those who while still alive had their bowels pulled out to realise that Elizabeth was "incredibly tolerant". Please could fundamentalist be banned as a term, the Jesuits merely believed the catholic faith. One assumes that the gentleman who describes them thus believes the fundamentals of his. Lutherans kept crucifixes, candles, and music as part of their services. so their retention by Elizabeth is no evidence of catholic sympathies. There is a clear division between Lutheran and Reformed on these mattters; with one exception, Elizabeth's bishops were Reformed rather than Lutheran.
Under the heading "Virginity": "Long ago, there were rumors of her being a sexy porn star!!" ... Don't think that's right... 203.109.160.123 08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
can some one give me a good website to find out more about the queen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lionstigers23520 ( talk • contribs) .
Try Google. 70.112.192.130 ( talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think allegorical image of the old Elizabeth painted after her death is a better choice for the lead image of this article than the "Ermine" portrait (above) that was there before, which is the iconic image of Elizabeth in her prime. I would vote to restore the prior image and move this one down toward the end of the article.
What do others think? - PKM 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I was bold. -- SECisek 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation
I find it remarkable that the article should talk of the BCP of 1559 as including both of these theologies. The author of the 1549 an 1552 liturgies believed in neither, as he was a Zwinglian ( see MacCulloch, Dix, Couratin, Ratcliffe). Only one Bishop under Elizabeth was a Lutheran(Cheney of Gloucester), the rest were Calvinists and even Zwinglians. Transubstantiation was condemned by one of the Articles agreed upon by these people. Refer to the Wiki article on The Elizabethan Settlement, and also the one on the Book of Common Prayer, they are rather more theologically informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.128.124 ( talk) 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Anglican High Churchmen until the 19th century did not believe either in consubstantiation or transubstantiation, they were usually receptionists (Nockles " The Oxford Movement in Context").
I believe Wiki puts in nothing for which authoriy cannot be cited. Please what is the authority for the remarkable first paragraph on the Religious Settlement? It appears to me to be fiction. Please check it against eg Dickens "The English Reformation" Chapter on the Revolution of 1559. There appears to be no Reformation Bill. == Image I removed a bunch of images/screenshots from films/programmes about Elizabeth from the bottom of the article as they were unfree and could only be used to illustrate the programme/film that they were from. Quite a lot of them lacked fair use rationales or the rationale did not include use here. Spartaz Humbug! 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the link under the picture for James I really link directly to his page, rather than the disambiguation page for the name James I? It would really make more sense that way. 203.173.225.217 06:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
i think i fixed what you were talking about Klimintine 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure but I think the beginning of the paragraph may be an opinion! Ya think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.83.12 ( talk) 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that someone put this page up for semi-protection. There seems to be a very high level of vandalism in light of the new movie, so this is obviously a high-profile target for vandals. Okiefromokla• talk 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Overkill fellas. Think of all the potential new wikipedia editors that may be turned away by this. We're perfectly capable of dealing with vandalism. Casliber maybe you should take a break from admin actions? Yabbadabbawho 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a little note next to the 300,000 pounds she sent to the French King, a aprx. value in that money for today's money.
See this website: http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/
Oui, non? PatrickJ83 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This line looks exactly like one of those descriptions you find on key-rings which are supposed to explain what someone with your name is like. "Elizabeth was resourceful, determined, and exceedingly intelligent. She loved learning for its own sake. Like her mother and father, she was flirtatious and charismatic. She also inherited their sharp tongues and fiery tempers." Was this copied off a key-ring? And can this be made more encyclopedic? Because it sounds stupid. 131.111.186.96 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I will do this. May take some time. qp10qp ( talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
she is not queen elizabeth the first as there is no queen elizabeth the 2nd she is queen of england, after her the crown went to james 1 of england and 6th (or was that 7th of scotland) during queen anne the crowns of england and scotland became one and from then on they have one crown instead of one for soctland and england.
no english family has been crowned since her, and no english family has held the british crown, the english racist propaganda that the present queen is the second, shows comtempt for scotland and the facts, wikipedia should get their act together -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The article has become enormous (85 kb). I've moved all the lists of films, fiction, video games etc. to a new article Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England (crossed fingers it doesn't get deleted). I intend instead to add some good material about Elizabeth and depictions of her during her reign, using Strong, etc.
I've cut the section "Patrilineal descent". This is a recent and superfluous (in my opinion) addition, since we already have a family tree. You don't even get lists like that in the history books. We shouldn't be influenced into keeping it by the fact that these lists have appeared all over British monarchy articles. The "styles" section is another one you don't see in history books: those too are dumped everywhere, presumably by the one-man royalty project. qp10qp ( talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to trim the bibliography down to a few good books. As I edit the article, the list will grow longer again, but with the addition of different books—the ones used to reference the text. In case anyone thinks this is a little drastic in the short term, I will list the removed books here where anyone can read it and check it against what I am doing. If you wish to add anything back, please be selective, because there are some dreadful books here (I suspect someone just pasted a list from a website). I am also going to change the format to author-first, and add more details about the books still listed. In the short term, one or two footnotes (not many, because most of these books do not seem to have been used to source the text) may be slightly stranded, but I will sort this out when referencing the information. qp10qp ( talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
qp10qp ( talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the list of historical fiction books and added it to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. qp10qp ( talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the eccentric section called "References"; I can't find a useful source here. The list is below, with my comments, in case anyone disagrees and would like to put something back. I am going to proceed with a "Notes and references" section, linked to citation tags. The citations will be to books listed alphabetically in the bibliography. I believe this will be the most comfortable system for the reader.
qp10qp ( talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section as being too obscure for a general article (I don't see this stuff in my history books, so I don't see why a Wikipedia article should suffer it). It isn't reffed, and I wouldn't know how to ref it (I'm guessing that it comes from specialist sources, but this is a general article). Some nuggets of information, such as the motto and emblem, might go into the main article, if they pan out. I place the section here for scrutiny.
