MOVIE: "Elizabeth: Golden Age"

[LilyM]

And what of Elizabeth being a so-called “Virgin Queen”? Unlikely! It is more likely that in real life she had affairs with such men as Christopher Hatton, Robert Devereux, Walter Raleigh, Lord Robert Dudley, etc. The “Harlot Queen” may be a more precise term for this monarch!

If so then it’s close to a miracle that she never had any progeny. Not to mention that of these ‘lovers’ all but Hatton married other women. Hardly feasible for someone having an affair with the Queen, since there was always the chance that Elizabeth herself would marry them if this were the case. Certainly she never acted totally averse to marriage when it came to foreign rulers.

The fact is that for Elizabeth to have affairs or illegitimate children would have put her throne in gravest peril. And she saw her own mother and stepmother executed on charges, both real and trumped-up, of fornication and adultery, so she knew the dangers of illicit sex.

If you believe in women who stay celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God (as nuns do) then why not a woman who stayed celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of England?

 

[MH84]

“Elizabeth: The Golden Age” is totally worthless and I don’t recommend it for any Catholic.

First off, lets examine the historical Queen Elizabeth I.She was an anti-Catholic tyrant and a heretical revolutionary seeking to destroy Christian Europe. Her brutal anti-Catholic laws led to hundreds of English Catholics being burnt, beheaded, tortured, hung, drawn, quartered, and more. Elizabeth also encouraged her subjects to go into Catholic Ireland and subjugate the locals and take their land. Thousands of Irish men, women, and children were murdered by English colonizers and many more left homeless and starved. Yet the movie makes Elizabeth out to be religiously tolerant! The fact that being Catholic in Elizabethian England meant death is brushed aside in this film. And what of Elizabeth being a so-called “Virgin Queen”? Unlikely! It is more likely that in real life she had affairs with such men as Christopher Hatton, Robert Devereux, Walter Raleigh, Lord Robert Dudley, etc. The “Harlot Queen” may be a more precise term for this monarch!

Now, lets look at the movie itself.

While most of the Protestants are portrayed as noble, moral, and brave, Catholics are shown in a much different light. Eerie Catholic chants, murderous Jesuits, fanatical Catholic Spaniards, and more are shown throughout the film. Essentially Catholics are made to look backward, bloodthirsty, and cowardly. King Philip II, historically a great Catholic monarch, is reduced to an angry and incapable ruler.

Blasphemous images fill the screen. As the Protestants celebrate their victory over the Catholic Spaniards, bloody rosaries and crucifixes sink to the bottom of the ocean. Also, the movie makes it look like God Himself is on the side of the Protestants, as a “divine” wind blows out King Philips candles as he prays.

Catholics, stay clear of this film like it were a Chick tract! It is just as anti-Catholic, perhaps moreso.

Wow your impression of the movie is similar to mine…except I wasnt as offended by it. I just saw the movie, and reflecting back I think the movie seemed to put out a bad light against Christians in general.

Of course the part with the “Jesuit assassin” and the Pope declaring a “holy war” against Elizabeth or England didnt sit well with me. However, it wasnt that bad of a film I thought. Maybe, I just love seeing parts Catholicism/Christendom portyrayed in film, even though it may be tarnished.

Ive just found out that the film isnt even historical anyway, instead its loosely based on the events. However, I got the impression that it was an attempt at being historical, even though it seemed to be sensationalised. Now I know otherwise.

Even though Im no history buff, that whole period in medievel times interests me. It seems like such a dignified, proud, God-fearing time. :twocents:

 

[cathgal]

If so then it’s close to a miracle that she never had any progeny. Not to mention that of these ‘lovers’ all but Hatton married other women. Hardly feasible for someone having an affair with the Queen, since there was always the chance that Elizabeth herself would marry them if this were the case. Certainly she never acted totally averse to marriage when it came to foreign rulers.

The fact is that for Elizabeth to have affairs or illegitimate children would have put her throne in gravest peril. And she saw her own mother and stepmother executed on charges, both real and trumped-up, of fornication and adultery, so she knew the dangers of illicit sex.

If you believe in women who stay celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God (as nuns do) then why not a woman who stayed celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of England?

Even a one time with any of her admirers wouldn’t make her a virgin would it ?
Virgin queen…highly doubtful.

