![]() | 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 |
After Mary's execution, Elizabeth claimed not to have ordered it and indeed most accounts have her telling Secretary Davidson, who brought her the warrant to sign, not to dispatch the warrant even though she had signed it. The sincerity of Elizabeth's remorse and her motives for telling Davidson not to execute the warrant have been called into question both by her contemporaries and later historians.
should be changed to: After Mary's execution, Elizabeth claimed not to have ordered it and indeed most accounts have her telling Secretary Davison, who brought her the warrant to sign, not to dispatch the warrant even though she had signed it. The sincerity of Elizabeth's remorse and her motives for telling Davison not to execute the warrant have been called into question both by her contemporaries and later historians. Nicolaj2 ( talk) 13:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is this locked down? Anyway: in Elizabeth_I_of_England#Wars_and_overseas_trade : " An element of piracy and self-enrichment drove Elizabethan seafarers, over which the queen had little control" -- surely should be "who". 202.81.248.226 ( talk) 02:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In religion, she was relatively tolerant and avoided systematic persecution.
Huh? What peace of propaganda is this? The friendliest possible objective account would be that she was every bit as intolerant as Mary the Catholic, only in favor of a side that was more fashionable to a lot of later Englishmen. I guess to some that makes all the difference.-- 2001:A61:260D:6E01:B0EC:D0DC:FC65:2796 ( talk) 11:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Elizabeth wrote some decent poetry, and I believe some prose also. To be mentioned? Seadowns ( talk) 23:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. But as per Surtsicna, it might be worth a discussion at WP:NCROY to see whether more concise titles would be possible. Number 5 7 16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Elizabeth I of England →
Elizabeth I – The title is more concise and recognisable.
192.107.120.90 (
talk)
19:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elizabeth I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i think it would be helpful if we put how old she was at key times like when she started getting depressed in 1602 she was 44 and died at 45 Zacjepps ( talk) 09:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elizabeth I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This section does not have a source and imho needs one: "As she grew older, Elizabeth became famous for her virginity. A cult grew around her which was celebrated in the portraits, pageants, and literature of the day." 130.231.194.79 ( talk) 13:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Elizabeth should be under "English Princesses", just thought I'd throw that out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.20.44 ( talk) 22:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I see no rational reason to remove this image from the Death section. "No room" does not look to me like a rational excuse to remove the only sculpture we know of, of Elizabeth's face, which is likely to be an accurate portrait. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. Image should definitely stay. It is relevant to the article, a notable tribute to her legacy that stands in a notable location, and is easily expanded upon in text due to many acceptable sources that can be found about the tomb. I'd say placement of the image is a bit nitpicky; I think most editors would argue it is best as it is now, but is fine anywhere in the death section. I would suggest changing the caption to something more like "Sculptural depiction of Elizabeth on her tomb in Westminster Abbey". †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 02:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that the image of the tomb is fine anywhere in the Death section. Her actual death is not mentioned until the end of the second paragraph. Having the image of the funeral procession in the first paragraph is absurd. It is not relevant there and looks out of place. The rest of the article adheres to the image placement guideline, with images placed only in relevant paragraphs. If you consider the tomb image more useful than the funeral one, we should remove the funeral one. I'll ping users who have worked on the article before, namely DrKay and Celia Homeford. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem with shifting images up to the top of the section becomes apparent if you use mobile view, which is the view seen by most users of wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England. A minority of readers use a big screen, so it's not representative of most page views when we only look at the layout of images on one. You can see from the mobile view that the funeral image is way up at the top of the section, three paragraphs from where the text talks about the funeral. Celia Homeford ( talk) 12:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I´d like to add a part in her religious policy. I feel that her policy regarding cahtolicism was among the most relevant aspects of her reign, both by numbers, by the nobility it created and got rid of, and by the laws it left behind. It certainly is seen as such from outside England, considering that her legitimacy as queen depended on her aren´s marriage being valid to start with. Everything would be sourced of course. Is everyone ok with it?
