Elizabeth I The Virgin Queen (BBC Series)

Download File >> https://urlca.com/2tsT3V

ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FOR THE BOOK (1996):THE PRIVATE LIFE OF QUEEN ELIZABETH IIn recent years there have been several excellent biographies of Queen Elizabeth I, notably Anne Somerset's in 1991, but we would have to go back to Elizabeth Jenkins' superb "Elizabeth the Great", published in the 1950s, for a book devoted to that monarch's private life. Times have moved on since then, and a reappraisal is now appropriate. In "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" and its sequel, "Children of England", I wrote about the private lives of the earlier Tudor sovereigns, ending - on a cliffhanger - with the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558. While I was working on "Children of England", I touched on Elizabethan sources and thought about writing a future book about Elizabeth's affair with Robert Dudley (later Earl of Leicester) and the mysterious - and timely - death of his wife, Amy Robsart. Preliminary research showed that this was a subject that had not been written about in depth for forty years, and that it might be worth delving into the mystery, treating the evidence strictly chronoligically, as I had done with the sources for "The Princes in the Tower". Yet there was more to this tale than the death of Amy Robsart, for Elizabeth's relationship with Dudley was to last for more than a quarter of a century after it. I then conceived the idea of continuing my series of books on the Tudor period with a broader work on the personal history and character of Queen Elizabeth I, which would include accounts of her many relationships - both personal and political - with the men who wanted to marry her, notably Leicester, her numerous official suitors, among them Philip of Spain, and - much later - Leicester's stepson, the Earl of Essex. The book would also focus on the Queen's dynamic personality, and give fascinating details about her daily life. Another theme - one hardly touched upon by other writers - would be Elizabeth's relations with the family of her mother, Anne Boleyn. The Queen was close to these kinsfolk, who in turn proved loyal and supportive. Elizabeth's relations with her royal relations, particularly Lady Katherine Grey, Mary, Queen of Scots, the Countess of Lennox and Arbella Stuart, were of necessity of a more political nature, yet her feelings for her Boleyn kin, who were not competitors for her crown, were based on by family ties. The subject of the personal family relationships of Elizabeth I has long been neglected and a study of it would undoubtedly provide a new insight into the Queen's complex character. Given the vast amount of source material, such a book would be quite an undertaking, but there is no reason why the subject could not be successfully dealt with in one volume, with all the separate themes being interwoven into one cohesive whole, with the strong figure of the Queen providing a central focus. The title, "The Private Life of Queen Elizabeth I", defines the scope of the work, and makes it clear that it is not a history of the reign, but of Elizabeth's personal life. Nor will it be an account of Elizabeth's life before her accession, as I have written of this in detail in two earlier books. However, her early years will be recounted in an introductory chapter for the benefit of those who have not read the earlier books, because these experiences had a tremendous effect on Elizabeth's emotional development. I do feel that a book with a strong central character, such as Queen Elizabeth was, would be of interest to many people. Although it is not my intention to write from a feminist viewpoint - which, in my opinion, would not be a legitimate treatment of a historical subject - I do wish to comment on, and emphasise, that Elizabeth I, who was the first to say she was a "weak and feeble woman", was in fact an extraordinary female in an age in which men were dominant. In 1558, when Elizabeth I ascended the throne, a female sovereign was still a novelty, for her half-sister, Mary I, had reigned for a mere five years. Tudor England was a patriarchal society, and it was unthinkable that a queen regnant would attempt to rule without a husband to guide and protect her, and - most important of all - to give her heirs to ensure the succession. Yet whom should the Queen marry? Her sister's unpopular and disastrous marriage to Philip II of Spain had proved that it was unwise for a queen to marry a foreign monarch, for his duties would call him abroad and keep him there, and there was a danger of foreigners interfering in the affairs of the realm, or England being treated as a satellite state of another country, or being dragged into a foreign war, as had happened, with terrible consequences, under Mary. Of course, the Queen could always marry an English nobleman, but that was certain to lead to faction fights at court and jealousy amongst the peers. Elizabeth I solved this problem by never marrying, yet for decades she cleverly kept not only her ministers, but numerous suitors of various nationalities in a fever of suspense and anticipation that she would accept their proposals. Thus she managed to retain the goodwill of foreign powers and at the same time revel in the pleasures of courtship and flirtation. Even after she had passed the age for chiIdbearing, men continued to court her, and she continued to give them cause to hope. It was a