 

[Pons]

From Wikipedia: Director (Indian and probably Hindu, note*) speaks out:

Director Shekhar Kapur rejected this criticism of his film, saying: “It is actually very, very deeply non anti-Catholic. It is anti extreme forms of religion. At that time the church in Spain, or Philip had said that they were going to turn the whole world into a very pure form of Catholicism. So it’s not anti-Catholic. It’s anti an interpretation of the word of God that is singular, as against what Elizabeth’s was, which was to look upon her faith as concomitant.’ ‘The fact is that the Pope ordered her execution; he said that anybody who executes or assassinates Elizabeth would find a beautiful place in the kingdom of heaven. Where else have you heard these words about Salman Khan or Salman Rushdie? That’s why I made this film, so this idea of a rift between Catholicism and Protestants does not arise. My interpretation of Elizabeth is an interpretation of greater tolerance and Philip, which is absolutely true. It’s completely true that she had this kind of feminine energy. It’s a conflict between Philip, who had no ability to encompass diversity or contradiction, and Elizabeth who had the feminine ability to do that.’

Kapur extended this pluralist defence to his own approach: ‘I would describe all history as fiction and interpretation … Ask any Catholic and they’ll give you a totally different aspect of history … History has always been an interpretation … I do believe that civilizations that don’t learn from history are civilizations that are doomed to make the same mistakes again and again, which is why this film starts with the idea of fundamentalism against tolerance. It’s not Catholic against Protestant; it’s a very fundamental form of Catholicism. It was the time of the Spanish Inquisition and against a woman whose half of her population was Protestant, half was Catholic. And there were enough bigots in her Protestant Parliament to say, “Just kill them all,” and she was constantly saying no. She was constantly on the side of tolerance. So you interpret history to tell the story that is relevant to us now.’

Anyone care to rebut? He asserts some things opposite to what others have said…

*I don’t mean to discriminate, but being a “neutral party”, that probably makes him more susceptible to swallowing/propagating biased spins on the truth. The writers should take much of the heat.

 

[PetersKeys]

did anything think the movie, Elzabeth the Golden age was anti-catholic? It seemed the portray the evil “Catholic Spain” and its king as sinister and evil. And that Catholics were nothing but people who commited treason behind their queen. That portrayal of that priest who wanted Elizabeth dead had very anti undertones. What do others think when they watched this movie?

youtube.com/watch?v=A_VTDexvybM&feature=related

 

[deb1]

I haven’t watched the movie yet. Sorry for my stupidity when it comes to history but didn’t some of the Spanish try to land on Ireland’s shore under the mistaken belief that there fellow Catholics would assist them. Did the movie depict this at all?

 

[PetersKeys]

I haven’t watched the movie yet. Sorry for my stupidity when it comes to history but didn’t some of the Spanish try to land on Ireland’s shore under the mistaken belief that there fellow Catholics would assist them. Did the movie depict this at all?

no, its only about elizabeths problems with Catholic Spain and Catholic assasins.

 

[Kaninchen]

did anything think the movie, Elzabeth the Golden age was anti-catholic? It seemed the portray the evil “Catholic Spain” and its king as sinister and evil. And that Catholics were nothing but people who commited treason behind their queen. That portrayal of that priest who wanted Elizabeth dead had very anti undertones. What do others think when they watched this movie?

youtube.com/watch?v=A_VTDexvybM&feature=related

Exactly how would you have liked it to have been handled? The ‘Evil Protestant Bastard Daughter Of Henry And A Witch’ against ‘Holy Catholic Truth Embodied in Philip II’?

‘Elizabeth’ and the ‘Elizabethan Age’ are part of England’s ‘Foundation Myth’ (which can be all sorts of mixtures of lies and/or glamorized truths), the beginning of England’s rise from obscurity towards becoming a world power - a crucial part of which was the struggle with Spain.

Given the Papal Bull “Regnans in Excelsis” Catholics were inevitably going to been seen as the bad guys.

(If you’re wondering about my prejudices - I’m Jewish and my ancestors were in Germany and Italy at the time)

 

[gam197]

I thought the movie was very anti-Catholic but then I am used to anti-Catholic history in the USA. The protestants have always had their own spin on history and used propaganda against the Catholics.
As I graduated from a protestant public school system, it has been pretty obvious to me that Catholics history was rejected.

Protestant America likes to tell its history from its protestant heritage and that means Catholics are evil.

