The Spanish Armada Had Turned Away - So Why Was Elizabeth I Still Preparing for Invasion?

The Spanish Armada Had Turned Away - So Why Was Elizabeth I Still Preparing for Invasion?

In my last Tudor post, I looked at the Spanish Armada of 1588 and how England faced the threat of invasion from one of Europe’s most powerful kingdoms.

But one of the most famous moments of Elizabeth I’s reign actually happened after the Armada had sailed away.

In August 1588, Elizabeth travelled to Tilbury in Essex, where English soldiers had gathered to defend the country against a possible Spanish invasion.

By then, the Armada had already been driven from the English Channel. But that did not mean England was completely safe.

The Spanish army stationed in the Netherlands, commanded by the Duke of Parma, had been preparing to cross to England. With the Armada driven away, that plan had suffered a serious setback, but English forces remained on alert.

Thousands of soldiers were still waiting, uncertain whether they would soon be called upon to fight.

At Tilbury, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, had been placed in command of the English land forces. He was one of Elizabeth’s oldest and most trusted favourites, and it was under his command that the men had assembled.

Elizabeth was 54 years old when she visited the camp.

She rode among her soldiers and addressed the men who had gathered to defend her kingdom.

England was ruled by a woman at a time when military leadership was overwhelmingly associated with men. Yet rather than remaining safely away from the threatened coast, Elizabeth had chosen to appear before her army herself.

In the best-known surviving account of her speech, Elizabeth is said to have declared:

“I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too.”

She also expressed her willingness to live and die alongside her people if England were invaded.

Those words would become some of the most famous associated with her reign.

But how certain can we be that she actually said them?

The version of the speech most familiar to us today was preserved by Dr Leonel Sharp, who claimed to have witnessed the occasion. He recorded his account years later, in 1623, so we cannot be completely certain that every word was spoken exactly as written.

The visit itself, however, is well documented.

Although the immediate threat from the Armada had passed, the wider war with Spain was far from over. Fighting between the two kingdoms would continue until 1604, more than a year after Elizabeth’s death.

Elizabeth never had to lead those soldiers into battle.

But her appearance at Tilbury would be remembered for centuries, and her words became part of the story of how England faced the threat of invasion in 1588.

I think that is what makes this moment so interesting. Elizabeth’s greatest display of courage may not have been on a battlefield at all, but in the decision to stand before her soldiers when the future of her kingdom had seemed so uncertain.

Did you know that Elizabeth’s famous speech at Tilbury took place after the Spanish Armada had already left the English Channel?

☕ Have a cuppa and let’s discover history together.

#TudorHistory #ElizabethI #SpanishArmada #TudorEngland #BritishHistory #HistoryLovers #HistoryFacts

Elizabeth I addressing her troops at Tilbury, 1588. Later historical engraving, artist unknown. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

The Armada Set Sail - And Almost Immediately Things Began to Go Wrong

The Armada Set Sail - And Almost Immediately Things Began to Go Wrong

By the spring of 1588, England knew that an invasion was coming. Across the sea, Philip II of Spain had assembled one of the largest fleets Europe had seen.

The plan was complicated. The Armada was to sail through the English Channel, link up with the Duke of Parma’s army in the Low Countries and help secure its crossing to England.

In May 1588, the fleet began leaving Lisbon.

Around 130 ships carried thousands of sailors and soldiers under the command of the Duke of Medina Sidonia, but the voyage did not begin smoothly.

Bad weather and other difficulties disrupted the fleet, and the Armada was forced to put into Corunna before continuing. The stop gave the fleet time to regroup and refresh its water supplies before attempting the voyage again.

Eventually, the Armada sailed again and entered the English Channel in July.

On the 19th of July, using the English calendar then in use, it was sighted near the Lizard, off the coast of Cornwall.

Tradition says that Francis Drake was playing bowls on Plymouth Hoe when news arrived and insisted there was still time to finish the game before taking to sea.

It is a wonderful story, although exactly what happened is uncertain.

The English fleet began working its way out of Plymouth. Once at sea, Howard and his commanders manoeuvred to gain the windward position before beginning their pursuit of the Armada up the Channel.

