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 |
I'm no historian, but I spotted what I think is an error:
....in January, 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow his brother.
Shouldn't it be HER brother? I mean, Thomas Seymour had to have been arrested for trying to marry Elizabeth and thus overthrow Edward VI and not Edward Seymour, as the article seems to suggest.
Then again, I could be completely wrong. Just checking....
vinayg18 ( talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's correct; some historians believe that Seymour never tried to kidnap the King at all, and those that do suggest it was to get control of the country during Edward's minority. There has never been any conclusive evidence that Seymour was plotting to seduce/marry Elizabeth, and these rumours may well have been spread by his rivals. I have never read a suggestion that Thomas Seymour was planning to overthrow Edward VI, just to get his brother's position - custody of the king may have given him this, without him having any evil intentions. Boleyn ( talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"from political and martial misalliances."
This in para three after the Latin motto video et taceo. I suggest that to be exact it should read marital rather than martial - just a typo, but confusing.
I would change it myself but the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.212.170 ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel that http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-CEO-Strategic-Lessons-Leader/dp/0735201897 should be added? Could anyone verify this and maybe add it to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cniessen ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This has already been mentioned below, but sometime ago and the discussion seems to have fallen away. The intro to this article claims:
Historians, however, tend to be more cautious in their assessment. They often depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered,[4] sometimes indecisive ruler,[5] who enjoyed more than her share of luck. Towards the end of her reign, a series of economic and military problems weakened her popularity to the point where many of her subjects were relieved at her death.
1) The intro to any wikipedia article is not the place to make such strong criticisms of any person (or equally strong praise). They can be argued about lower down in the article, but putting them in the introduction gives them overly authoritative weight. 2) Looking at the discussion below, the "relieved at her death" section seems to be based entirely on Loades, who is well known amongst historians for his pro-Catholic (i.e. anti Elizabeth) personal bias - the American Historical Review called his biography of Elizabeth "in its conceptualization, use of evidence, and scholarship, lacking the competence of some of his other many publications". If you look at Roy Strong's work on Elizabeth, you'll find arguments that Elizabeth's death really did result in Diana-style personal grief for her citizens.
Obviously, lots of people have put work into this and I wouldn't chop and change it without discussion, but I really think these problems have to be addressed. Oriana Naso ( talk) 06:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes - a)"historians tend to be more cautious in their assessment" clearly implies that the majority are critical, which is not accurate or NPOV b) relieved at her death? really? it certainly needs to be looked at again... 86.137.208.114 ( talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else think the foreign policy section should be a separate page like the religious settlement? TheKaplan ( talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
At this Peer Review about the early days of Jesus College Oxford (founded 1571), the question has been asked whether it was founded as part of some national educational/religious policy. Can any Elizabethan scholars assist? Bencherlite Talk 06:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a scholar of Elizabethan history, and this is my first post, specifically to answer your question, so excuse me if I don't know all the rules of ettiquette here! Firstly, it's important to note that one of Elizabeth's primary concerns in making appointments to universities (which she had the power to do) was to keep out the extreme Puritans from intellectual influence, particularly those who had been radicilized by exile under Mary Tudor (a great little study of this is The Influence of the English Protestant Refugees in Geneva on England in the XVIth Century, by René Hoffman-De Visme, but it's only available at the Bodleian Library, at New College Oxford and at the British Library, to my knowledge). Also try having a look at Oxford and Cambridge in Transition 1558-1642 by Mark H. Curtis in The English Historical Review, Vol. 76, No. 298 (Jan., 1961), pp. 102-104 , which should be available online. Elizabeth was a committed moderate, who trod an uneasy path between a liberalising freedom of religion to a limited, 16th century extent, and keeping the extremist elements out of the new Protestant establishment. Although Hugh Price isn't really my field, he was certainly an Anglo-Catholic enough force to get Elizabeth's approval. (After all, his entry on this very site points out that in his youth he was a judge of James Bainham, who was condemned for Tyndale-esque Protestantism).
It's also worth looking at the 1571 Oxford and Cambridge Act of Parliament in full. It incorporated both universities in royal charter, which lead to Oxford (under Leicester) instituting tests to determine undergraduate's loyalty to the Act of Settlement. So certainly a full programme of bringing the universities into the Anglican status quo was underway. And generally, I'd agree with everything Qp10qp has said, with a bit of skepticism about John Guy. And Protestantism, of course, placed great stress on the education of as many individuals as possible, hence the massive expansion in access to education (including amongst women) that followed the Protestant reformation in Britain. Kat Ashley ( talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, is there a reason why the portrait that's a featured picture is not in use at this biography article? It appears at the biography of the artist. Occasionally featured pictures get removed from articles accidentally, so instead of readding this one immediately, posting here to ask whether non-use is a deliberate editorial choice. Durova Charge! 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We now have a high-res scan of the
Hardwick Hall portrait (left). -
PKM (
talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And of the Pelican Portrait (right). -
PKM (
talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- PKM ( talk) 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Elizabeth I of England - Darnley Portrait for Featured Picture status - comments encourage on the nomination page. - PKM ( talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly I think the Van Der Meulen is ridiculous as the first image. How many people would be able to correctly identify the lady as Elizabeth I at a glance? Similarly this image is used as the first photo of Queen Victoria. No, it may not be as pretty as this lovely one but at least its Victoria through and through. -- Cameron * 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Darnley Portrait is now also a FP, I will add it as the lead image. - PKM ( talk) 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that portraits of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn should be included in the article. Does anyone else agree with me ?-- jeanne ( talk) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
An honest section in reelation to the wars in Ireland is needed. Lets face it - hew wars were genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.253.241 ( talk) 21:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
"On the other hand, marriage offered the chance of an heir" i could not change "an" to "a", as this is a locked article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgmclennan ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Danny ( talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The proper article preceeding a word starting with "h" (especially a silent one) is "an" not "a". It's an historical fact :-) CU L8R AV8R ... J-P ( talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I added this back into the article, as its encyclopedic value is zero in Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. At the very least, please keep it in the article until the painting is off the Main Page as POTD ( Template:POTD/2008-10-20). Thanks. howcheng { chat} 06:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking we should add that t has been suggested she had a son with Robert Dudley. There is some very good evidence to suggest it. Im saying she definatley did or anything, but i think we should mention it somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? Chloe2kaii7 ( talk)
Yes there are some books
Elizabeth and Leicester, Sarah Gristwood
The Secret Life of Elizabeth I, Paul Doherty <- That was also turned into a tv programme that aired on Channel Five, in June 2006
I cant think of anymore right now, but just google "arthur dudley elizabeth i" then you can find a lot of information, here are some good sites:
http://www.dudleygenealogy.com/arthur.html
http://www.five.tv/programmes/revealed/secretelizabeth/
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/femail/article-390593/Did-Virgin-Queen-secret-love-child.html
Chloe2kaii7 ( talk)
I have started a skeleton of Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM ( talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that Queen Elisabith 1 has great leadership. She had to deal with Mary 1 in her teens. She went through a lot since her mom was beheaded when she was only three. I bet she had to deal with tons of stuff by herself with noone to help her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gina gao ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"Elizabeth was fortunate, however, that many bishoprics were vacant at the time, including the Archbishopric of Canterbury.[52][53]" that's not right, right? it should just be bishops...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.40 ( talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It is true that all English/British/UK monarchs from (I think) Edward II to George III claimed to be King/Queen of France, I recognise this was important enough to be mentioned on coins etc.. However it is ficticious to treat this as something really seperate from the monarchy of England. She was also Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, do we give them their own succession box? The most important (arguably) of her secondary titles, Queen of Ireland, just gets mentioned under Queen of England. Lots of monarchs and other royals have secondary titles which are really just an offshoot of their primary title, e.g. Elizabeth II is also monarch of several countries, and Prince Charles is (off the top of my head) Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland, and Baron Renfrew. Do these titles really all get their own succession box? PatGallacher ( talk) 19:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth I was really a unifying force in England. Because of her father Henry VIII's desire to divorce Katherine of Aragon and his subsequent split from Rome, the country of England was ripped in two. A person cannot merely abandon their religious zeal because their state religion has changed. The country was divided between those loyal to their king and those loyal to Katherine and Catholicism. As if this switch from Catholicism to a newfound Anglicanism wasn't bad enough, when Edward came to the throne he further changed the religion to following a much more Protestant model. When his health failed and he was succeeded by Mary, she reverted the nation back to a violent Catholicism, burning all "heretics" who clung to their protestantism at the stake, thus earning her name "Bloody Mary". Elizabeth, however, took the throne and united the kingdom peacefully under protestantism. State religion provided a unifying force that allowed England to flourish in all other areas.
Ashamarie12 ( talk) 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)asha
Anyone who semi-protects an article must indicate (verifiably so) why here in Talk so we know it isn't an attempt to block legitimate other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.199.130 ( talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The section headed "Legacy" begins with these sentences:
"Elizabeth was lamented, but the people were relieved at her death.[140] A new age was born, and at first the signs were good, with the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes."
The clause "A new age was born" is naive, not something any historian I know would say. It takes more than the death of a single person, however powerful and eminent, to give rise to a new age. On a lesser note, referring to all of England as "the people" as if they were ever of one mind is also naive.
This article is so excellent - perhaps the best I've seen in many, many happy hours surfing Wikipedia - that I'm not going to attempt any change.
However, I would suggest an edit like this:
"Elizabeth was lamented, but many were relieved at her death[140]. At first those who hoped that her passing would inaugurate better policy were heartened by the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes."
Douglas Barber ( talk) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
How come there is no mention (at least a line) about any of her (bad) poetry? Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
