The Greatest Queen Debate

[Smokey]

Ok so tomorrow night ( well actually later tonight now seen as it's 2am here in UK) i will be going to an event held at the Tower Of London ( so excited) where a panel of Historians ( Alison Weir, Kate Williams, Tracy Boorman & Sarah Gristwood.... Plus another one i can't remember) will each be doing a presentation on the Queeens that have ruled Britain for example- Mary Tudor ( famously known as Bloody Mary), Mary Queen of Scots ( who lost her head) Elizabeth 1 ( The Golden Age), Mary II ( co-ruled with her husband William after the Glorious Revolution) Anne ( the Queen at the time of the Act of Union) Victoria ( Empress of India) and of course good old Elizabeth II

each one apparently will do a talk on one of the Queens, then afterwards there'll be a question time for the audience and then voting time- i'm really interested to see who'll come out on top ( though i do have a fairly good idea) and i'm going to try and reserve judgement until voting time ( though again i have a pretty good feeling as to who i'll go for).

So for those that are interested in History- or anyone in fact if you where part of the audience who do you think you'd vote for and why?

James

[tma]

Not Jane Grey? Wasn't she Queen for 2 two weeks or so?

This is an interesting question... I think that it would depend on criteria. I think that there has probably been the greatest change in the monarchy in the reign of the current Queen. However, I think that Elizabeth the First did make some important contribuations- settling the Catholic/Protestant issue for one (as Henry changed his mind on that more often than he changed wives). In addition- I think that she eventually was a uniter of most of nation, as well as supporting learning and discovery.

I'm sort of a bit of a Tudor geek. Although... I've been reading more about the Plantagenets lately.

[Giant Steps]

This one?

[tma]

@ Giant Steps ... lol without a doubt. I Freddy!

[March Hare]

What, no Stephen Fry or David Mitchell on the panel? Not even for publicity reasons?

Queen Victoria has had most influence on our everyday language, I suppose - the adjective 'Elizabethan' seems only applicable to architecture and historical period, whereas any number of things can be 'Victorian', from values to shoes.

Katharine Kerr, now. What about her? Surely she was a Queen in her own right, from the moment Henry died until her own death.

[count tiszula]

Dear oh dear, Maru; Katherine PARR was a mere consort so Edward VI succeeded. [He it was who had the brilliant idea of naming Lady Jane Grey as his successor]. Still, my knowledge of Willem van Oranjen is sketchy to say the least'

Mary Queen of Scots is by far the most romantic; all that fleeing dressed as a boy; and also turns up as Gertrude in Hamlet. There was a recent series of docs about royal women, and I do wonder why Empress Matilda [or Maud] is not included. [in her case fleeing Oxford in the snow].

[March Hare]

I bow my head in shame of this error. SHAME. ABJECT SHAME. I am not worthy of discussing this topic!

I shall have to dress as a boy and flee to England to seduce Prince Harry.

[Smokey]

Now that Maru-Chan i would like to see

@Giant Steps haha of course- though i'd say Kylie for me hehe

@Count de tisza completely agree i think Empress Matilda ( lady of the english) should have been included- i mean she did rule for a little time & she was influential in getting her son crowned ( & supporting his campaigns)- & of course good old Liz is descended from her.

I would've voted for Anne Boleyn though had they included her- but then i'm just completely biased when it comes do my dear Anne

@tma unfortunately poor Lady Jane was only Queen for 9 days & not a lot really happened in that time, so i guess that's why she wasn't included

Funny enough it was our current Queen who one the vote, followed by Elizabeth 1, then Victoria, then queen Anne, then Mary II, & poor old Mary Tudor & Mary Queen Of Scots didn't get any

It was an amazing event, very well done & quite lively with lots of banter & lots & lots of wine- very interesting conversations going with us History fanatics all a little tipsy hehe.

Though when the Warden said it was time for locking up & jokingly said if we weren't out of here in 20 minutes we'd be spending the night in the Tower Of London we pretty much scarpered lol- i'd have to be paid a lot of money to stay there *shudders*

So what do you guys make of the outcome?

Right better get to bed- up in 5 hours...

[count tiszula]

Well, actually the results and even the order do not surprise me, a week after the Jubilee. And I suspect that the organisers have a pretty good idea of how it's going to go.

