Elizabeth I??

[malibuloving]

I’m trying to broaden my historical knowledge and I’m reading a bit about the Tudors and I was wondering if people thing that Elizabeth I thought her mum, Anne Boleyn was innocent of the trumped up charges her father Henry VIII accused her off to execute her as she had a locket with her and her mother’s portrait in which she wore until her death but she didn’t go back and change the law saying her parents marriage was legitimate like her elder sister Mary did when she was on the throne to her parents marriage.

So I’m asking do you think she thought her mother was innocent? Thanks all

Elizabeth 1 is one of my all time heroes! Yes I think she thought she mother was innocent- it was clear she needed to be removed and the evidence of the affairs were needed to do that.

Elizabeth was also close to some of her mother's family so yes I believe she was very well aware of the likely truth of the matter.

I think she probably knew her mother was innocent, but I think she was far too savvy to make public comments.

What change to the law are we talking, btw?

(As in, what do you think she could/should have done?)

I think she was advised not to get Parliament to rule her parents' marriage lawful. It would have opened up again the question of the authority of the pope which Elizabeth could well do without.

I love the quote from her about religion "There is only One Jesus Christ and the rest is a dispute about trifles". Such a pragmatic view.

Sorry I have gone on a bit

@AnneElliott I just immediately fell in love with her. I think she was simply ahead of her time with her views on religion and not having a desire ‘to make windows into men’s souls’

Watching with interest

@SarahAndQuack I’m afraid I’m not clued up enough to know the exact law but didn’t her sister go to parliament and state her parents marriage was lawful? I was wondering why Elizabeth didn’t do the same

I think she was simply ahead of her time with her views on religion and not having a desire ‘to make windows into men’s souls’

Oh, but this is so one-sided! She had masses of heretics executed during her reign.

malibu - but she didn't need to, did she? Mary needed to, as I understand it, because she was trying to broker relations with Catholic countries and she was on the marriage/children path. I don't know if Elizabeth ever meant to marry or not, but I don't think it was something that would have been quite as necessary to her as she clearly didn't have the same concerns about a husband, children, and uniting England with Catholic Europe.

I don’t think anyone genuinely believed Elizabeth I was guilty. I’ve also always thought that’s why Henry VIII’s guilt allowed her execution to be by sword, to be as accurate and painless as possible for her.

I think it’s fairly obvious that Anne Boleyn didn’t shag a hundred men, including her brother. She may have been not a virgin when Henry targeted her. These women didn’t have much choice and Elizabeth I, being a Queen and not an idiot, would have known that.

@SarahAndQuack True but I thought the majority of those executions happened after a lot of Catholic plots against her?

Besides, every ruler executed people back then and I thought her father and sister executed many more?

Possibly because if Katherine of Aragon was Henry’s lawful wife that meant his marriage to Anne was unlawful and there was no way around that.

Henry only got rid of Katherine because she didn't give him a son. So there were no legal grounds for a divorce (till Henry moved the goalposts)
Tricky to do that a second time, so went for beheading.

From what I've read, many people knew the charges were trumped up, but Elizabeth was far too pragmatic to risk stating it as fact.

No one thought Anne Boleyn was guilty. Everyone knew it was nonsense but it was a way to get rid of her.
Henry VIII had the succession laid out in an Act of Parliament. Edward, then Mary then Elizabeth but officially Elizabeth and Mary were illegitimate.
Elizabeth didn't have the sentimental views that Mary did and Mary was trying to reverse the religious changes made by father and brother. The logical conclusion of which was that Henry VIII's first marriage was valid.
Elizabeth was not trying to turn the clock back and took the pragmatic approach of least said soonest mended.
She was queen by popular acclaim and by law. That was enough.

malibu - I dunno, though, some of those plots were trumped up, I thought?

But yes, take your point. She did actually have a shitload of people executed, but she also reigned a long time, so per year I suppose it's not so bad.

I just think the 'windows into men's souls' is a bit Blairite.

But the Catholic powers kind of upped the ante by telling Catholics they should kill her.
And radicalising people by training them abroad. Sounds familiar actually

Henry got his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled in order to be able to marry Anne, which he wouldn't have been able to do had he had a lawful wife still living. Therefore getting the marriage reinstated would strengthen Mary's claim to the throne, as the legitimate, not bastard, child of Henry.

Henry had Anne beheaded on a charge of adultery, and therefore had no need to annul the marriage, and as far as I know, it wasn't. Therefore Elizabeth had no need to get it declared lawful.

That's my understanding of the situation, as a non-historian.

@mere

Ah that explains it. Thank you

No, mere, Elizabeth was declared illegitimate too. The marriage between her parents was annulled before Anne was executed.

love Queen Elizabeth 1 and her story in just incredible, I love Queen Victoria's story too.. and yes I agree.. Ann Boleyn was stitched up like a kipper.. good and proper.

@vibano - yes, but how secure do you think Mary felt in the context of Lutheran/Calvinist centres of power? There were plenty of people keen to see her dead, too. After all she did have to take the crown back from Jane Grey.

I just don't think they were that different.

She ascended because of her father's will which was the last uncontested document for the line of succession.

However Catholics hated elizabeth and saw Mary stuart as the one true heir and the pope denunciation of elizabeth was severely damaging.

Btw, do you know the horrible story about the doctor who was executed for plotting to poison Elizabeth? He was Jewish by birth and there's quite a lot of suspicion that he was framed, and there was a massive amount of anti-Semitic propaganda around his death. He was a Catholic convert. The person who accused him was the Earl of Essex, who later on tried to take Elizabeth's throne by force. Bit sus, that.

My point is, I can see Elizabeth wanting/needing to scare people into compliance, but I think she would have been perfectly happy to use bigoted sentiments to her own ends.

Also does anyone know why Edward VI, their brother cut both Mary and Elizabeth out of the succession before he died?

I thought he cut Mary out because his older sister was a Catholic and he was a staunch Protestant but why skip Elizabeth who was also a Protestant (admittedly less staunch than he was) for Jane Grey?