Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: Did Elizabeth I Have Alternate Personalities?

  1. #1 Did Elizabeth I Have Alternate Personalities? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Last year I visited Montacute House in Somerset. It’s an old Tudor building which was derelict for a period of time before being renovated. Unfortunately there is evidence of damage inside resulting from this dereliction but what made the house such a pleasure to visit were the works of art on display. These had been generously loaned by the National Portrait Gallery, London, and some of the works were simply fantastic!

    One work I was mesmerized by was painted during the Civil War. However it looked just like it had been painted yesterday! It was in perfect condition without a single crack to be seen in the paint. And the colours were so vivid you could still see a realistic blush on the cheek of the subject matter. Indeed if the information sign hadn’t have said it had been painted in the 17th century I would have told you it had only been painted last week! And I am not exaggerating!

    However, that is not what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about were the painting(s) of Elizabeth I.

    The queen is portrayed in one room in classic pose and it is quite obvious who you are looking at before you even read the information sign. However on the opposite wall of this room is another portrait of someone entirely different (as is clearly detailed on the notice) but who is the spitting image of Elizabeth I. While standing in the middle of the room I compared the two subjects and every single feature (and I am not exaggerating) were identical. These included not just the hair colour but the distance between the hairline and the eyes, the shape of the nose, the angled cheeks and small chin, the shape of the eye brow, etc, etc. It was obvious it was one and the same individual. Yet the dress of this individual was quite ordinary and we were clearly told it was not Elizabeth I.

    However this was not the end of the story. Downstairs in the last room I visited was another portrait of what I thought was Elizabeth I but upon closer inspection it turned out was not her at all but a cousin. Again every single feature of her face was identical bar one; the nose was completely different.

    And I thought how likely is it that cousins can have such genetically identical features such as this where every single feature of the face is completely the same but where the nose is different? There are many twins out there that don’t look as similar as this!

    Have any historians out there taken note of this rather curious phenomena and is there an explanation for it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Artist in the Renaissance tended not to paint accurately, faces were cleaned up and moderately stylized in a way to make them more appealing. Also, nobility rarely posed very long for their portraits, which made artist often work off of a sort of stock set of tricks for their painting, like the same poses and positions of the face.


    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Artist in the Renaissance tended not to paint accurately, faces were cleaned up and moderately stylized in a way to make them more appealing. Also, nobility rarely posed very long for their portraits, which made artist often work off of a sort of stock set of tricks for their painting, like the same poses and positions of the face.
    I'm sure a very similar thing happens today when it comes to time spent posing.

    But even then an artist would have had plenty of time to make preliminary sketches.

    And further to have two faces which are absolutely identical must be rather more than a coincidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Artist in the Renaissance tended not to paint accurately, faces were cleaned up and moderately stylized in a way to make them more appealing. Also, nobility rarely posed very long for their portraits, which made artist often work off of a sort of stock set of tricks for their painting, like the same poses and positions of the face.
    I'm sure a very similar thing happens today when it comes to time spent posing.

    But even then an artist would have had plenty of time to make preliminary sketches.

    And further to have two faces which are absolutely identical must be rather more than a coincidence.
    Today they take photographs.

    I think you missed the part where I said the artist aren't actually painting the people as their face looks, but as they think an idealized face should look. Even a quick survey of period portraits of Elizabeth will show you that she rarely even looks the same from painting to painting. They instead rely on recognizable trappings, like her hair, crown and clothes, to identify her.

    Some likely did try for verisimilitude, like this one. However, even when they are meant to mimic life, you can guarantee they are cleaned up and made to look pleasing. No one ever has bad skin in these portraits.



    Others were painted of her several years after an event, like this portrait of her coronation that was painted a decade later. This one is highly stylized.



    Once a tradition of painting Elizabeth's face in a certain angular pattern was developed, subsequent artist copied it. No matter how Elizabeth actually looked, which is likely closer to that top photo with the pudgy cheeks.



    This is the Darnley portrait that was the basis for the angular face that became the "official" Elizabeth face for subsequent portraits. As she got older it just wouldn't do to paint Elizabeth in a way that showed her age.

    It's not a stretch to suggest other painters would copy the famous queen's facial patterns (which probably didn't resemble Elizabeth that closely to begin with) for their own patrons as well.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Artist in the Renaissance tended not to paint accurately, faces were cleaned up and moderately stylized in a way to make them more appealing. Also, nobility rarely posed very long for their portraits, which made artist often work off of a sort of stock set of tricks for their painting, like the same poses and positions of the face.
    I'm sure a very similar thing happens today when it comes to time spent posing.

    But even then an artist would have had plenty of time to make preliminary sketches.

    And further to have two faces which are absolutely identical must be rather more than a coincidence.
    Today they take photographs.

    I think you missed the part where I said the artist aren't actually painting the people as their face looks, but as they think an idealized face should look. Even a quick survey of period portraits of Elizabeth will show you that she rarely even looks the same from painting to painting. They instead rely on recognizable trappings, like her hair, crown and clothes, to identify her.

    Some likely did try for verisimilitude, like this one. However, even when they are meant to mimic life, you can guarantee they are cleaned up and made to look pleasing. No one ever has bad skin in these portraits.

    Others were painted of her several years after an event, like this portrait of her coronation that was painted a decade later. This one is highly stylized.

    Once a tradition of painting Elizabeth's face in a certain angular pattern was developed, subsequent artist copied it. No matter how Elizabeth actually looked, which is likely closer to that top photo with the pudgy cheeks.

    This is the Darnley portrait that was the basis for the angular face that became the "official" Elizabeth face for subsequent portraits. As she got older it just wouldn't do to paint Elizabeth in a way that showed her age.

    It's not a stretch to suggest other painters would copy the famous queen's facial patterns (which probably didn't resemble Elizabeth that closely to begin with) for their own patrons as well.
    I accept your point i_feel_tiredsleepy, and it's a completely valid one.

    However what is the probability that two faces should end up looking exactly identical in each and every way just by pure chance?

    I would estimate 1 : 1,000,000,000.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    [quote="i_feel_tiredsleepy"][quote="galexander"]
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    This is the Darnley portrait that was the basis for the angular face that became the "official" Elizabeth face for subsequent portraits. As she got older it just wouldn't do to paint Elizabeth in a way that showed her age.

    It's not a stretch to suggest other painters would copy the famous queen's facial patterns (which probably didn't resemble Elizabeth that closely to begin with) for their own patrons as well.
    On this last point, can you show that the same happened with other monarchs?

    Are there portraits of Henry the VIII for example which aren't Henry but someone else?

    I've never heard of such a thing and the whole thing sounds slightly ridiculous to me.

    Who would pay good money to have their portrait painted only to have the features of someone else used instead purely as a short-cut by the painter?

    Having flattering portraits done is one thing, but having your portrait done so that you look just like the reigning monarch is just a little silly even for the medieval era!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Discussing the subject of alternate personalities, which is a medical condition and is one possible explanation for the 'twin image' portraits, it is known that Elizabeth's life before she became queen had been rather traumatic.

    Her mother, Anne Boleyn, had been beheaded by her natural father Henry VIII making Elizabeth illegitimate as a successor to the throne.

    It also seems that Elizabeth may have been abused later by a stepfather.

    Her Catholic elder half-sister Mary Tudor had her led through Traitors' Gate and imprisoned in the Tower. Had her rights been abused while imprisoned? Certainly it is said that the experience had completely terrified her.

