Artículos

Muere la reina Isabel I

Muere la reina Isabel I


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Después de 44 años de gobierno, muere la reina Isabel I de Inglaterra y el rey Jacobo VI de Escocia asciende al trono, uniendo Inglaterra y Escocia bajo un solo monarca británico.

Isabel, hija del rey Enrique VIII y Ana Bolena, subió al trono en 1559 tras la muerte de su media hermana, la reina María. Las dos medias hermanas, ambas hijas de Enrique VIII, tuvieron una relación tormentosa durante el reinado de cinco años de María. María, quien fue educada como católica, promulgó una legislación pro-católica e hizo esfuerzos para restaurar al Papa a la supremacía en Inglaterra. Se produjo una rebelión protestante y la reina María encarceló a Isabel, una protestante, en la Torre de Londres bajo sospecha de complicidad. Después de la muerte de María, Isabel sobrevivió a varios complots católicos en su contra; aunque su ascensión fue recibida con aprobación por la mayoría de los señores de Inglaterra, que eran en gran parte protestantes y esperaban una mayor tolerancia religiosa bajo una reina protestante. Bajo la dirección inicial del Secretario de Estado Sir William Cecil, Elizabeth derogó la legislación pro católica de María, estableció una Iglesia protestante permanente de Inglaterra y alentó a los reformadores calvinistas en Escocia.

LEER MÁS: Las infancias tremendamente diferentes de Isabel I y María, Reina de Escocia

En asuntos exteriores, Elizabeth practicó una política de fortalecer a los aliados protestantes de Inglaterra y dividir a sus enemigos. A Isabel se le opuso el Papa, que se negó a reconocer su legitimidad, y España, una nación católica que estaba en el apogeo de su poder. En 1588, la rivalidad entre inglés y español llevó a una abortada invasión española de Inglaterra en la que la Armada española, la mayor fuerza naval del mundo en ese momento, fue destruida por tormentas y una decidida armada inglesa.

Con el creciente dominio inglés en el mar, Elizabeth alentó los viajes de descubrimiento, como la circunnavegación del mundo de Sir Francis Drake y las expediciones de Sir Walter Raleigh a la costa de América del Norte.

El largo reinado de Isabel, conocida como la "Reina Virgen" por su renuencia a poner en peligro su autoridad a través del matrimonio, coincidió con el florecimiento del Renacimiento inglés, asociado con autores tan renombrados como William Shakespeare. Con su muerte en 1603, Inglaterra se había convertido en una gran potencia mundial en todos los aspectos, y la reina Isabel I pasó a la historia como una de las mayores monarcas de Inglaterra.


Meghan Markle y el príncipe Harry registraron nombres de dominio para Lilibet antes del nacimiento

Según los informes, la nueva viuda, la reina Isabel II, ha sufrido otro dolor de corazón & # 8212 la muerte de uno de los cachorros que le dieron para que no se sintiera & # 8220 deprimida y sola en el castillo ".

Fergus, uno de los dos cachorros que el príncipe Andrés le dio a su madre de 95 años cuando su esposo, el príncipe Felipe, se enfermó a principios de este año y murió durante el fin de semana, dijeron las fuentes al Sun.

La cruz dachshund-corgi & # 8212 conocida como & # 8220dorgi & # 8221 & # 8212 tenía solo unos 5 meses de edad, dijo el medio. No se dio ninguna causa de muerte.

“La Reina está absolutamente devastada, & # 8221, dijo al periódico un informante del Castillo de Windsor.

“Los cachorros fueron traídos para animarla durante un período muy difícil.

“Todos los involucrados están molestos porque esto ocurre tan pronto después de que ella perdió a su esposo, & # 8221, dijo la fuente sobre Philip, quien murió el 9 de abril, apenas dos meses antes de cumplir 100 años.

"Además de eso, ha habido problemas con su nieto, Harry", dijo la fuente, refiriéndose a los continuos ataques del duque de Sussex contra su familia y la institución de la monarquía misma.

La reina Isabel II y el príncipe Andrés asisten al funeral del príncipe Felipe en el Castillo de Windsor el 17 de abril de 2021 en Windsor, Inglaterra. Yui Mok-WPA Pool / Getty Images

La Reina, conocida por su amor por los perros, supuestamente había renunciado a tener más después de que su corgi, Vulcan, muriera en octubre pasado.

Pero Andrew, marcado por el escándalo, “sorprendió a su madre con dos nuevos cachorros cuando se sintió triste y sola en el castillo & # 8221 cuando Philip se enfermó por primera vez, dijo una fuente al periódico británico.

Una foto antigua de la reina Isabel con sus corgis. Alamy Foto de stock

Fergus recibió su nombre del tío de la reina, el capitán Fergus Bowes-Lyon, quien murió a los 26 años en 1915 cuando dirigió un ataque a las líneas alemanas en la Batalla de Loos en Francia durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, dijo el Sun.

La reina Isabel es una conocida amante de los perros y tuvo muchos cachorros durante su reinado. Alamy Foto de stock

Todavía tiene el otro cachorro de Andrew, Muick, que lleva el nombre de un hermoso lugar en Balmoral, donde la reina tiene su propiedad escocesa.

Ella también tiene un & # 8220dorgi & # 8221 Candy, el último descendiente vivo de un corgi que la Reina recibió en su cumpleaños número 18, según el informe.

El príncipe Felipe y la reina Isabel II dejan el servicio militar el 13 de marzo de 2015. Chris Jackson / Getty Images


Contenido

La descendencia de las dos hijas de Enrique VII que llegaron a la edad adulta, Margaret y Mary, fue el primer y principal problema de la sucesión.

Reclamación de Lennox Editar

María I de Inglaterra había muerto sin lograr que su sucesora preferida y prima hermana, Margaret Douglas, condesa de Lennox, fuera nominada por el parlamento. Margaret Douglas era hija de Margaret Tudor y vivió hasta 1578, pero se convirtió en una figura marginal en las discusiones sobre la sucesión de Isabel I, quien en ningún momento aclaró las cuestiones dinásticas de la línea Tudor. [2] Cuando en 1565 el hijo mayor de Margaret Douglas, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, se casó con Mary, reina de Escocia, el "reclamo de Lennox" se consideró generalmente como consolidado en el "reclamo de Stuart". [3]

Demandantes de Stuart Editar

James VI era hijo de dos nietos de Margaret Tudor. Arbella Stuart, el otro contendiente más serio a finales del siglo XVI, era la hija de Margaret Douglas, el hijo menor de la condesa de Lennox, Charles Stuart, primer conde de Lennox.

La madre de James VI, María, reina de Escocia, fue considerada una posible sucesora del trono inglés. Al comienzo del reinado de Isabel, envió embajadores a Inglaterra cuando se convocó un parlamento, anticipando un papel para el parlamento en la resolución de la sucesión a su favor. [4] María era católica romana, y su proximidad a la sucesión fue un factor de conspiración, convirtiendo su posición en un problema político para el gobierno inglés, finalmente resuelto por medios judiciales. Fue ejecutada en 1587. En ese año, el hijo de Mary, James, alcanzó la edad de veintiún años, mientras que Arbella solo tenía doce.

Demandantes de Suffolk Editar

Si bien la línea Stuart de James y Arbella habría tenido apoyo político, en 1600 los descendientes de Mary Tudor eran teóricamente relevantes y por motivos legales no podían descartarse. Frances Gray, duquesa de Suffolk, y Eleanor Clifford, condesa de Cumberland, tenían hijos que estaban en la línea de sucesión. Frances y Eleanor eran hijas de Mary Tudor de su segundo marido, Charles Brandon, primer duque de Suffolk. Frances se casó con Henry Gray, primer duque de Suffolk, y tuvieron tres hijas, Lady Jane Gray (1537-1554), Lady Catherine Gray (1540-1568) y Lady Mary Gray (1545-1578). De estos, los dos más jóvenes vivieron durante el reinado de la reina Isabel.