Elizabeth I used the official style ' Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, Queen of England, France and Ireland, Fidei defensor, etc." Whilst most of the style matched the styles of her predecessors, Elizabeth I was the first to use "etc." It was inserted into the style with a view to restoring the phrase "of the Church of England and also of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head", which had been added by Henry VIII but later removed by Mary I. The supremacy phrase was never actually restored, and "etc." remained in the style, to be removed only in 1801.
She has been retroactively known as Queen Elizabeth I since the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952. Prior to that time, she was referred to as Queen Elizabeth.
Elizabeth's arms were the same as those used by Henry IV: Quarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lys Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England). Whilst her Tudor predecessors had used a gold lion and a red dragon as heraldic supporters, Elizabeth used a gold lion and a gold dragon. Elizabeth adopted one of her mother's mottoes, Semper Eadem ("Always the Same") and also her mother's emblem as her emblem (The eagle on top of a tree trunk).
qp10qp ( talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Removed this style box thingy, which I found lurking in the middle of the article. (Might have been useful if I was going to meet Queen Liz any time soon, but she died a few years ago.)
|
qp10qp ( talk) 18:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
These thing are useless and often wrong. I would love to see them all killed. I will be bold in the future, we all should. -- SECisek ( talk) 22:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Should legacy really include Elizabeth in film roles ? Should this be placed in a separate heading of "Elizabeth in film" ? Surely her legacy is more important and more serious than being the main character in a few films four centuries later ?
it said in bbc history magazine that when she died her death was widley unmourned and the legend of 'Gloriana' only came later during Victorian times ect 217.43.156.247 ( talk) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Brian
See http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/hawkinsthirdvoyage, which gives full details of the slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 ( talk) 13:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Her brother, Edward VI, cut her out of the succession." should be changed to read "Her half-brother..." since he was the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour and not her full brother. July 5, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.212.123 ( talk) 05:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 time Oriana 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)
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)
English Royalty |
House of Tudor |
---|
![]() |
Henry VIII |
Elizabeth I |
I've removed this template from the article. Though I'm not in favour of them (don't see such things in history books or in other encyclopedias), my real objection is that this one doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. And I haven't a clue how to edit it. What are its principles? What are the two grey bands for, for example? Why is Elizabeth's name repeated? Why is Henry VII, the founder of the dynasty, omitted? Why include Henry, Duke of Cornwall (and which one are we talking about?), but not Arthur, Prince of Wales? Come to that, why not include Margaret Tudor, since her line extended to the throne? And why are Henry VIII's children in age order rather than reign order (Edward VI reigned before Mary and Elizabeth)? If someone wants this back in, could they please find a way to alter it appropriately first? qp10qp ( talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
Error 203.166.99.230 ( talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Jamie
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)
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)
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. DrKay ( talk) 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
It must've been taken off, thank goodness. Warriormartin ( talk) 22:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Writtenonsand ( talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth policy in Ireland was genocide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.253.241 ( talk) 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
The Portrait Elizabeth Tudor c 1545 by an unknown artist is attributed to William Scrots. http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?imgbuttonsearch=&radioAll=0&startYear=&searchText=william+scrots&title=&rccode=&makerName=&category=&collector=&endYear=&pagesize=20&object=404444&row=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancydrew50 ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
How can you count Neale´s biography as scholarly?? There are plenty of examples in it where he distorts and even lies, and HE does not give his sources!! It´s always AD FONTES!! Reading general overviews is not the thing. Buchraeumer ( talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (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)
Mr Seymore is said by most historians to have done no more than 'wrestle with the teenage Elizabeth at best, at worst tried to Pet her'. The idea that a pregnansy of someone as famouse as Elisabeth could be keppt secret belongs with; 'George Bush did 911', and Oswald never shot Kennedy'. Pure madness. Johnwrd ( talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because this section is called "Illegitimate Daughter", I would like to give the original source where a daughter is mentioned (which the biographers seem to have overlooked): "They would then raise to power the son of the earl of Hertford whom they would marry to a daughter of Leicester and the queen of England, who, it is said, is kept hidden, although there are bishops to witness that she is legitimate. They think this will shut the door to all other claimants. This intrigue is said to be arranged very secretly. London, December 1574." So much from the report of the Spanish ambassador Guaras (Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs...from...Simancas vol.II p.491). Of course I don't believe Elizabeth had children (I am not sure Guaras believed it), but there were always such rumours in all classes, and that says something about what people thought of her private life with Robert Dudley (the children of the rumours are always by him). It is interesting that Guaras stresses the "daughter" to be legitimate. Sadly, many biographers use only those sources which suit their purpose and only repeat themselves again and again, they often just don't give the climate of the times. Therefore always check the sources if you can, and read as well books (including the very scholarly ones) about other people of the times. It's really worth it! Buchraeumer ( talk) 12:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
OK no worries, but it is referenced??...and like I said, I'm new... Sweetlife31 ( talk) 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
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 found ukpress.google.com, Rare portrait of Elizabeth I found -- Florentino floro ( talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I noticed that while Mary I's page links to a list of Protestants executed under her, Elizabeth's page does not link to the "40 Catholic martyrs of England and Wales" page, or even mention that any Catholics were executed at all under her. It seems an inconsistency not to at least link to the "Catholic Martyrs" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.67.96 ( talk) 20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Elizabeth I/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
needs inline citations plange 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)