    Also Elizabeth never married and became known as the Virgin Queen as a consequence. This in many respects doesn't bode well as far as general mental health is concerned.

    I first came upon the idea of alternate personalities while 'ghost hunting' at Bisham Abbey near where I used to live. Even though I had no substantial evidence at all at the time and it was just a 'hunch', it just seemed so strange that the previous occupant of Bisham Abbey had red hair, was also called Elizabeth and had apparently been good friends with Queen Elizabeth I. Of course portraits of Lady Elizabeth Hoby don't bear the slightest resemblance to Queen Elizabeth I but it was just such a strange co-incidence.

    But when I came upon evidence of 'twins' in portraits at Montacute House I was keen to make careful notes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Discussing the subject of alternate personalities, which is a medical condition and is one possible explanation for the 'twin image' portraits, it is known that Elizabeth's life before she became queen had been rather traumatic.

    Her mother, Anne Boleyn, had been beheaded by her natural father Henry VIII making Elizabeth illegitimate as a successor to the throne.

    It also seems that Elizabeth may have been abused later by a stepfather.

    Her Catholic elder half-sister Mary Tudor had her led through Traitors' Gate and imprisoned in the Tower. Had her rights been abused while imprisoned? Certainly it is said that the experience had completely terrified her.

    Also Elizabeth never married and became known as the Virgin Queen as a consequence. This in many respects doesn't bode well as far as general mental health is concerned.

    I first came upon the idea of alternate personalities while 'ghost hunting' at Bisham Abbey near where I used to live. Even though I had no substantial evidence at all at the time and it was just a 'hunch', it just seemed so strange that the previous occupant of Bisham Abbey had red hair, was also called Elizabeth and had apparently been good friends with Queen Elizabeth I. Of course portraits of Lady Elizabeth Hoby don't bear the slightest resemblance to Queen Elizabeth I but it was just such a strange co-incidence.

    But when I came upon evidence of 'twins' in portraits at Montacute House I was keen to make careful notes.
    Come to think of it though there may have been a passing resemblance between some of the portraits of Lady Hoby and Elizabeth I.

    What do you think?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    I've never heard of such a thing and the whole thing sounds slightly ridiculous to me.

    Who would pay good money to have their portrait painted only to have the features of someone else used instead purely as a short-cut by the painter?
    I think you're misunderstanding the ego needs of the aristocracy. Beautiful women love to be told they look like Angelina Jolie. There's no more convincing way to say a woman looks like her idol than to paint her so she looks like that. Flattery will get a shrewd artist many clients.

    Also a good idea to make the reigning monarch look as beautiful as possible.




    Having flattering portraits done is one thing, but having your portrait done so that you look just like the reigning monarch is just a little silly even for the medieval era!
    Are you going to tell a powerful Baroness or Countess who thinks she looks like the queen that she's really just an ugly hag?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    I've never heard of such a thing and the whole thing sounds slightly ridiculous to me.

    Who would pay good money to have their portrait painted only to have the features of someone else used instead purely as a short-cut by the painter?
    I think you're misunderstanding the ego needs of the aristocracy. Beautiful women love to be told they look like Angelina Jolie. There's no more convincing way to say a woman looks like her idol than to paint her so she looks like that. Flattery will get a shrewd artist many clients.

    Also a good idea to make the reigning monarch look as beautiful as possible.




    Having flattering portraits done is one thing, but having your portrait done so that you look just like the reigning monarch is just a little silly even for the medieval era!
    Are you going to tell a powerful Baroness or Countess who thinks she looks like the queen that she's really just an ugly hag?
    Honestly, I've not heard of this one before.

    Can you think of any examples of this, quotes or references, etc. to support this explanation?

    Also, as I asked earlier, is there any evidence of this happening with previous kings and queens? Are there any look-a-like portraits of Mary Tudor or Henry VIII for example?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Also Elizabeth never married and became known as the Virgin Queen as a consequence. This in many respects doesn't bode well as far as general mental health is concerned.
    Don't read too much into it. Elizabeth was very likely not a virgin, and her lack of marriage had more to do with the unstable power of the Tudor dynasty and her unwillingness to give up power to a male consort. If she had married later in life and not produce any heirs it could have caused a power struggle between the consort and the Stuarts. Remember also that Mary Stuart tried to have her killed numerous times in an attempt to gain the British throne (before finally being executed). Her lack of marriage is more of an indication of her political aptitude.

    Also, when I said that the style would be imitated in portraits, I do not mean that it will be imitated in a copying of Elizabeth's face, but of the patterns and shapes that were considered aesthetically pleasing at the time. The result of this is that people who would only look moderately similar in person end up looking very similar in portraits.

    The portrait of Lady Hoby only tells us she was a woman with blue eyes and an angular face. We don't really know how accurate the portrait is, nor does it actually resemble Elizabeth I that much. Also, it would take quite a stretch of credulity to think that Lady Hoby's entire family line and numerous contemporary accounts of her are all fabrications, and that somehow the queen was able to live a double life and still accomplish everything she did as queen. Why would she need to live a double life? Elizabeth published poetry, rode around on horses and rallied Londoners at the docks during the Spanish invasion, and she quite openly pursued numerous affairs with much younger men. She didn't really need to assume another identity to do whatever she wanted, she was effectively one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, person in England at the time.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Also Elizabeth never married and became known as the Virgin Queen as a consequence. This in many respects doesn't bode well as far as general mental health is concerned.
    Don't read too much into it. Elizabeth was very likely not a virgin, and her lack of marriage had more to do with the unstable power of the Tudor dynasty and her unwillingness to give up power to a male consort. If she had married later in life and not produce any heirs it could have caused a power struggle between the consort and the Stuarts. Remember also that Mary Stuart tried to have her killed numerous times in an attempt to gain the British throne (before finally being executed). Her lack of marriage is more of an indication of her political aptitude.
    Yeah. As long as she remained single, the crown was hers to pass to any male she wanted. Whenever internal factions would conspire against her, she would simply threaten to marry one of their rivals, and they'd have to call it off.

    I mean... she didn't directly threaten. She'd just pick a rival and start dating or corresponding.... etc.... hinting that maybe she might be interested. But the meaning would have been clear to them: "Stop this, or you'll get a monarch you hate even more than me."
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    If she had married later in life and not produce any heirs it could have caused a power struggle between the consort and the Stuarts.
    'If' she had married later in life, and 'if' she had not produced any heirs, it 'could' have produced a power struggle.

    I don't think history really works like this, there are too many if's and but's in my opinion. Life is life at the end of the day, you just have to live it whether you are a monarch or not.

    Also, when I said that the style would be imitated in portraits, I do not mean that it will be imitated in a copying of Elizabeth's face, but of the patterns and shapes that were considered aesthetically pleasing at the time. The result of this is that people who would only look moderately similar in person end up looking very similar in portraits.
    But did this happen in the reign of other monarchs? Were people during the reign of Henry VIII shown as being fatter than they actually were? I can well imagine the reigning monarch setting fashions as far as dress were concerned or the wearing of wigs but I doubt this would include the changing of physical features in portraits.