El primer matrimonio de Catalina con el joven Henry Herbert, segundo conde de Pembroke, un partido político, fue anulado y no hubo hijos. Se casó con Edward Seymour, primer conde de Hertford de forma encubierta en 1560. La pareja fue encarcelada por separado en la Torre de Londres después de que Catherine quedara embarazada. Había dos hijos del matrimonio, pero la Iglesia establecida de Inglaterra decidió que ambos eran ilegítimos. Después de la muerte de Catalina en 1568, Seymour fue liberado. El mayor se convirtió en Edward Seymour, el vizconde Beauchamp, el menor, se llamó Thomas. Thomas mantuvo con más insistencia el "reclamo de Beauchamp", confiando en una defensa contra el fallo de ilegitimidad disponible para él, pero no para su hermano mayor. Murió en 1600. Los rumores posteriores a la muerte de Elizabeth mostraron que la afirmación de Beauchamp no fue olvidada. [5]

Lady Mary Grey se casó, sin permiso real, con Thomas Keyes y no tuvo hijos. Carecía por completo de interés en las pretensiones reales. [6]

Se habló más a menudo de la familia de Eleanor Clifford en relación con la sucesión. Una hija Margaret Stanley, condesa de Derby vivió para tener dos hijos, Ferdinando Stanley, quinto conde de Derby y William Stanley, sexto conde de Derby. En el período en que Margaret Stanley podría haber sido considerada candidata a la sucesión, su nombre era generalmente "Margaret Strange", basado en el título de cortesía de Lord Strange de su marido. Su apoyo católico se vio afectado por la afirmación de Stuart. [3] Sin embargo, justo antes de su muerte en 1593, Sir William Stanley y William Allen promovieron la afirmación de su esposo Henry Stanley, cuarto conde de Derby. [7]

La posición de Ferdinando en la sucesión lo llevó a ser abordado en el superficial complot de Hesketh para tomar el poder, en septiembre de 1593. [7] Su hija Anne Stanley, condesa de Castlehaven, participó en las discusiones legalistas e hipotéticas sobre la sucesión.

Hubo cierto interés a principios del reinado de la reina Isabel en un reclamante de la Casa de York. Henry Hastings, tercer conde de Huntingdon, podía hacer una reclamación basándose únicamente en la idea de que Enrique VII era un usurpador, en lugar de un rey legítimo, pero tenía algunos partidarios, por delante de las líneas Tudor, Stuart y Suffolk. [8] Margaret Pole, condesa de Salisbury, una sobreviviente de los Plantagenet, era su bisabuela (por parte de su madre), y su abuelo paterno era Richard, duque de York. El diplomático español Álvaro de la Quadra, en cuyas cuentas se han reconstruido las primeras intrigas en torno a la sucesión, consideró que Robert Dudley, cuñado de Hastings, estaba presionando a la reina en marzo de 1560 para que nombrara a Hastings su sucesor, en contra de sus deseos. . [9] También hubo algunas pretensiones de sus parientes en la familia polaca. [10]

El principal problema político del reinado de Ricardo II de Inglaterra, que su tío, el magnate Juan de Gante, reclamaría el trono y así anularía el principio de primogenitura, revivió en el contexto de la sucesión isabelina, después de siete generaciones. La hija mayor de Juan de Gante se casó en la casa portuguesa de Aviz, una de sus descendientes fue la infanta de España, Isabel Clara Eugenia. La legitimidad de la afirmación de Isabella se planteó seriamente, en el lado católico del argumento. Una razón dada para la Rebelión de Essex fue que la afirmación de la Infanta había ganado tracción entre Elizabeth y sus consejeros. [11] [12]

La Ley de Sucesión a la Corona de 1543 fue el tercer acto de este tipo del reinado de Enrique VIII. [13] Respaldaba las disposiciones de la última voluntad de Enrique (cualquiera que fuera) al asignar el orden de sucesión, después de la muerte de Isabel. En consecuencia, apoyó en términos parlamentarios las pretensiones de sucesión de Lady Catherine Gray, protestante y nacida en Inglaterra, sobre las de María, reina de Escocia. [14] Además, significaba que los reclamantes de los Estuardo estaban en desventaja, en comparación con los reclamantes de Suffolk, aunque James VI descendía de la hija mayor de Enrique VII. [5]

De hecho, dejar de lado el testamento habría amenazado las perspectivas de Jacobo VI al abrir un nuevo frente legal. De hecho, especificó la preferencia por los descendientes de María, en lugar de Margaret. Sin embargo, en su ausencia, la cuestión de la sucesión no podría tratarse como una cuestión de conformidad con la ley estatutaria. Si se dejara al derecho consuetudinario, la cuestión de cómo James, un extranjero, podría heredar podría plantearse de una forma más seria. [15]

No hubo una ley del Parlamento comparable en la época de Elizabeth. No siguió el precedente establecido por su padre al permitir el debate parlamentario sobre el tema de la sucesión, sino que intentó activamente cerrarlo a lo largo de su reinado. Paul Wentworth desafió explícitamente su posición sobre el asunto en preguntas presentadas a la Cámara de los Comunes en 1566. [16]

En 1563, William Cecil redactó un proyecto de ley que preveía que el Consejo Privado tendría amplios poderes si la reina moría sin un heredero, pero no lo presentó. [17] El Parlamento solicitó a la Reina que nombrara a su sucesora, pero ella no lo hizo. [18] El Parlamento aprobó un proyecto de ley en 1572, pero la Reina rechazó su consentimiento. [19] A principios de la década de 1590, Peter Wentworth intentó volver a plantear la cuestión, pero el debate se cerró bruscamente. El asunto surgió principalmente en el drama. [20]

La discusión sobre la sucesión se desalentó enérgicamente y se volvió peligrosa, pero no se suprimió por completo. Durante las dos últimas décadas del siglo, el Consejo Privado estuvo activo contra los panfletos y la literatura de circulación privada sobre el tema. [21] John Stubbs, que publicó sobre el tema estrechamente relacionado del matrimonio de la reina, evitó la ejecución en 1579, pero le cortaron la mano y estuvo en la Torre de Londres hasta 1581. En ese año, el Parlamento aprobó la Ley contra las palabras sediciosas y Rumores proferidos contra la más excelente majestad de la reina. [22] La publicación de libros considerados sediciosos se convirtió en delito grave. [23]

Por lo tanto, gran parte de la escritura fue anónima en forma de manuscrito o, en el caso de los argumentos católicos, se introdujo de contrabando en el país. Algunos se publicaron en Escocia. Commonwealth de Leicester (1584), por ejemplo, un tratado en circulación ilegal que ataca al favorito de la reina, Robert Dudley, conde de Leicester, dedicó gran parte de su espacio a defender los derechos de sucesión de María, Reina de Escocia. [24]

Se distribuyeron varios tratados o "tratados de sucesión". De una gran cantidad de literatura sobre la cuestión, Edward Edwards eligió cinco de los tratados que fueron contribuciones importantes. El de Hales reflejaba un punto de vista puritano (se ha asumido que se deriva de John Ponet) [25] y estableció en gran medida los términos del debate posterior. Los otros cuatro desarrollaron los casos de sucesores católicos. [26]

El tracto de Hales Editar

John Hales escribió un discurso para dar en la Cámara de los Comunes en 1563 [27] era partidario del Conde de Hertford, por derecho de su esposa, la ex Lady Catherine Gray. [26] Estaba relacionado con los esfuerzos de Lord John Gray, tío y guardián de Lady Catherine Grey, quien intentó argumentar que ella era la heredera real en un momento temprano del reinado de Isabel, provocando la ira de la Reina. Este manuscrito planteó la cuestión del antiguo estatuto De natis ultra mare. Tuvo influencia en el siguiente debate, pero la interpretación del estatuto cobró importancia. [28] También causó furor y acusaciones de complot. Hales sólo podía convencerse de que había mostrado un borrador a John Gray, William Fleetwood, el otro miembro del parlamento del mismo municipio, y John Foster, que había sido uno de los miembros de Hindon. [29] Walter Haddon llamó al arresto de Hales y a la fila subsiguiente la Tempestas Halesiana. Lo que Hales estaba haciendo era bastante complejo, utilizando argumentos legales para descartar a los demandantes escoceses, y también confiando en la investigación en el extranjero de Robert Beale para reabrir el asunto del matrimonio de Hertford. [30] Francis Newdigate, quien se había casado con Anne Seymour, duquesa de Somerset, estuvo involucrado en la investigación, pero Hales no fue encarcelado. [31] Pasó un año en la prisión Fleet y la Torre de Londres, y el resto de su vida estuvo bajo arresto domiciliario. [27]