Since I´m at it, I can add a section of relationships with Spain and Portugal, since Philip II has a section of relationships with England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I can do that if you want. And the article makes a mention to it, that is why I suggested a section. It mentions Mary. It mention her personal convictions, but there is not a word for the laws she introduced. It mentions that she got a "softer" version of the Act of Uniformity 8true) and repelled the previous heresy laws, but there is no mention of those of her own that she introduced, or for the prosecution aspect that authors such as Verstegan, Rudé or Coogan mention. I understand that those are not the main focus of the article, but the article essentially estates that "Mary was mean and everyone was happy when very tolerant Elizabeth came along", which is a really debateable subject at best. William Cobbet, for example, said that "Elizabeth alone killed more people than the Inquisition in all of their history". This is clearly not true (he estimates 1000 people, others estimate 800, the Inquisition got 1300, she got less by all counts, but still not bad) but said the numbers should be addressed, even if it is just to say that they have been checked and found to be false, and the many revolts she faced initially should also get some time, especially when both things contrast too much with the tone of the rest of the article, don´t you think? And yes, this is a WP:FA, and I am dyslexic. Neither one is an argument for how the bibliography is missing any critical voices, let alone from outside the English speaking world. I assumed that the idea of wikipedia was to get something as complete as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The language in the section "Thomas Seymour" should be edited, as the current section sugarcoats sexual abuse and seems to excuse it. I would argue that "Elizabeth experienced an emotional crisis" should be changed to "Elizabeth experienced sexual abuse". Likewise: "Thomas Seymour [...] engaged in romps and horseplay [...]" change to "Thomas Seymour, subjected the 14-year-old Elizabeth to "romps and horseplay". The fact that he was 40, or had charm or a powerful sex appeal has nothing to do with it and in fact makes it seem like it could have been consensual. Also: "However, after Parr discovered the pair in an embrace..." change to "However, after Parr discovered Seymour embracing Elizabeth..." - in a sexual abuse situation, one should not talk of "a pair" or "a couple" as that implies consent and equality.
It is also unclear from the text, why Elizabeth was interrogated as potentially guilty when Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth. This should be made clear or the section (see below) removed.
"In January 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow the Lord Protector. Elizabeth, living at Hatfield House, would admit nothing. Her stubbornness exasperated her interrogator, Sir Robert Tyrwhitt, who reported, "I do see it in her face that she is guilty".[27] Seymour was beheaded on 20 March 1549." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterVII ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Henry VIII's sibling branch is incomplete: add his brother Arthur [1] to the branch. He was a pivotal figure considering that he was the first husband of Catherine of Aragon. Even so, that notwithstanding, I think it matters. Just sayin'!
Sscohn ( talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Today, this article looks like a few pages in a school book, not a strictly biographical entry in an encyclopaedia. There are too many images that only peripherally illustrate it. Wikipedia, I believe, is not supposed to cram pictures into articles just because they (the pictures) exist, whether or not they look farfetched. An ambassador, e.g., looks that way. I'll be removing a few, unless someone objects convincingly. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elizabeth I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please make this more accurate on the tudors! this needs checking and my sources say this is wrong 2601:600:8180:1010:99A6:DF0F:A240:746C ( talk) 06:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I just rolled back 2 edits with a theory about Elizabeth's death. Interesting? Yes. Reliable source? No. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Unless I have missed it, this article does not mention her poetry. She wrote some fine poems. Seadowns ( talk) 18:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Elizabeth I of England → Elizabeth I – Commonname, existing redirect, consistent with articles for other monarchs. 17jiangz1 ( talk) 11:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I see there's been some discussion and a bit of an editing argument going on about the Arthur Dudley claim that he was her son. I found this to be a relevant addition to the article that's referenced in academic literature, even though I agree that having some critical secondary sources was important. I've attempted to rewrite the paragraph in question so it's not just the same two people going back and forth, and am happy to discuss. Any opinions? -- Arcaist contribs • talk 20:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It mentions that Elizabeth was wooed by King Frederick II of Denmark in 1579. The problem however, is that he married Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow in 1572. She gave birth to a son in Dec. 1578 and a daughter in Apr. of 1580, thus suggesting that Frederick was not looking to put aside Sophie.
131.93.13.24 ( talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Anika Cobriana 131.93.13.24 ( talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Was Elizabeth an opium addict?