    The portrait of Lady Hoby only tells us she was a woman with blue eyes and an angular face. We don't really know how accurate the portrait is, nor does it actually resemble Elizabeth I that much.
    Maybe, but don't forget you have already pointed out yourself that there are variations in some of the recognised portraits of Elizabeth I in that she can look quite different at times so the portrait of Elizabeth Hoby could still resemble her quite strongly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    If she had married later in life and not produce any heirs it could have caused a power struggle between the consort and the Stuarts.
    'If' she had married later in life, and 'if' she had not produced any heirs, it 'could' have produced a power struggle.

    I don't think history really works like this, there are too many if's and but's in my opinion. Life is life at the end of the day, you just have to live it whether you are a monarch or not.
    It almost certainly would have produced a power struggle. Why do you think Henry VIII beheaded his wives? Simple vanity? No. It's because any monarch in the middle ages who failed to produce an heir was virtually guaranteed to be challenged. Without an heir, nobody with whom you have contracted an alliance can be sure whether their arrangements are going to endure after your death.

    Those alliances are how a kingdom is held together. Few monarchs in history ever had the power to hold their kingdom on the basis of their own military might alone. That's why the lesser nobility was important. The monarch had to make sure those people stayed fat and happy.



    Also, when I said that the style would be imitated in portraits, I do not mean that it will be imitated in a copying of Elizabeth's face, but of the patterns and shapes that were considered aesthetically pleasing at the time. The result of this is that people who would only look moderately similar in person end up looking very similar in portraits.
    But did this happen in the reign of other monarchs? Were people during the reign of Henry VIII shown as being fatter than they actually were? I can well imagine the reigning monarch setting fashions as far as dress were concerned or the wearing of wigs but I doubt this would include the changing of physical features in portraits.
    As I understand it, fatness was a sign of status. It's sort of like how pale skin, and delicate hands was a sign of status because it meant you hadn't been out in the sun
    working or doing peasant work. It's kind of the opposite of how we see things today, where being healthy and vigorous is more praiseworthy.


    The portrait of Lady Hoby only tells us she was a woman with blue eyes and an angular face. We don't really know how accurate the portrait is, nor does it actually resemble Elizabeth I that much.
    Maybe, but don't forget you have already pointed out yourself that there are variations in some of the recognised portraits of Elizabeth I in that she can look quite different at times so the portrait of Elizabeth Hoby could still resemble her quite strongly.
    It's not impossible that correlation could have meaning. Just be careful not to read too much into it. The nobility was a government like any other, including a government's tendency to use art work for propaganda purposes.

    Having an artist depict you so you look like a recognized important figure is a good way to spread a propaganda message about how you want the public to receive you. Hoby's personal vanity might have been taking a back seat to her political ambitions.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It almost certainly would have produced a power struggle. Why do you think Henry VIII beheaded his wives? Simple vanity? No. It's because any monarch in the middle ages who failed to produce an heir was virtually guaranteed to be challenged. Without an heir, nobody with whom you have contracted an alliance can be sure whether their arrangements are going to endure after your death.

    Those alliances are how a kingdom is held together. Few monarchs in history ever had the power to hold their kingdom on the basis of their own military might alone. That's why the lesser nobility was important. The monarch had to make sure those people stayed fat and happy.
    Yes but the situation with Henry VIII was the exact opposite to that which ultimately applied to Elizabeth I.

    Henry VIII desperately wanted a male heir and Elizabeth I did not seem to want any heirs all.

    How do you explain this obvious contradiction?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's not impossible that correlation could have meaning. Just be careful not to read too much into it. The nobility was a government like any other, including a government's tendency to use art work for propaganda purposes.

    Having an artist depict you so you look like a recognized important figure is a good way to spread a propaganda message about how you want the public to receive you. Hoby's personal vanity might have been taking a back seat to her political ambitions.
    Yes, such mimicry does happen but it never actually goes that far in practice.

    In the Thatcher era every politician followed the trend set by Margaret Thatcher. It seemed that just about every politician had a 'Margaret Thatcher haircut', even the men!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    [

    Yes but the situation with Henry VIII was the exact opposite to that which ultimately applied to Elizabeth I.

    Henry VIII desperately wanted a male heir and Elizabeth I did not seem to want any heirs all.

    How do you explain this obvious contradiction?
    Elizabeth was in a different position. For one, during the age she would have usually married she was prevented by her half-brother and half-sister, who both saw her as a potential enemy who had to be controlled.

    Her brother provides a good example of the kind of situation Elizabeth might have wanted to avoid. He died without heir, but he had named his cousin Lady Grey heir. What happened? Mary was able to procure more political support after Edward's death and Lady Grey lost her head. When the succession isn't obvious shit can go badly.

    Elizabeth also became queen at a fairly advanced age at the time (28), almost a spinster by their standards. She used the potential of marriage as a political tool, because anyone she married would be elevated to the second highest position in the realm. When she got older and it became apparent that James Stuart would be king after her, getting married would have been a colossal mistake. It could have caused war with Scotland and any English factions that sided with the Stuarts.

    The thing is at the time marriage wasn't about desires or love, it was all about politics and business.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It almost certainly would have produced a power struggle. Why do you think Henry VIII beheaded his wives? Simple vanity? No. It's because any monarch in the middle ages who failed to produce an heir was virtually guaranteed to be challenged. Without an heir, nobody with whom you have contracted an alliance can be sure whether their arrangements are going to endure after your death.

    Those alliances are how a kingdom is held together. Few monarchs in history ever had the power to hold their kingdom on the basis of their own military might alone. That's why the lesser nobility was important. The monarch had to make sure those people stayed fat and happy.
    Yes but the situation with Henry VIII was the exact opposite to that which ultimately applied to Elizabeth I.

    Henry VIII desperately wanted a male heir and Elizabeth I did not seem to want any heirs all.

    How do you explain this obvious contradiction?
    Sleepy's explanation is pretty complete. You can't just choose an heir. It has to be a really strong choice that all of the people agree with. For Elizabeth, getting married would have been sufficient, but like Sleepy points out, it's a bad idea to go choosing an heir after one has been chosen, especially if that next heir is powerful enough to fight his own battles, and is at peace with you, and happy to wait for you to die.

    Henry's problem is that he had to worry about people challenging his authority even whilst he was alive. If a King's line is going to be overthrown, people prefer to do it while he's still in power. That way his former supporters will be forced to declare their allegiance to the victor, rather than having the option to side later with some dark horse candidate that claims lineage.

    Being a king is all about alliances. The reason a king's son usually ascends is because the last King's allies usually decide to continue supporting him after his death by declaring allegiance to his son. There's no divine law decreed in heaven and enforced by a secret cult of club wielding monks that says it has to be so. It could go any number of ways. That's just the way it usually happens. For a modern example you could look at N. Korea or Cuba, or maybe even at GW. Bush. In both cases there is certainly no official governmental regulation that says the son of a previous ruler ought to be given preference. They just have the easiest time taking power, so they do.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's not impossible that correlation could have meaning. Just be careful not to read too much into it. The nobility was a government like any other, including a government's tendency to use art work for propaganda purposes.

    Having an artist depict you so you look like a recognized important figure is a good way to spread a propaganda message about how you want the public to receive you. Hoby's personal vanity might have been taking a back seat to her political ambitions.
    Yes, such mimicry does happen but it never actually goes that far in practice.

