Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:40 pm

It is easy in the 21st century to conjure up the image of a powerful Tudor queen. For subjects of the second Queen Elizabeth, her namesake and predecessor is an iconic cultural presence who looms even larger in the English historical consciousness than her extraordinary father, Henry VIII. Herein lies a problem.

We know that England was ruled by kings until the second half of the 16th century, when the crown passed to two queens, one of whom was among the most successful and significant monarchs that England has ever had. But in the first half of the 16th century no one – not Henry VIII, not his children, not his ministers, not his people – had any inkling of what was to come. There was no twinkle in Elizabeth’s eye to alert her contemporaries to the unimaginable prospect that Gloriana was waiting in the wings. To understand the enormity of the challenges that confronted Henry VIII’s daughters, therefore, we have to work hard to free ourselves from the coiling embrace of hindsight.

For Henry VIII, as for his medieval forebears (not that the artificial boundary between ‘medieval’ and ‘early modern’ would have made any sense to contemporaries), the power of the crown was male. A king was required to preserve order within his kingdom by giving justice to his people and to ride into battle to defend its borders against external threat. Neither role was a job for a woman. A queen – a word derived from the Anglo-Saxon cwén, meaning the wife of a king, not his female counterpart – was called upon to represent a different facet of monarchy: bringing feminine prayers for mercy and peace to the masculine business of making law and war.

http://www.historytoday.com/helen-castor/elizabeth-i-exception-rule

by Original Quill Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:14 pm

What is the thesis? England broke away from Salic Law (only males can rule) in 1154, when the Crown was permitted to pass through the mother of Henry II, Matilda, daughter of Henry I.

The idea of an actual female sovereign lay dormant until Mary Tudur (Bloody Mary) in 1553. But the precedent had long been established by the pass through.

Not only did two female regents take the throne in England in the late 16th-century, but even before Mary Stuart was crowned Queen of Scotland in 1542. All of this coming at once led an exasperated John Knox to write The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558).

And he was right. You can't even enjoy a Sunday Football game on telly for all the chores they have lined up for you to do.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:What is the thesis? England broke away from Salic Law (only males can rule) in 1154, when the Crown was permitted to pass through the mother of Henry II, Matilda, daughter of Henry I.

The idea of an actual female sovereign lay dormant until Mary Tudur (Bloody Mary). But the precedent had long been established.

Not only did two female regents take the throne in England in the late 16th-century, but even before Mary Stuart was crowned Queen of Scotland in 1542. All of this coming at once led an exasperated John Knox to write The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558).

And he was right. You can't even enjoy a Sunday Football game on telly for all the chores they have lined up for you to do.

Incorrect, 3 females, not two.
Do keep up and read the articles mate.
What is your point, or do you even have a point on what is being stated?

Laters Quill

by Original Quill Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:33 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:What is the thesis? England broke away from Salic Law (only males can rule) in 1154, when the Crown was permitted to pass through the mother of Henry II, Matilda, daughter of Henry I.

The idea of an actual female sovereign lay dormant until Mary Tudur (Bloody Mary). But the precedent had long been established.

Not only did two female regents take the throne in England in the late 16th-century, but even before Mary Stuart was crowned Queen of Scotland in 1542. All of this coming at once led an exasperated John Knox to write The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558).

And he was right. You can't even enjoy a Sunday Football game on telly for all the chores they have lined up for you to do.

Incorrect, 3 females, not two.
Do keep up and read the articles mate.
What is your point, or do you even have a point on what is being stated?

Laters Quill

To my knowledge Didge, there were only two female monarchs of England during the 16th-century: Mary Tudur and Elizabeth Tudur. According to the Church, Mary Queen of Scots was entitled to be Queen of England over Elizabeth, a bastard, but Liz had her murdered so she could never be crowned. Cannon & Griffiths, The Oxford History of the British Monarchy, pp. 330 ff.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Incorrect, 3 females, not two.
Do keep up and read the articles mate.
What is your point, or do you even have a point on what is being stated?