she faught in the war against the spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.95.142 ( talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth executed her Roman Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.3.196 ( talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Slavery" section of this article has only one source, a link to "History Learning Site" which describes itself as having been entirely written by a high school teacher in the UK. I tend to dispute that this is a reliable source, and the entire section strikes me as a bit badly phrased and possibly misplaced (seems to be all about Hawkins, and no real relation to Elizabeth). I myself am no expert on the topic, however, and am not going to remove content without seeing what other users of the page think. Opinions? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Note to PHG's takpage, copied here:
I think your addition unbalances the article, which was a necessarily compressed account of the key events in Elizabeth's life. The section you have added is not proportionately reflected in the biographies of Elizabeth, and I see you have referenced it from incidental sources, about literature. I cannot find the man whose image you have added to the article mentioned let alone illustrated in my biographies of Elizabeth, and so I don't believe your inclusion of it to be representative. Also, the subject is much more complex than your section indicates, because there were considerable fluctuations in the balance of power in that region during Elizabeth's long reign and the alliances of various Berber groups shifted considerably, as did control of certain ports and of the interior. I think the best place for this material would be in a separate article. qp10qp ( talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you say what you mean here by "The Barbary States"? As far as I know, they were not one political entity. Morocco is not the same as "Barbary States". Who did this man actually speak for? Who is "king Hamad"? Is this the same guy as Ahmad al-Mansur? Why is Elizabeth not mentioned in his article? Yes the picture is marvellous, but we shouldn't make the guy seem significant to Elizabeth's reign. The new section is misleading, and I propose to remove it, while leaving a mention of the embassy in the article. qp10qp ( talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. And thanks for spotting the spelling discrepancies for Ahmad al-Mansur, I'll correct them... I'll also try to make a specific article about The Lion in 1551... In a chapter about "Foreign policy" it should be normal to be able to include areas beyond Europe which had rather intense commercial and diplomatic contacts with Elizabeth. The Barbary States are one such area, but I have been also planning to add a paragraph about the Ottoman Empire as well, which had many important commercial and diplomatic exchanges with England at that time. I have found two other extensive sources regarding the relations of Elizabeth with the Barbary States and the Barbary embassy:
I'll try to incorporate this new material in the short paragraph. Thank you for the constructive comments. Cheers Phg ( talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The section on the Barbary states is still too long. In fact, I doubt it even warrants as part of a title of a section. Its importance is negligible. Nothing more major than the exportation of weapons seems to have been the result of Anglo-Barbary relations. The subject is given undue weight in a biographical article on Elizabeth I.-- Johnbull ( talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is she born at ??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.84.167 ( talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello (apologies if this is in the wrong place - not sure where to put it here), I hesitate to become involved here but in the interests of accuracy may I explain new evidence that has been discovered in the past nine years. [1] Elizabeth's first Lady Mistress was Lady Bryan but by the time of Prince Edward's christening Lady Bryan was in charge of the new prince and Elizabeth was in the care of Blanche Herbert Lady Troy (reference available, account of Prince Edward's christening). [2] When Prince Edward joined Elizabeth's household, Lady Troy was the Lady Mistress for both children (reference Elegy for Lady Blanche (of Troy) by Lewys Morgannwg - see www.blancheparry.com and new biography and Lady Troy on Wikipedia) [3] Lady Troy remained Elizabeth's Lady Mistress until she retired to Troy House, Monmouth in c.late 1545 or early 1546. Elizabeth sent her a pension (Household Accounts, Hatfield, 1551-1552). [4] Lady Troy dies c.1557 before Elizabeth's accession (Elegy above). [5] Lady Troy had trained her niece Blanche Parry as her successor but in the event Kate Ashley was appointed (Letter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt). [6] Note: Kate Ashley was appointed Elizabeth's governess in 1536 (Letter to Thomas Cromwell) but she did not become Lady Mistress until c1545-1546, after her marriage and after Lady Troy's retirement. [7] Blanche Parry came to Court with her aunt Lady Troy. She was with Elizabeth from her birth until Blanche died aged 82 years (epitaph in Bacton Church, see www.blancheparry.com, biography 'Mistress Blanche, Queen Elizabeth I's Confidante' by Ruth Elizabeth Richardson, Logaston, available from amazon, Blanche Parry on Wikipedia). [8] Blanche was second in the household from c.1545-46 to 1565 when Kate Ashley died. Then she became Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber (in control of access to the Queen)and Keeper of her Majesty's jewels (epitaph on her tomb in St. Margaret's Westminster). [9] Blanche's responsibilities also included the Great Seal of England (for two years), the Queen's personal papers, clothes, furs, linen and books - she received books given to the Queen in the New Year Gifts. She also received money on behalf of the Queen. She passed information and the presentation of Parliamentary bills to the Queen. She supervised 'other things belonging to her majesty' and these included 'our musk cat', probably a ferret. The Queen treated Blanche Parry as a baroness (everything mentioned is verified). [10] Blanche's cousin and close friend was Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who actually wrote out her Wills himself. This facilitated Burghley's close working relationship with the Queen. [11] Re Elizabeth being a virgin - Blanche actually says this in her Bacton epitah dated to before November 1578. Point here is that this is Blanche's testimony to God and if Elizabeth had not been a virgin Blanche would simply have not mentioned it. Blanche Parry was the one person who was in a position to know the truth. [12] Re religion - Blanche Parry's family and her aunt, Lady Troy's family had ancestors and land connections with the Lollards and the descendants of Sir John Oldcastle. This is suggestive of a residual Lollard influence in the family of the two ladies who brought up Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Both would have conformed to Henry VIII's religious ideas. However, this residual influence may have helped both children towards a wish to read the Bible for themselves. [13] Re Bible in Welsh - there is a possibility (discussed fully in Blanche's biography) that she helped finance the translation of the Bible into Welsh.