El caso de un sucesor católico Editar

Tratados tempranos Editar

John Lesley escribió en nombre de María, reina de Escocia. [26] Una defensa del honor de la suprema, poderosa y noble princesa Marie. (1569) tuvo su impresión en Londres impedida por Lord Burghley. Planteó, en particular, las tensiones entre el Acta de Sucesión de 1543 y los testamentos reales que dejó Enrique VIII. Isabel no aceptaría el grado implícito de control parlamentario de la sucesión. El estatuto prohibió más discusiones sobre la sucesión a partir de 1571. [32] Una obra relacionada, de Thomas Morgan (como se suponía), [26] o Morgan Philipps (supuestamente), para María, reina de Escocia, fue otra impresión de Lesley trabajo, en 1571. [33] Los argumentos de Lesley de hecho se remontan a Edmund Plowden, y habían sido simplificados por Anthony Browne. [34]

El tracto de Doleman Editar

Los argumentos naturalmente cambiaron después de la ejecución de Queen Mary. Se ha observado que los partidarios protestantes de Jacobo VI se hicieron cargo de los puntos de debate previamente utilizados por sus partidarios, mientras que los católicos emplearon algunos argumentos que habían sido empleados por los protestantes. [35]

Se dio un paso significativo en la obra de Robert Highington Tratado sobre la sucesión, a favor de la línea a través de la Casa de Portugal. Seudónimo de Robert Persons Conferencia sobre la próxima Sucesión a la Corona de Inglaterra, por R. Doleman (que quizás incluye a coautores, 1595), estaba en contra de la afirmación de James VI. [26] Citó los argumentos de Highington, contra los de Hales y Sir Nicholas Bacon. [36] Este trabajo hizo un esfuerzo aparente para discutir los candidatos de manera equitativa, incluida la infanta de España, Isabel Clara Eugenia. Algunos en Inglaterra lo interpretaron para dar a entender que la muerte de Isabel podría conducir a una guerra civil. Un prefacio sugirió que Robert Devereux, segundo conde de Essex, podría ser una influencia decisiva. La circunstancia se reflejó mal en Essex con la Reina. [37] También buscó socavar a Burghley sugiriendo que era partidario de Arbella Stuart, y se ocupó de los problemas de Lancaster / York. [38]

La trama de Gorboduc (1561) se ha considerado a menudo como una contribución al debate sobre la sucesión. [39] Este punto de vista, tal como lo expone Axton, ha dado lugar a un debate mucho más profundo. La obra se le dio a la reina en 1562 y luego se publicó. Stephen Alford sostiene que es un "texto de sucesión" generalizado, con temas de malos consejos y guerra civil. [40] Desde el punto de vista de la crítica literaria isabelina y jacobea, se ha argumentado que es significativo saber cuándo la sucesión fue "viva" como un tema de interés público, justo en el reinado de Jacobo I, y en qué El drama de la forma, en particular, podría estar expresando un comentario sobre él. En particular, Hopkins señala que Macbeth y Rey Lear, ambos relacionados con la legitimidad y la política dinástica, fueron escritos en los primeros años del reinado de James. [41]

El término "obra de sucesión" se aplica ahora ampliamente a los dramas del período que se relacionan con una sucesión real. Las obras mencionadas de esta manera incluyen, entre otras obras de Shakespeare, Aldea [42] Enrique V [43] Sueño de una noche de verano a través de la alegoría y la figura de Titania [44] y Ricardo II como un caso atípico. [45] Otra obra de teatro posterior que podría leerse de esta manera es Perkin Warbeck (1634) de John Ford. [46]

El poeta Michael Drayton aludió a la sucesión en Epístolas heroicas de Inglaterra (1597), de una manera que ahora se considera una incursión en la política con mano dura. [47] En él, las letras imaginarias en pareados son intercambiadas por personajes históricos emparejados. [48] ​​Hopkins ve el trabajo como una "cadena genealógica" que conduce a la cuestión de la sucesión, y señala la discusión detallada de la afirmación de Yorkist, en las anotaciones a las epístolas entre Margaret de Anjou y William de la Pole, primer duque de Suffolk (en la época de Drayton se pensaba que eran amantes). [49] [50]

Las teorías sobre la sucesión putativa tuvieron que ser revisadas constantemente desde finales de la década de 1590. Las especulaciones fueron amplias y el elenco de personajes cambió su estatus. [51]

El tratado de Doleman de 1594 sugirió una solución al problema de la sucesión: el demandante de Suffolk, William Stanley, sexto conde de Derby, debería casarse con la infanta de España y tener éxito. Stanley, sin embargo, se casó al año siguiente. [52] Charles Emmanuel I, duque de Saboya, yerno de Felipe II de España, quedó viudo en 1597. La opinión católica sugirió que podría casarse con una mujer, Lady Anne Stanley (la sobrina del conde), si no con Arbella. Stuart. [51]

Thomas Wilson escribió en un informe El Estado de Inglaterra, Anno Domini 1600 que había 12 "competidores" para la sucesión. Su conteo incluyó a dos Estuardo (James y Arbella), tres de los Suffolks (dos reclamantes de Beauchamp y el Conde de Derby) y George Hastings, 4º Conde de Huntingdon, hermano menor del 3º Conde mencionado anteriormente. Los otros seis fueron: [53]

    vía Juan de Gaunt [i] vía Edmund Crouchback, sobrino de Enrique, rey de Portugal, vía Juan de Gaunt [ii] y con reclamos relacionados [iii]
  • La infanta de España.

Es posible que todos estos seis hayan sido tomados como candidatos católicos (Percy no era de hecho católico, aunque pertenecía a una familia católica). Wilson en el momento de escribir este artículo (alrededor de 1601) había estado trabajando en asuntos de inteligencia para Lord Buckhurst y Sir Robert Cecil. [54]

De estos supuestos reclamantes, Thomas Seymour y Charles Neville murieron en 1600. Ninguna de las reclamaciones ibéricas llegó a nada. El duque de Parma fue objeto de las mismas especulaciones que el duque de Saboya [51] pero se casó en 1600. Arbella Stuart estaba al cuidado de Bess de Hardwick, [55] y Edward Seymour al cuidado de Richard Knightley, cuyo Isabel, la segunda esposa, era una de sus hermanas. [56]


La vida amorosa de la reina Isabel I

Isabel I comenzó su reinado el 17 de noviembre de 1558 siendo una mujer joven de tan solo 25 años. Sin embargo, cuando Isabel pronunció su primer discurso ante el Parlamento a principios de 1559, declaró que sería `` suficiente '' para ella `` vivir y morir virgen ''. El 24 de marzo de 1603, Isabel murió de esta manera precisa en la edad de 69. Por lo tanto, en este artículo analizaré varios eventos clave antes de la sucesión de Elizabeth para sugerir por qué fue "suficiente" para una joven de 25 años hacer una declaración tan audaz a los pocos meses de tener éxito, especialmente cuando su papel de El monarca debía casarse y tener un heredero.

Para descifrar la percepción que Elizabeth tiene del matrimonio, probablemente sea mejor mirar primero el ejemplo establecido dentro de su familia inmediata. El padre de Isabel, Enrique VIII, se casó un total de seis veces y, como dice la famosa rima mnemotécnica, se divorciaron, decapitaron, murieron, divorciaron, decapitaron y sobrevivieron. De las decapitadas por traición y adulterio fue la de su propia madre, Ana Bolena, el 19 de mayo de 1536, cuando Isabel no tenía exactamente tres años. Sin embargo, aunque Isabel era demasiado joven para comprender la "velocidad y la veracidad de la caída de la reina Ana", estaba plenamente consciente de la ejecución de su madrastra Catherine Howard el 13 de febrero de 1542, cuando tenía ocho años. Una vez que Catherine fue arrestada, su padre `` se negó incluso a dejarla abogar en su propia defensa ''. De sus otras cuatro madrastras, dos se divorciaron y dejaron de lado, una murió en el parto y la otra apenas sobrevivió debido a una implicación de presunta herejía, meses antes de la muerte de su propio padre. Por lo tanto, las opiniones de Elizabeth sobre el matrimonio con respecto a los matrimonios de su propio padre solo pueden haber estado relacionadas con la alienación o la muerte, ya sea por parto o decapitación.

