What would Elizabeth I think of Elizabeth II?

She would say, “where is her power?”

You should have kept your legs closed.

She would have something to say about her fashions and her lineage.

And she would say, “where is her *powder*?”

I do wonder if the name Elizabeth will be unofficially retired for British queens. It’s been used twice and both were very long-serving queens who made their mark on history.

Who would want to risk being Liz III?

I was first

Um, I'm her namesake, bitches.

Charlotte should pull a Lizzie Borden and become queen.

I don't think the two Elizabeths share the same DNA. I don't think they're actually related to each other. Besides, Elizabeth The first was authorized the Trans Atlantic slave trade, so fuck the dead Bitch.

[quote]I don't think the two Elizabeths share the same DNA.

You must be joking.

I thought Liz 2 was somehow, distantly - of course, related to that treasonous whore Mary, Queen of Scots.

R11, Mary Stuart's father was Elizabeth I's first cousin. That was how Mary came to be next in line to Elizabeth's throne which, Mary being Catholic, was why Mary was such a problem for Elizabeth.

R9, I am sure there are lots of other genealogical routes through which they are (at least officially) related, but the main one is the fact that Elizabeth I's grandfather, Henry VII of England, is a direct ancestor of the Queen via his daughter Margaret Tudor (who was the mother of James V of Scotland and thus the grandmother of Mary, Queen of Scots).

Henry VII of England; Margaret Tudor (Queen consort of Scotland); James V of Scotland; Mary, Queen of Scots; James VI (of Scotland) and I (of England); Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia; Sophia of Hanover; George I of Great Britain; George II; Frederick, Prince of Wales; George III; Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn; Victoria of the United Kingdom; Edward VII; George V; George VI; Elizabeth II

^ Making them first cousins, fourteen times removed.

She would say, "If I had her deworming medications, dentistry and heart surgeon, I would still be regnant.

I think she would tell her she should have remained a virgin.

Elizabeth I had more traffic between her legs than Victoria Station.

The syphilis kept the bastards from crawling out.

The current Queen is really Elizabeth I in Scotland, because the previous Elizabeth was never queen there. They could have a chat about England’s domination of the discourse about British history.

R17, when a person is the first of a name, no "I" is used, of course.

You get a pass because you were using it to get a point across only, we trust.

So you history buffs, why did Elizabeth 1 paint her face white? What were all the reasons? Serious factual comments please...

style. and yes, that was a common enough cosmetic back then.

[quote] I don't think the two Elizabeths share the same DNA. I don't think they're actually related to each other.

Did someone say they were?

It’s still funny to think that Elizabeth I was the daughter of Henry VIII, bloodthirsty ho, and Anne Boleyn, Machiavellian ho. Maybe that’s why the Virgin Queen image makeover was necessary. But as someone above said, QEI was no virgin.

I would love to see Hilary Mantel write some unvarnished truth about Elizabeth I now that she’s done with Thomas Cromwell.

Anyone recommend any or the best biography of her? the same with victoria...

She would wonder why II hadn't had Diana, Andrew and Fergie locked in the Tower and beheaded on trumped up charges

She would advise Elizabeth II to get casting approval on all her biopics. I mean, Bette Davis? Fucking Quentin Crisp?

E1 would probably question how little power and authority, both political and social, E2 has.

Also, I'm betting all the commoners marrying into the royal family might be a problem for her.

Finally, E2 presided over a period of key growth and expansion of the English. She'd probably wonder why they've become so small and insignificant.

I think Liz 1 would be extremely disappointed in Liz 2

R27. You do realize Elizabeth I’s mother was a commoner?

R30. Confirms she was a commoner.

[quote][R27]. You do realize Elizabeth I’s mother was a commoner?

Anne Boleyn may not have had a title in her own right, but she was hardly a "commoner" given that her grandfather was Duke of Norfolk on one side and various earls and barons on the other side.

Even if you accept that by strictest definitions of being a "commoner" she was one, she was a member of the highest social classes by family and wealth and would have been exceptionally well-connected socially and few people even among the titled aristocracy would have snubbed her.

There is no way to define Ann Boleyn as other than a commoner, as the video confirms. The Queen Mother and Princess Diana are exactly analogous. They too came from grand families., but no one has ever tried to claim that they were anything but commoners. Even Kate Middleton is statistically exceptional in her family’s wealth, but she too is a commoner. Commoner is not synonymous with common.

[quote] So you history buffs, why did Elizabeth 1 paint her face white?

She didn’t, I did.

She'd think that she must have lost her head with all the recent fuckery!

Miss Lilibet's 16th Great Uncle:

bump!

Elizabeth I painted her face white as that was the fashion then for aging women---it (supposedly) covered up/filled in smallpox scars (which she had), wrinkles, skin discolorations. The thick white mixture was lead-based btw so that must have done a number on her skin and overall health. She also had rotten teeth as she loved sweets and wore garish orange/red wigs--- a cruel mockery of her once naturally long reddish hair. I also read she was incredibly vain even to the end--- so by her last years, she really plastered on that white shit, wore even bigger wigs bedecked with pearls, etc.