The setting sounds top; though doubtless the constable and the military have lots of comfortable spare beds.....not those occupied by the Krays....

[The Dude]

There can be only one....

[Smokey]

True i think the Jubilee did help a bit- i also think though that when each of the Historians said there piece about why there Queen was the best & used reasons that the others where not ( albeit in very good humour & banter) none had anything bad to say about present Queenie- i mean all the others had there reasons- Victoria for disapearing for a bit during her reign, Elizabeth 1 for her morbid vanity & her campaigns in Ireland, Mary Tudor for her burnings, & Mary II & Queen Anne i just don't think are known enough- these where all in good humour i must say.

Remarkable when you think about it, present Queenie really has not put a foot wrong in 60 years- even though some would say the week after Diana died i think people now realise that she was protecting her Grandsons first & the pubic where being quite selfish i'm sorry to say ( & i am a Diana fan).

I mean i know she doesn't have any actual power anymore then her predecessors did, when you think in 60 years we really don't know her views on things such as the Iraq war, House Of Lords reform, MPs expense scandal, Falklands invasion etc it's quite remarkable- especially in such a strong media age when anything gets out.

[Smokey]

I've just finished reading 'Mary Tudor England's first Queen' by Anna Whitelock and found it really interesting, it sheds new light on 'Bloody Mary' and questions whether her reign really was the failure it gets so often portrayed to be & whether the term 'Bloody Mary' is really deserved- it's not biased though, it doesn't hide the horror of the burning's that went on during her reign, but it does point out that the other Tudor could be just as equally as bloody when it came to burning's, hangings & executions over religion- especially Henry VIII.

I can't help but wonder if we hadn't the disastrous war & lost Calais ( & then plunged into debt) things may have looked slightly different on Mary's legacy.

What do you guys think?

[March Hare]

Well, obviously things would have looked different if the war hadn't happened (that way). That sort of goes without saying. Also, I still think it was ridiculous for England to hold a city on the Continent - no matter how close to home.

The burning of "heretics" wasn't exactly new either. I'm not very knowledgeable on Mary Tudor, but wasn't she the really fundamentalist Catholic type? Also, she was a woman. Surely that's the main reason for her reputation of especially violent monarch. The consensus seemed (and seems) to be that a female violent monarch is something of an aberration.

[Smokey]

Yes she was indeed the fundamentalist Catholic one, i definitely agree with your point about the female consensus, she was a lot less bloody then some of her predecessors- and Religion was a massive thing in those days ( far more so then now) & i know it hard to comprehend but they generally thought they where doing the right thing by the burning's & saving there souls.

England holding Calais was an interesting one- goes back to the hundred years war, from Edward 3rd to George 3rd in the 1800's the English/later British Monarchs generally thought the had a claim to the throne of France.

Mind you at one point the English held Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, Angouleme etc & Henry 6th was even crowned King.

[tma]

Posted 16 July 2012 - 03:30 PM I've just finished reading 'Mary Tudor England's first Queen' by Anna Whitelock and found it really interesting, it sheds new light on 'Bloody Mary' and questions whether her reign really was the failure it gets so often portrayed to be & whether the term 'Bloody Mary' is really deserved

I'll have to check that out! I'll admit that I've read mostly historical fiction (that was researched) about the Tudors, but I always think that it is interesting to see a well-researched different point of view. I got that with Allison Weir's (non-fiction) book about Anne Boylen.

Thanks for a recommendation.

[count tiszula]

It's never really occurred to me before , but England really got the Wars of Religion out if the way pretty quickly, within 25 years, and they weren't proper wars anyway compared to most of Europe. Just a shame they had to be revived in our times.

Similarly there has been virtually no time in the last millennium when England has not claimed or actually controlled parts of the Continent. But then European frontiers have been so fluid that it's difficult to see why the Channel should be a cutoff point. The Kingdom of France was for centuries almost an artificial construct with little or no relation to the modern country. And if Mary II had had children, I assume the Netherlands would still be controlled by GB.

Of course Mary I's greatest achievement was giving rise to the question "Who had what written on whose what?"

[March Hare]

And if Mary II had had children, I assume the Netherlands would still be controlled by GB.

If... bloody... only.

