MOVIE: "Elizabeth: Golden Age"

[gam197]

originally posted by LilyM
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?

originally posted by Kaninchen
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’?

This was a Protestant parliament who would influence the people. The monarchy in not like the presidency. You do not get to pick who is a monarch. There is a line of succession from biological birth order. She was simply an illegitimate child. Many of the monarchs had illegitimate children but they had no right to any line of succession. I don’t care who the English wanted and who they nominated. Elizabeth I was an imposter.

oiginally posted by LilyM
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.

According to some internet sites, during the reformation Richard III bones were dug up and thrown into the River Soar so it doesn’t sound like the protestants liked him.Or is he buried under a car?

Richard III had no legitimate heirs so it does get corrupt here. Still there is a legitimate bloodline with Henry VII.

originally posted **by LilyM
**
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.

Propaganda books like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs counts 273. The truth is that 169 of these “martyrs” were listed only by name and most likely criminals who would have executed no matter what. That leaves 104 who were likely protestants trying to keep the rightful heir off the throne. Is that not treason?

Again it does not matter who the protestant leader wanted. Mary Queen of Scots was the rightful heir to the throne.Elizabeth had her executed.

 

[Kaninchen]

This was a Protestant parliament who would influence the people.

‘The people’ were not just sitting around waiting to be ‘influenced’.

The monarchy in not like the presidency. You do not get to pick who is a monarch. There is a line of succession from biological birth order.

I wondered about the difference between the republics I’ve lived in and the monarchy I live in, now I know.

She was simply an illegitimate child. Many of the monarchs had illegitimate children but they had no right to any line of succession. I don’t care who the English wanted and who they nominated. Elizabeth I was an imposter.

That’s the kind of thinking that was to lead to the ultimate break, of course, a little less of it and English Catholics (and, indeed, not just English Catholics) might have had a much less difficult time over the next few hundred years.

The English and their Queen were not going to Canossa, those days were over.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Kaninchen
‘The people’ were not just sitting around waiting to be ‘influenced’.

The reformation was over. The protestants had strong political power.

She was an illegitimate child but one that suited the protestant rebellion. It was Henry VIII, her mother and her birth which caused the split from the Church. Why is this so hard to accept?

 

[Kaninchen]

The reformation was over. The protestants had strong political power.

She was an illegitimate child but one that suited the protestant rebellion. It was Henry VIII, her mother and her birth which caused the split from the Church. Why is this so hard to accept?

It’s hardly a matter for me to be bothered either way, I’m just saying that, had there been a less hard-line Pope elected, English Catholics might have had an easier time of it.

After Elizabeth’s death, of course, the succession went to somebody you would see as a legitimate heir by birth (Mary of Scotland’s Protestant son, James). Soon, of course, the English Parliament was to spectacularly begin the process of putting monarchs in their place - there, not by the will of God, not by primogeniture where that might be inconvenient, but by the will of Parliament.

 

[LilyM]

This was a Protestant parliament who would influence the people. The monarchy in not like the presidency. You do not get to pick who is a monarch. There is a line of succession from biological birth order. She was simply an illegitimate child. Many of the monarchs had illegitimate children but they had no right to any line of succession. I don’t care who the English wanted and who they nominated. Elizabeth I was an imposter.

Try telling that to her esteemed ancestor William I (otherwise known as the Conqueror) - he was definitely illegitimate, and won both his father’s dukedom of Normandy and the kingdom of England merely by success in arms - and I can assure you no one really wanted him in preference to his legitimate brothers and the existing Kings of England!

Monarchy never has been as cut-and-dried a matter of succession as you seem to think. Look at the Wars of the Roses that preceded the Tudor dynasty, and Richard III’s usurpation of the throne of his nephews. The last, prior to Elizabeth, in a series of numerous usurpations throughout English history. Very little smooth hereditary succession, to be sure.

According to some internet sites, during the reformation Richard III bones were dug up and thrown into the River Soar so it doesn’t sound like the protestants liked him.Or is he buried under a car?

Of course they didn’t like Richard III, who most likely murdered his nephews to gain the throne. Their Catholic fathers and grandfathers liked Richard no better in his own time. Which is why Henry VII found it so easy to gain the throne and why he wasn’t executed for his killing of Richard, which otherwise would be regicide.