    In the Thatcher era every politician followed the trend set by Margaret Thatcher. It seemed that just about every politician had a 'Margaret Thatcher haircut', even the men!!
    In the modern era, people are better informed. You must understand that probably very few people who saw Hoby's portrait had ever met her in person, and certainly nobody had ever taken a photograph of her.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    [

    Yes but the situation with Henry VIII was the exact opposite to that which ultimately applied to Elizabeth I.

    Henry VIII desperately wanted a male heir and Elizabeth I did not seem to want any heirs all.

    How do you explain this obvious contradiction?
    Elizabeth was in a different position. For one, during the age she would have usually married she was prevented by her half-brother and half-sister, who both saw her as a potential enemy who had to be controlled.

    Her brother provides a good example of the kind of situation Elizabeth might have wanted to avoid. He died without heir, but he had named his cousin Lady Grey heir. What happened? Mary was able to procure more political support after Edward's death and Lady Grey lost her head. When the succession isn't obvious shit can go badly.

    Elizabeth also became queen at a fairly advanced age at the time (28), almost a spinster by their standards. She used the potential of marriage as a political tool, because anyone she married would be elevated to the second highest position in the realm. When she got older and it became apparent that James Stuart would be king after her, getting married would have been a colossal mistake. It could have caused war with Scotland and any English factions that sided with the Stuarts.

    The thing is at the time marriage wasn't about desires or love, it was all about politics and business.
    But what was to stop Elizabeth having children before she became queen?

    It was by no means a certainty that she would one day become queen and this only happened as a result of Mary Tudor's early demise.

    For Elizabeth not to have children because she was 'worried' it might cause some form of national strife is pushing it just a little. Not having an heir is far more likely a reason to cause strife.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    But what was to stop Elizabeth having children before she became queen?

    It was by no means a certainty that she would one day become queen and this only happened as a result of Mary Tudor's early demise.

    For Elizabeth not to have children because she was 'worried' it might cause some form of national strife is pushing it just a little. Not having an heir is far more likely a reason to cause strife.
    Her siblings were highly antagonistic to her at various and this prevented any marriages. Under Edward she was legally a bastard, and under Mary she was kept under close surveillance until being imprisoned.

    Again to look at how a badly picked marriage could end badly, Mary chose to marry the heir to the Spanish throne, insuring that any of her children would unite Spain and England. It was a bold political move that backfired. This, you can imagine, was one of the major causes of Mary's untimely death, she was seen as too weak willed and the marriage as a surrender of Protestant England to Catholic Spain.

    The next time England was ruled by a queen after Elizabeth, queen Anne, her husband (William of Orange) did succeed the throne after her (he was co-monarch during her rein, as he was also king of Holland) when they had no children. (This ended the Stuart line) William was lucky enough that the next strongest contender for the throne was in Germany and willing to wait.

    So, Elizabeth taking a husband could cause political instability, weaken her own power, and could cause a succession crisis if she produced no children. Elizabeth showed herself to be an adept politician, so I don't think it unlikely these issues occurred to her.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    But what was to stop Elizabeth having children before she became queen?

    It was by no means a certainty that she would one day become queen and this only happened as a result of Mary Tudor's early demise.

    For Elizabeth not to have children because she was 'worried' it might cause some form of national strife is pushing it just a little. Not having an heir is far more likely a reason to cause strife.
    Her siblings were highly antagonistic to her at various and this prevented any marriages. Under Edward she was legally a bastard, and under Mary she was kept under close surveillance until being imprisoned.

    Again to look at how a badly picked marriage could end badly, Mary chose to marry the heir to the Spanish throne, insuring that any of her children would unite Spain and England. It was a bold political move that backfired. This, you can imagine, was one of the major causes of Mary's untimely death, she was seen as too weak willed and the marriage as a surrender of Protestant England to Catholic Spain.

    The next time England was ruled by a queen after Elizabeth, queen Anne, her husband (William of Orange) did succeed the throne after her (he was co-monarch during her rein, as he was also king of Holland) when they had no children. (This ended the Stuart line) William was lucky enough that the next strongest contender for the throne was in Germany and willing to wait.

    So, Elizabeth taking a husband could cause political instability, weaken her own power, and could cause a succession crisis if she produced no children. Elizabeth showed herself to be an adept politician, so I don't think it unlikely these issues occurred to her.
    I still feel your chain of logic is incomplete on this one.

    You also appear to have contradicted yourself in admitting that Elizabeth could have caused "a succession crisis if she produced no children."

    In my mind it still remains largely unexplained why Elizabeth I did not marry. Historians seem to be at a loss for a single explanation for the phenomena.

    However if you take into account the fact that Elizabeth may have suffered personal trauma in her early life, it could explain quite a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    There might be more than one reason. If James Stuart of Scotland thinks he's going to be the next king, and you're Queen Elizabeth and you suddenly decide to marry somebody, James might take that as kind of a slap in the face. Don't you think? He might get mad and decide to send some troops out. Then people start dying, and some of Elizabeth's constituents might wonder whether she really has their best interests at heart, given that the war was avoidable if she just didn't marry.

    There are lots of speculative reasons too. Maybe she takes a lover who isn't of noble lineage, and therefore could not be accepted as king, and decides she doesn't want to marry anyone else. Maybe she was a man (there are some historians who believe this). Maybe she was just power mad and didn't want to share.

    The main question in this thread is and has been: why is your Hoby option better than all the others? Why should it be given preference? It's certainly not impossible that she had a double life, but seems very improbable given the responsibilities she had as queen.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    There might be more than one reason. If James Stuart of Scotland thinks he's going to be the next king, and you're Queen Elizabeth and you suddenly decide to marry somebody, James might take that as kind of a slap in the face. Don't you think? He might get mad and decide to send some troops out. Then people start dying, and some of Elizabeth's constituents might wonder whether she really has their best interests at heart, given that the war was avoidable if she just didn't marry.

    There are lots of speculative reasons too. Maybe she takes a lover who isn't of noble lineage, and therefore could not be accepted as king, and decides she doesn't want to marry anyone else. Maybe she was a man (there are some historians who believe this). Maybe she was just power mad and didn't want to share.

    The main question in this thread is and has been: why is your Hoby option better than all the others? Why should it be given preference? It's certainly not impossible that she had a double life, but seems very improbable given the responsibilities she had as queen.
    During her reign Elizabeth sent troops against the Scottish so she couldn't really have been that timid of the Scots at all.

    In general you are making Elizabeth out as a rather nervous, weak leader and this is not really how the history books make her out.

    You mention that some historians have claimed that Elizabeth was actually a man. Are you sure that actual historians are saying this and that it's not just a popular legend? As for my own opinion, apart from invoking laughter, it at the very least suggests that there is some doubt in the popular mind about Elizabeth I.

    The portrait of Hoby was all that came to hand from a search on the internet. When I saw the look-a-like portraits at Montacute House I did not have a pen and paper handy and did not note down the names. However it is quite possible that images of these portraits are not on the internet anyway. I may go down to Montacute House again some time and make sure I take a note pad with me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    She was a weak leader in the sense that she had limited control of her government, but as an individual she was quite adept at politics.

    For example, she notoriously had trouble commanding the military, because as soon as any of her commanders were out of contact they would ignore her. The defeat of the Spanish Armada is pretty much the only good thing that happened to England militarily during that period.

    It's not war with Scotland itself that would trouble her, but the potential of several powerful people in England siding with James, which would could cause something as devastating as the War of the Roses for the English nobility. Don't forget also that her sister (and Lady Grey) were both deposed by the nobility, showing that a monarch's position at the time was never that secure.