"Ships chartered by Elizabeth I are instructed to purchase the finest Indian opium and transport it back to England."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.219.215 ( talk) 02:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
She wrote some good poetry, and prose too, I think. Haven't her works been published? Seadowns ( talk) 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Not mentioning the English Armada disaster in the lead, while associating her with the victory over the Spanish armada not only gives undue weight that gives the false impression of her being some sort of great military tactician, but also whitewashes history. the fact that English leadership tried to whitewash the disaster is even mentioned in the English Armada page. Belevalo ( talk) 13:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elizabeth I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change manoeuvring in paragraph 4 to maneuvering Jam3268 ( talk) 02:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Elizabeth I was faced with scrutiny for religious ideals, mainly by John Knox. In John Knox's "First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women", he states that women who take royal power are attempting to go against God's word. He believes that they are rebelling. [1] This work was released shortly before Elizabeth's rule, so its reach spread around her accession to the throne. He later issued an apology, stating that he was not directly attacking her character, but that he still stood by his ideas that women should not be in power, that they are inferior. [1]
One person who supported Elizabeth in her religious endeavors was Dr. Richard Cox. A "colourful but not always reliable reporter," Schifanoya, said that Cox believed Elizabeth to be the only one "divinely ordained" to change monasteries and purify churches. [2] Elizabeth did not believe in extremes. She wants discussions of religion to be properly argued. She asked her subjects to avoid arguments that were unnecessary or crude. She also asked that they avoid extreme insulting words, such as " heretics". Elizabeth was believed to have feared Catholicism. She was inheriting a country that was officially completely catholic, and her views leaned more towards Protestantism. This was part of the reason for her encouragement of calm discussions. [2]
Elizabeth I was a queen that refused obedience and modesty. [1] She believed that those ideas were not fit for that of a queen. In The Book of Homilies there were many statements about women in lavish clothing and their obedience to husbands which were all ideas that Elizabeth refused. [1] She agreed to the publication of the book, but with exceptions of vague mention of her authority and only picking and choosing which sermons to read. [1]
Elizabeth I had a major role in the Church of England. She was deemed to be the "Supreme Governor" over the Church of England. She had refused to be the "Head" of the Church because of an exiled Marian named Thomas Lever, who convinced her that a woman should not be the Head of the Church of England. [1] Many people believed that by not taking the role of Head was against God's word, but she ended up refusing the title in the end. She took the role seriously, but on the other hand would sit silently in the back and have her archbishops do all of the fighting for hierarchy and structure of the Church. [1] She used her role to help the people of her nation by "healing" them with her touch. A century before hand, it was believed that women did not have the touch to heal people, but she proved that her royalty gave her the upper hand and allowed her to heal by the hand of God. [1]
The view of Elizabeth I as the "Virgin Queen" [1] became paramount in her rule. Many people believed that her presence was that of a religious figure. They formed a cult around her virginity and rule. [1] Many believed that but having her presence was similar to being blessed. They replaced " Virgin Mary" with Elizabeth. Instead of a "Hail Mary!" they would shout "Long live Eliza!" [1] Many of the followers also replaced symbols typically used for Virgin Mary with symbols to use for Queen Elizabeth. They would pray to God for blessings of Elizabeth and curses to those that opposed her. Her birthday, September 7th, fell on the eve of Blessed Virgin Mary's feast of the nativity. [1] Many took this as another sign of her religious makings. Her followers believed that she should share the dare with Virgin Mary. English Catholics were left unhappy with this coincidence. [1]
In her quiet first months as queen, Elizabeth made a few strides. Her predecessor, Queen Mary, was of a high catholic faith. The country was of catholic faith in legal documents and law. [2] During her reign, though, she made changes to how things were run before her accession. She made challenges to the current religion and the idea that everyone must coincide with it. On an Easter Sunday Elizabeth changed the routine of a normal Easter Sunday. She changed the language of the mass, the presence of the stone altar, and she led the communion herself. [2] A debate was held by Catholics and Protestants to argue the validity of the religious reforms happening under her rule. In the end, Protestantism won. Elizabeth, in turn to her belief in Protestantism, had won. She made subtle changes that would effectively combine old and new practices. Her goal was unity. She did not want there to be extremes of both religions, but a middle ground where both sides could be welcomed. [2]
In the church, Elizabeth made strides greater than her intentions. The church turned into the Elizabethan Church, much more protestant than her original idea. [3] The protestants, though, we seen to be less conservative than Catholics or Puritans. They were more comprehensive and open. Elizabeth's intentions build on this, as she rarely wanted to intervene on people's ideas and beliefs. She wanted to create an environment where they could be openly explored. When challenges arose to this new way of life, many were quick to shut it down. Although there were disagreements from both sides, they did not want an entirely new religious reformation, which is what the Puritans were attempting to achieve before migrating to the United States. [3]
This new section is written in a different tone to the rest of the article, uses American spelling, doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and introduces names (such as "Schifanoya") without explaining who they are. DrKay ( talk) 07:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Should the above page link -- either as a redirect or a DAB entry -- link here? At present it doesn't, according to an editor's interpretation of WP:DABMENTION. Related question: should that be mentioned in this article? It's not uncommon as a descriptor. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Mary refused to ratify the treaty. [ADD HERE] In 1563 Elizabeth proposed her own suitor, Robert Dudley [...]
