Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
2007-10-03 23:22:49
Look, I'm no Tudor fangirl, but the examples you named were all either married or didn't hold the
rank of Queen. I'm sure there were many female rulers who either wielded power or were much
stronger than their kings (heck, look at Margeret of Anjou), but historians and society in general
can be very sexist and tend to be hard to convince about a female ruler unless it's shoved in their
faces. You have a point about Mary, but she only ruled five years and was married, however useless
her hubby was in the ruling of England.
Elizabeth, on the other hand, ruled for decades and never married, making it hard to deny who was
boss. So she's the only who gets the glory.(Though some still kick around "power behind the throne"
theories about various males of her court.)
And I meant rulers of England. Cleopatra held power in Egypt centuries before Elizabeth was born,
but that's not exactly relevant to this discussion.
Take care,
Kat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
rank of Queen. I'm sure there were many female rulers who either wielded power or were much
stronger than their kings (heck, look at Margeret of Anjou), but historians and society in general
can be very sexist and tend to be hard to convince about a female ruler unless it's shoved in their
faces. You have a point about Mary, but she only ruled five years and was married, however useless
her hubby was in the ruling of England.
Elizabeth, on the other hand, ruled for decades and never married, making it hard to deny who was
boss. So she's the only who gets the glory.(Though some still kick around "power behind the throne"
theories about various males of her court.)
And I meant rulers of England. Cleopatra held power in Egypt centuries before Elizabeth was born,
but that's not exactly relevant to this discussion.
Take care,
Kat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
Re: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
2007-10-04 01:28:33
>Look, I'm no Tudor fangirl, but the examples you named were all either married or didn't hold the
>rank of Queen. I'm sure there were many female rulers who either wielded power or were much
>stronger than their kings (heck, look at Margeret of Anjou), but historians and society in general
>can be very sexist and tend to be hard to convince about a female ruler unless it's shoved in their
>faces. You have a point about Mary, but she only ruled five years and was married, however useless
>her hubby was in the ruling of England.
======================================
True, but the phrase you used which prompted my reply was "just being some king's wife": the thing about a queen proprietess is that she isn't simply a wife, but a legitimate wielder of power, and *this* was a fairly rare creature in our period. Margaret of Anjou, despite her personal strength and authority, was a consort, but Isabel the Catholic was a reigning queen, anointed and crowned and regarded as a king in all but gender (though early on, she had to work harder to establish herself as being such a personality than a male ruler would have). This was possible in Castile because the kingdom recognized the right of female succession where Aragon, right next door, did not; France didn't either, so the probability of a proprietary French queen was highly unlikely, to say the least. This is part of what made Isabel unique and a viable parallel to Elizabeth I. Margaret of Austria, though she was never queen in name, was as good as one, and recognized as such by her father, Maximilian I, and by all her contemporaries -- she was also a widow twice over (married to Juan, son of the Catholic Kings, then to Phillippe of Savoy), and had picked up an awful lot of experience along the way.
I now understand that you meant England, but wasn't sure before, and it doesn't hurt to draw parallels from the world outside of Albion, since everything affects everything else.
It's postulated, by the way, that Catherine of Aragon fully expected her only surviving child to succeed Henry VIII as queen Mary I of England, and that she hired Vicente Vivens to write his instructional book on the education of females precisely as a step in Mary's preparation to rule. Catherine, as the daughter of a ruling queen, wouldn't have been as horrified of the idea as others might have been; and who knows, maybe Catherine's preparations had a long-distance and/or indirect influence on Elizabeth's chances to succeed.
Maria
elena@...
>
>Elizabeth, on the other hand, ruled for decades and never married, making it hard to deny who was
>boss. So she's the only who gets the glory.(Though some still kick around "power behind the throne"
>theories about various males of her court.)
>
>And I meant rulers of England. Cleopatra held power in Egypt centuries before Elizabeth was born,
>but that's not exactly relevant to this discussion.