Laters Quill

To my knowledge Didge, there were only two female monarchs of England during the 16th-century: Mary Tudur and Elizabeth Tudur. Mary Queen of Scots was entitled to be Queen of England over Elizabeth, a bastard, but Liz had her murdered so she could never be crowned. Cannon & Griffiths, The Oxford History of the British Monarchy, pp. 330 ff.

You missed Lady Jane Grey, she ruled 9 days.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:38 pm

Hence again, I know you never read the article, school boy error bro.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:39 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

To my knowledge Didge, there were only two female monarchs of England during the 16th-century: Mary Tudur and Elizabeth Tudur. Mary Queen of Scots was entitled to be Queen of England over Elizabeth, a bastard, but Liz had her murdered so she could never be crowned. Cannon & Griffiths, The Oxford History of the British Monarchy, pp. 330 ff.

You missed Lady Jane Grey, she ruled 9 days.

Illegitimately, as events proved.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:41 pm

Didge wrote:Hence again, I know you never read the article, school boy error bro.

And have you ever read Cannon & Griffiths? Indeed, have you ever studied the British Monarchy? Doubtful, from the sounds of it.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

You missed Lady Jane Grey, she ruled 9 days.

Illegitimately, as events proved.

Did she rule?

Yes.

We can all argue over legitimacy, that is absurd, the fact is she rule. for 9 days,, thus all I am asking is you thus read the articles, which you never do, before making any comments, you only read what I have actually posted and not the full article.
Fair play you are a yank and may not have been taught about Lady Jane, it is a sad story to be honest, which I guess you are not aware of.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Hence again, I know you never read the article, school boy error bro.

And have you ever read Cannon & Griffiths? Indeed, have you ever studied the British Monarchy? Doubtful, from the sounds of it.

I have read many and as seems had to correct your school boy error, which you still are trying to deflect from admitting.
Not my fault I am better versed in history than you mate.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:54 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And have you ever read Cannon & Griffiths? Indeed, have you ever studied the British Monarchy? Doubtful, from the sounds of it.

I have read many and as seems had to correct your school boy error, which you still are trying to deflect from admitting.
Not my fault I am better versed in history than you mate.

Didge, you are more interested in being nasty than in being correct. Pay attention and stick to the topic.

Even Mary Queen of Scots was entitled over Lady Jane Grey. Mary Stuart was the issue of the older Margaret, whereas Jane was the descendant of Mary. Jane was the dream of Norththumberland's ambition, no more. She was disposed of by execution in 1554.

by Cass Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:59 pm

Lady Jane Grey (Dudley was her married name) was Queen for 9 days but effectively it was her father -in-law Northumberland who ruled albeit briefly. LJG. believed herself the rightful heir cause of the whole religion thing and at first she had a lot of popular support due to Mary being a Catholic.

side fact - One of Northumberland's son was Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester the great love of Elizabeth's life until he married her cousin Lettice Knoylls, but even after that he was still by her side almost to the day he died - when he wasn't off sulking that she didn't always follow his advice.

Anyhoos you 2 boys forgot Queen Mathilda. I wont give credit though to Isabella as regent.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

I have read many and as seems had to correct your school boy error, which you still are trying to deflect from admitting.
Not my fault I am better versed in history than you mate.

Didge, you are more interested in being nasty than in being correct. Pay attention and stick to the topic.

Even Mary Queen of Scots was entitled over Lady Jane Grey. Mary Stuart was the issue of the older Margaret, whereas Jane was the descendant of Mary. Jane was the dream of Norththumberland's ambition, no more. She was disposed of by execution in 1554.

Deflection alert.

I am not being nasty, just correcting your error, where you actually tried poorly to be nasty claiming I did not know the history of the British Monarchy.
So you have proven again you cannot admit when wrong, your problem not mine, she was Queen, that is a fact, thus it was 3 females, not 2.
Stop being a wet fish and admit when you fuck up, I still respect your knowledge, but when you make school boy errors, I will pick you up on them.

by Guest Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:04 pm

Cass wrote:Lady Jane Grey (Dudley was her married name) was Queen for 9 days but effectively it was her father -in-law Northumberland who ruled albeit briefly. LJG. believed herself the rightful heir cause of the whole religion thing and at first she had a lot of popular support due to Mary being a Catholic.

side fact - One of Northumberland's son was Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester the great love of Elizabeth's life until he married her cousin Lettice Knoylls, but even after that he was still by her side almost to the day he died - when he wasn't off sulking that she didn't always follow his advice.