    After Mary Queen of Scots was dead, they had a secure Protestant heir in James Stuart that most in England were happy with, it wouldn't have helped to stir the pot by having a husband at that time when she likely couldn't have produced a child anyway. Note that women giving birth in their 30s and 40s would have been highly unlikely at the time. She only had a very small window to get married and produce an heir, and by all accounts the one time she came close to it she was blocked by nobles who saw the match as a poor choice.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    There might be more than one reason. If James Stuart of Scotland thinks he's going to be the next king, and you're Queen Elizabeth and you suddenly decide to marry somebody, James might take that as kind of a slap in the face. Don't you think? He might get mad and decide to send some troops out. Then people start dying, and some of Elizabeth's constituents might wonder whether she really has their best interests at heart, given that the war was avoidable if she just didn't marry.

    There are lots of speculative reasons too. Maybe she takes a lover who isn't of noble lineage, and therefore could not be accepted as king, and decides she doesn't want to marry anyone else. Maybe she was a man (there are some historians who believe this). Maybe she was just power mad and didn't want to share.

    The main question in this thread is and has been: why is your Hoby option better than all the others? Why should it be given preference? It's certainly not impossible that she had a double life, but seems very improbable given the responsibilities she had as queen.
    During her reign Elizabeth sent troops against the Scottish so she couldn't really have been that timid of the Scots at all.

    In general you are making Elizabeth out as a rather nervous, weak leader and this is not really how the history books make her out.
    She was ruling at a time when women weren't exactly respected. She may have been as strong as Alexander the Great herself, but that doesn't mean her hold on the throne was strong.

    You're assuming that if she "could" do so, then it would have been a free choice that cost her nothing politically, and didn't make her life more difficult than it already was. The question isn't so much whether it would be possible as whether it would be worth it.


    The portrait of Hoby was all that came to hand from a search on the internet. When I saw the look-a-like portraits at Montacute House I did not have a pen and paper handy and did not note down the names. However it is quite possible that images of these portraits are not on the internet anyway. I may go down to Montacute House again some time and make sure I take a note pad with me.
    It's an interesting hypothesis. It just runs into a lot of obstacles. Living a dual life as another noble from another family in a time when everyone's lineage (at least the nobility) is subject to scholarly scrutiny would be very difficult.

    It's a fun thing to think about, or write a movie script for. (Just like that recent movie "anonymous", about Shakespeare), but you mustn't get yourself too overly convinced by it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Don't forget also that her sister (and Lady Grey) were both deposed by the nobility, showing that a monarch's position at the time was never that secure.
    Mary Tudor died of natural causes.

    A monarch's position was particularly insecure during Tudor times for one reason or another but that wouldn't have stopped them from having children.

    A little luck was on the side of the English during the defeat of the Spanish Armada in that the wind blew northwards against the Spanish ships.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    Mary Tudor died of natural causes.
    You're right the rebellion against Mary failed, my bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    A monarch's position was particularly insecure during Tudor times for one reason or another but that wouldn't have stopped them from having children.
    No, you're missing the point. It was the politics that prevented her from getting married. Anyone she married would have legally become king of England. If she got married at an advanced age, the chances of her producing an heir would be very slim, and she did not have very many eligible years once she became queen. That would leave her husband as the official heir to the throne, despite the Stuart's having an equally powerful claim. It also would have meant Elizabeth giving up much of her own power, which was probably not something she was interested in doing for various understandable reasons.

    Mary's marriage bid was equally a political move, Philip of Spain could not speak English and Mary could not speak Spanish, they had to communicate in mixed French and Latin. Marriages for royalty were often performed via proxy without both parties even being in attendance.

    There are two instances recorded of Elizabeth being close to marriage. One was Mary attempting to marry her off to her Spanish brother in law to fully secure a Catholic throne in England. Elizabeth had the good sense to avoid that marriage. The second was apparently of her own choosing, and was a childhood friend from the court. The nobility considered this a bad match and made it known they did not approve, so it did not go forward. These are not the actions of a woman who had emotional issues, even if she did have any. The marriage situation is far easier to explain politically.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    Mary Tudor died of natural causes.
    You're right the rebellion against Mary failed, my bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    A monarch's position was particularly insecure during Tudor times for one reason or another but that wouldn't have stopped them from having children.
    No, you're missing the point. It was the politics that prevented her from getting married. Anyone she married would have legally become king of England. If she got married at an advanced age, the chances of her producing an heir would be very slim, and she did not have very many eligible years once she became queen. That would leave her husband as the official heir to the throne, despite the Stuart's having an equally powerful claim. It also would have meant Elizabeth giving up much of her own power, which was probably not something she was interested in doing for various understandable reasons.

    Mary's marriage bid was equally a political move, Philip of Spain could not speak English and Mary could not speak Spanish, they had to communicate in mixed French and Latin. Marriages for royalty were often performed via proxy without both parties even being in attendance.

    There are two instances recorded of Elizabeth being close to marriage. One was Mary attempting to marry her off to her Spanish brother in law to fully secure a Catholic throne in England. Elizabeth had the good sense to avoid that marriage. The second was apparently of her own choosing, and was a childhood friend from the court. The nobility considered this a bad match and made it known they did not approve, so it did not go forward. These are not the actions of a woman who had emotional issues, even if she did have any. The marriage situation is far easier to explain politically.
    Does this phenomena of a childless monarch apply to female monarch's only?

    Are there any other examples of childless monarch's in the history books in any of the countries of the world?

    I can't think of any off hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    Does this phenomena of a childless monarch apply to female monarch's only?

    Are there any other examples of childless monarch's in the history books in any of the countries of the world?

    I can't think of any off hand.
    Ummm.... her father beheaded his wife for being barren. You can see the kinds of measures people went to in order to avoid that contingency. Maybe Elizabeth didn't want to risk getting beheaded by her husband if she married late in life and ran into the same problem?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    Does this phenomena of a childless monarch apply to female monarch's only?

    Are there any other examples of childless monarch's in the history books in any of the countries of the world?

    I can't think of any off hand.
    Ummm.... her father beheaded his wife for being barren. You can see the kinds of measures people went to in order to avoid that contingency. Maybe Elizabeth didn't want to risk getting beheaded by her husband if she married late in life and ran into the same problem?
    Ridiculous!

    Her husband would not have had the authority.

    Surely not even trying to produce heirs is just as bad if not worse than being unsuccessfull through lawful wedlock?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    Surely not even trying to produce heirs is just as bad if not worse than being unsuccessfull through lawful wedlock?
    The other downside is possibly the nobility's reluctance to seeing the Tudor line continue through a bastard child. Letting it ride one generation is one thing. A simple token of appreciation to honor the last legitimate heir before her, but .... I don't think a lot of people wanted that whole succession fiasco to continue as a permanent thing.


    If I understand the situation right, James wasn't really a "successor" as such. He wasn't claiming Tudor lineage. His was more of a straight up military claim. He's just saying "Look. I've got the alliances and the soldiers. Give me the throne.... or I could probably take it by force." Elizabeth is coming back and saying "Fine, but ... just wait for me to die alright?"
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    Surely not even trying to produce heirs is just as bad if not worse than being unsuccessfull through lawful wedlock?
    The other downside is possibly the nobility's reluctance to seeing the Tudor line continue through a bastard child. Letting it ride one generation is one thing. A simple token of appreciation to honor the last legitimate heir before her, but .... I don't think a lot of people wanted that whole succession fiasco to continue as a permanent thing.


