Hello Masme,
I was at artesis the other day and I found your unpublished dissertation on Tudor England. You wrote it in 1997. Very interesting. I would like to ask you the following question; do you think Elizabeth I and Margaret Thatcher would have liked each other? They told me you were also on Englishforumbest.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Siohbahn,
How very nice of you! I’d forgotten all about that one. Well, here’s your answer.
I think that contemplating interactions between historical figures from vastly different eras and imagining how they would engage with each other today remains a captivating exercise. Whether we’re discussing ancient philosophers, medieval knights, or Renaissance artists, the thought of their encounters in our modern world never fails to intrigue. When it comes to Elizabeth I and Margaret Thatcher, it’s likely that they would have appreciated each other’s diplomatic approaches. However, their distinct personalities and differing political views would probably have led to clashes.
Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558 to1603, held the throne as Queen of England and Ireland. Her reign is often referred to as the Elizabethan era, characterized by flourishing arts, exploration, and the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
Margaret Thatcher, the first female Prime Minister of Britain, served in this role for eleven years, spanning from 1979 to 1990. Her tenure was marked by conservative policies, economic reforms, and her strong leadership style.
Both women left indelible marks on history, each in her own unique way. Elizabeth I’s legacy endures through her impact on literature, politics, and the arts, while Thatcher’s influence remains significant in British politics and beyond.
Hope you like it.
Yes, I do. Thanks.
Can you tell me what Elizabeth I meant with ‘It is not my desire to open windows into men’s souls.’
And would you be so kind to convert these two texts into modern English?
Therefore as civil war and shed of blood did cease;
When these two Houses were united into one:
So now, that jar shall stint and quietness increase,
We trust, O noble Queen! Thou wilt be cause alone!
Jabin, of Canaan King, had long, by force of arms,
Oppressed the Israelites; which for God’s went:
But God minding, at last, for to redress their harms;
The worthy DEBORAH, as judge among them sent.
Thanks
Hi Siohbahn,
As to your first question, I find it rather thought-provoking. The expression has multiple meanings, all somewhat related. When Queen Elizabeth I used it, it carried an air of mystery. Essentially, she didn’t want her Catholic subjects to convert to Protestantism, aming for religious harmony or concord. This decision was infuenced by her own experiences during the reign of her half-sister, Mary I (1553-1558), you see, Elizabeth kept up appearances to safeguard her life. Her exposure to new ideas and humanistic values from her mother, Anne Boleyn, and Henry VIII’s other wives, with the exception of Catharine of Aragon, made it impossible for her to embrace the Catholic faith. So, in essence, ‘It is not my desire to open windows into men’s souls.’ signifies the respect Elizabeth had for her subjects’ conscience, avoiding undue intrusion into their inner thoughts.
As to your second, I would write the texts in modern - I prefer to say present-day - English as follows:
Therefore, now that the civil war and bloodshed have ended;
Now, that these two families were united into one:
Now, that this conflict will subside and transquility prevail,
O Noble Queen, we will trust our fate into your hands only!
Jabin, the King Canaan, had long with military force,
Subjected the Israelites, the people of God:
Eventually, God intervened to put end to their suffering;
And sent Deborah as righteous judge among them.
Perhaps, now, you may somewhat have an idea as to what they mean.
Take care, dear Siohbahn.
Thanks Masme.
Masme, ever since I read your dissertation and the splendid and elaborate explanations you’ve given me, I’ve become more and more interested in the Tudor Era. I would like to ask a few more questions, so would you mind, if I called this an interview? If you don’t here are two questions:
You say that Elizabeth’s era was characterized by flourishing arts, exploration, and the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Was this a coincidence and could you elaborate on what you’ve stated?
Then, in the 16th century, there was a price rise in England. What caused this and what were the consequences?
Hi Siohbahn,
You seem to have developed a passion for 16th-century England, although the Tudor Era started in the 15th century when Richard III was slain in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 by Henry VII.
I’m very happy I’m not the only one, who is interested in this period of English history. Ofcourse, I don’t mind you calling this thread an interview. I love it. I’ll come back to you later, because it’s rather late and I’d like to go to bed now.