Richard III had no legitimate heirs so it does get corrupt here. Still there is a legitimate bloodline with Henry VII.

Hogwash. There were at least a few people in England in Henry VII’s time with better claims to the throne and better bloodlines than he had. He took and kept the throne by skill at arms and skill in politics, not by any right.

One of these alternative heirs, Edward Courtenay, the last Plantagenet, survived, although imprisoned in the tower most of his life, right up until the time of Henry VII’s granddaughter Mary I. The reason he was imprisoned is because he was a real and legitimate threat to the Tudors’ right to the throne.

Hence Henry VII’s bright idea of marrying the last York heiress, Elizabeth daughter of Edward IV, so that their children at least would combine Plantagenet (York) and Lancaster blood and unite, to an extent, the two factions.

Again it does not matter who the protestant leader wanted. Mary Queen of Scots was the rightful heir to the throne.Elizabeth had her executed.

You ever tried being Queen of a people who doesn’t want you? Of course who the PEOPLE want (not merely their leaders - most everyone wanted Elizabeth) matters.

The people of England would’ve deposed Mary every bit as quickly as the people of Scotland did when she tried to rule there. She was hopeless as a ruler and moreover a detestable woman who allowed her lover Bothwell to murder her husband Darnley so that she could marry him. Elizabeth, for her many faults, wasn’t a complete gibbering idiot as Mary appears to have been.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Kaninchen
After Elizabeth’s death, of course, the succession went to somebody you would see as a legitimate heir by birth (Mary of Scotland’s Protestant son, James). Soon, of course, the English Parliament was to spectacularly begin the process of putting monarchs in their place -** there, not by the will of God, not by primogeniture where that might be inconvenient, but by the will of Parliament.**

So true.

originally posted by LilyM
Monarchy never has been as cut-and-dried a matter of succession as you seem to think. Look at the Wars of the Roses that preceded the Tudor dynasty, and** Richard III’s usurpation of the throne of his nephews.**

This usurpation was common. The heirs would plot and poison each other but that is still not the same as Elizabeth.

During these times the protestant parliament were gaining more power. They helped choose Elizabeth I. She was illegitimate imposter but they wanted to show it didn’t matter. The remaining authority of the Pope had to crushed.

Granted James son of Mary of Scots was allowed to gain power. People probably were not too happy to see the rightful Queen Mary executed. Her son James had been taken from Mary and raised as a protestant. James was more tolerant of Catholics but that when we get into Guy Fawkes and the inconsistencies. Catholic Guy and others were accused ot trying to blow up James I and parliament. King James I grew more anti-Catholic.

Next to the throne was James’ son Charles I. Protestant Cromwell and his parliament had a great deal of control. After a 4 year reign, Charles I was murdered as as tyrant. His son Charles II, a Stuart. took the throne. He again was raised protestant though his mother was French Catholic and he married a Catholic Portuguese princess. Another sketchy event is the Oates plot where the Queen was accused or trying to poison her husband, Charles II. No children were born so Charles II reigned 25 years. His brother James was heir to the throne but again James had entered the Catholic church and so Parliament passed the Test Act, which require every office holder to take public communion in the Anglican Church.

Prior to this knowing that his brother James II would be next in line, Charles II gave into a compromise. James only two surviving children, Anne and Mary had to be raised as protestants and married to protestant princes.

A twist of events with the death of his first wife, King James II married an Catholic Italian princess and she bore a son that would live to adulthood, marry and bear children. Only on the throne 3 years, the protestants saw to it that King James II as well as the rightful heir were exiled. Protestant Mary and protestant William of Orange would be granted the throne.

 

[Kaninchen]

A twist of events with the death of his first wife, King James II married an Catholic Italian princess and she bore a son that would live to adulthood, marry and bear children. Only on the throne 3 years, the protestants saw to it that King James II as well as the rightful heir were exiled. Protestant Mary and protestant William of Orange would be granted the throne.

I’m going to pass over the ‘potted’ history of England - which does read rather like a “History of The United States” based on a baseball fan’s collection of statistics (thus missing out on everything else that has happened) but . . . .