Well - there is a lot more (fully referenced) in the biography. Shall I add a few sentences to mention Lady Troy and Blanche Parry, and to slightly correct the information about Kate Ashley, to this entry on Elizabeth I please? It is all accurate and is new information. If you want to ask me about any of it please do so here, or use the Contact page on www.blancheparry.com Thank you. REHopkins ( talk) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay - thank you. I'll leave out details re virginity and Welsh Bible as you suggest. However, Blanche Herbert Lady Troy does need to be mentioned to correct the position re Kate Ashley. Also Blanche Parry needs to be mentioned as succeeding Kate Ashley and being the cousin of Lord Burghley. Will this do? Very short and slight additions. Thank you. 86.128.125.25 ( talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Buchraeumer - All I want to do is give people the opportunity to become aware if they wish that new evidence exists. Therefore, somewhere the names of Lady Troy and Blanche Parry should be mentioned. Re Lady Mistresses: Elzabeth had three - Lady Bryan, Lady Troy, Kate Ashley. Kate Ashley began her time in the household as governess and then became Lady Mistress on Lady Troy's retirement. Lady Troy's funeral Elegy describes her as the 'guardian' of Henry VIII's children and as you removed 'Lady Mistress' and 'governess' isn't correct, I put in 'guardian'. (I am happy to follow your suggestion and include a new category of Lady Mistress but I am not sure of procedure - it should be wide enough to include the position for others no matter what the title used.) Re Blanche Parry - she really was the person who was with Elizabeth the longest, from Elizabeth's birth to Blanche's death in 1589 (1590 in our terms because of change of beginning of the year). She was second in the household until she succeeded Kate Ashley as Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, a post she therefore held for more than 24 years. She was Lord Burghley's cousin and friend and her position at the centre of the court was accepted by everyone. It is perfctly true that the first depiction of Elizabeth as an icon, as Gloriana, is on Blanche Parry's monument in Bacton Church which is now securely dated to before November 1578. Blanche Parry is far, far more than simply a member of the 'club' of Elizabeth's friends. I really don't mind where you allow mention to be made of Blanche Parry and Lady Troy, and I really don't mind how short the references to them are - all I want is for their names to be there so anyone interested can find more if they so wish. I certainly do not want to change anything people have written but, in the interests of accurate research (and that is my sole aim) these names should be in this article somewhere. So please, I should be most grateful if you would be kind enough to help me in this. Yours sincerely REHopkins ( talk) 14:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Buchraeumer - Thank you for your help - very much appreciated. I'll add page numbers tomorrow as you suggest. If you would like to see a picture of Blanche's monument in Bacton Church it is on the website's gallery. This is the one she actually mentioned in her First Will and originally it was coloured. The local people must have been vastly impressed especially in a time when it wasn't easy to know what the monarch looked like. REHopkins ( talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hope I'm doing this right. I find the following passage very silly: "Elizabeth was happy to play the part,[157] but it is possible that in the last decade of her life she began to believe her own performance. She became fond and indulgent of the charming but petulant young Robert Devereux..." If the first sentence had been followed up with some evidence that she was delusional, that would be one thing. But all that follows is a statement that Elizabeth was interested in a charming man. The implication is unwittingly sexist. Who says an older woman has to be convinced she's young and beautiful just to be interested in a younger man? And the queen of England, no less!
Usually I do not take a hand with starred articles but this statement struck my attention.
"Historians tend to be more cautious in their assessment"
I do not know when this self-righteous and pompous generalization was slipped in there but it is not true. It implies that all glowing accounts were of non-historians and historians know better. Non-sequitur. Glowing historians are among historians so "historians" are not more cautious in their assessment. This is slanted writing and is not encyclopedic. It is easily fixed so I will fix it - no editorial bias please. Dave ( talk) 11:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The 'death' painting of Elizabeth seems to be missing its artist from the image caption. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentence.... "Her reign also saw the first colonisation or "planting" of new land in North America; the colony of Virginia was named by her when she modified the name of a Native American regional "king" named "Wingina" that had been recorded in 1584 by the Sir Walter Raleigh expedition, noting her status as the "Virgin Queen".
Forgive me for saying this, but the Colony and Dominion of Virginia was not founded during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England. Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in North America, was founded in 1607, precisely 4 years after Queen Elizabeth I died. It was James I of England and VI of Scotland who was on the throne during the founding and the beginnings of Virginia. Also, Sir Walter Raliegh sailed and reached the shores of present-day North Carolina as he founded the Roanoke Colony in 1585, which two years later was abandoned by the colonists. So the sentence above is very misleading. The Colony (and state) of Virginia were named after the Virgin Queen, but only after the colony's founding in 1607 and after the Queen's death in 1603. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth could not have possibly have named Virginia in honor of herself simply for the fact that the place did not exist or was known until after her death! -- Yoganate79 ( talk) 07:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the section called First Biography because it was unreferenced (this is, after all, a FA) and because I don't think it is relevant. Other articles do not mention the first biography of their subjects and I don't see why this one should. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the text:
When William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, aka Lord Burghley, was nearing death in 1597, he suggested to William Camden, author of Britannia (1596), to write a biography of Elizabeth's reign. Legend has it that Burghley gave Camden access to all his personal and state records concerning the queen. Camden published the first edition of his biography in Latin, "Annales Rerum Gestarum Angliae et Hiberniae Regnate Elizabetha", the first part appearing in 1615 and the second part in 1617. The complete work in English was published in 1625. It went through several subsequent editions throughout the 17th century. Although the work is heavily biased against the perceived threat of "Papists", those loyal to the Roman Catholic Church, Camden's biography upholds as one of the great primary sources of Elizabeth's reign.
I have not read the entire article, but does it say anything about Elizabeth's poem?
"My care is like my shadow
Laid bare beneath the sun.
It follows me at all times
And flies when I pursue it.
I freeze and yet am always burned
Since from myself again I turn.
I love and yet am forced to hate.
I seem stark mute; inside I prate.
Some gentler love doth ease itself
Into my heart and mind.
For I am soft and made of snow
Love, be more cruel or so be kind."
I think it should. — 93.122.135.17 ( talk) 10:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "Elizabeth reacted by sending Howard to the block."? What is "the block"? I know what it is, but I think that many don't. Also, it sounds like this conflicts with "WP: Words to avoid". I would recommend changing it to "Elizabeth reacted by having Howard beheaded" (decapitated is also a good choice)
96.243.206.236 ( talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
At the bottom of the article there is a chart showing the preceeded by... succeeded by for a number of different categories.
Somehow, Edward VI is shown as having succeeded Eizabeth I, even though he was two monarchs before her in succession.
There seem to be two categories for monarch, one of which shows Elizabeth I preceeded by Mary I, which is right, and one of which shows her preceeded by Lady Mary Tudor... not sure of the reason for the difference in title... surely Mary I is right in both cases?
I do not appear able to alter this, and leave it to those who can to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliandris ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It has been four months and this problem has not been fixed. I wish I knew how to fix it. ( Eeyore22 ( talk) 05:13, 28 January 2010 (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 |
I'm no historian, but I spotted what I think is an error:
....in January, 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow his brother.