>
>
>
>Take care,
>Kat
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>
>
>
>
>rank of Queen. I'm sure there were many female rulers who either wielded power or were much
>stronger than their kings (heck, look at Margeret of Anjou), but historians and society in general
>can be very sexist and tend to be hard to convince about a female ruler unless it's shoved in their
>faces. You have a point about Mary, but she only ruled five years and was married, however useless
>her hubby was in the ruling of England.
======================================
True, but the phrase you used which prompted my reply was "just being some king's wife": the thing about a queen proprietess is that she isn't simply a wife, but a legitimate wielder of power, and *this* was a fairly rare creature in our period. Margaret of Anjou, despite her personal strength and authority, was a consort, but Isabel the Catholic was a reigning queen, anointed and crowned and regarded as a king in all but gender (though early on, she had to work harder to establish herself as being such a personality than a male ruler would have). This was possible in Castile because the kingdom recognized the right of female succession where Aragon, right next door, did not; France didn't either, so the probability of a proprietary French queen was highly unlikely, to say the least. This is part of what made Isabel unique and a viable parallel to Elizabeth I. Margaret of Austria, though she was never queen in name, was as good as one, and recognized as such by her father, Maximilian I, and by all her contemporaries -- she was also a widow twice over (married to Juan, son of the Catholic Kings, then to Phillippe of Savoy), and had picked up an awful lot of experience along the way.
I now understand that you meant England, but wasn't sure before, and it doesn't hurt to draw parallels from the world outside of Albion, since everything affects everything else.
It's postulated, by the way, that Catherine of Aragon fully expected her only surviving child to succeed Henry VIII as queen Mary I of England, and that she hired Vicente Vivens to write his instructional book on the education of females precisely as a step in Mary's preparation to rule. Catherine, as the daughter of a ruling queen, wouldn't have been as horrified of the idea as others might have been; and who knows, maybe Catherine's preparations had a long-distance and/or indirect influence on Elizabeth's chances to succeed.
Maria
elena@...
>
>Elizabeth, on the other hand, ruled for decades and never married, making it hard to deny who was
>boss. So she's the only who gets the glory.(Though some still kick around "power behind the throne"
>theories about various males of her court.)
>
>And I meant rulers of England. Cleopatra held power in Egypt centuries before Elizabeth was born,
>but that's not exactly relevant to this discussion.
>
>
>
>Take care,
>Kat
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>
>
>
>
Re: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
2007-10-04 02:41:16
Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
True, but the phrase you used which prompted my reply was "just being some king's wife":
(major snippage)
------------------------------------------------
I've already said I meant English rulers, so why are you still lecturing about Isabel?
I said "just some king's wife" because that's the usual view of the male-dominated histories that
are still being taught today. Obviously there are huge differences in the way individual queens
ruled or didn't- from being the sole power to being the king's arm-candy- and history fans can
argue it ad nauseum, but let's face it: most people aren't that discriminating. A queen is usually
viewed as "king's wife" until proven otherwise. Elizabeth is one of the few who has been clearly
and undeniably proven otherwise.
(And the argument about Mary is pretty weak considering what a big deal she made about making her
husband an equal ruler. It's a stretch to equate her to a sole sovereign just because her husband
couldn't be bothered with England. If she was sole ruler, it was by default, not strength of will.
That doesn't exactly excite admiration in most people.)
Someone asked a question, and I answered it concisely. If I have known it was going to get
dissected, I'd have been more specific. However, I've now made it very clear what I meant, and I'm
not going to defend my words further because I get the distinct impression you're just using what I
say as an excuse to show off your knowledge.
Take care,
Kat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
True, but the phrase you used which prompted my reply was "just being some king's wife":
(major snippage)
------------------------------------------------
I've already said I meant English rulers, so why are you still lecturing about Isabel?
I said "just some king's wife" because that's the usual view of the male-dominated histories that
are still being taught today. Obviously there are huge differences in the way individual queens
ruled or didn't- from being the sole power to being the king's arm-candy- and history fans can
argue it ad nauseum, but let's face it: most people aren't that discriminating. A queen is usually
viewed as "king's wife" until proven otherwise. Elizabeth is one of the few who has been clearly
and undeniably proven otherwise.