This ‘the protestants’ thing that comes up throughout your discourse rather suggests that you picture England as being a clique of Protestants manipulating everything over the heads of the Catholic masses (masses meaning ‘lots of people’, here). You’re severely - fatally - mistaken in your arguments because of this error.

Not only that . . . the history of England during this period cannot be thought of as some kind of BBC costume drama where things happen at the whim of the characters. It’s really about the rise of the first ‘modern’ country (along with the Netherlands, I guess) new wealth, new classes, new class rivalries - expressed very clearly but not only in the emergence of ‘Parliament’ as a central force and rival to royal power, without money there could be no government, without Parliament, there could be no money - with the provider of money becoming more and more demanding in knowing just how it is being spent.

It’s this divergence from the European ‘norm’ that brings about the two Stuart crises of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution - ‘religion’ was an excuse not a reason.

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by Kaninchen**
It’s this divergence from the European ‘norm’ that brings about the two Stuart crises of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution - ‘religion’ was an excuse not a reason.

Religion cannot be taken out of history. With your theory, today we would say abortion and safe sex has nothing to do with religion, a decline of morals and influx of liberalism. Abortion is about economics, the cost of wars, and the price of oil. It is not about Planned Parenthood and an agenda.

There were changes in classes, economics but a strong protestant English Parliament greatly influenced who would be Queen,what values she would promote and what laws would be put in place.

originally posted by gam197
The penal code laws were put in to annihilate the Irish.

originally posted by Kaninchen
Please explain

.

Catholic Irish were forbidden to practice their religion, to receive an education, to hold public office, to engage in business, to purchase land or inherit land. They could not ear a profit from land or rent land worth more than 30 shillings a year.

Forced abject poverty by a tyrant England was an effort to annihilate a race of people. Would you like to know about the Irish slave trade or the potato famine?

 

[Kaninchen]

Religion cannot be taken out of history. With your theory, today we would say abortion and safe sex has nothing to do with religion, a decline of morals and influx of liberalism. Abortion is about economics, the cost of wars, and the price of oil. It is not about Planned Parenthood and an agenda.

Is there supposed to be a point in there somewhere - or would you like to drift off on the subject of gays or some other Catholic hobbyhorse for a while?

There were changes in classes, economics but a strong protestant English Parliament greatly influenced who would be Queen,what values she would promote and what laws would be put in place.

In the 16th or 17th century - which are you talking about?

Forced abject poverty by a tyrant England was an effort to annihilate a race of people. Would you like to know about the Irish slave trade or the potato famine?

I just can’t wait for your analysis of the famine.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Kaninchen
Is there supposed to be a point in there somewhere - or would you like to drift off on the subject of gays or some other Catholic hobbyhorse for a while?

In the 16th or 17th century - which are you talking about?

The 16th and 17th century is only 400 years ago… The printing press was here. Propaganda was flowing. The Irish were not persecuted. There was no penal laws, Oliver Cromwell, Irish slave trade or potatoe famine.

Since you can’t acknowledge Irish Catholic history or would like to put your own spin on it, I will bow out.

 

[Kaninchen]

We realized you were confused.

The 16th and 17th century is only 400 years ago… The printing press was here. Propaganda was flowing. The Irish were not persecuted. There was no penal laws, Oliver Cromwell, Irish slave trade or potatoe famine.

The thing is that I was under the impression that you understood that, where somebody quoted something and then made a response to it, the response referred to the quote. Thus, you’d said:

There were changes in classes, economics but a strong protestant English Parliament greatly influenced who would be Queen,what values she would promote and what laws would be put in place.

And I asked you whether you were talking about ‘Queen, what values . . . in place’ in the 16th or 17th Centuries (there was a considerable difference between the two - ie 16th Elizabeth I and 17th century Mary, daughter of James II).

Quite what your last response was supposed to be about, I can’t imagine.

Since you can’t acknowledge Irish Catholic history or would like to put your own spin on it, I will bow out.

Oh dear, just when I’d been looking forward to your discourse on the Famine.

 

[LilyM]

People probably were not too happy to see the rightful Queen Mary executed.

excuse me for a moment … … aaah, that’s better.