Anyhoos you 2 boys forgot Queen Mathilda. I wont give credit though to Isabella as regent.

HI Me Lady

She is in the article too, hence why people need to read it.

Thank you for proving my point, I just wish Quill would realise there are some people who know history as much as him, even more so.

I love the side fact, ::D::

by Original Quill Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:00 pm

Cass wrote:Lady Jane Grey (Dudley was her married name) was Queen for 9 days but effectively it was her father -in-law Northumberland who ruled albeit briefly. LJG. believed herself the rightful heir cause of the whole religion thing and at first she had a lot of popular support due to Mary being a Catholic.

side fact - One of Northumberland's son was Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester the great love of Elizabeth's life until he married her cousin Lettice Knoylls, but even after that he was still by her side almost to the day he died - when he wasn't off sulking that she didn't always follow his advice.

Anyhoos you 2 boys forgot Queen Mathilda. I wont give credit though to Isabella as regent.

Yes, Jane did receive a coronation and could be considered a queen, as such. But I do tend to view her as Northlumberland's wet dream. She's worth a footnote in the history books, but I don't consider her an actual monarch. She was a political ploy...someone taking advantage of the times, and she was never considered a real candidate. As you mentioned Cass, she was just a banner in opposition to the Catholic Mary Tudur.

I did mention the Empress Matilda. On his deathbed, Henry I obtained the promises of all of the nobles that they would support her as his successor. But then Stephen came along and immediately grabbed the throne. So I don't think she counts as an actual regent...merely a pass through...not unlike Sophia the Electress of Hanover, leading to George Lewis. The debate was ended with the pact that Henry Plantagenet would become king (Henry II) on Stephen's demise.

Then there is trashy Isabella, better known as the lover of Roger Mortimer (probably the father of Edward III). She never attained the status of Queen, but was the reason for the Hundred Year War...but that's French history.

There are a lot of footnotes in the history books, but for me a monarch, if questioned, is only someone who ruled--i.e., actually was coronated, ruled for a meaningful period, was acknowledged by the population and actually made the decisions of a monarch. There's a rule in American football, that it isn't a 'catch' unless the receiver makes a significant move after catching the ball; it's like that. A monarch has to actually make some regal moves of some significance.

Hell, you could even question Edward V, who was a king only from April 9, 1483, until June 26th, when Richard took over. Edward was never even crowned. But no one ever questioned his legitimacy, as they did Jane.

by Guest Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cass wrote:Lady Jane Grey (Dudley was her married name) was Queen for 9 days but effectively it was her father -in-law Northumberland who ruled albeit briefly. LJG. believed herself the rightful heir cause of the whole religion thing and at first she had a lot of popular support due to Mary being a Catholic.

side fact - One of Northumberland's son was Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester the great love of Elizabeth's life until he married her cousin Lettice Knoylls, but even after that he was still by her side almost to the day he died - when he wasn't off sulking that she didn't always follow his advice.

Anyhoos you 2 boys forgot Queen Mathilda. I wont give credit though to Isabella as regent.

Yes, Jane did receive a coronation and could be considered a queen, as such. But I do tend to view her as Northlumberland's wet dream. She's worth a footnote in the history books, but I don't consider her an actual monarch. She was a political ploy...someone taking advantage of the times, and she was never considered a real candidate. As you mentioned Cass, she was just a banner in opposition to the Catholic Mary Tudur.

I did mention the Empress Matilda. On his deathbed, Henry I obtained the promises of all of the nobles that they would support her as his successor. But then Stephen came along and immediately grabbed the throne. So I don't think she counts as an actual regent...merely a pass through...not unlike Sophia the Electress of Hanover, leading to George Lewis. The debate was ended with the pact that Henry Plantagenet would become king (Henry II) on Stephen's demise.