A la hermanastra mayor de Isabel, María I, le fue un poco mejor dentro de su propio matrimonio con el futuro Felipe II de España, con quien se casó el 25 de julio de 1554. Sin embargo, el matrimonio no tuvo éxito, porque aunque María se enamoró profundamente de Felipe, él la encontró repelente. ”Como era de esperar, el matrimonio no produjo hijos, a pesar de las esperanzas expectantes de Mary durante sus embarazos fantasmas de que ella produciría el ansiado heredero católico. Felipe regresó pronto a España y María nunca volvió a verlo.

Cuando Isabel finalmente triunfó el 17 de noviembre de 1558, Felipe fue el primero en ofrecer su mano en matrimonio, aunque habría sido necesaria una dispensa para que Isabel se casara con el marido de su hermana fallecida. Sin embargo, Isabel tuvo cuidado de no cometer el mismo error desastroso que su hermana, el de casarse con un príncipe extranjero católico. En el momento de la sucesión de Isabel, "el país estaba empobrecido por las guerras imprudentes de España y humillado por la pérdida de Calais", lo que provocó que la Tesorería estuviera prácticamente vacía. Esta fue la razón que sus consejeros utilizaron más tarde en 1579 cuando Isabel pensó en casarse con el príncipe católico francés, Frances, duque de Alencon. Sus miedos xenófobos eran muy populares en el país, ya que los ingleses "siempre sospecharon de los extranjeros y de sus costumbres continentales".

La primera experiencia amorosa de Elizabeth también hizo muy poco para recomendarla al estado de matrimonio. Porque, tras la muerte de su padre el 28 de enero de 1547, Isabel fue puesta al cuidado de su madrastra, Catherine Parr, donde pronto ganó la atención del nuevo marido de su madrastra, Thomas Seymour. Cuando a principios de 1548, Catherine Parr, que estaba muy embarazada, se dio cuenta de lo inapropiado de la conducta coqueta de su marido y su hijastra, Elizabeth fue debidamente despedida. A los pocos meses, Catalina murió al dar a luz el 5 de septiembre de 1548, y Thomas ahora era libre de casarse con la princesa de 15 años. Sin embargo, Thomas pronto se vio envuelto en una lucha de poder con su hermano, el Lord Protector Edward Seymour, y fue "condenado a muerte por cargos de traición el 20 de marzo de 1549". Elizabeth y sus sirvientes fueron interrogados sobre su relación con Thomas Seymour y su presunto plan de casarse con Elizabeth, pero no se encontraron pruebas en su contra. Este encuentro temprano con el amor y el coqueteo, y todos los peligros que conllevaba, fueron una señal temprana para Elizabeth de cómo el matrimonio podía conducir a la autodestrucción.

Por supuesto, Elizabeth tuvo varias oportunidades de casarse durante su reinado, sobre todo con Robert Dudley (en la foto con Elizabeth, arriba), su gran favorito. Sin embargo, la sospechosa muerte de la esposa de Robert, Amy Robsart, el 8 de septiembre de 1560, puso fin efectivamente a esta posibilidad. Elizabeth era entonces una política lo suficientemente hábil como para saber que su gente se rebelaría si se casaba con Dudley, debido a la creencia popular de que él había `` instigado la muerte de su incómoda esposa ''. Irónicamente, un giro similar de los acontecimientos ocurrió siete años después cuando Mary, reina de Escocia, se casó con James, cuarto conde de Bothwell, de quien los escoceses creían que había asesinado a su segundo marido, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, solo unas semanas antes. En consecuencia, los escoceses se rebelaron y María se vio obligada a abdicar y "ceder el trono a su hijo de trece meses, ahora Jacobo VI". Esta dramática serie de acontecimientos en Escocia muestra en sí misma la sabiduría de Isabel al no casarse con Robert Dudley en 1560.

Para concluir, diría que Elizabeth ya había decidido sobre su sucesión que "viviría y moriría virgen" debido a las diversas experiencias de matrimonio que ya había encontrado dentro de su familia inmediata. Sus flirteos con Robert Dudley, el amor de su vida, al principio de su reinado se vieron empañados por la sospechosa muerte de su propia esposa. Esto sirvió como un recordatorio para Elizabeth de lo peligroso que podía ser el amor, especialmente después de su encuentro juvenil con Thomas Seymour. María, la desastrosa elección de maridos de la reina de Escocia y la consecuente pérdida de su trono y libertad también le indicaron a Isabel que un gobernante, especialmente una gobernante, debía tener más cuidado en la elección de su consorte. Por lo tanto, Isabel tenía que demostrar que una monarca podía gobernar eficazmente, a pesar de que contemporáneos como el `` agresivo divino calvinista, John Knox '', publicitaron textos escépticos sobre el `` Monstruoso Regimiento de Mujeres '' de Europa. Elizabeth tenía dudas sobre si contraer matrimonio, lo más probable es que confirmara su resolución inicial hecha a principios de 1559 de que era más sabio "vivir y morir virgen".

Scott Newport nació en 1984 en Reading, Berkshire y vive con su esposa Katherine en Whitchurch, Hampshire. Ha sido un entusiasta historiador aficionado desde muy joven y se especializa en la era Tudor y Stuart.


La Armada española fracasa y lanza el poder de Inglaterra

El regreso de Isabel al protestantismo y su restablecimiento de la Iglesia de Inglaterra fue una de las razones del lanzamiento de la Armada Española por Felipe II de España, aunque se puede decir que esto ocurrió mucho más tarde durante el reinado de Isabel, es decir, en 1588. El plan español era invadir Inglaterra, derrocar a la reina y restablecer el catolicismo romano en Inglaterra. La invasión fue un fracaso y un golpe al prestigio de España, que era una superpotencia en ese momento.

Por otro lado, la derrota de la supuestamente invencible Armada supuso un gran impulso moral, no solo para Inglaterra, sino también para otros países protestantes de Europa. Aunque España continuó dominando Europa durante las siguientes décadas, ahora tenía un rival en el mar y vio los inicios de Inglaterra como un actor importante en la política europea.

Se lanzan barcos de fuego ingleses en la armada española frente a Calais (Eastfarthingan / Public Domain)


Datos sobre la vida matrimonial de Isabel

El hecho de que la reina Isabel no estuviera casada, y también fuera conocida como la Reina Virgen, puso en primer plano la cuestión de su sucesora en medio de su condición reclinada. Nunca había dicho claramente el nombre de la persona a quien quería nombrar su sucesor.

Se cree que durante sus últimos días había mencionado que Jaime I (Jaime VI) de Escocia debería sucederla. También se dijo que el gobierno de la Reina jugó un papel esencial para que se convirtiera en Rey de Inglaterra. La reina Isabel murió mientras dormía en las primeras horas del 24 de marzo de 1603. Es interesante que el último monarca de la dinastía Tudor muriera el mismo día que su padre y su hermana.


Isabel I, última monarca de los Tudor

Isabel I fue reina de Inglaterra desde 1558 hasta su muerte en 1603. Su reinado fue llamada la edad isabelina, una muy emocionante y glorioso período de la historia inglesa, en el que Inglaterra se convirtió en una importante potencia mundial.

Nació cerca de Londres en 1533. Su padre fue Enrique VIII y su madre Ana Bolena, la segunda de las seis esposas del rey. Cuando Elizabeth tenía 3 años, su madre estaba decapitado porque ella era acusado de tener una relación con otra persona. Elizabeth tenía un mayor media hermana Mary y un medio hermano menor, Edward.

Rey Enrique VIII rompió con la Iglesia Católica Romana porque el Papa no le permitió divorcio su primera esposa. Henry entonces fundado la Iglesia de Inglaterra y convirtió a su país en protestante.

A pesar de que Enrique cuidado muy poco sobre Elizabeth durante su infancia, ella recibió una buena educación y se le enseñó bien en historia y filosofía. Ella aprendió muchos idiomas incluso Francés, italiano y latín.

Cuando Enrique murió en 1547, su único hijo, Eduardo, se convirtió en rey, pero el niño rey murió seis años después. María se convirtió en reina y volvió a convertir a Inglaterra en un país católico. A ella no le gustaba Elizabeth y pensó que era Graficado contra ella. Envió a su media hermana a la cárcel de la Torre de Londres durante dos meses. Cuando ella era liberado , tenía que vivir en el campo.

María murió en 1558 e Isabel triunfado ella. Se hizo muy popular y mucha gente pensó que devolvería la paz y estabilidad en tiempos de conflicto. Elizabeth era una cauteloso y una reina inteligente de la que sabía mucho ciencias económicas y lo pasé bien asesores . Regresó a Inglaterra al protestantismo, pero no era una radical reformador religioso.