[ADD HERE]: In Scotland Mary's mother Mary of Guise, who had ruled Scotland as regent, attempted to increase French influence in Britain by granting the French army fortifications in Scotland. A group of (Protestant) Scottish lords allied with Elizabeth deposed Mary of Guise and, pressured by the British, Mary's representatives signed the Treaty of Edinburgh, under which French troops were to be withdrawn from Scotland. Although Mary refused to ratify the treaty, it had the desired effect and the French threat was driven away from England. [1]
After the death of her husband Francis II, Maria Stuart returned to Scotland, while the period of religious wars was beginning for France: fearing further possible threats from the French side, Elizabeth secretly gave support to the Huguenots, helping and supporting the revolts of Prince Louis I of Bourbon-Condé [2]. This aid was intended to find support among French Protestants in order to later claim the French throne. She made peace with France in 1564, renouncing the last English possession in French territory, Calais, but did not abandon the formal claim to the French throne that English monarchs had held since Edward III's reign during the Hundred Years' War, and which was abandoned only by George III, in 1802 with the treaty of Amiens. 95.244.253.106 ( talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (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 |
After Mary's execution, Elizabeth claimed not to have ordered it and indeed most accounts have her telling Secretary Davidson, who brought her the warrant to sign, not to dispatch the warrant even though she had signed it. The sincerity of Elizabeth's remorse and her motives for telling Davidson not to execute the warrant have been called into question both by her contemporaries and later historians.
should be changed to: After Mary's execution, Elizabeth claimed not to have ordered it and indeed most accounts have her telling Secretary Davison, who brought her the warrant to sign, not to dispatch the warrant even though she had signed it. The sincerity of Elizabeth's remorse and her motives for telling Davison not to execute the warrant have been called into question both by her contemporaries and later historians. Nicolaj2 ( talk) 13:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is this locked down? Anyway: in Elizabeth_I_of_England#Wars_and_overseas_trade : " An element of piracy and self-enrichment drove Elizabethan seafarers, over which the queen had little control" -- surely should be "who". 202.81.248.226 ( talk) 02:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In religion, she was relatively tolerant and avoided systematic persecution.
Huh? What peace of propaganda is this? The friendliest possible objective account would be that she was every bit as intolerant as Mary the Catholic, only in favor of a side that was more fashionable to a lot of later Englishmen. I guess to some that makes all the difference.-- 2001:A61:260D:6E01:B0EC:D0DC:FC65:2796 ( talk) 11:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Elizabeth wrote some decent poetry, and I believe some prose also. To be mentioned? Seadowns ( talk) 23:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. But as per Surtsicna, it might be worth a discussion at WP:NCROY to see whether more concise titles would be possible. Number 5 7 16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Elizabeth I of England →
Elizabeth I – The title is more concise and recognisable.