Shouldn't it be HER brother? I mean, Thomas Seymour had to have been arrested for trying to marry Elizabeth and thus overthrow Edward VI and not Edward Seymour, as the article seems to suggest.
Then again, I could be completely wrong. Just checking....
vinayg18 ( talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's correct; some historians believe that Seymour never tried to kidnap the King at all, and those that do suggest it was to get control of the country during Edward's minority. There has never been any conclusive evidence that Seymour was plotting to seduce/marry Elizabeth, and these rumours may well have been spread by his rivals. I have never read a suggestion that Thomas Seymour was planning to overthrow Edward VI, just to get his brother's position - custody of the king may have given him this, without him having any evil intentions. Boleyn ( talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"from political and martial misalliances."
This in para three after the Latin motto video et taceo. I suggest that to be exact it should read marital rather than martial - just a typo, but confusing.
I would change it myself but the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.212.170 ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel that http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-CEO-Strategic-Lessons-Leader/dp/0735201897 should be added? Could anyone verify this and maybe add it to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cniessen ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This has already been mentioned below, but sometime ago and the discussion seems to have fallen away. The intro to this article claims:
Historians, however, tend to be more cautious in their assessment. They often depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered,[4] sometimes indecisive ruler,[5] who enjoyed more than her share of luck. Towards the end of her reign, a series of economic and military problems weakened her popularity to the point where many of her subjects were relieved at her death.
1) The intro to any wikipedia article is not the place to make such strong criticisms of any person (or equally strong praise). They can be argued about lower down in the article, but putting them in the introduction gives them overly authoritative weight. 2) Looking at the discussion below, the "relieved at her death" section seems to be based entirely on Loades, who is well known amongst historians for his pro-Catholic (i.e. anti Elizabeth) personal bias - the American Historical Review called his biography of Elizabeth "in its conceptualization, use of evidence, and scholarship, lacking the competence of some of his other many publications". If you look at Roy Strong's work on Elizabeth, you'll find arguments that Elizabeth's death really did result in Diana-style personal grief for her citizens.
Obviously, lots of people have put work into this and I wouldn't chop and change it without discussion, but I really think these problems have to be addressed. Oriana Naso ( talk) 06:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes - a)"historians tend to be more cautious in their assessment" clearly implies that the majority are critical, which is not accurate or NPOV b) relieved at her death? really? it certainly needs to be looked at again... 86.137.208.114 ( talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else think the foreign policy section should be a separate page like the religious settlement? TheKaplan ( talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
At this Peer Review about the early days of Jesus College Oxford (founded 1571), the question has been asked whether it was founded as part of some national educational/religious policy. Can any Elizabethan scholars assist? Bencherlite Talk 06:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a scholar of Elizabethan history, and this is my first post, specifically to answer your question, so excuse me if I don't know all the rules of ettiquette here! Firstly, it's important to note that one of Elizabeth's primary concerns in making appointments to universities (which she had the power to do) was to keep out the extreme Puritans from intellectual influence, particularly those who had been radicilized by exile under Mary Tudor (a great little study of this is The Influence of the English Protestant Refugees in Geneva on England in the XVIth Century, by René Hoffman-De Visme, but it's only available at the Bodleian Library, at New College Oxford and at the British Library, to my knowledge). Also try having a look at Oxford and Cambridge in Transition 1558-1642 by Mark H. Curtis in The English Historical Review, Vol. 76, No. 298 (Jan., 1961), pp. 102-104 , which should be available online. Elizabeth was a committed moderate, who trod an uneasy path between a liberalising freedom of religion to a limited, 16th century extent, and keeping the extremist elements out of the new Protestant establishment. Although Hugh Price isn't really my field, he was certainly an Anglo-Catholic enough force to get Elizabeth's approval. (After all, his entry on this very site points out that in his youth he was a judge of James Bainham, who was condemned for Tyndale-esque Protestantism).
It's also worth looking at the 1571 Oxford and Cambridge Act of Parliament in full. It incorporated both universities in royal charter, which lead to Oxford (under Leicester) instituting tests to determine undergraduate's loyalty to the Act of Settlement. So certainly a full programme of bringing the universities into the Anglican status quo was underway. And generally, I'd agree with everything Qp10qp has said, with a bit of skepticism about John Guy. And Protestantism, of course, placed great stress on the education of as many individuals as possible, hence the massive expansion in access to education (including amongst women) that followed the Protestant reformation in Britain. Kat Ashley ( talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, is there a reason why the portrait that's a featured picture is not in use at this biography article? It appears at the biography of the artist. Occasionally featured pictures get removed from articles accidentally, so instead of readding this one immediately, posting here to ask whether non-use is a deliberate editorial choice. Durova Charge! 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We now have a high-res scan of the
Hardwick Hall portrait (left). -
PKM (
talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And of the Pelican Portrait (right). -
PKM (