The Spanish ships sailed in their famous crescent-shaped formation, with stronger vessels helping to protect the rest of the fleet. It was designed to make it difficult for the English to break through and attack the more vulnerable ships.

The English, however, did not want to fight the kind of battle the Spanish expected. They used their manoeuvrability and their position to windward to attack with gunfire while avoiding, where possible, the close fighting and boarding actions that would favour the Spanish.

There were several clashes as the Armada moved eastwards, but the English had not yet stopped it.

In fact, despite the fighting, Medina Sidonia eventually reached Calais with much of his fleet still intact.

Philip II’s invasion plan was still alive, but it depended on the Armada making contact with Parma and enabling his army to cross safely from the Low Countries.

Coordinating that crossing was proving far more difficult than Philip’s plan had allowed for.

Next: The English Attacked the Armada - But They Still Hadn’t Stopped the Invasion.

Had you been standing on the English coast watching that huge fleet approaching, would you have believed England could stop it?

Image: English Ships and the Spanish Armada, August 1588, anonymous English School, 16th century. Royal Museums Greenwich. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Mary Was Dead - But Elizabeth Insisted This Was Not What She Had Intended

Mary Was Dead - But Elizabeth Insisted This Was Not What She Had Intended

On the 8th of February 1587, Mary, Queen of Scots was executed at Fotheringhay Castle.

Elizabeth I had signed Mary's death warrant only a week earlier, on the 1st of February. But when she learned that the execution had actually taken place, she responded with anger and presented herself as deeply distressed.

This is where the story becomes particularly difficult to untangle.

Elizabeth had hesitated for months over Mary's fate. Executing an anointed queen was an enormous step, and Mary was also the mother of James VI of Scotland. Keeping Mary alive presented one set of dangers, but killing her could create an entirely different political problem.

After Elizabeth signed the warrant, it was passed under the Great Seal. Davison then brought the matter before senior members of the Privy Council, who decided to proceed. On the 3rd of February, Robert Beale was commissioned to carry the warrant to Fotheringhay.

By the 8th of February, Mary was dead.

Elizabeth then maintained that events had gone further than she intended.

Davison suffered heavily in the aftermath. He was sent to the Tower and later tried in the Star Chamber, where he was fined 10,000 marks. Although he was eventually released, his active career at court was effectively over.

But Elizabeth now had to deal with Mary's son.

On the 14th of February, she wrote to James VI of Scotland. In that letter, Elizabeth expressed her grief and insisted that his mother's execution had happened contrary to her intention.

Exactly how far Elizabeth intended the signed warrant to lead directly to Mary's execution remains disputed.

What we do know is that within days of Mary's death, Elizabeth was insisting that events had not unfolded as she had meant them to.

Do you think Elizabeth genuinely believed her councillors had gone too far, or was she trying to distance herself from Mary's execution afterwards?

Image: Elizabeth I, the Armada Portrait, c.1588, artist unknown. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Mary, Queen of Scots Had Been a Queen Since She Was Six Days Old. On the 8th of February 1587, She Walked to the Scaffold.

Mary, Queen of Scots Had Been a Queen Since She Was Six Days Old. On the 8th of February 1587, She Walked to the Scaffold.

Over my last few Tudor posts I have been following the events that eventually led to the death of Mary, Queen of Scots. I have looked at the plots surrounding Elizabeth I, Mary’s trial at Fotheringhay and the warrant Elizabeth finally signed.

On the morning of the 8th of February 1587, Mary was executed.

She was 44 years old. Mary had become Queen of Scots when she was only six days old, had also been Queen of France and had spent almost nineteen years in England under increasingly close confinement.

Her execution took place in the Great Hall at Fotheringhay Castle.

Even at the scaffold there was disagreement over religion. Richard Fletcher, the Dean of Peterborough, was there to conduct Protestant prayers, but Mary made it clear that she intended to die in the Catholic faith and continued with prayers of her own.

When Mary’s outer clothing was removed, red clothing was revealed underneath. Red was associated with Catholic martyrdom, and this part of her clothing has often been interpreted in that context, although we cannot know for certain what Mary herself intended by wearing it.

The execution was not completed with a single stroke. A contemporary account preserved among the papers of Henry Grey, Earl of Kent, records that it took two strokes of the axe.