Ok Siohbahn, here it is.
A) England experienced a remarkable flourishing of the arts during the Tudor Era. Let’s explore a few key factors that contributed to this artistic renaissance during the Tudor Era.
To legitimize the Tudor dynasty, paintings, tapestries, sculptures and music were used to convey royal authority, lineage and continuity throughout the country.
An international community, formed by England’s artists and merchants, including religious refugees, travel and trade with Europe and beyond exposed England to diverse artistic styles and techniques, especially that of Dutch immigrants. They brought new and advanced techniques to:
1e) Agriculture and horticulture: innovations such as drainage systems, transformed marshy lands into fertile fields and crop rotation and intensive farming improved agricultural productivity. In addition market gardening and greenhouses also became very popular due to the influence of the Dutch.
2e) The Dutch also brought improvement in building, emphasizing symmetry, classical elements, and ornate facades. The construction of canals, warehouses and townhouses were funded by the Dutch. Also leaving a lasting mark on English towns and cities were the brickwork and gable designs from the Low Countries.
3e) Moreover, in trade and commerce, the Dutch played a crucial role by establishing trade networks and port cities such as London, Bristol and Norwich, thereby fascilitating, ofcourse the exhange of goods such as textiles and luxury items.
4e) The English also learnt a lot from the Dutch as far science and technology is concerned. For one, they improved England’s maritime capabilities by their navigational expertise.
Note: Back in the 16th-century, the Low Countries were also called Flanders and Holland, comprising some border regions of France and Germany.
B) As far as the price rise and inflation are concerned; it was caused by several factors. Allow me, to just discuss a few.
1e) The enormous influx of precious metals such as gold, silver, platina and palladium - gold and silver from the Americas (such as those of Mexico and Peru) - were used for coins which sometimes led to the debasement of the coinage, simply by reducing the amount of precious metals. Like Henry VIII’s Testoon, which eventually became so thin, that people often said that you could look straight through them.
2e) The population of England and Wales nearly doubled, rising from 2.26 million to 4.10 million; the birth rate, but also the infant mortality was substantial. But as the population grew, so did the demand for essentials like food and clothing, leading to economic pressures. So, population growth strained resources and were one of the causes of the price rise, but also inflation.
Yet, life during the Tudor Era was far from easy, because of diseases, starvation and punishment. As far as health is concerned, dysentry, tubercolusis and influenza swept through the country and affected both rich and poor, especially those people who were malnourished were extremely vulnerable to infections. One disease in particular, the sweating sickness, caused by the hanta virus and transmitted by various species of the rodent family, killed people within 24 hours, including royals, such as Prince Arthur, first son of Henry VII and brother of the future Henry VIII.
As for punishment, let me give you an example: vagrancy. Vagrancy was an enormous problem that grew even worse when Henry VIII decided to dissolve the monastries between 1536 and 1539 by which lots of people like, nuns, monks etc. were forced to leave their homes and some of them became vagrants. By the Poor Laws (1587-1598) vagrants were often assigned to a local farmer in exchange for food and housing; if they risked becoming a vagrant again, they were usually punished by hanging.
C)The Spanish Armada
This has to do with the increasing bitterness between the two great monarchs of that time, Philip II of Spain, who ruled the Netherlands and Elizabeth I, who was Queen of England and Ireland. Although, having once been her brother-in-law and offered his hand in marriage to her, Elizabeth kept refusing to marry any one, including Philip; therefore she’s also referred to sometimes as ‘The Virgin Queen’.