Now down to real history. Of course everyone mourned Mary’s execution - that’s why nary a single Scot nor anyone else who actually personally knew her lifted a fingernail either to attempt to rescue her during her seventeen years of imprisonment in England nor to save her from execution by Elizabeth. Not even her own loving son, not the loving half-brother who was regent while James was a child. Only romantic and deluded English sympathisers and foreign rulers none of whom had ever met the woman.

After her death, of course, Philip II of Spain did come after Elizabeth with the Armada. Purely because he had reasons of his own to dislike Elizabeth, whose privateers were regularly nicking off with Spain’s treasure which they worked so hard to plunder from the poor native South Americans.

Again, not a finger lifted while Mary was alive. So even Philip was only using Mary’s death as a pretext and not because he actually gave a stuff about her. But then a Queen who is so miserable that her own subjects throw her off the throne - in favour of a baby no less, so eager are they to be rid of her - would hardly be worth giving a stuff about.

 

[deb1]

excuse me for a moment … … aaah, that’s better.

Now down to real history. Of course everyone mourned Mary’s execution - that’s why nary a single Scot nor anyone else who actually personally knew her lifted a fingernail either to attempt to rescue her during her seventeen years of imprisonment in England nor to save her from execution by Elizabeth. Not even her own loving son, not the loving half-brother who was regent while James was a child. Only romantic and deluded English sympathisers and foreign rulers none of whom had ever met the woman.

After her death, of course, Philip II of Spain did come after Elizabeth with the Armada. Purely because he had reasons of his own to dislike Elizabeth, whose privateers were regularly nicking off with Spain’s treasure which they worked so hard to plunder from the poor native South Americans.

Again, not a finger lifted while Mary was alive. So even Philip was only using Mary’s death as a pretext and not because he actually gave a stuff about her. But then a Queen who is so miserable that her own subjects throw her off the throne - in favour of a baby no less, so eager are they to be rid of her - would hardly be worth giving a stuff about.

I’ve always felt a little sorry for Mary, she seemed to be ruled by her heart more then her head. Of course this would make a terrible leader, so its hard to blame the populance for not wanting her as a queen.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Kaninchen
Oh dear, just when I’d been looking forward to your discourse on the Famine.

Nasty!

originally posted by LilyM
Now down to real history. Of course everyone mourned Mary’s execution - that’s why nary a single Scot nor anyone else who actually personally knew her lifted a fingernail either to attempt to rescue her during her seventeen years of imprisonment in England nor to save her from execution by Elizabeth. Not even her own loving son, not the loving half-brother who was regent while James was a child. Only romantic and deluded English sympathisers and foreign rulers none of whom had ever met the woman.

Mary did rule with her heart which was helped in her downfall but to replace her with an imposter Queen seems a bit calculated. Mary’s own son was being raised as a protestant instilled with hatred for Catholics.

The protestant parliament leadership wanted the Catholic Church crushed.

Thomas More did not lose his life because he committed treason. He lost it simply because he was Catholic.

Phillip II of Spain had his own problems. He was fighting the war in the Netherlands against William of Orange as the protestants rampaged the Catholic Churches destroying them.

 

[LilyM]

I’ve always felt a little sorry for Mary, she seemed to be ruled by her heart more then her head. Of course this would make a terrible leader, so its hard to blame the populance for not wanting her as a queen.

She at the very least winked both eyes at the murder of her husband (Darnley) so that her lover (Bothwell) could take his place.

She very conveniently she left the house (Kirk o’ Field) where she had been staying with Darnley so that Bothwell could fill its basements with gunpowder and blow it and Darnley to smithereens.

She didn’t simply let her heart rule her head, she was cold-bloodedly complicit in murder and was an adulteress as well as complicit in adultery (Bothwell being married when they started their affair, it was adultery twice over). Hard for me to feel sorry for her.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by LilyM
She at the very least winked both eyes at the murder of her husband (Darnley) so that her lover (Bothwell) could take his place.

She very conveniently she left the house (Kirk o’ Field) where she had been staying with Darnley so that Bothwell could fill its basements with gunpowder and blow it and Darnley to smithereens.

She didn’t simply let her heart rule her head, she was cold-bloodedly complicit in murder and was an adulteress as well as complicit in adultery (Bothwell being married when they started their affair, it was adultery twice over). Hard for me to feel sorry for her.

Was Henry VIII milk toast yet he stayed on the throne?