Isabel I

A pesar de que había muchos jóvenes que querían casarse con ella, Isabel se quedó sola y no tuvo hijos. Esto fue un amenaza a la monarquía inglesa porque sin hijos su prima María, reina de Escocia, heredar los trono . Ella era católica y amiga de Francia. Elizabeth era consciente de este peligro y había enviado a María a prisión durante muchos años. Ella estaba ejecutado en 1587.

Elizabeth gave her country a lot of self confidence . During her reign it built up its sea power and ships sailed across the seas to comercio in the New World. At that time Spain controlled much of the comercio in the New World. Elizabeth sent Sir Francis Drake and other sea captains to raid Spanish ships and seize gold and other treasures that the Spanish had capturado .

This was too much for Philip II of Spain so he decided para ataque England. After years of preparation he put together a strong fleet of ships called the Spanish Armada. In 1588 the Armada sailed into the English Channel . En el batalla that lasted for nine days the British derrotado los Españoles because their ships were smaller and faster. Only a few of them managed to get back to Spain. Elizabeth had celebrado the greatest victory of her reign .

The Elizabethan Age was also an age of Arte and culture. Many musicians, scholars and writers came to her palace. William Shakespeare was the greatest writer of the period and wrote some of the world&rsquos finest plays and poems. (Elizabethan Theatre)

The last years of Elizabeth&rsquos reign fueron troubled by scandals and revolts . Parliament started to criticize the queen and health problems made her weaker. She died on March 24, 1603 at the age of 69. At her wish, Mary Stuart&rsquos son, James VI of Scotland became king of England and the two countries were Unido .


Queen Elizabeth I: Death & Funeral Information & Facts

‘She is certainly a great Queen and were she only a Catholic she would be our dearly beloved. Just look how well she governs! She is only a woman, only mistress of half an island, and yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France, by the Empire, by all…. Our children would have ruled the whole world.’ Pope Sixtus V describes Elizabeth, c1588

When news of the execution of Mary, queen of Scots reached Europe, it gave Philip II of Spain yet another reason to look askance at his former sister-in-law. English harassment of Spanish shipping and their support of rebellions against his rule had long angered him. He had tried diplomacy it had been successful enough until Elizabeth’s Protestant councilors grew suspicious of his motives and angry over his treatment of continental Protestants. After diplomacy came a gradual cooling between the countries Philip even tried his hand at encouraging Irish rebellions against Elizabeth. And Philip grew increasingly pious as the years passed, and thus more inclined to take the excommunication of 1570 more seriously.

Serious consequences were avoided for the first thirty years of Elizabeth’s rule due to her own prevarication and Philip’s more pressing problems. But as the 1580s began, it was clear that something must give. Philip could no longer afford the blatant piracy of the English, publicly disavowed but privately approved by Elizabeth (who always received the largest share of profits.) She had even gone so far as to knight her greatest pirate, Sir Francis Drake, in 1581. Four years later, the English openly supported the Netherlands when it revolted against Philip, a dangerous but popular policy for Elizabeth. Furthermore, Philip had long claimed the throne of Portugal but had only recently seized it by force of arms. If he wished to maintain control, he needed to defend the rich and wide-ranging Portuguese colonies.

Philip also needed to end the Protestant menace to Europe. He supported plans to free Mary, queen of Scots and place her on the English throne. His ambassador Mendoza had been peripherally involved in the Babington Plot and was expelled from England as a result. Many of Elizabeth’s councilors, most importantly the influential Robert Dudley, had advocated a tougher approach to Spanish meddling. But always the queen, mindful of her treasury and always desiring peace, had held back. She would send a few troops and some money, but little else. Philip, however, had less love of peace and a more pressing piety. England would be brought back into the Catholic fold, as the pope had commanded in 1570. The execution of Mary, queen of Scots in early 1587 gave him added impetus to act. The English had sought to publicize Mary’s various crimes, but most Europeans, even the Scots who had applauded her overthrow years ago, preferred the more tragic image of an innocent queen trapped by Elizabeth’s wily councilors.

Philip spent much of 1587 finally preparing his long-rumored ‘Armada’ against England. While Elizabeth’s council had long warned her of this possibility, Philip’s own advisors believed he could ill afford this new battle. The Spanish fleet and army had fought too long and hard over the years. They comprised the largest and best-prepared army and navy in the world they had been successful against the Turks, had watched their traditional enemy, France, succumb to internal religious turmoil, had seized Portugal, and fought throughout the Low Countries. But victories could be as tiresome and expensive as defeats. Morale was low and leadership was lacking.

Philip’s advisors consistently stressed the expense of the proposed battle. But for the king, expenses were driving him to fight. He needed to stop the English from seizing Spanish ships filled with precious coin and goods. Each loss was a further blow to a nearly empty treasury. There was no better time to fight than now, he declared, for the murder of Mary Stuart had at last united European opinion against Elizabeth. In July 1587, he received official approval from the pope for the invasion, provided England returned to Catholicism. The pope even agreed to allow Philip to choose the next English ruler. It would in all likelihood be the Spanish king himself for he claimed descent from the famous Edward III.

As further impetus to Philip, even as he negotiated approval of the invasion with the pope, Drake led an expedition into Spain itself, seizing and destroying many vessels. Elizabeth protested that Drake had acted without her knowledge this may have been true. Certainly the queen had no desire for war. But her protestations did not matter. It was an audacious act which could not go unpunished.

Elizabeth, of course, knew of the Spanish army lodged in the Low Countries, so close to English shores and able to intercept English shipping. When word came that these forces were being steadily increased and an armada of Spanish ships was being prepared for battle, she could no longer debate and hesitate. The impending threat was too obvious to ignore.

Yet what could England do against the great Spanish fleet? All of Europe, and many Englishmen, believed England could not withstand the overwhelming Spanish force.

‘Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects… I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm…’ from Elizabeth I’s speech to the troops at Tilbury, 1588

The Armada which sailed against England is sometimes called ‘The Invincible Armada’, but its correct name is La Armada Grande. Its supreme commander was the duke of Medina Sidonia, a nobleman who had done all he could to avoid this appointment. He spent hours urging Philip, in the most polite and obsequious way possible, to find someone else, pointing out his own lack of experience in naval matters. But the king would not listen. Spain’s greatest naval commander Don Alvaro de Bazan the elder, the marquess of Santa Cruz, had died and there had been a long, fruitless search for a suitable replacement. The conscientious Medina Sidonia was Philip’s choice, much to the duke’s everlasting regret.

The Armada sailed from Lisbon on 20 May 1588, a grand procession of 130 ships and over 30,000 men. However, half of the vessels were transport ships and the majority of men were soldiers, not sailors. Medina Sidonia was to sail to Flanders, where he would join the prince of Parma who waited with more soldiers and transports. But the Armada stopped first in Corunna for some repair work and Medina Sidonia wrote to Philip, asking for the invasion to be postponed indefinitely. The king was adamant, however, and the fleet sailed to Flanders.

Their arrival was expected and observed by the English. Under the command of Lord Howard, they set out from Plymouth, under cover of night. They managed to destroy some of the chief Spanish ships so that, with reinforcements, their numbers roughly equaled the Spanish. More importantly, in terms of command and gunnery, the English had a far superior advantage. By the time of the great battle off Gravelines, each fleet had roughly sixty warships. The Spaniards fought heroically, but Howard was relentless. The English ships were more agile and their commanders more inventive. They did not allow the Spanish time to regroup and refit. Only one Spanish ship was captured but several sank or ran ashore. Medina Sidonia decided to lead the remaining fleet home, sailing along the north of Scotland and Ireland. They met constant storms and rough seas, and not one pilot remained in the whole fleet. Each passing storm destroyed more ships until, when the Armada finally limped home in the mid-September, half the fleet and most of its men were gone.

The defeat of the Armada was justly celebrated in Elizabeth’s time. It continues to be one of the most famous naval victories in history. There is an engaging aspect to the whole story – the English fleet taking on the greatest naval power in the world and, against all odds, winning a stunning victory. The psychological effect upon both nations was enormous.