Yet, the fact that the English fought the Spaniards on the continent, raided Spanish colonies in and around the Caribbean or the Spanish Main and the fact that Spain sent mercenaries to Ireland to complicate peace negotiations between the English and the Irish fueled further tensions. This was actually the definitive factor for Philip II of Spain to send an enormous expedition to England – known as ‘The Invincible Armada’. It was supposed to have set sail in April 1587, but due to Drake’s raid on Cadiz, much of the Spanish fleet was destroyed, delaying it for at least a year. Finally, in the summer of 1588, the enormous fleet left the harbour of Lisbon consisting of a 180 ships; its commander being the Duke of Medina Sidonia, who had little or no knowledge of naval warfare, the Spaniards had actually already lost the battle before it began. Due to bad weather conditions, the fact that the English had smaller ships that were more manoeuvrable and better strategics, the Spanish fleet eventually dispersed and the galleons that remained were forced to sail from the North Sea around the Orkneys, Scotland and Ireland in order to safely return to Spain. This naval battle was one of the largest of its time.
I hope I’ve made you happy. If you want to know more, please let me know.
Thank you Masme, for giving so much info. It’s like I’m talking to pro, specialized in Tudor History.
Again, you’re welcome.
Masme,
Is it true that Elizabeth I forced Mary Queen of Scots to abdicate? Or did I understand wrongly. She went to England, didn’t she? And did the two Queens ever meet?
Hi there,
Allow me to first set the record straight; Elizabeth I never forced Mary, Queen of Scots, to abdicate, nor did she ever have the intention to have her deposed. In fact, Mary fled to England in 1568, asking Elizabeth for refuge.
However, let’s start from the beginning. Mary Stuart’s life was a very tragic one, indeed. At the age of five she was brought to France in 1548. One of the reasons she was brought there was to strengthen the Auld Alliance, La Vieille Alliance or in Scottisch Gaelic An Sean-chaideras, a treaty that had been in effect since the 13th century for the mutual defence between France and Scotland against the aggressor, namely England. Mary was betrothed to the French dauphin, the future Francis II and therefore she was the future French Queen Consort.
Yet, upon the death of Francis II, Mary returned as Queen Dowager to Scotland in 1561. Subsequently, in 1565, she married Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, an English Catholic noble, who also fathered the future James VI. After Darnley was killed and Mary implicated in his murder, she married James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell in 1567. This union was not well received by Catholics and Protestants alike. Eventually, the Scottisch nobles rebelled by assembling an army against them. Naturally, Mary resisted by sending out her troops, however, during the Battle of Carberry Hill, her soldiers deserted her and Bothwell. Mary was detained captive at Loch Leven Castle; Bothwell was banished from the country and went to prison in Denmark where he died an insane man.
However, in 1568 Mary managed to escape to England, where she got refuge - first in Carlisle Castle and then Fotheringay Castle - which was in fact an ‘honourable imprisonment’ as employees of Sir Francis Walsingham, leader of what one sometimes terms the Elizabethan spy service, constantly guarded her and watched her every move.
As for Elizabeth, she faced a dilemma; should she keep Mary alive or order her execution? Elizabeth was often urged to have Mary executed, but found it hard to do so, since they both were related as they were joined in blood; after all, Mary was the granddaughter of Margaret Tudor, elder sister of Henry VIII, and James IV of Scotland. Even though Elizabeth realized that Mary posed a threat to her reign, she kept procrastinating for years. In late August 1568 plans for a summit were made, but they were never carried out, because the Huguenots had been heavily persecuted in France, a process that was to go on for many years, and therefore Elizabeth and Mary could not be seen together, especially not in public, exchanging friendly words and pleasantries.
Mary’s situation took a turn for the worse, after the discovery of three Catholic inspired plots, all of which attempting the murder of Elizabeth. These were the Ridolfi Plot (1571), the Enterprise of England (1582) and the Babington Plot (1586). Implicated in the last, Mary Stuart was eventually accused of high treason and executed on 8th February, 1587.
I hope this has answered your two questions.
Thanks Masme.
Hi Masme,
Was Mary Stuart’s trial a fair one and was it justifiable?
As seen from a 21st-century perspective, Mary’s trial was far from fair. However, it’s essential to recognize that law enforcement in 16th-century England differed significantly from today’s practices in most Western European countries.