Robert Wingfield, who witnessed the execution and later wrote an account of what he had seen, recorded another detail that I had not known before researching this.

After Mary’s death, a small dog was discovered hidden amongst her clothing. According to Wingfield’s account, the dog would not leave her body and and had to be taken away and washed.

Mary’s story did not quite end at Fotheringhay.

Elizabeth I died without children in 1603, and the man who inherited the English crown was James VI of Scotland - Mary, Queen of Scots’ son. He became James I of England.

Sixteen years after Mary’s execution, her son was sitting on Elizabeth’s throne.

Did you know that Mary’s son eventually succeeded Elizabeth I?

Image: The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, Alexandre-Denis Abel de Pujol, 19th century. Musée des Beaux-Arts de Valenciennes, via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.

Six Hours Before Her Execution, Mary, Queen of Scots Was Still Writing

Six Hours Before Her Execution, Mary, Queen of Scots Was Still Writing

At two o’clock in the morning on the 8th of February 1587, Mary, Queen of Scots wrote to Henri III of France from Fotheringhay Castle.

She had been told after dinner the previous evening that she would be executed at eight o’clock in the morning.

Letters connected with the Babington Plot were produced as evidence against her, and she had been tried at Fotheringhay in October 1586. Elizabeth I signed the warrant for her execution on the 1st of February 1587.

She asked Henri to see that money owed to her servants was paid. She wanted prayers and masses said for her and wrote about the difficulties she faced in arranging her affairs. Her papers had been taken from her and she complained that she had been prevented from seeing her chaplain.

In the letter, Mary wrote that she believed her Catholic faith and her claim to the English throne lay behind her condemnation.

The execution took place later that morning in the Great Hall at Fotheringhay Castle. Mary was forty-four years old.

She had first come to England in 1568 after fleeing Scotland following her defeat at the Battle of Langside. She had hoped Elizabeth might help restore her to the Scottish throne, but she would spend almost nineteen years in English custody.

Mary was buried at Peterborough Cathedral. Her son, James VI of Scotland, succeeded Elizabeth in 1603 and became James I of England. In 1612, he ordered his mother’s remains to be brought from Peterborough and reburied in Westminster Abbey.

I had read about Mary’s execution before, but I had never really looked closely at the letter she wrote that night. Knowing how close she was to the execution changes it for me. She was still writing about wages owed to her servants, prayers and her wish for her body to be taken to France, with only hours remaining.

Have you ever read Mary’s final letter?

The execution of Mary, Queen of Scots at Fotheringhay Castle, 1587, drawing attributed to Robert Beale. British Library, Add MS 48027. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Elizabeth Signed Mary’s Death Warrant. Then Her Secretary Was Sent to the Tower

Elizabeth Signed Mary’s Death Warrant. Then Her Secretary Was Sent to the Tower.

On the 1st of February 1587, Elizabeth I signed the warrant that would send Mary, Queen of Scots to the scaffold. Within weeks, William Davison, the secretary who handled it, would be imprisoned in the Tower.

Mary had been in England since 1568 and, after the Babington Plot was uncovered in 1586, the case against her had finally come to a head. Coded correspondence intercepted and deciphered by Walsingham’s intelligence network formed an important part of the evidence used against her. She was tried at Fotheringhay Castle in October, found guilty and sentenced to death.

Elizabeth still did not allow the sentence to be carried out immediately.

Mary had been a queen in her own right, she was Elizabeth’s cousin and she still had supporters who regarded her as the rightful Catholic heir to the English throne. There was also the deeply uncomfortable question of one anointed monarch authorising the judicial execution of another.

By February, the warrant had been prepared.

William Davison, one of Elizabeth’s principal secretaries, took it to her and she signed it. The document then passed under the Great Seal.

Davison later left his own account of what happened afterwards.

He wrote that Elizabeth asked whether the warrant had already been sealed. When he told her that it had, she questioned why it had been dealt with so quickly. Davison replied that he had done no more than he believed she had instructed him to do.

His account also shows just how uneasy he had become. Davison later wrote that he feared Elizabeth might try to shift responsibility away from herself, and he did not want to deal with the matter alone. He went to Sir Christopher Hatton and explained what had passed between himself and the Queen.