Yet, upon closer inspection, the victory was neither as unexpected or immediately successful as is often believed. The English navy had always been superior in tactics and gunnery than the Spanish, but had suffered from Elizabeth’s penny-pinching support. They simply never had enough money to build the ships and pay the sailors needed to become a world-class naval power. The Spanish took so long to rebuild their navy that England finally had their opportunity, and they seized it with enthusiasm. England would become the undisputed master of the seas.

But Spain was not nearly finished as a world power. Barely two years after the Armada, they were virtually omnipotent in European affairs. The religious turmoil in France had weakened their traditional enemy to such an extent that Spain stood unchallenged until 1598, when Henri of Navarre converted to Catholicism. The balance of power in Europe was thus restored. But Spain’s army continued to grow until their dominance of land warfare equaled England’s naval power.

For Elizabeth, of course, the most important development was the most immediate – a brilliant victory over her greatest enemy, whose threats to invade had haunted most years of her reign. She could breathe a much-deserved sigh of relief. And she deserved no small credit for the success. Her speech to the troops at Tilbury, rallying them to fight, remains justly famous it is among her most stirring:

My loving people, We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.
She enjoyed a renaissance of sorts among her people after the Armada. She had already ruled for thirty years. Those years of peace and general prosperity had led to an inevitable resentment amongst her subjects, particularly the young noblemen who now dominated her court. They wanted adventure, glory, grand military exploits they were fervent nationalists who wanted England to finally challenge the great powers of Europe they believed themselves capable of anything. And Elizabeth, nearing sixty, would regard them with either amusement or anger. They did not know the price of war, she would complain they did not understand how difficult it had been to bring peace and security to England. They had not lived through the tumultuous reigns of her father and siblings. They did not remember the bitter religious divide, which even now she only bridged with her inestimable charm and intellect. England was at peace and her young courtiers chafed at peace. But for the queen, peace was her greatest gift to her ‘loving people.’ She knew its importance, the dear price it had cost her. ‘To be a King and wear a crown is a thing more pleasant to them that see it, than it is pleasant to them that bear it,’ she remarked in her Golden Speech of 1601.

But she also knew those young courtiers disagreed, however much they fawned over her, pretending she was still the young queen of thirty. Elizabeth was content to play the game for her vanity would not allow otherwise. To grow old was a curse to her, she remarked ‘I am not sick, I feel no pain, yet I pine away.’ To have a young mind in an old body was another common lament. She felt the loss of her youth keenly and did what she could to create a timeless role for herself. She wore wigs and heavy make-up and still dressed in the opulent gowns of a maid, a fetching style when she was younger but now merely a reminder of her lack of marriage and family. Her older subjects understood her melancholy of the younger ones, Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Bacon were clever enough to guess its cause. But most did not.

And the queen no longer had the comfort of loyal Cecil and her beloved Dudley. Though Dudley had commanded the troops at Tilbury, he had died barely a month afterwards. Cecil was now very old and had ceded much of his influence to his ambitious son Robert and Sir Francis Walsingham, who died in 1590. The queen thus turned to another favorite, a young man who was a last link to Dudley. His name was Robert Devereux, earl of Essex he was Dudley’s stepson and his mother was Elizabeth’s cousin, Lettice Knollys.

Essex remains one of the more interesting courtiers of Elizabeth’s later years. He was the mortal enemy of Raleigh (who found him arrogant and overbearing) and close friends with Bacon. He became the great favorite of Elizabeth’s later years because, for a while, he was the ablest flirt and wit at court. But his ambitions went far beyond being the queen’s ‘wild-horse’. In this, he was encouraged by his flighty mother and sycophantic admirers.

Essex believed in the primacy of the nobility at Elizabeth’s court and disliked the influence of Cecil and his son, Robert, and other ‘upstarts’ such as Raleigh. He was too proud, which the queen – depending upon her mood – found endearing or infuriating. And he dreamed of military glory, badgering the queen to send him to Ireland to quell rebellions or with the navy to harass Spanish ships. Elizabeth often refused she genuinely enjoyed his company and would not risk his life. And when she did succumb, Essex performed disastrously. Though a daring and brave soldier, he was a terrible commander and his exploits cost the frugal queen dearly.

His worst offense, however, was a slip of the tongue. Elizabeth would respond to Essex’s tantrums by banishing him to the country until he begged forgiveness. Once, he decided to pretend illness instead. When news of his condition reached Elizabeth, she sent a letter asking after his health – but nothing more. Someone mentioned the queen’s conditions for letting him return. Infuriated, Essex cried out, ‘Her conditions! Her conditions are as crooked as her carcase.’ Those words reached the queen and she never forgot them.

Essex did return to court. But his subsequent behavior was outlandish and insulting he even dared to turn his back on Elizabeth during a council meeting. The final blow came when he led a rebellion against the queen. With his friend, the earl of Southampton, he planned to gather a small army and seize the queen and throne. When captured, as inevitably he was, for his supporters were few and even those deserted him, Essex declared he only meant to save the queen from evil counsel. But Elizabeth, who had so often vacillated over executions, only hesitated once with Essex. He was executed on 25 February 1601.

Despite scurrilous gossip, Elizabeth’s affection for Essex was more maternal than romantic. She had no choice but to sign his death-warrant but it broke her heart. When her godson, Sir John Harington, visited in the winter of 1602, he found her taste for old pleasures gone. Harington read some of his rhymes and Elizabeth, with a little smile, remarked, ‘When thou dost feel creeping time at thy gate, these fooleries will please thee less I am past my relish for such matters.’ To the earl of Nottingham, mourning the loss of his wife, she said, ‘ I am tied with a chain of iron about my neck. I am tied, I am tied, and the case is altered with me.’

She mentioned Essex at times, but this was merely a symptom of her awareness that all of the work and struggle of her reign had ended in solitude. She had often remarked on the essential loneliness of the crown but she felt it most deeply now.

Her council, led by Robert Cecil, whose father had died in 1601, watched her slow decline while preparingportrait of Elizabeth I in old age for the future. Elizabeth still had not named a successor. She had always understood its dangerous implications. Yet there was no real doubt that she meant for James VI of Scotland, son of Mary queen of Scots, to succeed her. He had married a Protestant princess and was already a father. And he had long since made his peace with Elizabeth, exchanging frequent letters and accepting her political advice.

Elizabeth retired to Richmond Palace, her ‘warm, snug box’ in March 1603. Her death was preceded by physical weakness and mental depression, but there were no overt causes. She was almost seventy years old, ancient for her time. She rested in a low chair by the fire, refusing to let doctors examine her. As the days passed, her condition slowly worsened. She stood for hours on end until, finally, she was persuaded to lay upon cushions on the floor. She rested there for two days, not speaking. A doctor ventured close and asked how she could bear the endless silence. She replied simply, ‘I meditate.’ For the third and fourth day, she continued to rest in silence, with a finger often in her mouth. Her attendants were terrified they must move her but she refused. The younger Cecil visited and said, ‘Your Majesty, to content the people, you must go to bed.’ Elizabeth replied, with some of her old spirit, ‘Little man, little man, the word must is not used to princes.’

Finally, she grew so weak that they could carry her to bed. She asked for music and, for a time, it brought some comfort. Her councilors assembled did she have any instructions regarding the succession? She made a sign when Cecil mentioned the king of Scotland. Fue suficiente. He returned to his office to begin the paperwork for a new ruler.

Meanwhile, Archbishop Whitgift, whom she once called her ‘little black husband’, arrived to pray. He was old and his knees ached terribly, but he knelt at the royal bedside until she finally slept. She slept on into the early hours of 24 March until, at last, as the courtiers watched and waited, the steady breathing stopped. ‘Her Majesty departed this life, mildly like a lamb, easily like a ripe apple from the tree,’ John Manningham was told.

That same morning, the chief councilors rode to Whitehall where Cecil drafted the proclamation of the queen’s death and James’s succession. He read it aloud first at Whitehall and then at St Paul’s and finally Cheapside cross. The councilors then formally demanded entrance to the Tower of London in the name of King James I of England. Elizabeth’s maids and ladies were still waiting in the Coffer Room at Richmond Palace. When news of the peaceful transition of power came, they began to prepare for Elizabeth’s funeral.