192.107.120.90 (
talk)
19:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elizabeth I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i think it would be helpful if we put how old she was at key times like when she started getting depressed in 1602 she was 44 and died at 45 Zacjepps ( talk) 09:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elizabeth I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This section does not have a source and imho needs one: "As she grew older, Elizabeth became famous for her virginity. A cult grew around her which was celebrated in the portraits, pageants, and literature of the day." 130.231.194.79 ( talk) 13:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Elizabeth should be under "English Princesses", just thought I'd throw that out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.20.44 ( talk) 22:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I see no rational reason to remove this image from the Death section. "No room" does not look to me like a rational excuse to remove the only sculpture we know of, of Elizabeth's face, which is likely to be an accurate portrait. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. Image should definitely stay. It is relevant to the article, a notable tribute to her legacy that stands in a notable location, and is easily expanded upon in text due to many acceptable sources that can be found about the tomb. I'd say placement of the image is a bit nitpicky; I think most editors would argue it is best as it is now, but is fine anywhere in the death section. I would suggest changing the caption to something more like "Sculptural depiction of Elizabeth on her tomb in Westminster Abbey". †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 02:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that the image of the tomb is fine anywhere in the Death section. Her actual death is not mentioned until the end of the second paragraph. Having the image of the funeral procession in the first paragraph is absurd. It is not relevant there and looks out of place. The rest of the article adheres to the image placement guideline, with images placed only in relevant paragraphs. If you consider the tomb image more useful than the funeral one, we should remove the funeral one. I'll ping users who have worked on the article before, namely DrKay and Celia Homeford. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem with shifting images up to the top of the section becomes apparent if you use mobile view, which is the view seen by most users of wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England. A minority of readers use a big screen, so it's not representative of most page views when we only look at the layout of images on one. You can see from the mobile view that the funeral image is way up at the top of the section, three paragraphs from where the text talks about the funeral. Celia Homeford ( talk) 12:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I´d like to add a part in her religious policy. I feel that her policy regarding cahtolicism was among the most relevant aspects of her reign, both by numbers, by the nobility it created and got rid of, and by the laws it left behind. It certainly is seen as such from outside England, considering that her legitimacy as queen depended on her aren´s marriage being valid to start with. Everything would be sourced of course. Is everyone ok with it?
Since I´m at it, I can add a section of relationships with Spain and Portugal, since Philip II has a section of relationships with England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I can do that if you want. And the article makes a mention to it, that is why I suggested a section. It mentions Mary. It mention her personal convictions, but there is not a word for the laws she introduced. It mentions that she got a "softer" version of the Act of Uniformity 8true) and repelled the previous heresy laws, but there is no mention of those of her own that she introduced, or for the prosecution aspect that authors such as Verstegan, Rudé or Coogan mention. I understand that those are not the main focus of the article, but the article essentially estates that "Mary was mean and everyone was happy when very tolerant Elizabeth came along", which is a really debateable subject at best. William Cobbet, for example, said that "Elizabeth alone killed more people than the Inquisition in all of their history". This is clearly not true (he estimates 1000 people, others estimate 800, the Inquisition got 1300, she got less by all counts, but still not bad) but said the numbers should be addressed, even if it is just to say that they have been checked and found to be false, and the many revolts she faced initially should also get some time, especially when both things contrast too much with the tone of the rest of the article, don´t you think? And yes, this is a WP:FA, and I am dyslexic. Neither one is an argument for how the bibliography is missing any critical voices, let alone from outside the English speaking world. I assumed that the idea of wikipedia was to get something as complete as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The language in the section "Thomas Seymour" should be edited, as the current section sugarcoats sexual abuse and seems to excuse it. I would argue that "Elizabeth experienced an emotional crisis" should be changed to "Elizabeth experienced sexual abuse". Likewise: "Thomas Seymour [...] engaged in romps and horseplay [...]" change to "Thomas Seymour, subjected the 14-year-old Elizabeth to "romps and horseplay". The fact that he was 40, or had charm or a powerful sex appeal has nothing to do with it and in fact makes it seem like it could have been consensual. Also: "However, after Parr discovered the pair in an embrace..." change to "However, after Parr discovered Seymour embracing Elizabeth..." - in a sexual abuse situation, one should not talk of "a pair" or "a couple" as that implies consent and equality.
It is also unclear from the text, why Elizabeth was interrogated as potentially guilty when Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth. This should be made clear or the section (see below) removed.