(And the argument about Mary is pretty weak considering what a big deal she made about making her
husband an equal ruler. It's a stretch to equate her to a sole sovereign just because her husband
couldn't be bothered with England. If she was sole ruler, it was by default, not strength of will.
That doesn't exactly excite admiration in most people.)
Someone asked a question, and I answered it concisely. If I have known it was going to get
dissected, I'd have been more specific. However, I've now made it very clear what I meant, and I'm
not going to defend my words further because I get the distinct impression you're just using what I
say as an excuse to show off your knowledge.
Take care,
Kat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
Re: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
2007-10-04 03:04:23
Hi Kat -- No offense intended, sorry offense was taken. I didn't intend my reply to come off as either lecturing or as showing off, and I am looking forward to hearing anything you have to say. I intended only to explain why I had responded to you as I had the first time around, and was, actually hoping to be able to expand on this topic, which strikes me as interesting generally. I am interested in reading and learning from you -- people on this list will tell you that I'm in the habit of throwing in data about Spain in this period because my head works in an associative way, my father is from Spain and my mind naturally gravitates in that direction. I toss in Joan of Arc whenever I can, too, and if you think that's off-topic, just wait until I shove Diderot or Anne Bronte into the mix (I'll figure out a way, don't worry!).
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rogue <roguefem@...>
>Sent: Oct 3, 2007 9:41 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
>
>
>Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
>True, but the phrase you used which prompted my reply was "just being some king's wife":
>
>(major snippage)
>------------------------------------------------
>
>I've already said I meant English rulers, so why are you still lecturing about Isabel?
>
>I said "just some king's wife" because that's the usual view of the male-dominated histories that
>are still being taught today. Obviously there are huge differences in the way individual queens
>ruled or didn't- from being the sole power to being the king's arm-candy- and history fans can
>argue it ad nauseum, but let's face it: most people aren't that discriminating. A queen is usually
>viewed as "king's wife" until proven otherwise. Elizabeth is one of the few who has been clearly
>and undeniably proven otherwise.
>
>(And the argument about Mary is pretty weak considering what a big deal she made about making her
>husband an equal ruler. It's a stretch to equate her to a sole sovereign just because her husband
>couldn't be bothered with England. If she was sole ruler, it was by default, not strength of will.
>That doesn't exactly excite admiration in most people.)
>
>Someone asked a question, and I answered it concisely. If I have known it was going to get
>dissected, I'd have been more specific. However, I've now made it very clear what I meant, and I'm
>not going to defend my words further because I get the distinct impression you're just using what I
>say as an excuse to show off your knowledge.
>
>
>Take care,
>Kat
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>
>
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rogue <roguefem@...>
>Sent: Oct 3, 2007 9:41 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
>
>
>Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
>True, but the phrase you used which prompted my reply was "just being some king's wife":
>
>(major snippage)
>------------------------------------------------
>
>I've already said I meant English rulers, so why are you still lecturing about Isabel?
>
>I said "just some king's wife" because that's the usual view of the male-dominated histories that
>are still being taught today. Obviously there are huge differences in the way individual queens
>ruled or didn't- from being the sole power to being the king's arm-candy- and history fans can
>argue it ad nauseum, but let's face it: most people aren't that discriminating. A queen is usually
>viewed as "king's wife" until proven otherwise. Elizabeth is one of the few who has been clearly
>and undeniably proven otherwise.
>
>(And the argument about Mary is pretty weak considering what a big deal she made about making her
>husband an equal ruler. It's a stretch to equate her to a sole sovereign just because her husband
>couldn't be bothered with England. If she was sole ruler, it was by default, not strength of will.
>That doesn't exactly excite admiration in most people.)
>
>Someone asked a question, and I answered it concisely. If I have known it was going to get
>dissected, I'd have been more specific. However, I've now made it very clear what I meant, and I'm
>not going to defend my words further because I get the distinct impression you're just using what I
>say as an excuse to show off your knowledge.