 

[AnthonyM2]

I heard Steven Greydanus give the movie a review on Catholic Answers radio program and he said it was extremely anti-Catholic. Here’s a link to his written review on his website, Decentfilms.com.

 

[deb1]

Exactly how would you have liked it to have been handled? The ‘Evil Protestant Bastard Daughter Of Henry And A Witch’ against ‘Holy Catholic Truth Embodied in Philip II’?

‘Elizabeth’ and the ‘Elizabethan Age’ are part of England’s ‘Foundation Myth’ (which can be all sorts of mixtures of lies and/or glamorized truths), the beginning of England’s rise from obscurity towards becoming a world power - a crucial part of which was the struggle with Spain.

Given the Papal Bull “Regnans in Excelsis” Catholics were inevitably going to been seen as the bad guys.

(If you’re wondering about my prejudices - I’m Jewish and my ancestors were in Germany and Italy at the time)

Until I read your words in parenthesis I didn’t think that you were being prejudice but was only adding information to the discussion.

Anyway, am I mistaken or did I read somewhere that the Irish wouldn’t allow the Spanish on their shores because they considered themselves subjects of Britain. Wouldn’t that make the Irish partly responsible for British victory? Again, forgive my stupidity in this manner.

 

[Kaninchen]

Until I read your words in parenthesis I didn’t think that you were being prejudice but was only adding information to the discussion.

I was just trying to avoid getting shot at by either side.

Anyway, am I mistaken or did I read somewhere that the Irish wouldn’t allow the Spanish on their shores because they considered themselves subjects of Britain. Wouldn’t that make the Irish partly responsible for British victory? Again, forgive my stupidity in this manner.

I think it would be ‘English’ (Scotland was a separate country with a different monarch), as far as I’m aware there was no concept of ‘British’ until much, much later.

I don’t know much about the history of the islands, I’m afraid, just what I’ve picked up from documentaries over the years but I’ve always been under the impression that the Spanish were merely wrecked there. At the time, there wasn’t an ‘Ireland’, just a collection of feuding warlords in on/off bad relationships with the English.

 

[Kaninchen]

Given the fact that the Catholic Church wanted Elizabeth deposed, how exactly would critics of the film have wanted it handled, in the interests of historical truth.

 

[gam197]

Sorry, I didn’t see this new movie. I saw the last movie and it was the same, about glorious Elizabeth.

originally posted by deb1
Anyway, am I mistaken or did I read somewhere that the Irish wouldn’t allow the Spanish on their shores because they considered themselves subjects of Britain. Wouldn’t that make the Irish partly responsible for British victory? Again, forgive my stupidity in this manner.

That is a good question.

originally posted by Kaninchen
Given the fact that the Catholic Church wanted Elizabeth deposed, how exactly would critics of the film have wanted it handled, in the interests of historical truth.

I would tell it from historical truth. She was not the rightful heir to the throne. She was a **brutal **leader and had more people beheaded. When King Phillip borrowed a very large sum of money from another country to fight the war in the Netherlands, Elizabeth intercepted the gold and never returned it. Her beloved Sir Francis Drake was a pirate and slave trader.

Even the Guy Fawkes plot has a number of inconsistencies. The English still celebrate November 5th with bonfires.

 

[Kaninchen]

I would tell it from historical truth. She was not the rightful heir to the throne. She was a **brutal **leader and had more people beheaded. When King Phillip borrowed a very large sum of money from another country to fight the war in the Netherlands, Elizabeth intercepted the gold and never returned it. Her beloved Sir Francis Drake was a pirate and slave trader.

In what ways was she more brutal, I wonder, than most leaders of the time? Were the English privateers doing more than stealing money that the Spanish had stolen from South America? Perhaps we need the whole truth and nothing but the truth - including the Spanish in the Netherlands.

One thing that has always struck me was just how clever Elizabeth was at finding a balance - pre-Tudor England was one long civil war - between extremists on all sides. Perhaps the popularity of Elizabeth was that it was a long era of relative civil peace between eras of civil strife? What would England have been like with militant protestants in charge? Would a Catholic monarch have merely seen the Civil War of the 17th century brought forward - do you believe that the English were going to meekly rejoin the Catholic fold?

I saw a documentary movie on how the Irish had a few skirmishes at their forts during one of their fights for independence. The British used the printing press to print and then they distributed copies all over Europe on how Ireland had killed so many English and how barbarian the Irish were.