Once a person was accused of high treason, they were denied legal aid and could only argue their case before a court themselves. Consequently, they stood no chance to plead for their freedom or to be acquitted. Refuting the evidence presented by the state was challenging, as judges were often intimidating and biased against the accused. Although juries might be called upon, they were frequently politically influenced or frightened of potential reprisals. Furthermore, confessions obtained through coercion and torture were even harder to challenge. The fairness of Mary’s trial remains a subject of historical debate.
Was Mary’s execution justified? Again, from a 21st-century point of view, no execution is ever justified. This sentiment holds true even when considering the 16th century. For instance, let’s examine the actions of the French king, Charles IX. During the Massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572, Charles ordered the assassination of over 6000 Protestants in Paris. Women, infants and children were not spared the sharp swords of the French soldiers. Charles, initially wanting to achieve religious concord in France, later regretted his decision and died having a lot of remorse*. Thus, even from a 16th-century perspective, Mary’s execution remains morally questionable.
Thanks Masme,
The Massacre of St. Bartholomew? Can you tell me more about it?
Hi, I’m going to explain this by giving my text a somewhat literary twist.
A Wedding Amidst Adversity: A Tale Of Excess and Tragedy.
In an alternate reality, the celebrated portrait miniaturists Nicholas Hilliard (1547-1619) and his apprentice, Isaac Oliver (1565-1617), might have immortalized a remarkable scene - one that defied convention and whispered secrets of both love and suffering.
Imagine a wedding - a union of hearts and souls - set against a backdrop of poverty, famine and desperation. The brushstrokes of Hilliard and Oliver would capture the delicate features of the bride, her gown adorned with pearls and threads of hope. The groom’s eyes, filled with determination, would mirror the struggle faced by the world beyond their embrace.
But this was no ordinary celebration. Those privileged enough to attend reveled in opulence - their excesses flaunted shamelessly. The French Catholics in Paris and throughout France, however, seethed with indignation. The Treaty of Saint Germain, once a fragile promise, faded into oblivion. Catherine de Medici’s influence weighed heavily, stoking contempt for the Huguenots and igniting Charles’s call for a crusade against them.
And so, on August 24, 1572, the Huguenots met their tragic fate. The death toll, initially at 6,000, surged mercilessly to 70,000. The date held significance - a cruel irony - as it coincided with the Feast of St. Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles. Catherine’s actions, veiled in sarcasm and sadism, stained history with blood.
In this miniature masterpiece, Hilliard and Oliver would weave a tapestry of contrasts: love and loss, abudance and scarcity, devotion and betrayal. Their brushes would whisper secrets, and their colours would echo the cries of a tumultuous era.
And so, dear Siohbahn, we glimpse a world where art transcends mere aesthetics - a world where a wedding becomes a canvas for tragedy, and the strokes of genius reveal both light and shadows.
I love this literary reply. Wonderful. I’d never seen it this way. Oooh…another question, if I may.
Was there an equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition in England and did Elizabeth I have 200 Catholic priests killed at a certain time?
Hi Siohbahn,
Well, as far as historical records indicate, there was no direct equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition in 16th-century England and later. However, non-conformists faced prosecution and punishment of the Court of High Commission which was part of what we now refer to as the Elizabethan Settlement in 1559. The penalties imposed by this court included fines, imprisonment and removal from office. It primarily targeted Puritans, Separatists, and anyone who resisted certain practices of the Anglican Church. Interestingly, despite its broad authority to investigate and prosecute cases of non-conformity, the Court of High Commission faced criticism for abusing its power. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition, it did not organize ‘Auto da Fés’ - public acts of faith.
Regarding Queen Elizabeth I, the historical debate continues whether she personally ordered the execution of 200 Catholic priests. However, it is well-documented that the persecution of Catholics intensified during her reign. Papal proclamations, such as the Excommunication Bull issued by Pius V in 1570 and the Papal Bull of Pope Gregory XIII in 1580, encouraged English Catholics to resist their lawful sovereign. Nevertheless, a number of Catholic priests were indeed executed during Elizabeth’s rule, most notably Edmund Campion and Alexander Briant, both Jesuit priests.
Hope this helps a bit.
Amazing! Please tell me about Westminster abbey being a ‘royal peculiar’, if you would.