"In January 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow the Lord Protector. Elizabeth, living at Hatfield House, would admit nothing. Her stubbornness exasperated her interrogator, Sir Robert Tyrwhitt, who reported, "I do see it in her face that she is guilty".[27] Seymour was beheaded on 20 March 1549." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterVII ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Henry VIII's sibling branch is incomplete: add his brother Arthur [1] to the branch. He was a pivotal figure considering that he was the first husband of Catherine of Aragon. Even so, that notwithstanding, I think it matters. Just sayin'!
Sscohn ( talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Today, this article looks like a few pages in a school book, not a strictly biographical entry in an encyclopaedia. There are too many images that only peripherally illustrate it. Wikipedia, I believe, is not supposed to cram pictures into articles just because they (the pictures) exist, whether or not they look farfetched. An ambassador, e.g., looks that way. I'll be removing a few, unless someone objects convincingly. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elizabeth I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please make this more accurate on the tudors! this needs checking and my sources say this is wrong 2601:600:8180:1010:99A6:DF0F:A240:746C ( talk) 06:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I just rolled back 2 edits with a theory about Elizabeth's death. Interesting? Yes. Reliable source? No. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 10:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Unless I have missed it, this article does not mention her poetry. She wrote some fine poems. Seadowns ( talk) 18:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Elizabeth I of England → Elizabeth I – Commonname, existing redirect, consistent with articles for other monarchs. 17jiangz1 ( talk) 11:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I see there's been some discussion and a bit of an editing argument going on about the Arthur Dudley claim that he was her son. I found this to be a relevant addition to the article that's referenced in academic literature, even though I agree that having some critical secondary sources was important. I've attempted to rewrite the paragraph in question so it's not just the same two people going back and forth, and am happy to discuss. Any opinions? -- Arcaist contribs • talk 20:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It mentions that Elizabeth was wooed by King Frederick II of Denmark in 1579. The problem however, is that he married Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow in 1572. She gave birth to a son in Dec. 1578 and a daughter in Apr. of 1580, thus suggesting that Frederick was not looking to put aside Sophie.
131.93.13.24 ( talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Anika Cobriana 131.93.13.24 ( talk) 23:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Was Elizabeth an opium addict?
"Ships chartered by Elizabeth I are instructed to purchase the finest Indian opium and transport it back to England."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.219.215 ( talk) 02:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
She wrote some good poetry, and prose too, I think. Haven't her works been published? Seadowns ( talk) 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Not mentioning the English Armada disaster in the lead, while associating her with the victory over the Spanish armada not only gives undue weight that gives the false impression of her being some sort of great military tactician, but also whitewashes history. the fact that English leadership tried to whitewash the disaster is even mentioned in the English Armada page. Belevalo ( talk) 13:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Elizabeth I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change manoeuvring in paragraph 4 to maneuvering Jam3268 ( talk) 02:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Elizabeth I was faced with scrutiny for religious ideals, mainly by John Knox. In John Knox's "First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women", he states that women who take royal power are attempting to go against God's word. He believes that they are rebelling. [1] This work was released shortly before Elizabeth's rule, so its reach spread around her accession to the throne. He later issued an apology, stating that he was not directly attacking her character, but that he still stood by his ideas that women should not be in power, that they are inferior. [1]
One person who supported Elizabeth in her religious endeavors was Dr. Richard Cox. A "colourful but not always reliable reporter," Schifanoya, said that Cox believed Elizabeth to be the only one "divinely ordained" to change monasteries and purify churches. [2] Elizabeth did not believe in extremes. She wants discussions of religion to be properly argued. She asked her subjects to avoid arguments that were unnecessary or crude. She also asked that they avoid extreme insulting words, such as " heretics". Elizabeth was believed to have feared Catholicism. She was inheriting a country that was officially completely catholic, and her views leaned more towards Protestantism. This was part of the reason for her encouragement of calm discussions. [2]
Elizabeth I was a queen that refused obedience and modesty. [1] She believed that those ideas were not fit for that of a queen. In The Book of Homilies there were many statements about women in lavish clothing and their obedience to husbands which were all ideas that Elizabeth refused. [1] She agreed to the publication of the book, but with exceptions of vague mention of her authority and only picking and choosing which sermons to read. [1]
Elizabeth I had a major role in the Church of England. She was deemed to be the "Supreme Governor" over the Church of England. She had refused to be the "Head" of the Church because of an exiled Marian named Thomas Lever, who convinced her that a woman should not be the Head of the Church of England. [1] Many people believed that by not taking the role of Head was against God's word, but she ended up refusing the title in the end. She took the role seriously, but on the other hand would sit silently in the back and have her archbishops do all of the fighting for hierarchy and structure of the Church. [1] She used her role to help the people of her nation by "healing" them with her touch. A century before hand, it was believed that women did not have the touch to heal people, but she proved that her royalty gave her the upper hand and allowed her to heal by the hand of God. [1]
The view of Elizabeth I as the "Virgin Queen" [1] became paramount in her rule. Many people believed that her presence was that of a religious figure. They formed a cult around her virginity and rule. [1] Many believed that but having her presence was similar to being blessed. They replaced " Virgin Mary" with Elizabeth. Instead of a "Hail Mary!" they would shout "Long live Eliza!" [1] Many of the followers also replaced symbols typically used for Virgin Mary with symbols to use for Queen Elizabeth. They would pray to God for blessings of Elizabeth and curses to those that opposed her. Her birthday, September 7th, fell on the eve of Blessed Virgin Mary's feast of the nativity. [1] Many took this as another sign of her religious makings. Her followers believed that she should share the dare with Virgin Mary. English Catholics were left unhappy with this coincidence. [1]
In her quiet first months as queen, Elizabeth made a few strides. Her predecessor, Queen Mary, was of a high catholic faith. The country was of catholic faith in legal documents and law. [2] During her reign, though, she made changes to how things were run before her accession. She made challenges to the current religion and the idea that everyone must coincide with it. On an Easter Sunday Elizabeth changed the routine of a normal Easter Sunday. She changed the language of the mass, the presence of the stone altar, and she led the communion herself. [2] A debate was held by Catholics and Protestants to argue the validity of the religious reforms happening under her rule. In the end, Protestantism won. Elizabeth, in turn to her belief in Protestantism, had won. She made subtle changes that would effectively combine old and new practices. Her goal was unity. She did not want there to be extremes of both religions, but a middle ground where both sides could be welcomed. [2]
In the church, Elizabeth made strides greater than her intentions. The church turned into the Elizabethan Church, much more protestant than her original idea. [3] The protestants, though, we seen to be less conservative than Catholics or Puritans. They were more comprehensive and open. Elizabeth's intentions build on this, as she rarely wanted to intervene on people's ideas and beliefs. She wanted to create an environment where they could be openly explored. When challenges arose to this new way of life, many were quick to shut it down. Although there were disagreements from both sides, they did not want an entirely new religious reformation, which is what the Puritans were attempting to achieve before migrating to the United States. [3]
This new section is written in a different tone to the rest of the article, uses American spelling, doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and introduces names (such as "Schifanoya") without explaining who they are. DrKay ( talk) 07:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Should the above page link -- either as a redirect or a DAB entry -- link here? At present it doesn't, according to an editor's interpretation of WP:DABMENTION. Related question: should that be mentioned in this article? It's not uncommon as a descriptor. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Mary refused to ratify the treaty. [ADD HERE] In 1563 Elizabeth proposed her own suitor, Robert Dudley [...]
[ADD HERE]: In Scotland Mary's mother Mary of Guise, who had ruled Scotland as regent, attempted to increase French influence in Britain by granting the French army fortifications in Scotland. A group of (Protestant) Scottish lords allied with Elizabeth deposed Mary of Guise and, pressured by the British, Mary's representatives signed the Treaty of Edinburgh, under which French troops were to be withdrawn from Scotland. Although Mary refused to ratify the treaty, it had the desired effect and the French threat was driven away from England. [1]
After the death of her husband Francis II, Maria Stuart returned to Scotland, while the period of religious wars was beginning for France: fearing further possible threats from the French side, Elizabeth secretly gave support to the Huguenots, helping and supporting the revolts of Prince Louis I of Bourbon-Condé [2]. This aid was intended to find support among French Protestants in order to later claim the French throne. She made peace with France in 1564, renouncing the last English possession in French territory, Calais, but did not abandon the formal claim to the French throne that English monarchs had held since Edward III's reign during the Hundred Years' War, and which was abandoned only by George III, in 1802 with the treaty of Amiens. 95.244.253.106 ( talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)