Was Elizabeth I a Virgin Queen in name only?

[DonaCatalina]

This portrait of an un-named person has at various times been identified as Elizabeth I
You decide:

[ADraeger]

Elizabeth was a very good queen but she failed in one of her most important duties to England which was to provide a successor. 
Even Prince Charles has made "an heir and a spare".

Actually, she did better than providing just a successor.  When she ascended the throne, the country was practically bankrupt.  Between previous wars and her father's issues with Rome (which I'm sure cost a small fortune in the end), the country barely had some where in the area of 200,000 pounds.  Granted, that was a great deal of money, but not as much as you'd think.  She pulled the country out of that little financial crises, made the British Navy one of the greatest in the world and pretty much put Spain in it's place.  I'm sorry, but I'd say that's a damn good legacy.  Heir or no.  Furthermore, she made it ok for women to rule countries in their own right without depending on the strength of a man to solidify her authority and right to rule.  Following her were Queen Christina of Sweden and Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth II.. And Catherine the Great (who was married and my history knowledge regarding her is a bit fuzzy). 

So, still one of the greatest monarchs EVER,  heir or no.  She did more than provide England with an heir, she provided them with the strength of an autonomous nation that became one of the greatest powers in Europe.

Catherine the Great was indeed married... but she overthrew her husband 60 days (or something like that) into his rule.  She is quite an interesting character.  Expanded borders, built over 200 new towns, built hospitals, etc.  Russia became a European/World power under her.  She also had quite a few kept men throughout her reign. lol  She's certainly someone who is very fascinating to read about.

[Welsh Wench]

This was interesting--
When Elizabeth's brother Edward VI passed on, (Henry's son by Jane Seymour), the next ten in line for succession were all women.

The Line of Succession

At the time of Edward's accession, the next ten people in line for the throne were all female, and there were several interpretations of the order in which they should be ranked. Placing them in what would now be seen as the rightful succession, they were:

1. Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's eldest daugher (but she had been disinherited under the Act of Succession of 1534, due to the annulment of her father's marriage to her mother, Katherine of Aragon).
2. Elizabeth, his younger daugher (but she had been disinherited by her father when her mother, Anne Boleyn, was beheaded).
3. Mary, Queen of Scots, grand-daughter of Henry's eldest sister Margaret Stewart, who had married James IV of Scotland.
4. Margaret Douglas, daughter of Margaret Steward by her second marriage.
(But both Scottish claimants were discounted to prevent the English crown falling to the Scottish kings; which is, of course, exactly what happened in due course.)
5. Frances Grey, elder daugher of Henry's sister mary.
6. Frances' eldest daughter, Jane.
7. Frances' second daughter, Katherine.
8. Frances' youngest daughter, Mary.
9. Frances' youngest sister, Eleanor.
10. Eleanor's daugher, Lady Margaret Clifford.

Henry VIII's will stated that if the direct line should fail, the crown was to pass to his niece Frances. He was probably not entitled to make such a stipulation, but it brought tragedy both to those who, by their greed, had only themselves to blame, and also to their innocent victims.

I guess there really wasn't the pressure to produce an heir.  The crown passed to Mary, Queen of Scots' son James I of England. There were plenty of Tudors to choose from (except James was a Stuart) and Elizabeth didn't have to risk dying in childbirth.

[Captain Jack Wolfe]

Back to the Treaty of Alencon for a moment:

I can't see Elizabeth actually condoning an examination to determine her virginity.  Certainly not with a bunch of French doctors.  She would not be the first, nor the last head of a nation to "misstate" their medical condition for political gain.  If a person's life could be bought and sold for a handful of silver, a faked medical exam and the silence of a couple of doctors would be child's play.

That gave her the mystique of being "proved" a virgin going forward, and she was able to use that mystique effectively to suit her political ends.

It's certainly a plausible explanation.

[Trillium]

I have a feeling that any type of physical exam that would have been done to a queen would have been purely visual at most.  I have a hard time believing that any type of probing that would have been necessary to truly make that determination would have been allowed.  They wouldn't want to put her virginity at risk by allowing too much of a physical exam.

As for whether or not she truly was a virgin...well that is a question for the ages!!

[Master James]

Back to the Treaty of Alencon for a moment:

I can't see Elizabeth actually condoning an examination to determine her virginity.  Certainly not with a bunch of French doctors.  She would not be the first, nor the last head of a nation to "misstate" their medical condition for political gain.  If a person's life could be bought and sold for a handful of silver, a faked medical exam and the silence of a couple of doctors would be child's play.

That gave her the mystique of being "proved" a virgin going forward, and she was able to use that mystique effectively to suit her political ends.

It's certainly a plausible explanation.

Very good points all.  I only stated that officially she was subjected to an examination and officially declared a virgin.  Now what that means is really open to anyone's opinion.   

As to that portrait, it is quite possible that its Mary Queen of Scots as many portraits that are not well known of Elizabeth and Mary were often confused one for the other.  This portrait would make full sense for Mary when she was pregnant with James however.

[Dirtfarmer]

As far as the examination, I doubt that even if they thought she was not, they would not go against the fact that she "was a virgin" not only because she would not want that but the person who she would be betrothed to would not want it publicized that she was not.

I would be willing to bet that she was raped by Edward Seymour who had his eyes on her while she was in the care of he and Parr.  This, added to what he saw happen to his fathers wives, might explain why she ended up never taking a husband.... she was shrewd, but considering the pressure on her to do so, she would have had to have quite an aversion to marriage not to get hitched and these would be reasons why.

As far at the painting... looks alot like Lettice Knollys to me... with all of the bling, the style of the clothing, and her look (being a prettier version of Elizabeth)... looking at what she is wearing, that is a late 1570's to 1580's style, I believe... making elizabeth 40ish and Lettice would have been around 33ish... think the girl in the painting is a bit young(er) than Elizabeth would have been at the time based one what is being worn... although a painters brush is the renaissance version of cosmetic surgery.

[Sonata]

Based on nothing more than my own personal opinion, I believe that she was probably a virgin in the strictest technical sense of the word.  Between her stated views on marriage and the extreme unreliability of birth control in the day, I just have too much trouble believing that she would have risked her role as sole monarch for a (albiet very strong at times) mere physical urge.

Plus,  as LadyDracolich pointed out, there are a wide range of erotic/physical acts that can be indulged in without compromising technical virginity.

[captmarga]

This portrait of an un-named person has at various times been identified as Elizabeth I
You decide:

Interesting, but one historian feels she is the Countess of Rutland, Elizabeth Manners.

An unusual enough portrait for the day, when pregnancy in general was often hidden away in the latter stages. 

Capt Marga

[Dev]

Based on nothing more than my own personal opinion, I believe that she was probably a virgin in the strictest technical sense of the word.  Between her stated views on marriage and the extreme unreliability of birth control in the day, I just have too much trouble believing that she would have risked her role as sole monarch for a (albiet very strong at times) mere physical urge.

Plus,  as LadyDracolich pointed out, there are a wide range of erotic/physical acts that can be indulged in without compromising technical virginity.

Somewhere I read that in those days, a virgin was a woman who was never married.  It's only today that we attach the physical significance to it.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if she went her whole life chaste.  I'm not an expert on her history, but she was symbolically married to England and seems as though she would honour that very devoutly.

[BLAKDUKE]

Here is a definition from Wikipedia.

A virgin (or maiden) is, originally, a young woman characterized by absence of sexual experience (see Etymology). Virginity is the state of being a virgin. The word is also often used with wider reference by relaxing the age, gender or sexual criteria.[1] Hence, more mature women can be virgins (The Virgin Queen), men can be virgins, and potential initiates into many fields can be colloquially termed virgins, for example a skydiving "virgin". In the last usage, virgin simply means uninitiated.


So it's anybodies guess at this point.

[Welsh Wench]

I'll bet some of those 'skydiving virgins' were one-time only! 

[Peddlin]

I would never say that Elizabeth was not a great monarch. She obviously was, and I think she always tried to do what was best for her country - but not necessarily for her people. She spent a great deal of time "on Progress", when she would take the 300+ people in her entourage to live off of her courtiers, and she bankrupted many of them. She did this, because her coffers did not have enough in them to maintain the lifestyle of a queen.

And as far as her virginity was concerned, I have some serious doubts. I think she probably "got around", and as she was the Queen, she could take what she wanted and had many opportunities. She was Elizabeth Regina, not Snow White.

But please don't anyone be offended. That is just my opinion, and along with $3.50 in some places will buy you a nice cappucino.

[BLAKDUKE]

any one who could be offened has been dead for about 400 years or so.

[Lady Nicolette]

I'm presently reading, "The Children of Henry VIII," by Alison Weir.  According to her research, "Elizabeth was ill throughout the summer of 1548 and again in the autumn....The sources are silent as to the nature of her illness that summer.  It has been suggested by several people, in her own time and now, that it was the result of a miscarriage.  She was 'first sick about midsummer,' about a month after arriving at Cheshunt.  It is therefore possible that she could have conceived a child by the Admiral (Thomas Seymour, about whom there was much speculation just prior to this re inappropriate behavior between the two when she was under the protection of his wife, Henry's widow, Katherine Parr).  The very lack of information about her symptoms and condition could be the result of a cover-up exercise on the part of those attending her, who would very naturally be anxious to avoid a scandal.  Yet it must be stressted that the theory rests on suppostition alone.  The illness lasted until late aumun and Mrs. Ashley (her chaperone/governess/protectress) later stated that throughout it's duration Elizabeth had not gone more than a mile from the house."