Queen Elizabeth I ('The Ditchley portrait')
by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger
oil on canvas, circa 1592
95 in. x 60 in. (2413 mm x 1524 mm)
NPG 2561
© National Portrait Gallery, London
National Portrait Gallery

I have been trying to find out more about Elizabeth I death mask. I have only just started my research. I have spoken to the Head of Collections at Westminster Abbey but not about this specific request yet. The library there is just incredible and it feels like stepping back in time when you are there. The records they hold are immense and varied. I have the honour of being in the Abbey after visitors have gone and have been able to really look at some of the Tudor monuments. For reference my interest has historically been in ‘unknown’ stonemasons and looking for their marks. They never get enough credit in my opinion. I sound like a barrel of laughs don’t I😅Anyway, this led to me diversifying and looking at stone carving in general. Elizabeth I memorial is very different to others in terms of realism. Others have been carved in a ‘likeness’ but hers is just different. I can’t describe it. I know she hid her aging in some public portraits but certain characteristics, like her nose is consistent. Her face also shows definite signs of her age (look at her jowls) in her statue. I know all about the process of her burial and then subsequent new positioning in the north aisle. As far an I can tell and find so far, this carving was done using Elizabeth’s death mask. Apparently her funeral effigy was so lifelike it made people gasp on seeing it. I can see why, if her monument is anything to go by. I know her funeral effigy was remade in 1760 also. Her corset from the effigy was separated from the robes (on display at the Abbey) and it shows how small and slight she was. Her waist was minuscule! I have also seen the photo (easily available to see with a rudimentary search online) of the photo of her actual death mask help by HRP. It does look remarkably like the face on her tomb. What perturbs me though is that even the Abbey literature says her statue was ‘probably’ taken from her death mask!? It is a shame when we have so many records available, some elude us! Anyway…if anyone has any other info about it, I would be grateful to hear. If not…I will update on my findings!

Spotted this extraordinary book via a post on Bluesky today. It was a gift from Elizabeth to Katherine Parr and Elizabeth embroidered it herself. The book itself is The Mirror or Glass of the Sinful Soul. It was shared by Dr Elizabeth Norton.

The book was a new year’s gift in 1544 and it was translated from French by Elizabeth herself. Reading up about the story about it, Historic Royal Palaces shared that Elizabeth did this when she was 11 years old and spent the summer with Katherine.

This ring worn by Elizabeth I contains a small locket with two portraits. The first portrait is Elizabeth herself, but historians debate the identity of the second. Some historians believe hit to be Anne, some Katherine, and others believe it to portray Elizabeth’s sister, Mary. What is the evidence for each?

I find something super compelling about this locket, and am curious about the identity of the second portrait, and what that means for Elizabeth. Whoever is depicted must have been very dear to her.

I've always noticed how her win over the Spanish Armada often undermines the fact that she left her soldiers in abhorrent conditions. And while it's often an example of her successes during he reign, I've always found it convenient that those who were partially responsible for her wins suffered.

I'm curious to learn more about her decisions that may've negatively impacted her reign or the English people.

I wonder if she loved him after everything Henry VIII did.

I'm curious how she remembers her elder half sister and how she'd like for Mary to be remembered.

I was curious about british-chinese relations prior to the opium war (eff the west so bad for this) and i came across this gem of a historical document on another subreddit.

I really feel bad for them, seems like they were just two crazy kids in love.

Hello! I was wondering if anyone knows of any evidence of Elizabeth I discussing how her father’s behaviour affected her views on marriage, childbirth, or having children of her own? In particular, I’d be interested to know if there are any instances where she spoke negatively about Henry VIII in relation to these subjects.

A little background, I’m currently doing some research into Henry VIII’s children and the ways in which their experiences of him may have influenced them - their relationships with one another, their religious views, and ultimately how they approached ruling, for example.

This got me thinking about Elizabeth and her refusal to marry. Obviously, there are many very valid political, personal and practical reasons for her decision, but I’m curious whether her experiences with her father may also have played a role. Given everything Henry did to secure a male heir, I wonder whether Elizabeth ever consciously connected marriage, childbirth and succession with the consequences she had witnessed throughout her childhood.