    If I understand the situation right, James wasn't really a "successor" as such. He wasn't claiming Tudor lineage. His was more of a straight up military claim. He's just saying "Look. I've got the alliances and the soldiers. Give me the throne.... or I could probably take it by force." Elizabeth is coming back and saying "Fine, but ... just wait for me to die alright?"
    But again Elizabeth is being painted as a weak ruler who allows herself to be manipulated by unseen opinion.

    Are you suggesting Elizabeth was a lame duck and just a puppet of the nobility?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    Surely not even trying to produce heirs is just as bad if not worse than being unsuccessfull through lawful wedlock?
    The other downside is possibly the nobility's reluctance to seeing the Tudor line continue through a bastard child. Letting it ride one generation is one thing. A simple token of appreciation to honor the last legitimate heir before her, but .... I don't think a lot of people wanted that whole succession fiasco to continue as a permanent thing.


    If I understand the situation right, James wasn't really a "successor" as such. He wasn't claiming Tudor lineage. His was more of a straight up military claim. He's just saying "Look. I've got the alliances and the soldiers. Give me the throne.... or I could probably take it by force." Elizabeth is coming back and saying "Fine, but ... just wait for me to die alright?"
    But again Elizabeth is being painted as a weak ruler who allows herself to be manipulated by unseen opinion.

    Are you suggesting Elizabeth was a lame duck and just a puppet of the nobility?
    Again, you're mistaking personal strength for political strength. Lady Jane, one her immediate predecessors went to her beheading and asked the privilege of laying her own head on the chopping block, with the intention of showing courage in her death. (And faltered only for a moment, when she couldn't find the block)

    Did she lack for personal strength? I think not. However she lacked quite a bit in political strength, or she would never have been targeted for execution. The one thing is personal. The other is situational.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    Surely not even trying to produce heirs is just as bad if not worse than being unsuccessfull through lawful wedlock?
    The other downside is possibly the nobility's reluctance to seeing the Tudor line continue through a bastard child. Letting it ride one generation is one thing. A simple token of appreciation to honor the last legitimate heir before her, but .... I don't think a lot of people wanted that whole succession fiasco to continue as a permanent thing.


    If I understand the situation right, James wasn't really a "successor" as such. He wasn't claiming Tudor lineage. His was more of a straight up military claim. He's just saying "Look. I've got the alliances and the soldiers. Give me the throne.... or I could probably take it by force." Elizabeth is coming back and saying "Fine, but ... just wait for me to die alright?"
    But again Elizabeth is being painted as a weak ruler who allows herself to be manipulated by unseen opinion.

    Are you suggesting Elizabeth was a lame duck and just a puppet of the nobility?
    Again, you're mistaking personal strength for political strength. Lady Jane, one her immediate predecessors went to her beheading and asked the privilege of laying her own head on the chopping block, with the intention of showing courage in her death. (And faltered only for a moment, when she couldn't find the block)

    Did she lack for personal strength? I think not. However she lacked quite a bit in political strength, or she would never have been targeted for execution. The one thing is personal. The other is situational.
    Well Elizabeth almost got it as well from Mary Tudor.

    But why would that stop her from having children?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    I've finally had a chance to visit Montacute House again and get the details of the Elizabeth I look-a-likes.

    The first is Elizabeth Hardwick, Countess of Shrewsbury, 1518-1608:





    The second is Elizabeth Knollys, 1549 -1605, whose portrait was done in 1577:





    Note that both these individuals were called 'Elizabeth' and lived during the time of Elizabeth the First, 1533 - 1603. Just a coincidence?

    While looking at the portrait of 'Elizabeth Hardwick,' I happened to notice a portrait of Sir Edward Hoby, the son of Elizabeth Hoby of Bisham Abbey, 1528 - 1609, who I pointed out was also called 'Elizabeth' and who bore a passing resemblance to Elizabeth the First:





    But take a closer look at Sir Edward Hoby, doesn't he bear a striking resemblance to Elizabeth I?





    Note the arched nose, high curving forehead, angled cheeks, and small pointed chin. Just like Elizabeth I:


    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4
    I apologise for stepping into this so late. I am researching Elizabeth Knollys/Leighton, the subject of the second portrait above (in the black and orange doublet, with the fabulous hat), and followed a link. I felt compelled to contribute.

    Elizabeth was the most common name in England, as homage to the queen. There were an awful lot of Mary’s, as well. Ann’s, Henry’s, John’s, Thomases…all very common.

    Elizabeth Knollys was daughter to Catherine Carey/Knollys, likely the bastard half-sister to Elizabeth I. Catherine’s mother was Mary Boleyn, known mistress of King Henry VIII. She and her brother Henry, were born at time when it was known for Mary to be with the king; though neither of them wished to cause any trouble, were loyal the queen and said nothing of their relationship to her. So, Elizabeth Knollys was likely the queen’s niece, though they called each other cousin. And, if you look at the Tudor line, they have VERY distinct features…nose, chin, eyes, and naturally red hair. Lettice Knollys (Elizabeth’s sister), Countess of Essex and Leicester, looked even more like the queen, was often mistaken for her at a distance, and would often pretend to be her in her exile from Court. (Lettice married that childhood sweetheart of the queen’s, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, and was banished for it.)

    Much of the English Court, especially the older families, were intermarried. While not as bad as the Spanish Court, inbreeding was abundant. Inbreeding means that a lot of people look a lot alike! And, yes, artists took great liberty in their work; they had signatures. If you look at that portrait of EK, and are familiar with the other work of the artist, George Gower, many of his noses look similar.

    As for Bess of Hardwick, Lady Shrewsbury, I don’t actually see much resemblance apart from brown eyes and red hair. She may have an angular nose, but she’s English…it’s a trait of people in various parts of the country. When I saw Queen Elizabeth’s tomb, I noticed her nose looked like John Lennon’s nose, and a little like my grandfather’s for that matter.

    As for the question of children…Elizabeth Tudor would never have given birth out of wedlock. Her mother, Ann Boleyn was often called “whore,” a name Elizabeth would shy away from under the best of circumstances, but wouldn't risk by being flagrantly promiscuous. She took her lineage and duty very seriously, as you can find in her writings and speeches. She was not allowed to marry prior to her accession because, bastard or no, she was the daughter of the king, and she had to have permission from the reigning monarch to wed anyone; and it was to be that monarch’s choice, as it could affect succession. After her ascension, while she wanted Leicester (hence why she made him Leicester), she knew marriage to him would not be tolerated by most other nobles. If she were to marry, it needed to be a political alliance with another Protestant country. Her past dealings with men were likely an influence in some of her choices, and likely the main reason she was reticent to give power over to a man…even as consort.

    As for multiple personalities, I would think if there were a scientific basis for it, it would have been thought of by now. However, if you truly feel this, I would encourage you to start your research. However, remember, this woman was NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER alone. Not even to use the "John" (the flushable version invented by her Godson, John Harrington). She had servants of various stations with her at ALL TIMES. I would think if there were that kind of mental instability, it would have come to light by now.