Today of course, women/men submit their faces to surgeons and have to take their chances---sometimes looking way worse than before. Anyway, Liz 2 sure never bothered with cosmetic surgery. She wouldn't even have Charles' ears tied down.

LIz 1 would have sent Prince Andrew, Diana and Megs directly to the tower and had them rot there, or maybe had them beheaded. She would also be disgusted by Liz 2's leniency, choice of husband, and overall vapidity. She probably would have had some PMs assassinated too if they opposed her. She was a true survivor and escaped being beheaded herself when she was just a princess. She was tough as old boots. Elizabeth II not so much.

A story about Elizabeth I's white makeup.

looking like a scary ghost was preferable to looking her age? yikes!...

I know a guy who can solve your family matters in one fell swoop. My cousin Mary can vouch for that.

Queen Elizabeth I : I am called the Virgin Queen. Unmarried, I have no master. Childless, I am mother to my people. God give me strength to bear this mighty freedom. I am your Queen. I am myself.

I just realised that, in my post at R12, my first paragraph addressed R11 as though he'd asked about the relationship between "Liz 1" and Mary, Queen of Scots whereas he'd actually said "Liz 2". As it happens, my next two paragraphs do describe the relationship between the Queen (Elizabeth II) and Mary Stuart, but I just wanted to clarify.

Elizabeth I took the blessed virgin from her people, and consciously replaced her with "The virgin Queen."

[quote]LIz 1 would have sent Prince Andrew, Diana and Megs directly to the tower

Why Diana? Why not Camilla in that scenario? We're talking War of the Wales era, not today. Seems like even Liz 1 would've seen that the popular support was for Diana, not Camilla.

Some of you really get carried away with blind hatred sometimes.

I actually find it fascinating that E2 has seemingly accepted Camilla.

Frankly, whether you like or hate Diana, Camilla was banging her husband while both of them were married to other people.

Talk about moral and ethical garbage.

We've had this discussion before on DL. Far as royalty is concerned either you are or you aren't, the latter are commoners and this includes nobility. Hence reason many royal family house rules (such as Romanovs) forbade unequal marriages. Scions of such families had to marry other imperial, royal or serene highnesses or majesties. Loosely defined however this covered dynasties who currently or once reigned/ruled. Hence while the Bourbons long were booted off thrones of France and Navarre, dynasts of that family are still considered "royal".

Nobility are a higher level of commoners above the rest. How close they are to monarchy is determined by order of precedence.

In England, Wales, UK, etc... children from a legal marriage derive their status from the father. Hence children of a king and a consort who was a commoner (such as AB), wasn't such a huge issue. Indeed only two of Henry VIII's wives were royal princesses (Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves), other four were all commoners.

Anne B. and Catherine Howard were risen up to royalty and made queens, then stripped of that rank and so forth before their executions.

R46. At the time it was thought that a prince of wales could never divorce. Charles was unlikely to remain celibate from his 30s onward.

R46 Diana broke up more marriages than Camilla.

R46

If not for interference of HM, Prince Phillip and others Prince Charles likely would have married Camilla in first place. Deemed unsuitable by HM and others at the time, PC was told to look elsewhere, and subsequently went away on military assignment or something. Upon Prince of Wales return Camilla had married so that was that, well sort of.

In way many high born British and European men often do, Prince Charles remained rather attached to his former mistress. A more sophisticated woman would have likely managed things differently, but Diana like fictitious Crystal Allen (from film The Women), started things that caused plenty of trouble.

As has been explained breathlessly by many who knew them both, Charles and Diana were completely incompatible. Their marriage was doomed by their own personalities, Camilla or no Camilla.

I find the time, money, and PR it took to make Camilla palatable a masterclass in marketing and pure will on Charles' part.

Back to Liz 1, I'm a fan because Liz 1 is like Anne Boleyn's (who is a fave of mine) greatest achievement and biggest fuck you to those who brought her down. The sad thing is it appears that Liz 1, being young when Anne died, had very little memory of her mother and didn't comment on her all that much.

R46

Had Diana not done that infamous Panorama interview where she told God and the world she'd been unfaithful, and spilled lots of other dirt besides, divorce might not have happened. Diana herself was gobsmacked when HM turned around after that event and said it would be best of she and P of W divorced *now*.

Whether it was naiveté, mental delusions, being used by others for their own purposes, and or combination of all three, Diana truly believed she could give out an interview not only acknowledging she committed treason more than once (that is what laying with a queen consort, princess of Wales or any other female married to heir is), but went on about changing the succession putting her son William ahead of his father, and so much more.

In many ways Elizabeth II's court operated along staid pre-WWII conservative British values and standards. One of them was that marital infidelity among men was to be expected and usually tolerated by their wives. Lord knows Alexandra had her share of problems with Edward VII, and among higher classes people were jumping in an out of various beds all the time. Pity of it was no one bothered telling Lady Diana Spencer all this, and soon found out she wasn't having any of it.