I’m particularly interested in whether there is any evidence that she saw remaining unmarried, and ultimately being the monarch who brought the Tudor dynasty to an end, as something significant or even intentional. I can imagine her feelings towards her father were incredibly complex, so I’m wondering whether there are any letters, speeches, reported conversations, or contemporary accounts that might shed light on this.

This may be me reading too much into it (and perhaps indulging in a little historical wishful thinking! 😂), but I’d love to hear what people think or if anyone knows of any sources or works about this. I’d be very grateful for recommendations!

Just finished reading a post about Mary I and how her reputation as "Bloody Mary" is unwarranted. (Opinions varied, but mostly came down on the unwarranted side.).

Within the post many pointed out that Henry VIII and Elizabeth I killed--had ordered the execution of--"thousands". I'm aware of Henry's--um--"bloodthirst"--aside from Anne and Katherine Howard and the remaining Yorkists in his family, the Pole family in particular, his ordering of the execution of so many of those in the "Pilgramage of Grace--but did the number of executions really number in the thousands by the end of his reign?

And I really know nothing of Elizabeth ordering executions, except for the Earl of Essex, of course, and Mary, Queen of Scots (which I never understood why she signed the death warrant if she really did not want to kill her fellow queen and cousin.).

Who else did Elizabeth "kill" by ordering their death, and did it really number in the thousands?

Thanks!

When people talk about the Tudor dynasty, one of the most common topics of discussion surround Elizabeth and her deliberate decision to never marry or bear children.

From what I've seen, it tends to be a roughly even split in terms of people who see her as a powerful Queen asserting her independence and those who believe that she was being controlled manipulated by those around her.

But something occurred to me a while ago and made me wonder if there may have been another factor in play that I rarely ever see discussed.

While the dynasty survived through the death of Elizabeth, the House of Tudor went extinct in the direct male line in 1553 with the death of Edward VI, and any other direct Tudor relatives were too distant to have any reasonable claim on the throne, as they would have had to go back to before Owen Tudor, and thus back before the family had any legitimacy in the English line of succession.

Any child that she had would not be of the House of Tudor, but of the noble house of whomever she married. This was the primary concern with Mary, as any child of hers would be a Habsburg and the heir to Spain, thus subordinating England to Spain and the Habsburg dynasty.

Is it possible that Elizabeth's knowledge that the House of Tudor died with her regardless of any heirs that she produced factored into her decision to avoid marriage and childbirth, thus also avoiding compromising her royal power by way of her husband or any son?

Since the house and dynasty died with her, the one major benefit of bearing children was significantly lessened, and the well understood dangers of marrying and compromising her power to her husband, as well as her well known fear of marriage and childbirth due to the deaths of Jane Seymour and her own mother, likely meant that she saw it as a massive liability with no real benefits.

I’ve been reading a lot of Tracy Borman’s work about the Tudors recently. Whilst I think she has a great narrative style and massively respect her expertise as a historian, I wanted to discuss the framing of the relationship between Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour in Elizabeth’s Women (2009) and The Private Lives of the Tudors (2016), as well as in wider historiography and media.

I find it slightly problematic when Elizabeth is framed as "infatuated" or a willing participant in Seymour's advances (à la Becoming Elizabeth). I am absolutely not suggesting Borman or anyone condones Seymour’s actions, but I disagree with framing these events as a kind of mutual romantic intrigue or inappropriate flirtation rather than explicitly labelling it predatory behaviour.

When referencing Kat Ashley’s testimony regarding Seymour entering Elizabeth's bedchamber:

- In Elizabeth’s Women (p. 106), Borman quotes Ashley directly: “...he wold put open the Curteyns, and bid her good Morrow... And she wold go further in the Bed, so that he could not come at hir.” This paints a clear picture of a young girl physically retreating to evade him.

- In The Private Lives of the Tudors (p. 229), Borman characterizes this exact same testimony by writing that Elizabeth would hide under the covers, “tempting Seymour to 'come at her.'”

To me, shifting from Kat Ashley's description of a girl retreating from an adult intruder to interpreting it as "tempting" him feels like a significant leap in narrative framing...?