    Anyway, just my tuppence.
    Last edited by SpiritDancing; February 3rd, 2012 at 06:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritDancing View Post
    I apologise for stepping into this so late. I am researching Elizabeth Knollys/Leighton, the subject of the second portrait above (in the black and orange doublet, with the fabulous hat), and followed a link. I felt compelled to contribute.

    Elizabeth was the most common name in England, as homage to the queen. There were an awful lot of Mary’s, as well. Ann’s, Henry’s, John’s, Thomases…all very common.

    Elizabeth Knollys was daughter to Catherine Carey/Knollys, likely the bastard half-sister to Elizabeth I. Catherine’s mother was Mary Boleyn, known mistress of King Henry VIII. She and her brother Henry, were born at time when it was known for Mary to be with the king; though neither of them wished to cause any trouble, were loyal the queen and said nothing of their relationship to her. So, Elizabeth Knollys was likely the queen’s niece, though they called each other cousin. And, if you look at the Tudor line, they have VERY distinct features…nose, chin, eyes, and naturally red hair. Lettice Knollys (Elizabeth’s sister), Countess of Essex and Leicester, looked even more like the queen, was often mistaken for her at a distance, and would often pretend to be her in her exile from Court. (Lettice married that childhood sweetheart of the queen’s, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, and was banished for it.)

    Much of the English Court, especially the older families, were intermarried. While not as bad as the Spanish Court, inbreeding was abundant. Inbreeding means that a lot of people look a lot alike! And, yes, artists took great liberty in their work; they had signatures. If you look at that portrait of EK, and are familiar with the other work of the artist, George Gower, many of his noses look similar.

    As for Bess of Hardwick, Lady Shrewsbury, I don’t actually see much resemblance apart from brown eyes and red hair. She may have an angular nose, but she’s English…it’s a trait of people in various parts of the country. When I saw Queen Elizabeth’s tomb, I noticed her nose looked like John Lennon’s nose, and a little like my grandfather’s for that matter.

    As for the question of children…Elizabeth Tudor would never have given birth out of wedlock. Her mother, Ann Boleyn was often called “whore,” a name Elizabeth would shy away from under the best of circumstances, but wouldn't risk by being flagrantly promiscuous. She took her lineage and duty very seriously, as you can find in her writings and speeches. She was not allowed to marry prior to her accession because, bastard or no, she was the daughter of the king, and she had to have permission from the reigning monarch to wed anyone; and it was to be that monarch’s choice, as it could affect succession. After her ascension, while she wanted Leicester (hence why she made him Leicester), she knew marriage to him would not be tolerated by most other nobles. If she were to marry, it needed to be a political alliance with another Protestant country. Her past dealings with men were likely an influence in some of her choices, and likely the main reason she was reticent to give power over to a man…even as consort.

    As for multiple personalities, I would think if there were a scientific basis for it, it would have been thought of by now. However, if you truly feel this, I would encourage you to start your research. However, remember, this woman was NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER alone. Not even to use the "John" (the flushable version invented by her Godson, John Harrington). She had servants of various stations with her at ALL TIMES. I would think if there were that kind of mental instability, it would have come to light by now.

    Anyway, just my tuppence.
    I beg to differ in the case of Lady Shrewsbury. In the portrait of Lady Shrewsbury shown above she is much older than in the classic portraits of Elizabeth I but there are still huge similarities; pointed chin, angled cheek bones, nose and hair. What is the probability that this is a complete accident?

    Nephews and nieces can look completely different from their aunts and uncles. I can't see any striking similarities between myself and my own aunts and uncles.

    And what of the bizarre custom you alluded to of Lettice Knollys pretending to be Elizabeth I when she was absent from Court? I've never heard anything like this before. Can you think of any other monarchs who allowed "impressionists" to temporarily take the throne for them? And why didn't people notice! It's scandalous surely?

    And what about the similarities between the portrait of Elizabeth Hoby and Elizabeth I? And don't forget they were both very good friends. I wonder if Elizabeth Hoby ever temporarily took the throne when Elizabeth I was away from Court?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    but there are still huge similarities; pointed chin, angled cheek bones, nose and hair. What is the probability that this is a complete accident?
    Is fashion an accident? ER1 set the tone and the pace for what was both acceptable and desirable. You haven't perhaps considered that people might have wanted to appear more like the most influential person in their circle?

    Artists earn their commissions doing what the client asks for. Just as modern photographers run make-up, hairdressing and lighting to get the effects the clients want.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4
    As we've pointed out, artists take liberties, gross liberties in some cases; just as airbrushing and filters are used in photography today. The similarities you describe in Shrewsbury are similarities found in many English people, and many portraits of the time. Visit Chatsworth house and you can find out more about her life. There are extensive primary sources that will show she was a knight's daughter who was placed in a position to marry well and was educated by her husbands, who noted she had a head for numbers, enabling her to maintain great wealth. Elizabeth Cooke, Lady Hoby, was one of 5 sisters, who were very well educated and well placed. She was the sister-in-law to William Cecil, QE's closest advisor, which is part of how she gained such influence in court. All of these people are found in primary sources of history; even Wikipedia has a fair amount of information about them. Elizabeth and Lettice Knollys' births are recorded in a family Latin dictionary by their father, for example. They are not the queen. They were married and had children of their own. Lettice gave birth to the Earl of Essex, who actually rose up against ERI and was beheaded. EK had 4 children with her husband, Thomas Leighton, governor of Guernsey and Jersey. These would not have been fabricated just to cover up a mental deficiency or illegitimate children as "Anonymous" would have us all believe. It wouldn't have happened.

    Lettice was exiled, as I said, and just as she enjoyed flaunting that she married the queen's favourite, she liked to flaunt her wealth and resemblance, by PRETENDING she was a queen...away from court. She NEVER sat on the throne, and I NEVER said she did. I said she pretended to be her. As one source states "Away from Court, Lettice went out of her way to be mistaken for her royal cousin, riding through the streets of London in a carriage with her ladies in coaches behind her, and so forth. She planned to marry her daughter Dorothy to the King of Scotland. When the Queen heard of it, according to a Spaniard, Mendoza, she swore she would “sooner the Scots King lost his crown” than be married to the daughter of a “she-wolf.” She also said that if she could find no other way to check Lady Leicester’s ambition she would proclaim her all over Christendom as the whore she was and prove Leicester a cuckold. This was in 1583." Nobody sat on the throne besides Elizabeth Tudor. She wouldn't have allowed it, as she was placed on the throne by God, as part of the Great Chain of Being...a very well documented concept and one that 16th century English people believed in implicitly.

    My nieces look very much like me; they are often mistaken for my daughters. My brother looks very much like my uncle and his son, to the point they are mistaken for brothers. Genetics are strange that way. Henry's genes were very powerful.