Then there is trashy Isabella, better known as the lover of Roger Mortimer (probably the father of Edward III). She never attained the status of Queen, but was the reason for the Hundred Year War...but that's French history.

There are a lot of footnotes in the history books, but for me a monarch, if questioned, is only someone who ruled--i.e., actually was coronated, ruled for a meaningful period, was acknowledged by the population and actually made the decisions of a monarch. There's a rule in American football, that it isn't a 'catch' unless the receiver makes a significant move after catching the ball; it's like that. A monarch has to actually make some regal moves of some significance.

Hell, you could even question Edward V, who was a king only from April 9, 1483, until June 26th, when Richard took over. Edward was never even crowned. But no one ever questioned his legitimacy, as they did Jane.

That is an absurd proposition, if Charles was to ascend to the throne and die the next day, he still would have been King, for a day. What you cast is very much irrelevant to what is factual. What you are saying is hey you worked a week as a judge, but you were never a judge, which would be ridiculous to say, because in fact you did if only for a week and it would be part of your CV.
Just because something is a short length of time, does not mean someone should not have the right to be tittled as such.

To claim one woman in Isabella is the sole reason for the hundred years war is also absurd, when many factors constituted to an ongoing conflict that had many various reason for occurring. I am not sure what books you are reading on the monarchy, maybe they are American, and hence filled with errors.

Also Matilda was a regent and had support to be a regent, to again pass this off as if she had no power is very shortsighted considering a civil war erupted because of this.

Also do not speak down to Cass as if she does not know history, she is about the best versed on this period in history and hold my hat off to her on the fact she has read far more on this era than I have, show a little bit more respect.

Thanks

by Original Quill Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes, Jane did receive a coronation and could be considered a queen, as such. But I do tend to view her as Northlumberland's wet dream. She's worth a footnote in the history books, but I don't consider her an actual monarch. She was a political ploy...someone taking advantage of the times, and she was never considered a real candidate. As you mentioned Cass, she was just a banner in opposition to the Catholic Mary Tudur.

I did mention the Empress Matilda. On his deathbed, Henry I obtained the promises of all of the nobles that they would support her as his successor. But then Stephen came along and immediately grabbed the throne. So I don't think she counts as an actual regent...merely a pass through...not unlike Sophia the Electress of Hanover, leading to George Lewis. The debate was ended with the pact that Henry Plantagenet would become king (Henry II) on Stephen's demise.

Then there is trashy Isabella, better known as the lover of Roger Mortimer (probably the father of Edward III). She never attained the status of Queen, but was the reason for the Hundred Year War...but that's French history.

There are a lot of footnotes in the history books, but for me a monarch, if questioned, is only someone who ruled--i.e., actually was coronated, ruled for a meaningful period, was acknowledged by the population and actually made the decisions of a monarch. There's a rule in American football, that it isn't a 'catch' unless the receiver makes a significant move after catching the ball; it's like that. A monarch has to actually make some regal moves of some significance.

Hell, you could even question Edward V, who was a king only from April 9, 1483, until June 26th, when Richard took over. Edward was never even crowned. But no one ever questioned his legitimacy, as they did Jane.

That is an absurd proposition, if Charles was to ascend to the throne and die the next day, he still would have been King, for a day. What you cast is very much irrelevant to what is factual. What you are saying is hey you worked a week as a judge, but you were never a judge, which would be ridiculous to say, because in fact you did if only for a week and it would be part of your CV.
Just because something is a short length of time, does not mean someone should not have the right to be tittled as such.

Well, you are right that time-in-office is not a factor. But that is not the issue, and that's why I accept Edward V, but not Jane. Edward V had a legitimate claim, not clouded by any questions. Jane's right was not only questioned, but she was flat out wrong...she didn't have any right to the throne. As Cass points out, she was a pawn in the dreams of Northhumberland, who was taking advantage of the religious turmoil surrounding the coming of Mary Tudur.