From a Catholic history book…

Darnley, her husband, was favorable to the protestants and help plot against her. Her trusted advisor , David Rizzio was killed and she was imprisoned. Darnley did help her escape but James Bothwell, a loyal nobleman, was her main support.

Mary was not involved or indicted in the murder plot that killed Darnley. She did marry Bothwell but shortly after she was forced to abdicate her throne in favor of her new son, Bothwell fled to Denmark where he was captured and died in captivity.

Mary’s behavior was unacceptable in many ways. A great many of the English Kings had lovers and illegitimate children. Charles II had 13 mistresses and between 14 and 17 illegitimate children.

The whole truth will never be known.

 

[LilyM]

Was Henry VIII milk toast yet he stayed on the throne?

From a Catholic history book…

Darnley, her husband, was favorable to the protestants and help plot against her. Her trusted advisor , David Rizzio was killed and she was imprisoned. Darnley did help her escape but James Bothwell, a loyal nobleman, was her main support.

Mary was not involved or indicted in the murder plot that killed Darnley. She did marry Bothwell but shortly after she was forced to abdicate her throne in favor of her new son, Bothwell fled to Denmark where he was captured and died in captivity.

Mary’s behavior was unacceptable in many ways. A great many of the English Kings had lovers and illegitimate children. Charles II had 13 mistresses and between 14 and 17 illegitimate children.

The whole truth will never be known.

Several kings of England (most notably Edward II and Richard II) were indeed deposed from their thrones - some of the people of England tried to do the same to Henry VIII due to his viciousness, in the so-called ‘Pilgrimage of Grace’.

If they had succeeded I would have no more sympathy for him than I do for Mary, neither would he have had any more right to the throne of England or anywhere else than she had, since her rule was so bad and her people so clearly did NOT want her as Queen.

But the fact is they DIDN’T succeed in Henry’s case - he and his supporters defeated them and he retained the throne. Obviously support for him was stronger than dissent against him. More people still wanted him on the throne than off of it. Unlike Mary.

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by LilyM**
But the fact is they DIDN’T succeed in Henry’s case - he and his supporters defeated them and he retained the throne. Obviously support for him was stronger than dissent against him. More people still wanted him on the throne than off of it. Unlike Mary.

LilyM, Henry was an evil king in that he was having wives murdered but he had the support of the protestants and that made the difference whether he stayed on the throne or was booted off.

Mary behaved badly but because she was a Catholic she lost her legitimate right to the throne, was imprisoned and then executed. Her son was taken from her at 13 months and raised a protestant.

Charles II, a protestant, could have 13 mistresses and 14 to 17 illegitimate children and they turned a blind eye to it.

This whole period of English history was a period of protestant/Catholic war. The protestants won.

England lost.

 

[Maynoothman]

Thought this movie was awful, any redeeming features that the first one had were completely missing in this one.

Aside from the glaring anti-catholic bias and historical inaccuracies of the film (Do they think ANYONE thinks she was actually a virgin??) The filmography was over the top.

The numerous scenes where she was wearing white and it flowed around her serene and angelic face . . . .

The scene where the horse jumps off the ship in the ocean and makes it back to shore. . .

on the plus side Cate Blanchett remains a brilliant and talented actress though!

 

[LilyM]

a) Growing up with a lecher of a father like Elizabeth’s, and seeing multiple relatives die horribly in childbirth (including the dearly loved Katherine Parr) and the disaster of her sister’s marriage to Philip of Spain, would probably turn most any sane woman against sex and marriage for good!

b) Elizabeth wanted to keep and maintain sole control of England. She had to stay single and not be in any way beholden to any man. Even having an affair would make her weaker in this regard. I can believe she could keep her legs crossed for such a reason.

As the Scottish ambassador remarked to her ‘you will not suffer a commander. If you married you would be Queen, as it is you are King and Queen both!’

c) we believe, do we not, that Our Lady was a virgin her whole life in spite of being married? We also (I hope) believe that the majority of our Catholic nuns were and are virgins and remain so for their whole lives, do we not? If women can stay celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God then surely a woman could stay celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of England - especially a particularly proud, selfish and ambitious one like Elizabeth.

None of this is conclusive evidence, of course, but it is hardly impossible that she did in fact stay a virgin.