Queen Elizabeth I

[Psalm45_9]

Roche42:

PS-It didn’t hurt Elizabeth that she followed a radically liberal Protestant (Edward)

King Edward was a little boy when he became Kyng (yes, that’s how they spelt it). He was basically a puppet on strings and the radical reformers took over. Edward died as a boy too, then “Bloody Mary,” his older half sister, took the throne.

 

[Roche42]

Psalm45:9:

King Edward was a little boy when he became Kyng (yes, that’s how they spelt it). He was basically a puppet on strings and the radical reformers took over. Edward died as a boy too, then “Bloody Mary,” his older half sister, took the throne.

I’m not so sure he was a puppet. Was he manipulated by some of his supporters, certainly, but that happened with adult kings as well. The fact that he was raised at the instructions of the Seymour’s means his reign opened the door for people like Cramner, who had to be reappointed as executors by Edward. All I was saying that by having Edward and then Mary reign before her, Elizabeth looked like a monarch supporting the middle, average-Joe opinions about religion. While Elizabeth was more conservative than Edward, she was far more radical than the common person.

 

[catsrus]

I saw and own the movie “Elizabeth” with Cate Blanchett in the title role. Not for any historical value, because there is little, but for the beauty of the sets and acting. Another good one, for the same reasons only, is “Anne of the Thousand Days”, circa 1969 with Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold.
The PBS series “Elizabeth I” with Glenda Jackson in the title role (1971) was very good and pretty accurate and Jackson is a joy to watch.
None of the movies made of this period are historically accurate though. On the subject of Elizabeth I, I recommend Mary Luke’s 2 volume set of “Gloriana”. It is a very in depth telling of the entire life of Elizabeth I.

 

[Celia]

catsrus:

I saw and own the movie “Elizabeth” with Cate Blanchett in the title role. Not for any historical value, because there is little, but for the beauty of the sets and acting. Another good one, for the same reasons only, is “Anne of the Thousand Days”, circa 1969 with Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold.
The PBS series “Elizabeth I” with Glenda Jackson in the title role (1971) was very good and pretty accurate and Jackson is a joy to watch.
None of the movies made of this period are historically accurate though. On the subject of Elizabeth I, I recommend Mary Luke’s 2 volume set of “Gloriana”. It is a very in depth telling of the entire life of Elizabeth I.

I have that Glenda Jackson series on DVD. I thought it was pretty good too, and much more accurate than the recent one.
I’ve always wanted to see “Anne of the Thousand Days”, too…
Recently PBS did a series on Henry VII. I taped it. It wasn’t bad. The actors looked pretty similar to what I had always pictured them to be.

 

[adstrinity]

I have nothing to add on Liz here, save I don’t like her, but, concerning the nursery rhymes:

snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.htm

…I’m doubting the explinations for the others as well as they fail to make coherent sense.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Roche42:

I’m not so sure he was a puppet. Was he manipulated by some of his supporters, certainly, but that happened with adult kings as well. The fact that he was raised at the instructions of the Seymour’s means his reign opened the door for people like Cramner, who had to be reappointed as executors by Edward. All I was saying that by having Edward and then Mary reign before her, Elizabeth looked like a monarch supporting the middle, average-Joe opinions about religion. While Elizabeth was more conservative than Edward, she was far more radical than the common person.

Edward VI was unmistakably a Protestant - but not enough, for some. Which is why a few of those who would later be burned under Mary were imprisoned for not wearing “Popish” vestments.​

If he had lived, I think he would have been as jealous for his royal authority as his father or his sisters. ##

 

[Roche42]

## Edward VI was unmistakably a Protestant - but not enough, for some. Which is why a few of those who would later be burned under Mary were imprisoned for not wearing “Popish” vestments.

If he had lived, I think he would have been as jealous for his royal authority as his father or his sisters. ##

Point taken, but I feel as though a lot of his more “conservative views” were more of an effort to squelch congregationalism and keep some degree of religious power for the monarchy–as you said, much like his father and half-sisters. However, by far his greatest opposition came from the more pseudo-Catholic side of the nobility. The reason I believe he enjoyed some degree of autonomy despite the fact that he was so young was due to the tremendous amount of political and economic strife going on at the time, he had choices as far as which bishops and nobles he could align himself with and in some instances probably weakened his government by choosing more radical allies.

Introducing so many of Cramners ideas (which became more and more liberally protestant under Edward), the revised Book of Common Prayer, trashing of transubstantiation, and trashing of religious artifacts because of some misled supposition that he was the heir apparent to some ancient Hebrew boy-king could certainly not be described as political tools, only the work of a maniacal religious radical. The Elizabethan settlement was far more Catholic in nature and her personal belief in transubstatiation along with other Catholic dogma led to the persecution of many Edwardian clerics that escaped the iron fist of Mary Tudor.

In an effort to villify Elizabeth, I think its important to look at the plate Edward and Mary foisted upon her. Don’t get me wrong, she was a heretic and her contribution to history is, in my opinion, a negative one–but for a different reason than Edward. Elizabeth was wrong because she sacrificed religion to the politics of radical factions of nobility, Edward was wrong because he sacrificed good politics and true religion for his own crazy dillusional beliefs.

Good discussion!