The English had a monopoly on propaganda and exaggeration, I suppose?

Even the Guy Fawkes plot has a number of inconsistencies. The English still celebrate November 5th with bonfires.

Indeed they (‘we’ since I live in the UK currently) do.

 

[kimaz]

Anyway, am I mistaken or did I read somewhere that the Irish wouldn’t allow the Spanish on their shores because they considered themselves subjects of Britain. Wouldn’t that make the Irish partly responsible for British victory? Again, forgive my stupidity in this manner.

If I remember what I have read correctly, the Spanish were forced to land in Ireland because of bad weather and the English Crown representatvies in Ireland (bad guys) ordered any Spaniard found captured and executed as well as any Irish Catholic who attempted to help them. In the aftermath the English increased their presence in Ireland and, well, we know where they went from there.

Regarding the movie Elizabeth the Golden Age: as an American of Irish descent and a Catholic there is no way I could see that movie without getting very, very angry.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Kaninchen
One thing that has always struck me was just how clever Elizabeth was at finding a balance

Can we first agree that she wasn’t the rightful heir to the throne? She was simply one of Henry’s many illegitimate children.

originally posted by Kaninchen
In what ways was she more brutal, I wonder, than most leaders of the time?

Elizabeth martyred 189 in England but was responsible for the death of many in Ireland. The penal laws were put in place to annihilate the Irish.

She was totally anti-Catholic. She forbade the elevation of the Host during the consecration at her coronation ceremony. She struck the Pope from the list of sovereigns to be notified of her accession to the throne. She restored the Act of Supremacy and the book of Common Prayer. She removed Catholic bishops, threw them in jail to rot and replaced them.

The Pope excommunicated her as a heretic.

 

[deb1]

I think it would be ‘English’ (Scotland was a separate country with a different monarch), as far as I’m aware there was no concept of ‘British’ until much, much later.

YOu just gave me a doh moment ala Homer Simpson. That is right Britain didn’t exist yet, did it?

 

[LilyM]

Can we first agree that she wasn’t the rightful heir to the throne? She was simply one of Henry’s many illegitimate children.

Illegitimate she was, but she was the one the English WANTED as their Queen, for the most part, and if majority public support is enough to make a rightful President, then why not a rightful Queen? Illegitimate or no? Why should a foreigner be thrust upon them against their will because of a mere accident of Elizabeth’s birth?

They certainly weren’t happy with a return to Catholicism or an alliance with Spain, both of which occurred under her sister Mary, who executed more people in her mere handful of years on the throne (over 300 if memory serves) than Elizabeth did in her forty-five years of rule. And the English don’t appear to have wanted Mary Queen of Scots or any other Catholic monarch either.

It’s simply a repeat of the previous century where they (for the most part) wanted her grandfather Henry VII instead of Richard III, who they hated, and so took him as their King when he defeated Richard instead of executing him as a regicide. Henry didn’t have a genuine claim by birth, he simply won the throne by force of arms and then stayed on it through the support of the majority of his people. So-called ‘hereditary’ monarchy hasn’t always been so cut-and-dried, y’know.

Yes she was anti-Catholic, after Mary’s disastrous reign so was the majority of her people. The US has undoubtedly had more than a few anti-Catholics as President in addition to its singular Catholic President, does that somehow make them not rightful Presidents?

 

[Kaninchen]

Can we first agree that she wasn’t the rightful heir to the throne? She was simply one of Henry’s many illegitimate children.

Some people would say that, since Richard III was wrongfully deposed . . .

According to the Act of Settlement passed by Parliament - which restored Mary as heir with Elizabeth succeeding if Mary was childless - she was heir according to English law. Why would she need any other ‘legitimacy’?

The penal laws were put in place to annihilate the Irish.

Please explain.

She was totally anti-Catholic. She forbade the elevation of the Host during the consecration at her coronation ceremony.

I didn’t ask anybody to elevate a host at my wedding - since I’m Jewish - why would Elizabeth want a Catholic ceremony?

She struck the Pope from the list of sovereigns to be notified of her accession to the throne.

Shocking!

She restored the Act of Supremacy and the book of Common Prayer. She removed Catholic bishops, threw them in jail to rot and replaced them.

Unlike her sister who kept all of the previous incumbents, I suppose?

The Pope excommunicated her as a heretic.

Always a good way to win friends and influence people, I expect.