>
>
>Take care,
>Kat
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>
>
Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
2007-10-04 08:43:19
I do know that one Bronte sister is buried in the churchyard by
Scarborough Castle and that her date of death was 28 May!
--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Kat -- No offense intended, sorry offense was taken. I didn't
intend my reply to come off as either lecturing or as showing off,
and I am looking forward to hearing anything you have to say. I
intended only to explain why I had responded to you as I had the
first time around, and was, actually hoping to be able to expand on
this topic, which strikes me as interesting generally. I am
interested in reading and learning from you -- people on this list
will tell you that I'm in the habit of throwing in data about Spain
in this period because my head works in an associative way, my father
is from Spain and my mind naturally gravitates in that direction. I
toss in Joan of Arc whenever I can, too, and if you think that's off-
topic, just wait until I shove Diderot or Anne Bronte into the mix
(I'll figure out a way, don't worry!).
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Rogue <roguefem@...>
> >Sent: Oct 3, 2007 9:41 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
> >
> >
> >Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> >
> >True, but the phrase you used which prompted my reply was "just
being some king's wife":
> >
> >(major snippage)
> >------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I've already said I meant English rulers, so why are you still
lecturing about Isabel?
> >
> >I said "just some king's wife" because that's the usual view of
the male-dominated histories that
> >are still being taught today. Obviously there are huge differences
in the way individual queens
> >ruled or didn't- from being the sole power to being the king's arm-
candy- and history fans can
> >argue it ad nauseum, but let's face it: most people aren't that
discriminating. A queen is usually
> >viewed as "king's wife" until proven otherwise. Elizabeth is one
of the few who has been clearly
> >and undeniably proven otherwise.
> >
> >(And the argument about Mary is pretty weak considering what a big
deal she made about making her
> >husband an equal ruler. It's a stretch to equate her to a sole
sovereign just because her husband
> >couldn't be bothered with England. If she was sole ruler, it was
by default, not strength of will.
> >That doesn't exactly excite admiration in most people.)
> >
> >Someone asked a question, and I answered it concisely. If I have
known it was going to get
> >dissected, I'd have been more specific. However, I've now made it
very clear what I meant, and I'm
> >not going to defend my words further because I get the distinct
impression you're just using what I
> >say as an excuse to show off your knowledge.
> >
> >
> >Take care,
> >Kat
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
> >
> >
>
Scarborough Castle and that her date of death was 28 May!
--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Kat -- No offense intended, sorry offense was taken. I didn't
intend my reply to come off as either lecturing or as showing off,
and I am looking forward to hearing anything you have to say. I
intended only to explain why I had responded to you as I had the
first time around, and was, actually hoping to be able to expand on
this topic, which strikes me as interesting generally. I am
interested in reading and learning from you -- people on this list
will tell you that I'm in the habit of throwing in data about Spain
in this period because my head works in an associative way, my father
is from Spain and my mind naturally gravitates in that direction. I
toss in Joan of Arc whenever I can, too, and if you think that's off-
topic, just wait until I shove Diderot or Anne Bronte into the mix
(I'll figure out a way, don't worry!).
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Rogue <roguefem@...>
> >Sent: Oct 3, 2007 9:41 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
> >
> >
> >Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> >
> >True, but the phrase you used which prompted my reply was "just
being some king's wife":
> >
> >(major snippage)
> >------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I've already said I meant English rulers, so why are you still
lecturing about Isabel?
> >
> >I said "just some king's wife" because that's the usual view of
the male-dominated histories that
> >are still being taught today. Obviously there are huge differences
in the way individual queens
> >ruled or didn't- from being the sole power to being the king's arm-
candy- and history fans can
> >argue it ad nauseum, but let's face it: most people aren't that
discriminating. A queen is usually
> >viewed as "king's wife" until proven otherwise. Elizabeth is one
of the few who has been clearly
> >and undeniably proven otherwise.