Upon the death of Edward VI, the line, undisturbed by religious troubles, would have run to Mary Tudur, to Mary Queen of Scots, to James VI (Scotland) I (England). But Northhumberland--the actual usurper--devised a plan taking advantage of the anti-Catholicism, to steal the throne from Mary Tudur. What can I say? It failed...best laid plans and all that. In order to make a dynastic claim when you are not entitled, you have to succeed. Jane did not.

Didge wrote:To claim one woman in Isabella is the sole reason for the hundred years war is also absurd, when many factors constituted to an ongoing conflict that had many various reason for occurring. I am not sure what books you are reading on the monarchy, maybe they are American, and hence filled with errors.

The claim to the throne of France (and the reason for the flor de lis in the English royal coat of arms) comes from the mother of Edward III, who was Isabella of France, daughter of Phillip the Fair.

Didge wrote:Also Matilda was a regent and had support to be a regent, to again pass this off as if she had no power is very shortsighted considering a civil war erupted because of this.

Regents are not monarchs.

by Guest Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:39 pm

It does not matter what you accept, what you decide is not the ruling on the matter and never will be.
Many people who have ruled have been questioned over their rights, that means nothing, because if you go down that road you might as well start with Harold II for example and countless others where the right to rule is contested. By your logic then Henry V should rightly be the King of France for example and here is a good example of a regent in the Dauphin, being a monarch, so to claim they are not is also wrong.

Again the hundred years war had many factors for it causes, to look solely on one woman bearing children is misguided, as that was used as part of an excuse to claims to a throne, it is not the reason though why conflict happened, but a absurd view back then of divine right to rule, previous areas like Normandy, taxes and ambitious Kings, which I have no need to go into. Many Kings and Queens have been related, but the reasons for conflict are far more extensive .

by Original Quill Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:02 pm

Didge wrote:It does not matter what you accept, what you decide is not the ruling on the matter and never will be.
Many people who have ruled have been questioned over their rights, that means nothing, because if you go down that road you might as well start with Harold II for example and countless others where the right to rule is contested. By your logic then Henry V should rightly be the King of France for example and here is a good example of a regent in the Dauphin, being a monarch, so to claim they are not is also wrong.

My logic is not intended for France. The French followed Salic Law, which makes all the difference in the world. France would never allow a female monarch, so the issue would never arise. Henry I changed all that by demanding that his daughter, Matilda, be made queen over in England.

In the end, any dynastic claim must be successful in order to be recognized. William I was successful, and so a regime change took place. The dispute between Stephen and Matilda was settled, and so the throne shifted to the Plantagenets. Bolingbroke defeated Richard II, so a regime change took place. Edward York (VI) defeated Henry VI, so a regime change took place. Richmond defeated Richard III at Bosworth, so another regime change took place.

Jane's bid to become the new monarch failed, so quite logically a regime change did not take place. Winning is everything.

Didge wrote:Again the hundred years war had many factors for it causes, to look solely on one woman bearing children is misguided, as that was used as part of an excuse to claims to a throne, it is not the reason though why conflict happened, but a absurd view back then of divine right to rule, previous areas like Normandy and ambitious Kings, which I have no need to go into. Many Kings and Queens have been related, but the reasons for conflict are far more extensive .

Of course, all important events have many factors going into them. It's important to separate them and focus in. The factor that led to the Plantagenet claim to the French throne, was the fact that Isabella was the sole survivor of Phillip IV, and indeed the entire Capet line of monarchs. That led to Edward III's claim to the French throne, which was the dynastic justification for the Hundred Years War.

by Guest Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:

My logic is not intended for France. The French followed Salic Law, which makes all the difference in the world. France would never allow a female monarch, so the issue would never arise. Henry I changed all that buy demanding that his daughter, Matilda, be made queen.
Irrelevant, he was ahead of his time, and have no understanding of what point you are trying to make, she was Queen and ruled over people and of course who followed and died for her, that is a fact that cannot be denied

In the end, any dynastic claim must be successful in order to be recognized. William I was successful, and so a regime change took place. The dispute between Stephen and Matilda was settled, and so the throne shifted to the Plantagenets. Bolingbroke defeated Richard II, so a regime change took place. Edward York (VI) defeated Henry VI, so a regime change took place. Richmond defeated Richard III at Bosworth, so another regime change took place.
Absurd, success does not mean someone has that right to rule, unless now you are saying the means of might and war, win over the right to rule? So again what you are doing is showing examples of many situations where there has been monarchs that have been overthrown, which does not mean they did not have a right to rule ad those that overthrew them had any right to rule. Basically this was a time for the strong to rule but it does not mean they had a legal right to or were seen by a majority of the subjects as rightful rulers. It is also a poor way to look at each situation, Edward Yorks father never had ambitions on the throne at first, until he was forced into doing so, hence why you take such a simplistic view of history within this era

Jane's bid to become the new monarch failed, so quite logically a regime change did not take place. Winning is everything.
Incorrect, she was Queen for 9 days, thus it succeeded for that length of time and no, winning is not everything, because if that was the case, there would not be over a hundred years of war between England and France, as it takes far more than winning to win over people

Of course, all important events have many factors going into them. It's important to separate them and focus in. The factor that led to the Plantagenet claim to the French throne, was the fact that Isabella was the sole survivor of Phillip IV, and indeed the entire Capet line of monarchs. That led to Edward III's claim to the French throne, which was the dynastic justification for the Hundred Years War.

Again it is a factor used not a factor or reason behind the conflicts, where you are ignoring the many factors like tax for example or where in fact because the English Kings, who spoke French anyway begrudged involvement of the French Kings and have the French kings growing advances on their vassal states. If anything the real original cause to this conflict started with William the Conqueror and the lands he left behind. Much had to do with economies as well with the great wool trade of England and having control over ares of France for trade. So your view is again very simplistic to say the least, again, the connection to claims to the throne were just excuses, but not the real causes behind the conflicts

by Original Quill Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:37 pm

It likely started with the break-up of the Roman Empire, if not before. Certainly the great flood influenced many.

Anyway, the French followed Salic Law, the English did not. That created a divided legitimacy between the two kingdoms, and led to the Hundred Years War.

by Guest Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:It likely started with the break-up of the Roman Empire, if not before. Certainly the great flood influenced many.

Anyway, the French followed Salic Law, the English did not. That created a divided legitimacy between the two kingdoms, and led to the Hundred Years War.

No it did not and is complete rubbish, again I am giving you the reasons, which you are dancing around, for some odd reason.
The break up of the Roman Empire had bugger all to do with the Hundred years war.

by Cass Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:33 am

side note - reading great new book called Tudors vs Stewart's: the fatal inheritance of Mary Queen of Scots by Linda Porter

by Guest Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:36 am

Cass wrote:side note - reading great new book called Tudors vs Stewart's: the fatal inheritance of Mary Queen of Scots by Linda Porter

Thanks me Lady, will have to get this.

Am reading Zulu Rising at the mo, by Ian Knight.

by Original Quill Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:15 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:It likely started with the break-up of the Roman Empire, if not before. Certainly the great flood influenced many.

Anyway, the French followed Salic Law, the English did not. That created a divided legitimacy between the two kingdoms, and led to the Hundred Years War.

No it did not and is complete rubbish, again I am giving you the reasons, which you are dancing around, for some odd reason.
The break up of the Roman Empire had bugger all to do with the Hundred years war.

I'm being facetious, Didge, because you are acting like a stubborn idiot. If you are trying to pick arguments about what causes are left out of the history of the Hundred Years War, I'm not interested. It's better to treat each cause as a factor in and of itself and go into detail, rather than zoom out into speculation.

Overviews and generalizations, while valid, are best left for Cliff Notes and survey textbooks.

by Original Quill Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:00 pm

Cass wrote:side note - reading great new book called Tudors vs Stewart's: the fatal inheritance of Mary Queen of Scots by Linda Porter

I have read reviews of it. She tends to emphasize the marriage of Margaret and James IV as the great achievement of Henry VII. But Henry was what historians might call a 'Marrying Fool.' Henry was so insecure over the Tudur hold on the Crown, that he sent everyone off to marry and 'connect' his family to royalty...he even once proposed a marriage between his mother-in-law and James III. Margaret's marriage was really just another bucket in the brigade.

Certainly the influence of the war between France and England cannot be discounted, but I really think that Mary Stuart's real problem was religion. The De Guise family was one of the great conservative, and religious, families in French politics. Marie de Guise, Mary's mother, ruled Scotland as regent during the years Mary was being raised in France, and married to Francois II. Along with Cardinal Beaton, she engendered many an enemy with her strict Catholic ways. This gave John Knox the boost he needed. Together with Jame V's illegitimate son, James Stewart, Earl of Moray, it was enough to oust Mary from Scotland.

Down in England it was Elizabeth's dynastic jealousies that spelled the real trouble for Mary. Elizabeth--another bastard in the eyes of the Church--was scared shietless of Mary, not for force of personal will, but for what Mary represented as the legitimate Queen of England. No one wanted to kill Mary--and be accused of killing the legitimate Queen of England--except Elizabeth, who despite cries of regicide, could never sleep at night while Mary lived. To use Elizabeth's own words, Mary wanted...

Behind the Mask wrote:"...in mine own life to set my winding sheet [death shroud] before mine eyes. I know the inconstancy of the English people, how they ever mislike the present government and have their eyes fixed upon that person who is next to succeed."

Elizabeth was paranoid with anxiety, not only as was her grandfather about the insecure family, but about herself as only the second female to rule England, and the possibility that she was not entitled. It is the principal reason she never married Dudley, or anyone else... She didn't want anyone to set her winding sheet in her own lifetime.

by Guest Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

No it did not and is complete rubbish, again I am giving you the reasons, which you are dancing around, for some odd reason.
The break up of the Roman Empire had bugger all to do with the Hundred years war.

I'm being facetious, Didge, because you are acting like a stubborn idiot. If you are trying to pick arguments about what causes are left out of the history of the Hundred Years War, I'm not interested. It's better to treat each cause as a factor in and of itself and go into detail, rather than zoom out into speculation.

Overviews and generalizations, while valid, are best left for Cliff Notes and survey textbooks.

Not picking any argument just pointing out your claims are complete rubbish and that is the reality of the situation, the downfall of the Roman Empire has no connection to the hundred years war, as was all of your claims to its causes.
It gets boring having to correct your many errors to be honest, especially WW2, where you made some of the worst incorrect comments I have come across to be honest.

by Guest Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:42 pm

Interesting Me lady, just read the review:

TheTudor-Stewart rivalry.

Crown of Thistles is the story of a divided family, of flamboyant kings and queens, cultured courts and tribal hatreds, blood feuds, violent deaths, rape and sexual licence on a breath-taking scale. Here are some of the greatest rulers in our history. At its heart is the greatest prize of all - the joint sovereignty of two kingdoms.

It also brings alive a neglected aspect of British history - the blood-spattered steps taken by two small countries on the fringes of Europe towards an awkward unity that would ultimately forge a great nation. Beginning with the unlikely and dramatic victories of two usurping kings, one a rank outsider and the other a fifteen-year-old boy who rebelled against his own father, the book will shed new light on Henry VIII, his daughter, Elizabeth, and on his great-niece, Mary Queen of Scots, still seductive more than four hundred years after her death

http://lindaporter.net/CrownUK.htm

by Cass Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:00 pm

I finished it at midnight Smile

what I liked about it was mostly the Scottish side....learned some new stuff especially about James IV.......also it didn't sugarcoat anyone especially Mary and Elizabeth

side note again - The Alison Weir book on Elizabeth of York was good but I thought she kept repeating herself so was slightly disappointed. There just isn't that much information on her so I felt it was padded out - but it gave good info in Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydeville. not her best IMO but a good read.

by Sponsored content

Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule

Re: Elizabeth I: Exception to the Rule