[Smokey]

Posted 16 July 2012 - 03:30 PM I've just finished reading 'Mary Tudor England's first Queen' by Anna Whitelock and found it really interesting, it sheds new light on 'Bloody Mary' and questions whether her reign really was the failure it gets so often portrayed to be & whether the term 'Bloody Mary' is really deserved

I'll have to check that out! I'll admit that I've read mostly historical fiction (that was researched) about the Tudors, but I always think that it is interesting to see a well-researched different point of view. I got that with Allison Weir's (non-fiction) book about Anne Boylen.

Thanks for a recommendation.

No Problem

When Alison Weir's book on Anne Boleyn is that 'The Lady in the Tower'? I LOVE that book it's so well researched.... Poor Anne

[Smokey]

It's never really occurred to me before , but England really got the Wars of Religion out if the way pretty quickly, within 25 years, and they weren't proper wars anyway compared to most of Europe. Just a shame they had to be revived in our times.

That is very true- especially considering France's 'Wars Of Religion'

Similarly there has been virtually no time in the last millennium when England has not claimed or actually controlled parts of the Continent. But then European frontiers have been so fluid that it's difficult to see why the Channel should be a cutoff point. The Kingdom of France was for centuries almost an artificial construct with little or no relation to the modern country. And if Mary II had had children, I assume the Netherlands would still be controlled by GB.

It's interesting isn't it to think what could have happened, another one is what if Queen Anne's son had lived past the age of 11 ( or in fact if any of her children had lived) then we'd never have had Victoria, our current Queen or William or Harry etc

Same goes for if Princess Charlotte ( daughter of George IV) had lived- then she would've been Queen- again no Victoria or Albert- or our current Queen, Charles, William or Harry- and presumably Leopold would never have become King of the Belgians. It really is interesting to think of the 'what ifs'.

Of course Mary I's greatest achievement was giving rise to the question "Who had what written on whose what?"

[Smokey]

Well i think after tonight Queen Elizabeth has gained herself a few new admirers- that James Bond sketch was literally amazing, i was watching thinking 'no way is the Queen really going to appear, there'll use an actress for sure' & then when she turned round it was The Queen i was like 'wow' haha. Pretty good i thought, a great show all around

[JenJen]

Well i think after tonight Queen Elizabeth has gained herself a few new admirers- that James Bond sketch was literally amazing, i was watching thinking 'no way is the Queen really going to appear, there'll use an actress for sure' & then when she turned round it was The Queen i was like 'wow' haha. Pretty good i thought, a great show all around

Queen Elizabeth is even a meme now after last night ("Unimpressed Queen Elizabeth" lol). Truly she has been immortalized.

[Smokey]

Lol to be fair i think by the end a few of the viewers where starting to nod off

[tma]

Lol to be fair i think by the end a few of the viewers where starting to nod off

Actually.... I found out the next day that I missed some decently cool stuff. The beginning sort of bored me and so I was off. To be honest- the Only opening ceremony that I've ever watched all the way through was China. I hadn't planned on it, but I was just astounded- SO cool!!

[Smokey]

Lol to be fair i think by the end a few of the viewers where starting to nod off

Actually.... I found out the next day that I missed some decently cool stuff. The beginning sort of bored me and so I was off. To be honest- the Only opening ceremony that I've ever watched all the way through was China. I hadn't planned on it, but I was just astounded- SO cool!!

Oh no- have you had a chance to watch it? To be fair i think quite a few people where originally debating watching it

[Smokey]

Thought i'd give this thread a little bump.

Sad news this past week, one of my favorite Historians Eric Ives passed away at the age of 81 after suffering a severe stroke

His work on Anne Boleyn ( 'The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn') is above and beyond amazing & superb & is without doubt the best historical biography i have ever read, i really wish i had met him it would have been such an honor, from what i have heard from those who have met him ( other History fans, Alison Weir etc) he was a complete gentleman & always happy to talk & discuss with fellow historians/history fans.

He was not ashamed to admit that he was extremely fascinated by Anne- & referred to her as 'the third women in his life' after his wife & daughter, he was always at Hever Castle meeting people who came to here his talks & who had traveled from all over the world, BBC History magazine paid him a lovely tribute recently with a lovely comment by fellow Tudor historian Suzannah Lipscomb.

Well RIP Professor Ives, it's a shame i could never tell you in person just how inspirational your work was to me personally. I hope you are now getting to meet the great lady yourself