 

[frdave20]

i would like to pose this question, since it bounces off of the original question concerning authorizing an assassination by the Church… what about burning at the stake? of course, this was a civil penalty, but it met with the Church’s blessing – we have a few examples to choose from; the most obvious would be St Joan of Arc.

Anyway, I have a friend who argues that burning at the stake was a humane method execution. It not only enabled the victim to die via suffocation, smoke inhalation – but it also, prevented the spread of future error amongst the community, thereby preventing even further damage to the souls of the faithful. in light of this theoretical defense of execution, maybe - if the Church did authorize the assassination of Elizabeth I, this was the mindset.
I dont know the answer, but then again, i am in the 2005, not the 16th century.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

## Elizabeth I executed for treason many who were indeed traitors - unfortunately she was not able to execute Father Robert Persons S.J., though he undoubtedly deserved it, unlike St.Edmund Campion.

The Babington Plot (1586), the Ridolfi Plot (1571), the Rising in the North (1569), were all treasons by any reasonable interpretation of the law, and were punished as such. Any ruler would have done the same, in any country, before and after. Popes have no business to seek to destabilise rulers they do not like - both Pius V and Gregory XIII did exactly this. Gregory XIII, according to Father Hughes, seriously contemplated assassination. As Pius V wanted Charles IX of France to exterminate heretics, it would not surprise me if he too favoured having her killed.

England was constantly threatened by traitors, Protestant & Catholic, from within; could not count on being safe on her Northern border, because of the Scottish alliance with France; & Ireland was a back door to England, and a convenient point for Papal expeditions, as the Papacy claimed that Ireland was a papal fief. Across the Channel there was France; Spain to the South; and the Holy Roman Empire on the east. The queen would not have lasted long, if she had not been resolute and vigorous in punishing treason: especially after 1570, when Pius V made every Catholic in England a potential traitor.

The charge of treason was by no means generic - as a reading of Father Philip Hughes should show. ##

Peace be with you!

I didn’t say that everyone executed for treason wasn’t treasonous. I said that at this point in history, as my professor told us (who holds a PHD and is an Episcopal priest, has also published a book on the English reformation) treason was the charge used to get rid of anyone you didn’t like. In fact, Christopher Haigh argues that either Elizabeth didn’t really believe many of these people were commiting treason and if she did, she was naive and being decieved by her advisors.
And Elizabeth was not a good person. She supported genocide in Ireland and Scotland and even took away land from Irish (and old English) landowners simply because they were Catholic. I wish Elizabeth had been overthrown…she was not a good person unless you are a Protestant reading English historical accounts. If you read an Irish account of her reign you will get a completely different perspective, and I have read accounts by both English and Irish historians.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[gap51]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

I didn’t say that everyone executed for treason wasn’t treasonous. I said that at this point in history, as my professor told us (who holds a PHD and is an Episcopal priest, has also published a book on the English reformation) treason was the charge used to get rid of anyone you didn’t like. In fact, Christopher Haigh argues that either Elizabeth didn’t really believe many of these people were commiting treason and if she did, she was naive and being decieved by her advisors.
And Elizabeth was not a good person. She supported genocide in Ireland and Scotland and even took away land from Irish (and old English) landowners simply because they were Catholic. I wish Elizabeth had been overthrown…she was not a good person unless you are a Protestant reading English historical accounts. If you read an Irish account of her reign you will get a completely different perspective, and I have read accounts by both English and Irish historians.

In Christ,
Rand

Elizabeth visited Edmund Campion after his capture & tried personally herself to get him to apostacise his catholic faith. She would not have done so if she was sure that he was a traitor. Some Scots think that the current queen should really be called Queen Elizabeth I because Mary Queen of Scots was the legal heir to the throne not Elizabeth.

 

[catsrus]

Some Scots think that the current queen should really be called Queen Elizabeth I because Mary Queen of Scots was the legal heir to the throne not Elizabeth.

Now that is really interesting. Scotland was mostly protestant by the time Mary returned in her teens to reclaim the throne. John Knox specifically ranted against her Catholicism in Kirks all over the land while she was still sitting on the throne. After her less than stellar behavior as queen and escape to England, she was denied as queen by her own people. (the Scots). No Scot would help her, including her own son.
Had Mary been queen in England instead of Elizabeth, the course of European history would be drastically different.
Interesting to ponder, no?

 

[Psalm45_9]

Roche42:

In an effort to villify Elizabeth, I think its important to look at the plate Edward and Mary foisted upon her. Don’t get me wrong, she was a heretic and her contribution to history is, in my opinion, a negative one–but for a different reason than Edward. Elizabeth was wrong because she sacrificed religion to the politics of radical factions of nobility, Edward was wrong because he sacrificed good politics and true religion for his own crazy dillusional beliefs.

:crying:

 

[Roche42]

[/quote]

You’re right, its sad that she ever ascended to the throne, we might’ve been able to stomp heresy out at the source if it weren’t for that sad period of history. Her contribution to the world was a Christendom divided. Oh well.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Roche42:

You’re right, its sad that she ever ascended to the throne, we might’ve been able to stomp heresy out at the source if it weren’t for that sad period of history. Her contribution to the world was a Christendom divided. Oh well.

What I thought was even more sad is that she put her own salvation on line for the sake of politics. Ummm… Judas???