talk) 06:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- PKM ( talk) 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Elizabeth I of England - Darnley Portrait for Featured Picture status - comments encourage on the nomination page. - PKM ( talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly I think the Van Der Meulen is ridiculous as the first image. How many people would be able to correctly identify the lady as Elizabeth I at a glance? Similarly this image is used as the first photo of Queen Victoria. No, it may not be as pretty as this lovely one but at least its Victoria through and through. -- Cameron * 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Darnley Portrait is now also a FP, I will add it as the lead image. - PKM ( talk) 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that portraits of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn should be included in the article. Does anyone else agree with me ?-- jeanne ( talk) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
An honest section in reelation to the wars in Ireland is needed. Lets face it - hew wars were genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.253.241 ( talk) 21:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
"On the other hand, marriage offered the chance of an heir" i could not change "an" to "a", as this is a locked article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgmclennan ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Danny ( talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The proper article preceeding a word starting with "h" (especially a silent one) is "an" not "a". It's an historical fact :-) CU L8R AV8R ... J-P ( talk) 13:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I added this back into the article, as its encyclopedic value is zero in Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England. At the very least, please keep it in the article until the painting is off the Main Page as POTD ( Template:POTD/2008-10-20). Thanks. howcheng { chat} 06:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking we should add that t has been suggested she had a son with Robert Dudley. There is some very good evidence to suggest it. Im saying she definatley did or anything, but i think we should mention it somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? Chloe2kaii7 ( talk)
Yes there are some books
Elizabeth and Leicester, Sarah Gristwood
The Secret Life of Elizabeth I, Paul Doherty <- That was also turned into a tv programme that aired on Channel Five, in June 2006
I cant think of anymore right now, but just google "arthur dudley elizabeth i" then you can find a lot of information, here are some good sites:
http://www.dudleygenealogy.com/arthur.html
http://www.five.tv/programmes/revealed/secretelizabeth/
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/femail/article-390593/Did-Virgin-Queen-secret-love-child.html
Chloe2kaii7 ( talk)
I have started a skeleton of Portraiture of Elizabeth I. - PKM ( talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that Queen Elisabith 1 has great leadership. She had to deal with Mary 1 in her teens. She went through a lot since her mom was beheaded when she was only three. I bet she had to deal with tons of stuff by herself with noone to help her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gina gao ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"Elizabeth was fortunate, however, that many bishoprics were vacant at the time, including the Archbishopric of Canterbury.[52][53]" that's not right, right? it should just be bishops...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.40 ( talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It is true that all English/British/UK monarchs from (I think) Edward II to George III claimed to be King/Queen of France, I recognise this was important enough to be mentioned on coins etc.. However it is ficticious to treat this as something really seperate from the monarchy of England. She was also Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, do we give them their own succession box? The most important (arguably) of her secondary titles, Queen of Ireland, just gets mentioned under Queen of England. Lots of monarchs and other royals have secondary titles which are really just an offshoot of their primary title, e.g. Elizabeth II is also monarch of several countries, and Prince Charles is (off the top of my head) Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles, Great Steward of Scotland, and Baron Renfrew. Do these titles really all get their own succession box? PatGallacher ( talk) 19:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth I was really a unifying force in England. Because of her father Henry VIII's desire to divorce Katherine of Aragon and his subsequent split from Rome, the country of England was ripped in two. A person cannot merely abandon their religious zeal because their state religion has changed. The country was divided between those loyal to their king and those loyal to Katherine and Catholicism. As if this switch from Catholicism to a newfound Anglicanism wasn't bad enough, when Edward came to the throne he further changed the religion to following a much more Protestant model. When his health failed and he was succeeded by Mary, she reverted the nation back to a violent Catholicism, burning all "heretics" who clung to their protestantism at the stake, thus earning her name "Bloody Mary". Elizabeth, however, took the throne and united the kingdom peacefully under protestantism. State religion provided a unifying force that allowed England to flourish in all other areas.
Ashamarie12 ( talk) 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)asha
Anyone who semi-protects an article must indicate (verifiably so) why here in Talk so we know it isn't an attempt to block legitimate other opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.199.130 ( talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The section headed "Legacy" begins with these sentences:
"Elizabeth was lamented, but the people were relieved at her death.[140] A new age was born, and at first the signs were good, with the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes."
The clause "A new age was born" is naive, not something any historian I know would say. It takes more than the death of a single person, however powerful and eminent, to give rise to a new age. On a lesser note, referring to all of England as "the people" as if they were ever of one mind is also naive.
This article is so excellent - perhaps the best I've seen in many, many happy hours surfing Wikipedia - that I'm not going to attempt any change.
However, I would suggest an edit like this:
"Elizabeth was lamented, but many were relieved at her death[140]. At first those who hoped that her passing would inaugurate better policy were heartened by the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes."