On the 3rd of February, Lord Burghley brought the warrant before members of the Privy Council. According to Davison, the councillors were told what had happened between him and Elizabeth and agreed that the warrant should be sent to Fotheringhay without going back to the Queen again.

Robert Beale, Clerk of the Privy Council, was chosen to carry it.

Mary knew nothing of this until the evening of the 7th of February, when she was told that she would die the following morning.

On the 8th of February 1587, she was executed in the Great Hall of Fotheringhay Castle.

Davison was soon in serious trouble.

Elizabeth maintained that although she had signed the warrant, she had not given authority for it to be carried out in the way it had been. Davison was arrested and sent to the Tower, and on the 28th of March he appeared before the Star Chamber.

He was fined 10,000 marks and ordered to remain imprisoned at the Queen’s pleasure.

One of the things I find most striking about this episode is that Davison was not acting entirely on his own. Senior councillors had discussed the warrant, read it and agreed that it should be sent. Yet once Mary was dead, it was Davison who faced the most obvious punishment.

We cannot know exactly what Elizabeth intended at every stage, and the surviving accounts do not give us a simple answer. Davison believed he had followed her instructions. Elizabeth later insisted that the warrant had gone further than she intended.

That disagreement sits at the heart of what happened next.

Next in my Tudor series, I’ll be looking at Mary’s final evening and her execution at Fotheringhay on the 8th of February 1587.

Image info:

Mary, Queen of Scots’ death warrant, signed by Elizabeth I, 1587. Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Mary, Queen of Scots on Trial at Fotheringhay

Mary, Queen of Scots on Trial at Fotheringhay

By the autumn of 1586, Mary, Queen of Scots had lived in England for more than eighteen years. She had arrived in 1568 after fleeing Scotland following her defeat at the Battle of Langside, hoping that Elizabeth I might help restore her to the Scottish throne. Instead, she spent the years that followed under guard in a succession of houses and castles. By October 1586 she was at Fotheringhay, and the discovery of the Babington Plot had placed her in immediate danger of prosecution and execution.

In my previous post, I looked at Anthony Babington and the secret correspondence intercepted by Francis Walsingham’s intelligence network. When the plot was uncovered, Mary’s rooms were searched and her papers taken. Her ciphers and correspondence were examined, while her secretaries, Claude Nau and Gilbert Curle, were questioned about letters which the English government believed connected her directly to the conspiracy against Elizabeth.

Before the main proceedings at Fotheringhay began, there was already disagreement over whether Mary should answer to Elizabeth’s commissioners. On the 12th of October she refused to submit to them and repeated her objections in further answers that day and on the 13th. Mary had been forced to abdicate the Scottish throne in 1567, but for most of her life she had been treated as royalty. She had been crowned Queen of Scots as a baby, ruled Scotland in her own right and briefly been Queen of France during her marriage to Francis II. She regarded her imprisonment in England as very different from being one of Elizabeth’s subjects.

The hearing finally began on the 14th of October and continued the following day. The commissioners questioned Mary about the Babington correspondence and the claim that she had approved a conspiracy which included Elizabeth’s assassination. Nau and Curle also appeared repeatedly in the evidence because of their involvement in handling Mary’s correspondence.

Mary had to answer the accusations before the commissioners herself. Her papers were already in government hands, and she questioned the use of copies of letters rather than originals. She denied approving Elizabeth’s murder and disputed evidence attributed to the men who had worked in her household.

Something I think is easily lost when we reduce this story to “Mary was tried and found guilty” is just how much argument took place at Fotheringhay. She challenged the letters, the testimony and the authority of the men sitting before her. Her objections about jurisdiction were serious enough that lawyers had already been considering the problem of proceeding against a woman who claimed the privileges of a sovereign ruler.

Once the hearings finished, the commissioners returned to London. They met again in the Star Chamber at Westminster on the 25th of October, where Mary was found guilty without being present. Parliament then pressed Elizabeth to carry out the sentence, with petitions presented during November, and Mary’s condemnation was publicly proclaimed in December.