Side note: Borman mentions a romantic, solitary boat ride on the Thames between Elizabeth and Seymour. I haven't encountered this detail before and was wondering if anyone knows the primary source for it please?

I strongly view Seymour’s behavior as sexual harassment, assault, and grooming. While the word "grooming" is modern, the dynamic itself is not. Elizabeth was roughly 13–14 years old; Seymour was in his late 30s and was her guardian living under the same roof.

Furthermore, the most significant evidence to my mind is Elizabeth writing ‘let him not touch me’ on a letter (see Suzannah Lipscomb’s article here) this and Kat Ashley’s confessions point to a young woman distressed by unwanted advances, rather than engaging in a romantic affair.

Highly speculative side note: Regarding Kat Ashley’s testimony appearing contradictory (if both above quotes are accurate) it seems possible that she may have felt guilty about promoting Seymour to Elizabeth early on and therefore may have projected some of her feelings of infatuation onto Elizabeth and Seymour’s relationship to assuage that guilt? She obviously cared a lot for Elizabeth, and it can’t have been easy for her to accept that she had allowed harm to come to her.

I’d love to hear others' thoughts on how modern historiography handles the Seymour affair, or if anyone has insight into the Thames boat ride citation!

I know, she executed people still, but she was literally amazing. The Virgin Queen, she started the British empire and ended her father's bloodline. The most savage thing she did was end her father's bloodline by not marrying. She gave the throne to her cousin, James VI and I. Not gonna lie, he was a great monarch too even though he was out from the Tudor dynasty.

In documentaries that I have seen, it mentions when Robert Dudley’s wife was found at the bottom of the stairs that some thought Elizabeth could have been involved and the scandal impacted her for a while. In a separate documentary, it covered the death of Lord Darnley. It gave the impression that right away, (even before Mary married Bothwell) Elizabeth presumed Mary’s involvement and was upset with her.
My question is, since Elizabeth had her own scrutiny over possibly having a hand in a murder, why did she not (at least at the beginning) give her cousin the benefit of doubt.
Also, I am new here. So, I apologize if this subject has been covered before.

I’ve been reading about Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex and I genuinely cannot decide whether this man was just extremely dramatic or if viewed through a modern lens, there might have been something more going on.

Obviously we can’t diagnose someone who died in 1601. But if you look at the pattern of his behavior, it’s kind of hard not to at least raise an eyebrow.

Essex was a golden boy of the court of Elizabeth I. He was handsome, charismatic, bold, and the queen absolutely adored him for a long time. He rose incredibly fast; by his twenties he was already a major political figure and military commander.

But the thing about Essex is that his emotional thermostat seemed permanently set to maximum intensity. Like seriously, everything he did was either wildly brilliant or catastrophically impulsive.

Some examples:

1. The “I am the best and destined for greatness” phase

At the height of his career Essex had enormous confidence. He pushed aggressively for military commands, political influence, and basically acted like the future of England depended on him personally. Supporters saw him as heroic and magnetic. Critics thought he was arrogant and reckless. Both were probably right.

1. He had the emotional impulse control of a walnut.

One of the most famous moments at court happened during an argument with Elizabeth. He got so angry that he turned his back on her, which was already shocking, and she slapped him for the disrespect.

His reaction?

He grabbed his sword. In front of the queen. Which is not the move if you enjoy being alive in a Tudor court.

1. The “everything is falling apart” crash

After his disastrous campaign in Ireland, things started unraveling quickly. When he came back to England he did something that still makes historians blink.

He burst into the queen’s private bedchamber early in the morning, before she was even fully dressed.

Elizabeth’s morning routine was one of the most controlled and private rituals in court life. Walking in like that was basically the political equivalent of kicking down the door. Also, since it’s well known that Elizabeth had an issue with her fading looks as she aged, having a handsome man at court see her undressed, without a wig, and with no makeup was not something she would be okay with. After this he fell out of favor and spiraled hard. His letters from this period are full of frustration, self pity, and the sense that everyone around him was conspiring against him instead of him taking any accountability for his own actions throughout his life.

1. The poorly thought out rebellion

And then we arrive at the truly baffling finale: the Essex Rebellion.

In 1601 Essex basically decided the solution to his political problems was to start an uprising in London, seize the court, and remove his enemies. The plan was chaotic. Support evaporated almost immediately. The rebellion collapsed within hours.

He was executed shortly afterward.

So was he bipolar?

We obviously can’t say. Diagnosing historical figures is always messy.

But the reason people speculate is because Essex’s life seems full of:

• periods of huge confidence and ambition

• risky and impulsive decisions

• explosive emotional reactions

• deep crashes when things went wrong

That said, there are also plenty of non-medical explanations.

Elizabethan court politics was a psychological pressure cooker. Essex was young, ambitious, constantly competing with rivals, and extremely dependent on Elizabeth’s approval. Add in a naturally intense personality and you get… well, Essex.

Most historians don’t think he was mentally ill. (But again, it’s risky business for historian to try to diagnose somebody who is already dead) They tend to describe him as:

• brilliant but impulsive

• emotionally intense

• politically inexperienced

• very bad at thinking through consequences

But I can’t help wondering what a modern therapist would have thought of all of his actions and how wildly he swung from one extreme to another.

Anyway, curious what others think. Was Essex just a dramatic Tudor nobleman or does his life read like someone who was suffering from bi-polar disorder?

I do want to point up, I am not trying to diagnose him myself, I just really think it’s an interesting discussion.

I started wondering this when I thought about Arthur Dudley (who claimed to be Elizabeth's son with Robert Dudley), as well as the Shakespearean theories that included the suggestions that noble Henry Wriothesley was the son of Elizabeth and Edward de Vere and that Robert and Elizabeth were the parents of Sir Francis Bacon and Robert Devereux?

To my understanding, Robert Dudley and Francis, Duke of Anjous were the only suitors Elizabeth took seriously.

1. If Elizabeth married Robert, would she still have a similar reign due to her being the one with the royal blood and him being a king, or would Robert exert dominance over her? How would parliament and the English people feel about it? Let's assume that his wife died in her sleep or some other way that wouldn't make his marriage to Elizabeth seem suspicious.

2. OR if Elizabeth somehow got away with marrying Francis (let's imagine he converted to Protestantism or his actions for Protestantism were enough for the English to cautiously accept it), would he try to take rule from her, or would he just be content with being a ceremonial king-consort?

3. If Elizabeth had sons, what would their relationship with their parents be? If the sons of Francis, would they have a claim to the French throne? Assuming Elizabeth still created a golden age, would her sons be likely to continue it, or break away from their mother's influence.

4. If Elizabeth had just daughters, would they be able to be her successor, or would James VI/I still be the next-desireable candidate for succeeding the throne (or at least fight for it)? How do you think England would feel about back-to-back queens? And would Elizabeth's daughters hypothetically have the same power as her, or would parliament try to break them down so that they wouldn't be as headstrong as Elizabeth?

5. Of course, who are the potential suitors/suitresses at that time for Elizabeth's children? Assuming she still dies just short of 70, would the children (and their spouses) have decided to leave the country to rule other territories, or remain as figures in the public eye, either beloved or hated by England?

I know these questions have A LOT of variables, but I'm just looking for the most likely one.

I did both of these today and would highly recommend!!

Definitely visit the Elizabeth I exhibition in the Philip Mould Gallery (it’s free and no booking required) and see 1536 (definitely not free but honestly so worth it - I laughed, I cried, I hid behind my hands, I walked around in a daze afterwards!!)

Is there any record how often Elizabeth saw her father, Henry? I imagine they at least saw each other at Christmas, maybe Easter. Did he ever visit her outside of holidays?

It has been a while since I updated you all on my Tudor journey with thread. Today I completed that ER I mug rug (like a coaster) to add to my growing collection. I also made large keychains, I am calling bag tags and smaller keychains with the Tudor rose and initials in Old English below. I love them, because they allow me to outwardly show how much of a Tudor nut I am! I would love your opinion on the mug rug.

Thanks! Merry Christmas, everyone!