Douglas Barber ( talk) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
How come there is no mention (at least a line) about any of her (bad) poetry? Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
she faught in the war against the spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.95.142 ( talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth executed her Roman Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.3.196 ( talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Slavery" section of this article has only one source, a link to "History Learning Site" which describes itself as having been entirely written by a high school teacher in the UK. I tend to dispute that this is a reliable source, and the entire section strikes me as a bit badly phrased and possibly misplaced (seems to be all about Hawkins, and no real relation to Elizabeth). I myself am no expert on the topic, however, and am not going to remove content without seeing what other users of the page think. Opinions? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Note to PHG's takpage, copied here:
I think your addition unbalances the article, which was a necessarily compressed account of the key events in Elizabeth's life. The section you have added is not proportionately reflected in the biographies of Elizabeth, and I see you have referenced it from incidental sources, about literature. I cannot find the man whose image you have added to the article mentioned let alone illustrated in my biographies of Elizabeth, and so I don't believe your inclusion of it to be representative. Also, the subject is much more complex than your section indicates, because there were considerable fluctuations in the balance of power in that region during Elizabeth's long reign and the alliances of various Berber groups shifted considerably, as did control of certain ports and of the interior. I think the best place for this material would be in a separate article. qp10qp ( talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you say what you mean here by "The Barbary States"? As far as I know, they were not one political entity. Morocco is not the same as "Barbary States". Who did this man actually speak for? Who is "king Hamad"? Is this the same guy as Ahmad al-Mansur? Why is Elizabeth not mentioned in his article? Yes the picture is marvellous, but we shouldn't make the guy seem significant to Elizabeth's reign. The new section is misleading, and I propose to remove it, while leaving a mention of the embassy in the article. qp10qp ( talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. And thanks for spotting the spelling discrepancies for Ahmad al-Mansur, I'll correct them... I'll also try to make a specific article about The Lion in 1551... In a chapter about "Foreign policy" it should be normal to be able to include areas beyond Europe which had rather intense commercial and diplomatic contacts with Elizabeth. The Barbary States are one such area, but I have been also planning to add a paragraph about the Ottoman Empire as well, which had many important commercial and diplomatic exchanges with England at that time. I have found two other extensive sources regarding the relations of Elizabeth with the Barbary States and the Barbary embassy:
I'll try to incorporate this new material in the short paragraph. Thank you for the constructive comments. Cheers Phg ( talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The section on the Barbary states is still too long. In fact, I doubt it even warrants as part of a title of a section. Its importance is negligible. Nothing more major than the exportation of weapons seems to have been the result of Anglo-Barbary relations. The subject is given undue weight in a biographical article on Elizabeth I.-- Johnbull ( talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is she born at ??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.84.167 ( talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello (apologies if this is in the wrong place - not sure where to put it here), I hesitate to become involved here but in the interests of accuracy may I explain new evidence that has been discovered in the past nine years. [1] Elizabeth's first Lady Mistress was Lady Bryan but by the time of Prince Edward's christening Lady Bryan was in charge of the new prince and Elizabeth was in the care of Blanche Herbert Lady Troy (reference available, account of Prince Edward's christening). [2] When Prince Edward joined Elizabeth's household, Lady Troy was the Lady Mistress for both children (reference Elegy for Lady Blanche (of Troy) by Lewys Morgannwg - see www.blancheparry.com and new biography and Lady Troy on Wikipedia) [3] Lady Troy remained Elizabeth's Lady Mistress until she retired to Troy House, Monmouth in c.late 1545 or early 1546. Elizabeth sent her a pension (Household Accounts, Hatfield, 1551-1552). [4] Lady Troy dies c.1557 before Elizabeth's accession (Elegy above). [5] Lady Troy had trained her niece Blanche Parry as her successor but in the event Kate Ashley was appointed (Letter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt). [6] Note: Kate Ashley was appointed Elizabeth's governess in 1536 (Letter to Thomas Cromwell) but she did not become Lady Mistress until c1545-1546, after her marriage and after Lady Troy's retirement. [7] Blanche Parry came to Court with her aunt Lady Troy. She was with Elizabeth from her birth until Blanche died aged 82 years (epitaph in Bacton Church, see www.blancheparry.com, biography 'Mistress Blanche, Queen Elizabeth I's Confidante' by Ruth Elizabeth Richardson, Logaston, available from amazon, Blanche Parry on Wikipedia). [8] Blanche was second in the household from c.1545-46 to 1565 when Kate Ashley died. Then she became Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber (in control of access to the Queen)and Keeper of her Majesty's jewels (epitaph on her tomb in St. Margaret's Westminster). [9] Blanche's responsibilities also included the Great Seal of England (for two years), the Queen's personal papers, clothes, furs, linen and books - she received books given to the Queen in the New Year Gifts. She also received money on behalf of the Queen. She passed information and the presentation of Parliamentary bills to the Queen. She supervised 'other things belonging to her majesty' and these included 'our musk cat', probably a ferret. The Queen treated Blanche Parry as a baroness (everything mentioned is verified). [10] Blanche's cousin and close friend was Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who actually wrote out her Wills himself. This facilitated Burghley's close working relationship with the Queen. [11] Re Elizabeth being a virgin - Blanche actually says this in her Bacton epitah dated to before November 1578. Point here is that this is Blanche's testimony to God and if Elizabeth had not been a virgin Blanche would simply have not mentioned it. Blanche Parry was the one person who was in a position to know the truth. [12] Re religion - Blanche Parry's family and her aunt, Lady Troy's family had ancestors and land connections with the Lollards and the descendants of Sir John Oldcastle. This is suggestive of a residual Lollard influence in the family of the two ladies who brought up Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Both would have conformed to Henry VIII's religious ideas. However, this residual influence may have helped both children towards a wish to read the Bible for themselves. [13] Re Bible in Welsh - there is a possibility (discussed fully in Blanche's biography) that she helped finance the translation of the Bible into Welsh.