For the rest of that winter Mary remained at Fotheringhay. Elizabeth still had to decide whether the conviction should end in execution, and this was a decision involving far more than the fate of one prisoner. Mary had once ruled Scotland, her son James VI now sat on the Scottish throne, and her treatment was being followed outside England as well as within it.

On the 1st of February 1587, Elizabeth signed the warrant authorising Mary’s execution. A week later, on the 8th of February, Mary was executed at Fotheringhay Castle.

The warrant itself would now become part of the controversy. Elizabeth’s secretary William Davison was later blamed for the way it had been handled and for the execution going ahead when it did.

That is where I want to pick up the story in my next Tudor post: Elizabeth, the death warrant and what happened during Mary’s final days at Fotheringhay.

What do you think mattered more at Fotheringhay - the evidence against Mary, or whether England had the right to judge her at all?

Image info:

Mary, Queen of Scots, engraving by James Thomson, 1829. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Public Domain.

The Secret Letters That Helped Send Mary, Queen of Scots to the Executioner

The Secret Letters That Helped Send Mary, Queen of Scots to the Executioner

The Babington Plot of 1586 was one of the most serious threats Elizabeth I faced during her reign. A group of men were planning to kill the Queen, free Mary, Queen of Scots from captivity and place her on the English throne. At the centre of the story were a series of letters that would eventually help bring the plot down.

Anthony Babington with his accomplices, 17th century / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain.

 What makes the story so compelling is the way politics, religion and personal danger became tangled together.

Mary had been in England since 1568, after fleeing Scotland when her rule there collapsed. She had hoped Elizabeth might help her regain the Scottish throne, but instead she found herself kept under increasingly close supervision.

Her presence in England was always awkward for Elizabeth. Mary had royal blood, she was Catholic and she had a claim to the English throne. Some Catholics who opposed Elizabeth’s religious settlement saw Mary as someone who might one day replace her, and during the years she spent in England her name became linked with several plots against the Queen.

By 1586, Mary was being held at Chartley in Staffordshire. Her movements were restricted and her correspondence was closely watched. Contact with supporters outside her household was difficult, so when a secret way of exchanging letters became available, she began using it.

Those messages were smuggled in and out of Chartley, giving Mary a way to remain in contact with people beyond her household. The system, however, was not as secure as she believed.

Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth’s principal secretary, had built up a network of informers and agents to investigate threats against the Queen. Instead of shutting Mary’s correspondence down as soon as it was discovered, the authorities allowed it to continue. That gave Walsingham’s men the chance to see who was contacting her and what was being discussed.

Among those writing to Mary was Anthony Babington, a young Catholic gentleman from Derbyshire. He supported Mary and became involved with a group whose plans went much further than simply helping her escape. Foreign support was discussed, along with Mary’s release and the assassination of Elizabeth.

In July 1586, Babington wrote to Mary about the proposed conspiracy. His letter referred to six men who were to carry out the killing of Elizabeth and also discussed plans to free Mary.

The message was written in cipher, but that was not enough to protect it. Thomas Phelippes, one of the men working within Walsingham’s intelligence network, was a skilled codebreaker. Babington’s letter could be intercepted, copied and deciphered before it reached Mary.

Mary replied, discussing preparations for her release as well as other parts of Babington’s plan. Elizabeth’s government later used the letter as evidence that she had accepted the conspiracy. Exactly what Mary meant by some of her words, and how far she supported the proposed assassination, has continued to be debated.

Arrests followed soon afterwards. Babington tried to escape but was caught, and other members of the group were also taken into custody. The plot was stopped before any attempt could be made on Elizabeth’s life.

Mary’s own position became much more dangerous from that point. Her papers were seized and in October 1586 she was brought to trial at Fotheringhay Castle. She denied plotting Elizabeth’s death, questioned the evidence against her and argued that, as a foreign queen, she was not an English subject.

The correspondence with Babington formed an important part of the case, and Mary was found guilty.

Elizabeth now faced a decision that she had avoided for years. Mary was a former queen, a relative and an anointed monarch, so ordering her execution was never going to be a simple matter. At the same time, as long as Mary remained alive, there was always the fear that another conspiracy might gather around her.