R45–Elizabeth I would have considered Diana’s public declaration that William and not Charles become king an act of treason. She courted the media to trash the family. Unacceptable behavior.

Also, consider the fact that Diana was fucking around and had a few lovers . Any pregnancy could be suspicious to Elizabeth’s eyes. To this day, some people think Charles is not Prince Harry’s father. The woman married to a prince had to be virtuous no matter who her husband was fucking. Elizabeth would have condemned Diana in a heartbeat.

Why not Camilla in the tower? She was merely a royal mistress and god knows her father had enough of those. To Elizabeth I, no big deal, such were the double standards of the day.

R52 she didn't speak on her publicly, but historians have found plenty of evidence that she kept her Boleyn relatives close and treasured her mother's memory.

Charles and Camilla should've been allowed to marry in the 1970s, thereby sparing everyone from the disaster that followed. Unfortunately, the times were different back then and Camilla was deemed unsuitable because she had a reputation as a bit of a party girl who liked to drink and get laid. That wouldn't be an issue today, but back then it was still a big deal.

R52

Until her dying day Elizabeth I had a locket or ring (cannot recall which) that had a miniature portrait of her mother, AB.

Anne Boleyn represented a quandary for her daughter Elizabeth I. Unlike Catherine of Aragon and few other of Henry's queens AB was never widely loved neither inside court or out. The "king's goggle eyed whore" was seen as a scheming harpy who was no better than she should be, and finally got what she deserved.

One of first things Mary I did as queen was to have the bill naming her a bastard by Henry VIII reversed. Elizabeth I made no such moves or efforts. As such by law she still was the illegitimate child of a disgraced former queen who was put to death like a common prostitute.

Rather than stir those old pools Elizabeth I stuck with she was queen because her father "Good Harry" made her so via succession spelled out in his final will, a document that was approved by Parliament.

Thus you can see why Elizabeth never mentioned her mother in public, the politics were just too complicated. It didn't help Mary, Queen of Scots and other potential true heirs to throne (well as seen by others) were lurking in the background. Elizabeth (finally) dispatched her most royal cousin, the Queen of Scots, but that event didn't solve all her problems.

By time of Mary's execution Elizabeth was old and certainly past baby making. She was an unmarried and childless monarch with no direct heirs. This piled onto fact many still considered her a bastard , usurper, and now also a regicide

Bit of historical tidbit; we do not know exactly what Elizabeth I ever looked like in real life.

Upon becoming queen official stencils were created, and those were the only ones allowed to be used to create portraits. Any artist or whoever that defied this convention could find himself put away in the Tower.

Didn't H8 try to get his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy into the line of succession at one point or am I misremembering.

Prince Charles was getting on, and HM along with Prince Phillip were constantly getting at the Prince of Wales to marry and breed heirs. Mountbatten tried to make magic happen twice by manoeuvring his niece, Lady Lady Amanda Patricia Victoria Knatchbull into position. The young lady's mother, Patricia a Victoria Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma, put an end to that idea.

On paper Diana fit the bill nicely. She was young, from a good noble family, and loved babies. That she was apparently unknown to man and didn't come with a complicated past of former lovers (unlike Camilla) was icing on that proverbial cake.

This was all on paper; in fact Lady Diana Spencer came from a rather "interesting" home life including a mother who was a bolter. She was also rather emotionally weak if not unstable, who was wanting of a totally different sort of man as a husband than Prince Charles. Yet Earl Spencer (knowing fully well as all of London did about CPB and Prince Charles), allowed his daughter to marry into one of the most dysfunctional families in GB, the Windsor-Mountbatten clan.

Diana received full confirmation that PC and CPB were still an item (even if sex side of their relationship had ceased since Prince or Wales became engaged), and initially wanted to bolt. Her sisters, family, HM and others pretty much said "too late now dear, your name is on the tea towels", so the wedding as announced went ahead as planned.

GB got to do what it does best, put on a royal wedding with full pomp and glory, which a waiting nation and world lapped up. Things were quiet for several years, then all Hell broke lose!

R59 it was considered as a possibility but he died at 17 before anything could happen.

R59

"At the time of Richmond's death, an Act was going through Parliament which disinherited Henry's daughter Elizabeth as his heir and permitted the King to designate his successor, whether legitimate or not. There is no evidence that Henry intended to proclaim Richmond his heir, but the Act would have permitted him to do so if he wished.[29] The Imperial ambassador Eustace Chapuys wrote to Emperor Charles V on 8 July 1536 that Henry VIII had made a statute allowing him to nominate a successor, but thought the Duke of Richmond would not succeed to the throne by it, as he was consumptive and now diagnosed incurable"

Henry kept his cards close to vest on matter of making Duke of Richmond his heir as Parliament gave him right so to do. But as noted by previous poster Grim Reaper took matter out of Henry VIII's hand.

Of course we all know now what Henry VIII couldn't then, that he finally would have a male heir one year later, future Edward VI born in 1537

Some people just can't make sons that last

QEI would tell QEII to make better use of all the castles at her disposal to lock up troublesome relations.