    I think you are putting 21st century conventions onto 16th century people, as many people do; but you really can't do that. Their world was completely different than ours. I urge you, however, if you are serious about your theory that she was schizophrenic or some such, do some research. Learn about these women who you think are her. Learn about their lives and the world in which they lived. For example, a good resource is Women of the Renaissance, by Margaret L. King or A Compendium of Common Knowledge 1558-1603 by Maggie Secara. If you find evidence that she did have multiple personalities, you would blow the historical world apart...
    Last edited by SpiritDancing; February 10th, 2012 at 01:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritDancing View Post
    As we've pointed out, artists take liberties, gross liberties in some cases; just as airbrushing and filters are used in photography today. The similarities you describe in Shrewsbury are similarities found in many English people, and many portraits of the time. Visit Chatsworth house and you can find out more about her life. There are extensive primary sources that will show she was a knight's daughter who was placed in a position to marry well and was educated by her husbands, who noted she had a head for numbers, enabling her to maintain great wealth. Elizabeth Cooke, Lady Hoby, was one of 5 sisters, who were very well educated and well placed. She was the sister-in-law to William Cecil, QE's closest advisor, which is part of how she gained such influence in court. All of these people are found in primary sources of history; even Wikipedia has a fair amount of information about them. Elizabeth and Lettice Knollys' births are recorded in a family Latin dictionary by their father, for example. They are not the queen. They were married and had children of their own. Lettice gave birth to the Earl of Essex, who actually rose up against ERI and was beheaded. EK had 4 children with her husband, Thomas Leighton, governor of Guernsey and Jersey. These would not have been fabricated just to cover up a mental deficiency or illegitimate children as "Anonymous" would have us all believe. It wouldn't have happened.

    Lettice was exiled, as I said, and just as she enjoyed flaunting that she married the queen's favourite, she liked to flaunt her wealth and resemblance, by PRETENDING she was a queen...away from court. She NEVER sat on the throne, and I NEVER said she did. I said she pretended to be her. As one source states "Away from Court, Lettice went out of her way to be mistaken for her royal cousin, riding through the streets of London in a carriage with her ladies in coaches behind her, and so forth. She planned to marry her daughter Dorothy to the King of Scotland. When the Queen heard of it, according to a Spaniard, Mendoza, she swore she would “sooner the Scots King lost his crown” than be married to the daughter of a “she-wolf.” She also said that if she could find no other way to check Lady Leicester’s ambition she would proclaim her all over Christendom as the whore she was and prove Leicester a cuckold. This was in 1583." Nobody sat on the throne besides Elizabeth Tudor. She wouldn't have allowed it, as she was placed on the throne by God, as part of the Great Chain of Being...a very well documented concept and one that 16th century English people believed in implicitly.

    My nieces look very much like me; they are often mistaken for my daughters. My brother looks very much like my uncle and his son, to the point they are mistaken for brothers. Genetics are strange that way. Henry's genes were very powerful.

    I think you are putting 21st century conventions onto 16th century people, as many people do; but you really can't do that. Their world was completely different than ours. I urge you, however, if you are serious about your theory that she was schizophrenic or some such, do some research. Learn about these women who you think are her. Learn about their lives and the world in which they lived. For example, a good resource is Women of the Renaissance, by Margaret L. King or A Compendium of Common Knowledge 1558-1603 by Maggie Secara. If you find evidence that she did have multiple personalities, you would blow the historical world apart...
    Multiple Personality Disorder is NOT the same thing as schizophrenia. The former apparently results from severe childhood trauma resulting in hysterical repression and the latter is a severe form of psychosis characterized by hallucinations.

    Elizabeth I had many traumas in her life. Her mother was beheaded. She may have been sexually abused by a step father. And she was led through Traitor's Gate by Mary Tudor. Further she never married and this fact has never been sufficiently explained. The Spanish thought her a weak ruler and wanted her removed but why did they think her a weak ruler?

    If a note in a dictionary counts as a historical document for you fine but it is not impossible that documents can be fabricated to suit various political purposes as one should be well aware.
    Last edited by galexander; February 11th, 2012 at 05:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4
    Seriously??? After 500 years you don't think hard evidence would have been discovered about this? The woman was never alone...people would have talked. There were spies everywhere. She had enough enemies throughout the world, that it would have gotten out. A cover up like this...fabricating GENERATIONS of people to cover up the madness of a woman, even if she was the queen. Not likely. They would have put her back in the Tower and left her there, queen or not. Not to mention, it would literally affect 100s of people...generations of people...the current Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, for example. Hell, even Prince Harry and Prince William, as they are related to Shrewsbury through their mother. Schizophrenia or Multiple Personality Disorder or whatever...this is a conspiracy theory the likes of which I've never seen!! Mulder couldn't even come up with this kind of a story...

    If you don't think an extant PRIMARY SOURCE, written in the hand of Francis Knollys himself, counts as a resource, then you need to look at more historical research. Show me evidence, then. ACTUAL evidence. I'd like to see what you consider proof, aside from the subjective opinion of looking at a couple of paintings. Get me diary entries or letters...oh, but they are probably all faked.

    The Spanish thought her weak because she was a woman, English, Protestant and, in their eyes, a bastard. They didn't think she had right to the throne to begin with. That is why they thought her reign weak. Not to mention, the Pope wanted England back under his rule, ie Catholic. She never married because she didn't want to give up her power; she was actually a strong ruler. Whichever suitor she picked, it was going to cause strain on a relationship with another country. At all costs, she wanted peace for England and economic stability. She did that, and kept that by being single. There has been extensive research on this subject, try doing some of your own.

    Again, you are putting 21 century ideas into a world that was nothing like ours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritDancing View Post
    Seriously??? After 500 years you don't think hard evidence would have been discovered about this? The woman was never alone...people would have talked. There were spies everywhere. She had enough enemies throughout the world, that it would have gotten out. A cover up like this...fabricating GENERATIONS of people to cover up the madness of a woman, even if she was the queen. Not likely. They would have put her back in the Tower and left her there, queen or not. Not to mention, it would literally affect 100s of people...generations of people...the current Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, for example. Hell, even Prince Harry and Prince William, as they are related to Shrewsbury through their mother. Schizophrenia or Multiple Personality Disorder or whatever...this is a conspiracy theory the likes of which I've never seen!! Mulder couldn't even come up with this kind of a story...

    If you don't think an extant PRIMARY SOURCE, written in the hand of Francis Knollys himself, counts as a resource, then you need to look at more historical research. Show me evidence, then. ACTUAL evidence. I'd like to see what you consider proof, aside from the subjective opinion of looking at a couple of paintings. Get me diary entries or letters...oh, but they are probably all faked.

    The Spanish thought her weak because she was a woman, English, Protestant and, in their eyes, a bastard. They didn't think she had right to the throne to begin with. That is why they thought her reign weak. Not to mention, the Pope wanted England back under his rule, ie Catholic. She never married because she didn't want to give up her power; she was actually a strong ruler. Whichever suitor she picked, it was going to cause strain on a relationship with another country. At all costs, she wanted peace for England and economic stability. She did that, and kept that by being single. There has been extensive research on this subject, try doing some of your own.

    Again, you are putting 21 century ideas into a world that was nothing like ours.
    Elizabeth I was not hidden away in the Tower because the Protestants wanted a figurehead after the terrible rule of the Catholic Mary Tudor. During Elizabeth's reign there was a positive cultural flourishing and we have to ask whether this happened because a strong dictator happened to be absent from the scene.

    Mad monarchs have indeed sat on the throne and this was evidently the case with George III who had porphyria.

    Look again closely at the portrait I showed above of Elizabeth Hoby and study the face. Ask yourself how likely it is that a good friend of Elizabeth I shared the same first name, was of a comparable age, had the same curly ginger hair, had the same arched nose, and the same angled cheeks and pointed chin? Ginger hair is not really that common and I doubt it was that common in the Tudor era either. The statistics alone when properly added up must surely prove something?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    4
    Obviously, you've made up your mind, so rather than confuse you with facts, I'm just going to wish you fond farewell. Have a nice life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •