Well, there are virgins and then there are VIRGINS.
No one knows if Elizabeth I was a virgin or not.
But she refused to share the throne and be dominated by a man.
You have to respect that. Plus she would not lose her life in childbirth nor would there be any opposition to the throne.
It wouldn't be the first time a child would try to usurp its parent's throne.
Perhaps she was basing this on Henry II who had a tapestry of four eaglets preying on a parent bird. The fourth was poised to gouge its parent's eyes out. Henry had said, 'The four eaglets are my four sons who cease not to persecute me even unto death'.
The fourth was King John of Magna Carta fame, who joined his older brother Richard the Lionhearted in his final rebellion against Henry.
Richard did have good reason, since it was rumoured Henry had slept with his fiancee.
But I digress....the question is this--
Was Elizabeth really the Virgin Queen or was this a bit of hypocrisy on her part given the attentions of Robert Dudly, Sir Walter Raleigh, and Robert Devereux?
Open for discussion, anyone?
Well when they were negotiating the marriage treaty with Alecon, she was supposedly examined by French doctors who pronounced her a virgin in all respects. Now were they correct, forced into that statement or simply not knowing what the heck they were looking at is unknown but she was officially declared a virgin at that point anyway as a result.
since it was well known that she had at least 2 lovers, the Earls of Leicester and Dudley, even she must have had itches to be scratched now and then, but birth control being what it was and the knowledge of that being what it was, I think it is a case of flip a coin, yea or nay.....................
Her "virginity" was probably symbolic...married to England and all.
Quote from: BLAKDUKE on January 13, 2009, 03:57:33 PM
since it was well known that she had at least 2 lovers, the Earls of Leicester and Dudley, even she must have had itches to be scratched now and then, but birth control being what it was and the knowledge of that being what it was, I think it is a case of flip a coin, yea or nay.....................
Maybe they were just making out?
But then there was the whole Amy Robsart thing.....
Robert Dudley and the Earl of Leicester were the same person. Elizabeth raised him to Earl of Leicester around 1570 or so if I remember right. However there are rumors of her with Sir Walter Raleigh and Robert Devereaux after Dudley's death as well. It seems that she trully was in love with Dudley but would never marry him since the last letter he wrote her, she in her own hand wrote, "His last letter" and kept it until her death. It is also reputed that as she was dying she uttered his name.
And Robert Devereux was the Earl of Leicester's stepson.
His great-grandmother was Mary Boleyn.
Um..is all this legal?
Quote from: Master James on January 13, 2009, 04:13:53 PM
Robert Dudley and the Earl of Leicester were the same person. Elizabeth raised him to Earl of Leicester around 1570 or so if I remember right. However there are rumors of her with Sir Walter Raleigh and Robert Devereaux after Dudley's death as well. It seems that she trully was in love with Dudley but would never marry him since the last letter he wrote her, she in her own hand wrote, "His last letter" and kept it until her death. It is also reputed that as she was dying she uttered his name.
Your right. I was confused and meant to say Robert Deveraux Earl of Essex. Brain freeze is happening at warmer and warmer temperatures these days.
Quote from: BLAKDUKE on January 13, 2009, 04:26:18 PM
Quote from: Master James on January 13, 2009, 04:13:53 PM
Robert Dudley and the Earl of Leicester were the same person. Elizabeth raised him to Earl of Leicester around 1570 or so if I remember right. However there are rumors of her with Sir Walter Raleigh and Robert Devereaux after Dudley's death as well. It seems that she trully was in love with Dudley but would never marry him since the last letter he wrote her, she in her own hand wrote, "His last letter" and kept it until her death. It is also reputed that as she was dying she uttered his name.
Your right. I was confused and meant to say Robert Deveraux Earl of Essex. Brain freeze is happening at warmer and warmer temperatures these days.
LOL I KNOW what you mean!
Quote from: Welsh Wench on January 13, 2009, 04:16:13 PM
And Robert Devereux was the Earl of Leicester's stepson.
His great-grandmother was Mary Boleyn.
Um..is all this legal?
Yeah really! Why do you think they called everyone cousin? Its because they were!
Well as thy used to say in those days
"incest is best"
That way we keep it all in the family.
At least Elizabeth didn't have to ask, 'Who's your daddy?' ;D
Robert Dudley was her 'Master of the Horse' before she made him an Earl... And a terrible tactician in the field. But, I digress.... There are A LOT of things you can do in the bedroom without actually breaching the 'maiden head'. My guess, she did lots of that. I think she was really a virgin. And, I believe that part of the reason she never married was because of her father. How many times was he divorced or annulled? AND he had her mother beheaded, regardless of the charges against her, he could have saved face and got what he wanted without killing her. Katherine wouldn't allow him to divorce her and he sent her away and had the marriage annulled. He could have done something similar to Anne. But, my point is that Elizabeth didn't trust the institution of marriage, and with good reason. She's still my favorite queen. :)
Quote from: LadyDracolich on January 14, 2009, 09:54:37 AM
Robert Dudley was her 'Master of the Horse' before she made him an Earl... And a terrible tactician in the field. But, I digress.... There are A LOT of things you can do in the bedroom without actually breaching the 'maiden head'. My guess, she did lots of that. I think she was really a virgin. And, I believe that part of the reason she never married was because of her father. How many times was he divorced or annulled? AND he had her mother beheaded, regardless of the charges against her, he could have saved face and got what he wanted without killing her. Katherine wouldn't allow him to divorce her and he sent her away and had the marriage annulled. He could have done something similar to Anne. But, my point is that Elizabeth didn't trust the institution of marriage, and with good reason. She's still my favorite queen. :)
Very good points all, however like most of the mysteries of those times, unless we find a hidden authenic diary, we will never know for sure.
However the discussion is interesting.
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".
Quote from: KeeperoftheBar on January 14, 2009, 12:15:53 PM
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.
This portrait of an un-named person has at various times been identified as Elizabeth I
You decide:
(http://www.bottesfordhistory.org.uk/images/uploaded/scaled/unknwn_liz.jpg)
Quote from: LadyDracolich on January 14, 2009, 01:09:51 PM
Quote from: KeeperoftheBar on January 14, 2009, 12:15:53 PM
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.
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.
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.
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!!
Quote from: Mad Jack Wolfe on January 14, 2009, 03:41:00 PM
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. ;D
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: DonaCatalina on January 14, 2009, 02:17:48 PM
This portrait of an un-named person has at various times been identified as Elizabeth I
You decide:
(http://www.bottesfordhistory.org.uk/images/uploaded/scaled/unknwn_liz.jpg)
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
Quote from: Sonata on January 14, 2009, 08:08:13 PM
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.
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.
I'll bet some of those 'skydiving virgins' were one-time only! ;D
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.
any one who could be offened has been dead for about 400 years or so.
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."
I just finished reading The Queen's Bastard by Robin Maxwell, which puts forth the idea that one Arthur Dudly was E's illegitimate child. How much of this is fact based and how much is supposition is beyond my ken, but it is a good read.
I have been some reading lately and with the discovery of Katherine Parr's body in an unmarked garve, other sources of information have come to light. Some of which make the same statements that Allison Weir did in her book.
In June 1548, Elizabeth was moved from Chelsea to Chestnut.
Katherine Parr had discovered Elizabeth in the arms or Thomas Seymoor, who was Lord Admiral and her husband. Apparently Kat Ashley had contrived to facilitate their meetings. Elizabeth apparently confessed to more than one.
At Chestnut Elizabeth's tutor Ascham wrote to colleagues that he was refused permission to visit Cambridge because Elizabeth needed the comfort of his presence during her illness. All that summer she was sick with a menstrual disorder. It was suggested by several people of the time and even now that her illness was actually a miscarriage. Until that time Elizabeth had been in robust health and had no problems with her female functions.
There is little evidence for a miscarriage apart from terse statements by servants, but the very secretiveness of the episode was noted by contemporaries and gave weight to the supposition.
I always found that very interesting.
I also wondered that with her many suitors it was inevitable.
If the body was in an unmarked grave how do they know it's Katherine Parr?
Quote from: Dinobabe on October 26, 2010, 02:27:59 PM
I always found that very interesting.
I also wondered that with her many suitors it was inevitable.
If the body was in an unmarked grave how do they know it's Katherine Parr?
She was buried at Sudeley chapel in an unmarked grave and in 1782 a man named John Locust discovered the tomb. The casket was opened several times and once turned upside down by a bunch of drunken men. By the time Sir John Scott erected her altar tomb the identity of the skeleton was in doubt because it the casket had been opened so many times. It took modern forensics to determine the identity of Katherine Parr's remains, though I do not know the details.
At the age of only seven months old Mary was a penniless orphan. For one of her rank, this was a humiliating position to find herself in, especially as she was the daughter of a Queen. Her guardianship was placed into the hands of Katherine Willoughby, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk, under the instruction of her father's will. The Duchess of Suffolk was a great friend of her mother's, but she found it extremely hard to afford the upkeep of the 'Queen's child,' who was expected to live in 'luxury and comfort.' Mary lived on under the Duchess' care but on the eve of her second birthday, 29th August 1550, all record of her disappears. How strange that the Queen's child, cousin of King Edward VI, should disappear entirely from history. There are several versions as to her fate, none of which can be confirmed.
I was just getting ready to post about Catherine Parr's daughter as I wondered what happened to her!
Theory #1--the one accepted by most historians. That Mary Seymour died right after her second birthday.
Theory #2--Mary escaped to France with the Duchess when 'Bloody Mary' started persecuting the Protestants. They returned to England in 1559 and Mary died of consumption two years later at the age of thirteen.
Theory #3--Mary grew up and married Sir Edward Bushel who was gentleman of the bedchamber to Queen Anne of Denmark.
Nothing can be substantiated or proven. I'd love to believe Theory #3 is correct. She deserved a 'happy ever after'.
And she was King Edward VI's cousin through her father. He was the brother of Jane Seymour, third queen of Henry VIII.
If you concede that Elizabeth had a miscarriage in 1548, several other pieces of the puzzle make more sense. With the recent examples of Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr before her, the appearance of a narrow escape could have made her especially fearful of marriage and childbirth.
Leicester had the type of personality where he lost interest after the sexual conquest. As his two wives discovered. If he and Elizaeth had congress and she still refused to marry him, he probably would have lost interest and turned to intrigue sooner.
As for Mary Parr, as much as I would like to believe she lived happily ever after, I am afraid that the debt of gratitude Elizabeth felt she owed Katherine Parr (born out in her last to letters to her step-mother)would have led her to bring the girl to court as soon as possible after Elizabeth was crowned.