The new king received the news of his accession on 27 March, for the ambitious Robert Carey had ridden at top speed to Edinburgh his journey was so quick that its speed would not be matched until 1832. But while James was initially welcomed peacefully and happily, his reign would quickly turn sour. It was not long before even Robert Cecil, who became the most powerful statesman of James’s reign, wrote to Harington:

You know all my former steps: good knight, rest content, and give heed to one that hath sorrowed in the bright lustre of a court, and gone heavily even on the best-seeming fair ground. Tis a great task to prove one’s honesty, and yet not spoil one’s fortune. You have tasted a little hereof in our blessed Queen’s time, who was more than a man and, in troth, sometimes less than a woman. I wish I waited now in her Presence Chamber, with ease at my foot, and rest in my bed. I am pushed from the shore of comfort, and know not where the winds and waves of a court may bear me.

And the common people realized their loss as well, as Godfrey Goodman, bishop of Gloucester wrote:

After a few years, when we had experience of a Scottish government, the Queen did seem to revive then was her memory much magnified: such ringing of bells, such public joy and sermons in commemoration of her, the picture of her tomb painted in many churches, and in effect more solemnity and joy in memory of her coronation than was for the coming-in of King James.

Elizabeth’s funeral procession, composed of more than a thousand mourners, began on 28 April. It was a stirring tribute to the queen, never forgotten by those who witnessed its passing. But her tomb, paid for by the new king, was less impressive than that provided to his disgraced mother, and cost far less. It can still be visited in Westminster Abbey, where Elizabeth rests alongside her half-sister Queen Mary I.


What is Elizabeth I remembered for?

Elizabeth is often remembered as a powerful and clever monarch, known for her sumptuous costumes, sparkling jewellery, beautiful appearance and magnificent portraits. She reigned England at a time when religious opinion was divided, yet, for the most part, she managed to maintain peace and prosperity, and reign over a ‘Golden Age’.

She’s also remembered for being a different kind of queen. She was only the second queen in English history to rule in her own right (the first was her half-sister, Mary) – during a time when people believed that women weren’t able to rule as well as men. But Elizabeth didn’t let that stop her! She was clever and cunning and proved that women can be just as powerful as men!

Her refusal to marry lead to her being remembered as the ‘Virgin Queen.’ She knew that marriage would mean sharing power with her husband, and even becoming the less powerful of the two. There were rumours of Elizabeth having relationships with men at court, but none were ever proven true – making her even more of a mystery!

Lastly, she is arguably the most famous child of Henry VIII. Desperate for a male heir, Henry disowned Elizabeth as a child and beheaded her mother – and in the process, hugely underestimated his daughter’s potential to become one of the most influential queens in British history.


The truth behind the reign of Queen Elizabeth I

Elizabeth I presented a reign filled with progress, riches and happiness but behind the scenes, things were far from joyous. Did Elizabeth I used public relations, political strategies and personal games to present a united front to both her subjects and her enemies?

Queen Elizabeth I and indeed the whole Elizabethian age appeared to leave behind an extraordinary image of a dazzling era of excitement and achievement, nearly superhuman heroes and daring deeds. And with it all the Queen, larger than life, radiating inspiration at the centre of it all.

Lee mas

When her namesake, Queen Elizabeth II, came to the throne in 1952, her subjects hoped that another “golden age” was at hand. That the British would once again stun the world with their brilliance and panache, just as the English had done in the days of the first. The second Elizabethan age never transpired, not only because the expectation was unreasonable, but because the first age of Elizabeth never existed as it has long been perceived.

The reality behind the mask of Elizabeth I

The misperception was deliberately created to hide the crucial weaknesses in 16th-century England and its vulnerable Queen. The House of Tudor, of which Elizabeth became the fifth and last monarch, excelled at propaganda, and Elizabeth I needed favourable press.

When she came to the throne on 17th November 1558, she quickly realized she had inherited a poor, ill-equipped country highly vulnerable to attack. Religious upheavals over the previous 30 years had deeply divided her exhausted subjects. The Queen’s own status was just as depressing.

Much of Europe regarded her as an illegitimate child of King Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn since the Pope had not sanctioned Henry’s divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. As a bastard, Elizabeth had no right to the English throne. Furthermore, her father’s break from the Roman Catholic Church made her anathema to Catholics both in and outside England who regarded her distant cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, as the rightful sovereign.

Especially in the early years of Elizabeth’s reign, England always faced the danger of attack from the great Roman Catholic powers, Spain and France, egged on by the Pope. Against these perils, the Queen could rely only on her own wits, her gambler’s instinct, and above all, her talent for creating a cult of personality.

Elizabeth's PR strategy

Elizabeth secured her position creating a glorious public image that overwhelmed religious differences and appealed directly to English patriotism. In order to win her subjects over, she needed to be visible and, in an age of slow communications, that meant undertaking many royal “progresses.”

“We princes,” Elizabeth told the English Parliament, “are set as it were upon stages in the sight and view of the world.” Elizabeth’s progress, accordingly, resembled travelling theatre. Every summer of the first 20 years of her reign saw her moving in splendid procession through the major towns and cities of England. The centrepiece was, of course, the Queen herself.

A dazzling figure almost submerged in the jewels, brocade, and ornaments of her dress, she was more like a living icon than a human being. The layers of this theatrical front Elizabeth presented to the outside world have hidden the real person within from historians seeking a truer understanding of the Queen. Much about her personal as well as her public life remains mysterious, and this is probably just what she wanted.

However, if she herself was the chief author of this persona, Elizabeth had backup of the highest order. Poets, playwrights, painters, the creators of water pageants and masques at court, propagandists, pamphleteers, and ballad-makers all conspired to intensify the image of Elizabeth as “Gloriana,” the Virgin Queen or the “Faerie Queene” of Edmund Spenser’s fantasy. Artists also promoted Elizabeth in all her bejewelled glamour, surrounded by a glittering court full of lusty young men whose dauntless deeds she inspired.

Elizabeth as a political strategist

Through most of her life, and certainly in her early years as Queen, Elizabeth lived dangerously so that she and England could survive. England’s principal enemies, France and Spain, enjoyed far greater wealth, influence, and military might. England had little chance of resisting a direct onslaught from them. Elizabeth relied, therefore, on guile, smokescreens, and confusion. She deliberately exploited the enmity between France and Spain, hinting at aid for one against the other, never committing herself, but always holding out hope. As long as she kept her enemies guessing, she could be reasonably sure that neither would risk a war on two fronts by attacking England.

Elizabeth always drew back from courses of action that might provoke her enemies. At the same time, she kept her options open and never gave in to pressure. When her reign began, for instance, Elizabeth hinted to Henri II of France that she would break with King Philip of Spain if Henri would restore Calais to England. (Calais, a former English possession, had been taken by France in January 1558.) At the same time, she persuaded Philip that she would be willing to marry him and so ally England with Spain. As a result, Elizabeth gained compensation for Calais while Philip went on living in hope.

The Queen confounded even the Pope with her wiles. He watched England closely to see whether Elizabeth would reverse the policy of her Roman Catholic half-sister and predecessor, Queen Mary I, and turn her realm into a fully Protestant state. Try as he might, though, the Pope was never able to decide whether she would or would not.

On the one hand, Elizabeth kept the Catholic mass in her own private chapel and sent an ambassador to the Papal Court. On the other, the Queen and her advisors slowly steered legislation through Parliament that gave first place to the Protestant faith, with concessions to make the religious settlement palatable to Catholics. Then again, Elizabeth allowed outrageous fun to be made of the Roman church at court mummeries, where crows were dressed up as cardinals and asses as bishops. However, she made it clear that she would force no one’s conscience to conform to the Protestant faith and make no one a martyr in the cause of religion.

Elizabeth took blatant advantage of the fact that her enemies expected a woman to be indecisive. She took care, of course, to conceal the devious mind, keen political instinct, and strong urge to survive that lay at the root of her protean proceedings. All that showed on the outside was a monarch who offered hope and then backtracked, gave half a promise and then denied it.

Elizabeth's search for a successor

Where she could not follow such an indeterminate course, Elizabeth fell back on the royal prerogative to decide important matters unilaterally. Very often, when no safer option presented itself, that meant doing nothing. This was certainly true when it came to naming the successor to her throne. If she named a Catholic heir she would alienate her Protestant subjects - they remembered only too well the fires that had consumed those Mary had considered heretics. The other choice, a Protestant heir, would inevitably lead to the foreign invasion and conquest Elizabeth feared. She chose no one until the last possible moment when she was dying in 1603.