> >
> >(And the argument about Mary is pretty weak considering what a big
deal she made about making her
> >husband an equal ruler. It's a stretch to equate her to a sole
sovereign just because her husband
> >couldn't be bothered with England. If she was sole ruler, it was
by default, not strength of will.
> >That doesn't exactly excite admiration in most people.)
> >
> >Someone asked a question, and I answered it concisely. If I have
known it was going to get
> >dissected, I'd have been more specific. However, I've now made it
very clear what I meant, and I'm
> >not going to defend my words further because I get the distinct
impression you're just using what I
> >say as an excuse to show off your knowledge.
> >
> >
> >Take care,
> >Kat
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
> >
> >
>
Re: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
2007-10-04 13:21:38
That's my Anne: she got to know Scarborough very well while governessing for the Robinson family for about five years; in the last stages of her battle against TB, she convinced Charlotte to take her to Scarborough, along with the family friend, Ellen Nussey (who wrote a touching account of Anne's last days). Anne, neglected by biographers, and labelled weak, ineffectual, and uninteresting, took command of almost the entire expedition, including forcing the doctor to tell the truth about her condition, and her last words to Charlotte were: "Take courage." I've stood by her very pretty (and inaccurately inscribed) gravestone, which is right below the castle ruins, thus happily compounding several obsessions (Anne Bronte, Richard III, Piers Gaveston) into one moment.
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>Sent: Oct 4, 2007 3:42 AM
>To:
>Subject: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
>
>I do know that one Bronte sister is buried in the churchyard by
>Scarborough Castle and that her date of death was 28 May!
>
Maria
elena@...
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>Sent: Oct 4, 2007 3:42 AM
>To:
>Subject: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
>
>I do know that one Bronte sister is buried in the churchyard by
>Scarborough Castle and that her date of death was 28 May!
>
Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
2007-10-04 18:49:18
--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
wrote:
>
> That's my Anne: she got to know Scarborough very well while
governessing for the Robinson family for about five years; in the
last stages of her battle against TB, she convinced Charlotte to take
her to Scarborough, along with the family friend, Ellen Nussey (who
wrote a touching account of Anne's last days). Anne, neglected by
biographers, and labelled weak, ineffectual, and uninteresting, took
command of almost the entire expedition, including forcing the doctor
to tell the truth about her condition, and her last words to
Charlotte were: "Take courage." I've stood by her very pretty (and
inaccurately inscribed) gravestone, which is right below the castle
ruins, thus happily compounding several obsessions (Anne Bronte,
Richard III, Piers Gaveston) into one moment.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
As you probably know, my visit to Scarborough was to commemorate the
450th anniversary of Thomas Stafford's raid on the Castle - he was
executed on May 28.
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> >Sent: Oct 4, 2007 3:42 AM
> >To:
> >Subject: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
> >
> >I do know that one Bronte sister is buried in the churchyard by
> >Scarborough Castle and that her date of death was 28 May!
> >
>
wrote:
>
> That's my Anne: she got to know Scarborough very well while
governessing for the Robinson family for about five years; in the
last stages of her battle against TB, she convinced Charlotte to take
her to Scarborough, along with the family friend, Ellen Nussey (who
wrote a touching account of Anne's last days). Anne, neglected by
biographers, and labelled weak, ineffectual, and uninteresting, took
command of almost the entire expedition, including forcing the doctor
to tell the truth about her condition, and her last words to
Charlotte were: "Take courage." I've stood by her very pretty (and
inaccurately inscribed) gravestone, which is right below the castle
ruins, thus happily compounding several obsessions (Anne Bronte,
Richard III, Piers Gaveston) into one moment.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
As you probably know, my visit to Scarborough was to commemorate the
450th anniversary of Thomas Stafford's raid on the Castle - he was
executed on May 28.
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> >Sent: Oct 4, 2007 3:42 AM
> >To:
> >Subject: Liz I, was Re: Tudor TV
> >
> >I do know that one Bronte sister is buried in the churchyard by
> >Scarborough Castle and that her date of death was 28 May!
> >
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.