strategy that required a genius's sense of timing and a stalwart self-control, and there were moments when her private loneliness and regret about her childless state were publicly revealed. Historians have long pondered about the vexing question of Queen Elizabeth's attitude to sex and marriage. Did her early experiences - the beheading of her mother, her stepmother, Katherine Howard, and Thomas Seymour, who did his best to seduce her when she was in her early teens - leave her with a mental block against sex and marriage? Did she, as has often been suggested, have some physical deformity or condition that prevented her from consummating a relationship or bearing a child? Was the salacious gossip of her day - which accused her of all kinds of promiscuous behaviour - based on truth, or did Elizabeth really live and die a Virgin Queen? In this book, I should like to collate and examine all the evidence, and hopefully draw a logical conclusion. There will be five themes in the book: the portrayal of Elizabeth as both a woman and a queen, concentrating on every aspect of herextraordinary character, of which so much is known that it is possible to identify with her moods and feelings; her involvement with her relatives on both sides; her long affair with Robert Dudley; her relationships, sometimes comical, sometimes poignant, with her numerous other suitors, including that with her later arch-enemy Philip of Spain, who had been attracted to her ever since he first met her at her sister's court and presently wished to marry her; and her curious and bizarre relationship with Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, who was beheaded for conspiring against her in 1601. These events will be dealt with chronologically. The sources for the Elizabethan period are wonderfully rich in detail, and it is possible to learn a vast amount about Elizabeth's daily life, her clothes, what she ate, what she said, the magnificent palaces she lived in, her courtiers, and the intrigues and plots in which they indulged. The Queen was a remarkable woman for her time, using her forceful personality to manipulate and control the power-hungry men around her, not to mention the dangerous and menacing forces that threatened her throughout most of her forty-five year reign. The age to which she gave her name was one of the most colourful and confident in England's history, and in the pages of this book I hope to bring it vividly to life.A CONVERSATION WITH ALISON WEIR, August 1998, just prior to the publication of The Private Life of Elizabeth I in the U.S.A.(Above: Teaching my son, John, in 1997.)When did you first become interested in history?In 1965, when I was fourteen, I read my first adult novel; it was an historical novel about Katherine of Aragon, and I could not put it down. When I finished it, I had to find out the true facts behind the story and if people really carried on like that in those days. So I began to read proper history books, and found that they did! It was a short step from doing research to writing my own books, and by the age of fifteen I had completed a three-volume compendium of facts on the Tudors as well as a biography of Anne Boleyn, and had begun to compile genealogical information for a dictionary of kings and queens which would, more than two decades later, be the basis of my first published book, Britain's Royal Families. At school, up to the age of sixteen, I found history boring, for we were studying the Industrial Revolution, which was all about Acts, Trade Unions and the factory system, and I wanted to know about people, because it is people who make history. My teachers were unaware that I was spending all my free periods and lunch-breaks researching my own history projects in the school library. I did pass my G.C.E. exam, but was told that my grade was not good enough to study history at an advanced level. This was a great disappointment as the subject for the advanced course was the Tudors and Stuarts, something about which I already knew a great deal. After leaving school, I passed my History A-Level with honours, on my own steam, after just six months of study. I would love to think that the teachers who excluded me have seen my published work.When did you begin to write professionally?During the early 1970s, after attending teacher training college with a view to teaching history, I spent four years researching and writing a book about Henry VIII's vives, but this was rejected by publishers on the grounds that it was too long - something of an understatement, since it filled 1,024 manuscript pages typed on both sides and without double spacing! In 1991 a much revised and edited version of this manuscript was published as my second book, The Six Wives of Henry VIII. In 1981 I wrote a biography of Jane Seymour, which was rejected by Weidenfeld and Nicholson as being - wait for it - too short. The publishers, however, put me in touch with my present firm of literary agents who, in the course of a conversation about which subject I should choose, rejected my suggestion of a book about Lady Diana Spencer (who became Princess of Wales that year) on the grounds that people would soon lose interest in her! Instead, it was agreed that I should write a biography of Isabella of France, wife of Edward II, but this was never finished because the births, very close together, of my children intervened in 1982 and 1984 and I had very little time for writing. In 1987, it occurred to me that my dictionary of genealogical details of British royalty - which I had revised eight times over twenty-two years - might be of interest to others, so I rearranged the contents once more, into chronological order. Britain's Royal Families became my first published book, in 1989, for The Bodley Head, and the rest of the story is (dare I say it?)history! How do you go about writing your books? I research from contemporary sources as far as possible; fortunately, most of those for the periods I have written about are in print. I use secondary sources to see what views historians take on my subjects, but in the end I make up my own mind, basing my conclusions as far as possible on contemporary evidence. I transcribe my information into chronological order, under date headings, so that when I have finished my research, I have a very rough draft of the book. This method has the curious advantage of highlighting discrepancies and often new interpretations of events, chronological patterns, and unexpected facts emerge. Anyone who has read The Princes in the Tower will know how startlingly well this method of research worked for that particular book.How would you describe your role as an historian?I am not a revisionist historian. I do not start with a theory and then try to fit the facts around it. I draw my conclusions from the known facts. As my research progresses, I gain some idea of the viewpoint I will take, but I am always ready to alter it if need be. You have to consider the known facts in detail and avoid supposition in order to get as near to the truth as possible. You must not only take into account what is written about someone or something, but who wrote it, since many sources are biased, prejudiced, or unreliable. Where possible I verify my facts from reliable sources only, and if the only source is suspect, I say so.Would it be fair to describe Elizabeth I or other powerful women of history as feminists?As a biographer of several important women, I do not believe that a feminist slant on history is appropriate. You must always judge your subjects in the context of their own age. You may draw parallels, but it is ludicrous to try to portray Eleanor of Aquitaine or Elizabeth I as pioneers of women's rights. They were, indeed, extraordinary women who made their mark in a male-dominated society, but neither made any conscious effort to improve the lot of their sex. I am fascinated by the role of women in history, and irritated that for so long historians have ignored them as unimportant, a failing I am trying to redress. I am also keen to strip away the credulity of the mediaeval chroniclers and the romanticism of many later female writers. I want my female characters to emerge as real people.What, then, is your aim in writing history?I want to bring history and its characters to life by including as much personal detail as possible, by inferring new ideas from the known facts, and by researching the political and social background so thoroughly that my subjects are set in an authentic context. Many people have told me that my books read like novels. That is because I like narrative history. The old adage that truth is stranger than fiction is more than true for me, and if (as a couple of recent reviewers have complained) it is old-fashioned to recount history as a rattling good story - which in many ways it is - then I am happy to be thought outdated.When you were researching and writing about Elizabeth I, did you come to like her?Yes, immensely! I was expecting to encounter this formidable, cruel, and rather bitchy woman, but instead I found a highly gifted, compassionate, and witty human being. True, she was imperious, temperamental, and often difficult, but even at these times there is an endearing quality in her. The book is full of anecdotes illustrating her character, and while many are very funny, others are poignant.There seems to be a trend nowadays towards dismissing Elizabeth's influence over the age that bears her name as negligible. To my mind, that is missing the whole essence of the Queen and her people, and I suspect that many writers propound such theories just to be provocative, or have studied merely the facts without understanding the spirit of the age. You do not have to do very much research to realize that Elizabeth had such a profound influence on England and the imagination of its people that in her own lifetime she was regarded as little less than divine.What is your opinion of screen portrayals of Elizabeth?I would say that Glenda Jackson's portrayal for the BBC television series 'Elizabeth R.' (1971) was almost perfect; to me, she was Queen Elizabeth. Despite the small budget for this series, great efforts were made to ensure accuracy - given an acceptable degree of dramatic license - and the standard of acting was superb. Here were no stereotypes, but real people. Older portrayals, including those by Bette Davis and Flora Robson, were more stereotypical and over-romantic. The Queen might have looked authentic, but no one else did! At least two films are in production now. The British film Elizabeth stars Joseph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett, and is to be released in November. The Daily Mail newspaper has asked me and Dr David Starkey for help with information about the film, because its historical advisor is an unknown and the filmmakers are being very secretive about it. Rumour has it that this is an over-romantic production in which Elizabeth will certainly not be portrayed as the 'Virgin Queen'. I can only say that I hope the producers will have checked their facts, because there is no excuse for blatant inaccuracy in an historical film - look at what they did with 'Braveheart'! I have heard that Glenn Close is to play Elizabeth in an American film scheduled for release later this year, and would imagine that she would make an excellent Elizabeth. A third film in production, which I read about last year, focuses on Mary, Queen of Scots, but I have heard nothing more about it as yet.What are you working on now?I am working on a biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a project that is giving me the chance to write at last about the mediaeval period and to flesh out a woman who has been dead for 800 years. It is surprising how much we know about her, and even more surprising how much controversy she provokes even today. I fear I am going to be very provocative in some of my conclusions. Until last summer, I ran a small private school for children with special educational needs, mainly to meet the needs of my own son, who is dyspraxic. He and the other students have all moved on to senior schools, and I was able to close the school, ending six years of teaching and writing at the same time. I was considering giving up sleep! With more time on my hands, I have been able not only to research Eleanor, but to write a novel about Lady Jane Grey. After I complete Eleanor, I have several ideas for future projects, including the mystery of the Casket letters and whether Mary, Queen of Scots was guilty of the murder of Lord Darnley, a book on Queen Victoria's early life, and The Last Plantagenets, the third volume in the trilogy that began with The Wars of the Roses and The Princes in the Tower. I just wish there were more hours in the day. Historical Notes: WHY DID ELIZABETH I NEVER MARRY?by Alison Weir(The Independent, 9th June 1998)"I will never marry," the future Elizabeth I declared at the age of eight, and, to the consternation of her subjects, the great Queen kept her word. She even promoted the cult of virginity that was to form the substance of her legend. For four centuries, historians have speculated as to why Elizabeth never married. In her own day, her decision to remain single was considered absurd and dangerous. A queen needed a husband to make political decisions for her and to organise and lead her military campaigns. More important, she needed male heirs to avoid a civil war between rival claimants after her death. There was no shortage of suitors for the Queen's hand, both English courtiers and foreign princes, and it was confidently expected for the best part of 30 years that Elizabeth would eventually marry one of them. Indeed, although she insisted that she preferred the single state, she kept these suitors in a state of permanent expectation and even lust. This prevarication was a deliberate policy on the Queen's part, since by keeping foreign princes in hope, sometimes for a decade, she kept them friendly when they might otherwise have made war on her realm. There were, indeed, sound political reasons for her avoiding marriage. The disastrous union of her sister Mary I to Philip II of Spain had imposed an unwelcome foreign influence upon English politics. The English were generally prejudiced against the Queen taking a foreign husband, particularly a Catholic one. Yet if she married an English peer, jealousy might lead to the formation of dangerous factions at court.There were other, deeper reasons for Elizabeth's reluctance to marry, chief of which, I believe, was her fear of losing her autonomy as Queen. In the 16th century, a sovereign was regarded as holding supreme dominion over the state, while a husband was deemed to hold supreme dominion over his wife. Elizabeth knew that marriage and motherhood would bring some erosion of her power. "I will have but one mistress here and no master," she told the Earl of Leicester, the man she loved more than any other and to whom she was close for over 30 years. She once pointed out that marriage seemed too uncertain a state for her. She had seen several unions in her immediate family break down, including that of her own parents. Some writers have argued that Elizabeth was frightened or incapable of the sex act; certainly she had a deep aversion to marriage and feared childbirth. Two of her stepmothers, her grandmother and several acquaintances had died in childbed. Moreover, in pregnancy she was bound to lose her grip on affairs. Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII, had had her mother, Anne Boleyn, executed for treason and adultery; her stepmother Katherine Howard later suffered the same fate. When Elizabeth was 14 she was almost seduced by Admiral Thomas Seymour, who also went to the block within a year for treason. Witnessing these terrible events at an early age, it has been argued, may have put Elizabeth off marriage. Elizabeth had to decide her priorities. There was no contraception in those days, and to risk an illicit pregnancy would have jeopardised her already insecure throne. A woman's reputation was paramount, especially that of a queen who bore the title Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Marriage or celibacy were her only choices. Elizabeth was far too intelligent to compromise herself. The choice she made was courageous and revolutionary, and, in the long run, the right one for England.� From Alison Weir's book Elizabeth the Queen 1e1e36bf2d