Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen

Well I'm no movie buff, and I detest monarchy as an institution but this was a brilliant film and Elizabeth was a great queen.

My other half teaches history, she says the twists and turns surrounding Elizabeth have been distorted for dramatic affect, but over all it was a pretty good account. It certainly gave a powerful impression of what it must have been like at court in those days of religious and political fervour.

Elizabeth herself was a clever woman. Spoke several languages, keen horsewoman etc etc.

There is debate about her sexuality, but the film seems pretty clear on that. The mythology surrounding the "Virgin Queen" was a deliberate piece of propaganda, almost an attempt to deify the woman who in the absence of a husband was married "To England".

Interesting that Elizabeth's father split from Rome, dissolved all the monasteries, and founded the Church of England because he wanted a divorce, while the current Elizabeth's son would now like to disestablish the Church of England - because he wants to marry a Catholic. Fickle that's what I call them.

Maya, I do believe that I read something about lead being the basis of all the goop. Probably in Walter's link.

Steve, Harry wants to disestablish the Church of England? Well, my, my, that is ironical.

Then with the exception of hyperbole for the sake of drama, we can assume that the movie was pretty true to history.

Thanks, all.

No not Harry. His father Charles, Prince of Wales. Our next King (hopefully not)

He had 2 boys by Diana, William the next heir, and Harry the spare.

Camilla Parker Bowles is a Catholic. Charles was "seeing" her when they were single, when they were both married to other people, and now she is divorced and Diana is no longer around, Charles wants to get married. But the monarch is also the Head of the Church of England (see Henry VIII above), and as such Charles couldn't possibly marry a Catholic in church.

But if the Church of England was disestablished, that is no longer linked to the State in the person of the Monarch, Charles could do what he wanted.

Further irony is that one of the titles the monarch retains is Defender of the Faith. That was given to Henry 8 by the pope when Henry was on side, and he never gave it back when he made himself the head of the Church of England.

Now Charles wants the title to be modified to be Defender of Faith, not The Faith, to reflect all shades of religious belief in multicultural Britain. Load of balls if you ask me.

Sorry, Steve. Misread your response. Well, these monarchs can do pretty much as they please having been inspired by Henry VIII. I still remember my Western Civ professor who was a bit wry when he observed that the throne disapproved of Margaret Rose's consorting with the divorced, (Townsend was it?)then, " She married a pitcher taker."

You mean Elizabeth's sister Margaret?

She fell in love with Group Captain Townshend (i think) but the Royal establishment put the kybosh on it because he was a divorcee. (Can you believe that, it was beneath the dignity of the Queen's sister to marry a dashing young RAF officer because he was divorced....)

Frustrated in love she went off the rails, married a photographer (pitcher taker?) snorted coke and smoked herself to death (only a couple of years ago).

The British Royal family must be the cruellest most dysfunctional bunch of people ever to describe themselves as a family.

I have no love for the monarchy whatsoever, that is the institution of monarchy. It is an embarrassing anachronism (been practising that phrase for occasions like this) and belongs firmly in the pages of history books.

However I cant help having some feelings towards individual members, and I think they treated Diana appallingly. She was a naive girl who married a prince. No one could be bothered to explain what she was getting into, and it wasnt the fairy tale she thought it was. After she had fullfilled her biological and hereditary duty by producing two healthy boys, they dropped her, with fatal results.

ps no reply from Letchworth sorry. The local paper is called the Comet, suggest you approach them direct. S

ah, Steve. Thanks so much for all the info. (My prof loved to slaughter the English language ON PURPOSE)

and again, thanks for the P.S.

Well I thought you couldnt be serious about pitchers unless it was some obtuse reference to baseball (an american variant of rounders i believe)

We Yanks do tend to leave a lot unsaid...and pitchers could also refer to ewers. As for baseball, never watch it, but somebody here, does.

the modern royals are a frumpy lot - but in Elizabethan times Elizabeth WAS fashion - everyone copied the court - they were the film stars/president/whatever role models you can think of , of their time.