A third alternative, one constantly urged on her, was for Elizabeth to marry and produce her own heir. There was no shortage of applicants from Philip of Spain to the heir to the Swedish throne. From assorted foreign dukes and English nobles to the spectacularly squat and ugly Due d’Alençon, whom Elizabeth called her “frog.” Elizabeth kept the Duke dangling for years, and he was still seriously, but hopelessly, wooing her when she was in her mid-forties. Meanwhile, of course, Elizabeth could avoid considering marriage with anyone else.

Why Elizabeth would never marry

Political and economic opportunism motivated many of these suits, as was common with royal unions in Elizabeth’s time. None of her suitors realized, though, that while Elizabeth kept them dangling as it suited her, she had no intention of marrying any of them. Most likely, she truly loved only one man, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who according to rumour almost succeeded in getting her to the altar. However, when she and Dudley were both about nine years old, she had told him she would never take a husband. This was no piece of childish melodrama. Elizabeth knew from personal experience that royal marriage was dangerous.

Robert Dudley, who Elizabeth called her “sweet Robin”. (© Heritage Image Partnership Ltd / Alamy)

The marital history of her father, the six-times-married King Henry VIII, had been a nightmarish lesson. He had hounded his first wife, Catherine, to death executed two others, including Elizabeth’s mother, Anne Boleyn and terrorized three of the other four. Elizabeth watched from the sidelines and drew her own conclusions.

After she became Queen, the dangers of marriage took on another aspect. A husband would not have occupied a secondary position, like Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband, or Prince Philip, who married the second Elizabeth in 1947. At the time of Elizabeth I, the husband of a reigning Queen could claim the Crown Matrimonial and rule as King during her lifetime. In the case of a foreign husband, this meant the one thing Elizabeth’s subjects most hated: foreign influence in English affairs. If, on the other hand, she opted to marry an English noble, she would make him an “overmighty subject” with more power than any subject ought to possess.

This situation had a particular poignancy in 16th-century England. The Tudors had claimed the throne in 1485 after the Wars of the Roses, a struggle for control that had laid waste to many an English noble. Elizabeth would not risk a repeat performance and so resolved to keep her nobles from access to royal power. One of her most famous assertions - that she was wedded to her kingdom - was another way of saying that England was the only “husband” she could have who would not prove a danger to her.

Elizabeth's sensitivity around her image

Of all the many aspects of Elizabeth’s public image perhaps the most obvious, and in some ways the most sensitive, was the face depicted by her many portraitists. Painting an image of the Queen was a task fraught with many difficulties, particularly as her half-century-long reign wore on. By the time she reached her 65th birthday, one contemporary wrote that “Her face is oblong, fair but wrinkled her eyes small, yet black … she wore false hair, and that red.”

In addition, when Elizabeth was 29 she contracted small-pox, which left her face permanently blemished. To cover the marks, she took to wearing white lead makeup. The effectiveness of her efforts to hide her scars and advancing age may be judged from the fact that towards the end of her life she would not allow mirrors in her rooms.

This concern over her outward appearance extended to the portraits made of her. Just where was the line to be drawn between accuracy and deferential flattery? Commenting on this delicate matter. Sir Robert Cecil, her Secretary of State, wrote: “Many painters have done portraits of the Queen but none has sufficiently shown her looks or charms. Therefore Her Majesty commands all manner of persons to stop doing portraits of her until a clever painter has finished one which all other painters can copy. Her Majesty, in the meantime, forbids the showing of any portraits which are ugly until they are improved.”

While there was surely some simple vanity in the Queen’s command, her concern for projecting the proper image - one of a strong monarch unimpaired by the passage time - was also a matter of political propaganda.

The Spanish question

There were, of course, limits to just how far Elizabeth could go in masking her intentions. It was one thing to keep suitors in suspense, quite another to challenge the Spaniards in America and Europe without incurring their wrath. The Spaniards believed their American empire was God-given. Their astounding achievements in exploring, conquering, and settling this huge area brought Spain so much wealth in gold, silver, and jewels that the currency of Europe had to be revised to take account of it.

Spain’s growing wealth obviously worried Elizabeth. Philip had never ruled out a war against England, and a potential flashpoint lay just across the English Channel. The Spanish Netherlands, heavily militarized by Philip, was Protestant territory and a possession as important for its own product - cloth - as the New World was for gold and silver.

Portrait of Elizabeth I of England in Parliament robes

The Dutch “sea-beggars” used English harbours as havens when the Netherlands finally rebelled against its Spanish masters. Even Elizabeth’s prevarication could not stop Philip realizing that the English sympathized with the rebels, and that English privateers had cast greedy eyes on Spanish America. Philip had initially allowed his colonies to conduct a certain amount of trade with England, but in 1567 Spain closed its American colonies to all foreigners, and the English Protestant heretics in particular.

The ambitious English, however, dearly wanted to muscle in on the wealth of the New World to build up England’s resources, and if legal trade came to an end, piracy would do. In 1572, Francis Drake sailed the Atlantic to Panama, where the Spanish marshalled their treasure fleets. With characteristic daring, Drake hijacked the latest shipment and returned to England, his ships’ holds stuffed with booty. Five years later Drake carried out a thoroughgoing series of raids against several Spanish settlements and again returned home loaded with treasure. For good measure, Drake sailed around the world, the first Englishman to do so.
King Philip complained about the English pirates, but Elizabeth parried the protests, claiming Drake’s activities were his own private business. Even so, when Drake returned triumphant in 1580, she went down to greet him when he stepped ashore at Deptford. There on the quayside, with the Spanish ambassador glowering nearby, she drew a sword and knighted Drake.

Thus far, Philip had been too preoccupied in Europe to consider a serious attack on England and its impudent Queen. He had contented himself with fomenting plots against Elizabeth among the English Catholics. However, incidents like the knighting of Drake, as well as the failure of the plot to unseat Elizabeth, and English interference in the Netherlands greatly raised the temperature of Anglo-Spanish rivalry. In 1587, when Mary, Queen of Scots’ involvement in the most serious conspiracy against Elizabeth resulted in her execution, the enmity escalated, and a course was set for war.

However, Drake forced the Spanish to delay their attack on England by launching his most outrageous strike yet, against the Armada Philip was gathering at Cadiz. The effect was only temporary. Within a year, Philip had replaced the ships and stores. The invasion force left Spain in the early summer of 1588, bound for the Netherlands where it planned to embark a large army.

The embarkation never took place. Philip’s Armada failed, partly through the wild, destructive weather in the English Channel, partly because of the deadly firepower of the new-style English galleons. Channel storms tore at the lumbering Spanish vessels, and English guns pounded their timbers, reducing the much-vaunted Armada to a mass of wallowing, leaking hulks. The survivors did not return to Spain until the end of 1588, having sailed around the British Isles and out into the Atlantic. At least half the surviving Spanish ships wrecked or sank on the way.
The news that tiny, pipsqueak England had laid low the mighty fleet and pride of Spain stunned Europe. The English felt both triumph and relief. The genius of her seamen, aided by phenomenal good luck, had saved England. But, as always where Elizabeth was concerned, it had been a very close thing.

By this time, Elizabeth had been Queen of England for 30 years—a long time to wait for some security. Though the war with Spain lasted in desultory fashion for another 15 years, the worst perils Elizabeth and England would face were behind them.

Elizabeth's legacy

When Elizabeth died in 1603, England was an expanding power with a rich and growing trade in the Netherlands, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and even Russia. In addition, the groundwork had been laid for the first English settlement in the New World, established in Virginia in 1607. Though still early in the day, the realm Elizabeth preserved against great odds was on its way to its later status as a prime world power, while the sun of Spain was slowly sinking. This, rather than the overblown image of a celebrity Queen and her “golden age,” was the real source of lustre in the reign of the first Elizabeth and her country.


Ver el vídeo: Ελισάβετ Α - Η αινιγματική ζωή της παρθένου βασίλισσας (Julio 2022).


Comentarios:

  1. Dugore

    ¡Asombrosamente! ¡Asombrosamente!

  2. Gryfflet

    Perdón por interrumpirte, pero necesito más información.

  3. Cletus

    Creo que cometes un error. Puedo probarlo. Escríbeme por PM, hablamos.

  4. Ogelsvy

    Shtoto es una noticia interesante. Entonces yo también lo pensé

  5. Antilochus

    Creo que es el camino equivocado y tienes que apartarte de él.

  6. Daudy

    ¿Y qué es ridículo?



Escribe un mensaje