Well - there is a lot more (fully referenced) in the biography. Shall I add a few sentences to mention Lady Troy and Blanche Parry, and to slightly correct the information about Kate Ashley, to this entry on Elizabeth I please? It is all accurate and is new information. If you want to ask me about any of it please do so here, or use the Contact page on www.blancheparry.com Thank you. REHopkins ( talk) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay - thank you. I'll leave out details re virginity and Welsh Bible as you suggest. However, Blanche Herbert Lady Troy does need to be mentioned to correct the position re Kate Ashley. Also Blanche Parry needs to be mentioned as succeeding Kate Ashley and being the cousin of Lord Burghley. Will this do? Very short and slight additions. Thank you. 86.128.125.25 ( talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Buchraeumer - All I want to do is give people the opportunity to become aware if they wish that new evidence exists. Therefore, somewhere the names of Lady Troy and Blanche Parry should be mentioned. Re Lady Mistresses: Elzabeth had three - Lady Bryan, Lady Troy, Kate Ashley. Kate Ashley began her time in the household as governess and then became Lady Mistress on Lady Troy's retirement. Lady Troy's funeral Elegy describes her as the 'guardian' of Henry VIII's children and as you removed 'Lady Mistress' and 'governess' isn't correct, I put in 'guardian'. (I am happy to follow your suggestion and include a new category of Lady Mistress but I am not sure of procedure - it should be wide enough to include the position for others no matter what the title used.) Re Blanche Parry - she really was the person who was with Elizabeth the longest, from Elizabeth's birth to Blanche's death in 1589 (1590 in our terms because of change of beginning of the year). She was second in the household until she succeeded Kate Ashley as Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, a post she therefore held for more than 24 years. She was Lord Burghley's cousin and friend and her position at the centre of the court was accepted by everyone. It is perfctly true that the first depiction of Elizabeth as an icon, as Gloriana, is on Blanche Parry's monument in Bacton Church which is now securely dated to before November 1578. Blanche Parry is far, far more than simply a member of the 'club' of Elizabeth's friends. I really don't mind where you allow mention to be made of Blanche Parry and Lady Troy, and I really don't mind how short the references to them are - all I want is for their names to be there so anyone interested can find more if they so wish. I certainly do not want to change anything people have written but, in the interests of accurate research (and that is my sole aim) these names should be in this article somewhere. So please, I should be most grateful if you would be kind enough to help me in this. Yours sincerely REHopkins ( talk) 14:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Buchraeumer - Thank you for your help - very much appreciated. I'll add page numbers tomorrow as you suggest. If you would like to see a picture of Blanche's monument in Bacton Church it is on the website's gallery. This is the one she actually mentioned in her First Will and originally it was coloured. The local people must have been vastly impressed especially in a time when it wasn't easy to know what the monarch looked like. REHopkins ( talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hope I'm doing this right. I find the following passage very silly: "Elizabeth was happy to play the part,[157] but it is possible that in the last decade of her life she began to believe her own performance. She became fond and indulgent of the charming but petulant young Robert Devereux..." If the first sentence had been followed up with some evidence that she was delusional, that would be one thing. But all that follows is a statement that Elizabeth was interested in a charming man. The implication is unwittingly sexist. Who says an older woman has to be convinced she's young and beautiful just to be interested in a younger man? And the queen of England, no less!
Usually I do not take a hand with starred articles but this statement struck my attention.
"Historians tend to be more cautious in their assessment"
I do not know when this self-righteous and pompous generalization was slipped in there but it is not true. It implies that all glowing accounts were of non-historians and historians know better. Non-sequitur. Glowing historians are among historians so "historians" are not more cautious in their assessment. This is slanted writing and is not encyclopedic. It is easily fixed so I will fix it - no editorial bias please. Dave ( talk) 11:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The 'death' painting of Elizabeth seems to be missing its artist from the image caption. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentence.... "Her reign also saw the first colonisation or "planting" of new land in North America; the colony of Virginia was named by her when she modified the name of a Native American regional "king" named "Wingina" that had been recorded in 1584 by the Sir Walter Raleigh expedition, noting her status as the "Virgin Queen".
Forgive me for saying this, but the Colony and Dominion of Virginia was not founded during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England. Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in North America, was founded in 1607, precisely 4 years after Queen Elizabeth I died. It was James I of England and VI of Scotland who was on the throne during the founding and the beginnings of Virginia. Also, Sir Walter Raliegh sailed and reached the shores of present-day North Carolina as he founded the Roanoke Colony in 1585, which two years later was abandoned by the colonists. So the sentence above is very misleading. The Colony (and state) of Virginia were named after the Virgin Queen, but only after the colony's founding in 1607 and after the Queen's death in 1603. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth could not have possibly have named Virginia in honor of herself simply for the fact that the place did not exist or was known until after her death! -- Yoganate79 ( talk) 07:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the section called First Biography because it was unreferenced (this is, after all, a FA) and because I don't think it is relevant. Other articles do not mention the first biography of their subjects and I don't see why this one should. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the text:
When William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, aka Lord Burghley, was nearing death in 1597, he suggested to William Camden, author of Britannia (1596), to write a biography of Elizabeth's reign. Legend has it that Burghley gave Camden access to all his personal and state records concerning the queen. Camden published the first edition of his biography in Latin, "Annales Rerum Gestarum Angliae et Hiberniae Regnate Elizabetha", the first part appearing in 1615 and the second part in 1617. The complete work in English was published in 1625. It went through several subsequent editions throughout the 17th century. Although the work is heavily biased against the perceived threat of "Papists", those loyal to the Roman Catholic Church, Camden's biography upholds as one of the great primary sources of Elizabeth's reign.
I have not read the entire article, but does it say anything about Elizabeth's poem?
"My care is like my shadow
Laid bare beneath the sun.
It follows me at all times
And flies when I pursue it.
I freeze and yet am always burned
Since from myself again I turn.
I love and yet am forced to hate.
I seem stark mute; inside I prate.
Some gentler love doth ease itself
Into my heart and mind.
For I am soft and made of snow
Love, be more cruel or so be kind."
I think it should. — 93.122.135.17 ( talk) 10:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "Elizabeth reacted by sending Howard to the block."? What is "the block"? I know what it is, but I think that many don't. Also, it sounds like this conflicts with "WP: Words to avoid". I would recommend changing it to "Elizabeth reacted by having Howard beheaded" (decapitated is also a good choice)
96.243.206.236 ( talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
At the bottom of the article there is a chart showing the preceeded by... succeeded by for a number of different categories.
Somehow, Edward VI is shown as having succeeded Eizabeth I, even though he was two monarchs before her in succession.
There seem to be two categories for monarch, one of which shows Elizabeth I preceeded by Mary I, which is right, and one of which shows her preceeded by Lady Mary Tudor... not sure of the reason for the difference in title... surely Mary I is right in both cases?
I do not appear able to alter this, and leave it to those who can to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliandris ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It has been four months and this problem has not been fixed. I wish I knew how to fix it. ( Eeyore22 ( talk) 05:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC))