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

I just read 'Catherine if Aragon - Henry's Spanish queen' by Files Tremlett. It's an interesting read, and was nice to get an insight into the early part of Henry's reign

.

When Elizabeth died, does anyone know why she didn’t go back all those years to her fathers will/act of succession and have the descendants of the other Grey sisters or the descendants of Mary Tudor and Charles Brandon’s other child take the throne, why was it James VI of Scotland considering his mum had been executed by Elizabeth not that long ago and he is a descendant of Margaret Tudor who was after Mary Tudors descendants in Henry’s will? Does anyone know why

Jean Plaidy books are relativly accurate according to my daughters A-Level history teacher.

Am trying to track down her Catherine de Medici series currently.

I wouldn't base any history on David Starkeys accounts - his history is extremely dodgy. It sounds credible, but when you start to read deeper, his sources and the conclusions he leaps to are appalling.

Yes, I believe that Elizabeth thought her mother was innocent. But her mother was not liked by the people. Elizabeth was on a ropey enough standing, certainly early in her reign, not to want to rock the boat. Plus if you look back at her history, and the tightrope she had walked with her father and sister, she had learnt to keep her own counsel, and not say a word that would trip her up. She wasn't going to say a word publicly. She was very canny, about this kind of issue.

But don't get too deeply into hero worship. While there was much to be admired, there was also much about her not to be liked or admired! She was difficult, violent, temperamental - a lot like her father in many ways.

Re: Why James

Margaret was the eldest of Henry VIII's sisters, so in terms of succession her descendants were ahead in the line.

As for Mary, James VI never really knew his mother. He was about six months old when he was separated from her and he was raised by Scottish Protestant nobles. He was ideologically sound in the eyes of the crown.

He was also a very safe pair of hands: an adult man (in his late 30s), with several children of his own (two of whom at that point were boys), shown to be capable at ruling over a kingdom.

He was also quite a good king, and the choice was a solid one.

@eowyn

That’s interesting, what sources suggest those things? I’ve heard she was temperamental and indecisive

If you want the stars dashed away, John Guy's Elizabeth: The Forgotten Years does the trick.

That said, she sailed a ship through some remarkably perilous waters. It's stunning that she held things together the way that she did, and it's hard not to let that take over.

As for Philippa Gregory, don't believe a word she says about history, particularly anything that sounds like a mystery or a conspiracy. Her stories are fun, but they're not real. (Something I think she'd agree with.)

If you're looking for good books, Susan Doran is an excellent scholar, as is Wallace MacCaffrey (very different, but both excellent researchers). Antonia Fraser is a wonderful writer. There's also a great collection of Elizabeth's own letters and speeches, Elizabeth I: Collected Works. And I'm still a sucker for JE Neale's Elizabeth I.

IIRC. Katherine actually had a better claim to the English crown than her husband - she was a descendant of Edward III whose son John of Gaunt’s daughter (by his second wife) married into the Castilian crown. Henry V11 claimed descent through John of Gaunt’s third wife, who’s dcs had to be legitimated, and were barred from the crown (by Richard II) because of that.

@SarahAndQuack
The difference was in naivety and fanatical devotion (Mary) versus pragmatism and scepticism (Elizabeth)
Elizabeth was outwardly religious but hated extremism.

Henry could not get an annulment, as far as the church was his marriage to K of A was legitimate.

Another thing Elizabeth was concerned with is that her mother was 2-3 months pregnant when she married, so she wouldn't want to draw attention to that as it may question her legitimacy. She must have been grateful for that red hair.

England didn't become a protestant country overnight, it mostly happened during Edward's reign.

I think Jane Grey was a pawn to start with but she soon started signing her name as 'queen Jane'.

The men who had been basically ruling England while Edward was on the throne wanted a legitimate protestant on the throne, that was Jane.

If Henry was legally married to K of A then the legitimate heir was Mary, but if it wasn't then it was Elizabeth.

Both were named in Henry's will, but I doubt he thought his son would die 'without issue', I think it was to give them status at court and because he seems to have genuinely loved Jane Seymour and she wanted better relations between Henry and his children.

I find David Starkey's programmes crap, the title is the wives but he only talks about them in relation to Henry, hardly a mention of childhood, education or anything before marriage.

@malibuloving Sorry fell asleep!
Yes I found it an easy read, and passed it to my mum to read afterwards - she loved it too. You could maybe pick up a second hand copy from eBay as it’s been around a while now.

I think Northumberland attempted to bypass Mary because she was Catholic and Elizabeth because he knew he would not be able to manipulate her. He was only interested in his own and his family's personal power.

.

Anne Boleyn is my favourite historical figure and she was almost certainly innocent. She swore on the eternal damnation of her soul that she was innocent. People just didn't do that if they were lying.

As for Elizabeth, I'm sure she knew. I'm sure everyone knew. Elizabeth and Henry weren't close. She was always her mother's daughter.

If only she hadn't had our Queen of Scots murdered, I would like her much more.

She didn’t really want to have Mary executed - Mary (or rather people around her) tweaked Elizabeth’s nose and although the warrant was signed, I think she was pushed/pissed off and the order was quickly carried out (Mary alive could only continue to cause mischief and threaten Elizabeth’s position) before she could have a change of mind (not unusual for her).

Jean Plaidy books are relativly accurate according to my daughters A-Level history teacher

Am trying to track down her Catherine de Medici series currently

Jean Plaidy books are excellent. I have almost a full collection.

The CdM novels were released with new covers not so long ago, so shouldn’t be too hard to find. I’m not sure where you are, but I can tell you a bookshop in the North that had a full set of the trilogy in last week

I'm also of the view that Elizabeth was agnostic, hence her view about not wishing to "look through the window of men's souls", but it would have been an incredibly dangerous position to take at a time when the country was riven by polarised religious beliefs. She was also politically very shrewd (had to be; a matter of survival). The example that stands out for me was the debate, just before she was crowned, as to whether she would declare herself to be Defender of the Faith, a title she and her siblings inherited from their father.

Defender of the Faith is a Catholic title and was bestowed by the Pope on Henry VIII before his split with Rome. However, Henry was very proud of it and continued to use it afterwards even though it was clearly no longer true. Edward VI, as an avowed Protestant, very pointedly did not use it. Mary I, as a good Catholic, just as pointedly did, declaring herself "Mary, by the Grace of God, Queen of England [...], Defender of the Faith, [...]".

And Elizabeth? She declared herself, "Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, Queen of England [...], et cetera" and left it up to everyone else to decide what that might have meant.

@ZiggyB Thanks and no worries I’ll defo order one!

@SingingLily I think the et cetera line was very bloody clever

@Avonandice I adored her books as a young teenager, especially her Tudor books. I have a very battered copy of The Lady in the Tower which is her Anne Boleyn volume of the Queens of England series, and focuses heavily on her childhood and upbringing rather than just her relationship with Henry. Excellent book.

I’m fascinated by the Tudors, particularly Anne Boleyn. The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn by Eric Ives is brilliant, though not a light read as such!

Back to the original point, I think Anne Boleyn was innocent of the charges laid against her.

I also think that had the papacy not been under the effective control of the Spanish crown at the time, or Henry VIII's wife not been Spanish, then an annulment would have been granted. A split with Rome possibly would have still happened, but maybe in a different way, more in character with the Scottish reformation.

Yeah I agree @ForalltheSaints which monarch do you think would have split with Rome then?

The difference was in naivety and fanatical devotion (Mary) versus pragmatism and scepticism (Elizabeth)

Well, yes, this is the Victorian view of 'history' that still got taught through the last century. Bloody Mary versus noble rational Elizabeth and superstitious evil Catholics versus sensible, humane Protestants.

It's not that simple. Mary did things that could also be seen as pragmatic. She married, she tried to have children, she allied herself with a hugely powerful Catholic nation, she tried to stamp out rivals.

You could also argue Elizabeth became increasingly capricious and not in the least ruled by pragmatism.