Elizabeth eventually signed the death warrant, and on the 8th of February 1587 Mary, Queen of Scots was executed at Fotheringhay Castle, almost nineteen years after she had first arrived in England.

The part that really brings the Babington Plot to life is the correspondence itself. Babington and Mary were trying to communicate in secret, while Walsingham’s men were quietly following what was being said.

Those letters became some of the most important evidence used against Mary.

Do you think Mary, Queen of Scots knowingly supported the plan to assassinate Elizabeth I, or do you think Walsingham allowed the plot to continue until he had enough evidence to use against her?

 

What Was It Really Like to Be Catholic Under Elizabeth I?

What Was It Really Like to Be Catholic Under Elizabeth I?

Was Elizabeth I persecuting Catholics simply because of their religion, or did years of rebellion, invasion threats and plots against her life convince her that Catholicism had become a political danger as well as a religious one?

Today I want to look at what life was actually like for Catholics under Elizabeth I, because their experience was not the same throughout her reign. Elizabeth did punish Catholics, and by the later decades some of those punishments became extremely severe, but her attitude hardened gradually as religion became increasingly tangled with questions of loyalty, rebellion and foreign threats.

When Elizabeth became queen on the 17th of November 1558, England had already changed religion several times within a generation. Henry VIII had broken with Rome, Edward VI had pushed England further towards Protestantism, and Mary I had restored Catholic worship. Ordinary families had lived through each change, watching the religion practised in their parish churches alter depending upon who sat on the throne.

Elizabeth’s Religious Settlement of 1559 established a Protestant Church of England and required people to attend its services. Catholics who refused became known as recusants. During the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign, however, the government was often more concerned with outward obedience than with investigating exactly what somebody believed inside their own home. Enforcement also varied considerably from place to place.

For an ordinary Catholic family, this could mean living two lives. They might attend their parish church to avoid trouble while still praying privately as Catholics, keeping religious objects hidden and maintaining older traditions within the family. Others refused to conform and faced fines, imprisonment and increasing pressure from the authorities.

One fascinating example among the nobility was Anthony Browne, 1st Viscount Montagu. He remained Catholic and had served Elizabeth’s Catholic half-sister Mary I, yet Elizabeth continued to trust him because he repeatedly demonstrated his loyalty to the Crown. He opposed parts of her religious settlement, but Elizabeth still employed him on diplomatic missions and even visited his home at Cowdray in 1591.

His story is important because it shows that being Catholic did not automatically make someone Elizabeth’s enemy.

But events during the 1560s and 1570s changed the atmosphere dramatically. In 1569, Catholic nobles led the Rising of the North, hoping to overturn Elizabeth’s religious settlement. Then, in 1570, Pope Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth and declared that her subjects were no longer bound to obey her.

From Elizabeth’s point of view, the problem was becoming much bigger than private religious belief. Could somebody remain completely loyal to the Queen while recognising the authority of a Pope who had declared that she should not be obeyed?

The situation became even more dangerous because Mary, Queen of Scots was living in England. Mary was Catholic and had a powerful dynastic claim to the English throne and gradually became the focus of several schemes to replace Elizabeth.

Elizabeth even faced trouble from people close to her own court. Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, one of the most powerful noblemen in England and Elizabeth’s cousin, became involved in plans surrounding Mary. He was eventually implicated in the Ridolfi Plot, which proposed removing Elizabeth and placing Mary on the throne with foreign assistance. Norfolk was convicted of treason and executed on the 2nd of June 1572.

By the 1580s, Elizabeth’s government had become far more suspicious. Catholic missionary priests were secretly entering England after training abroad and travelling between Catholic households. To Catholics, these men were bringing them Mass and the sacraments. To Elizabeth’s government, men arriving secretly from institutions abroad while Catholic powers threatened England could look dangerously like agents of her enemies.

One of the best-known was Edmund Campion, who travelled secretly through England ministering to Catholic families. He was arrested in 1581, tortured, convicted of treason and executed.

Ordinary people could be caught in these laws too.

Margaret Clitherow of York was not a wealthy noblewoman or political conspirator. She was married to a butcher and had converted to Catholicism. She repeatedly refused to attend Church of England services and eventually allowed Catholic priests to hide and celebrate Mass in properties connected with her.

In 1586, she was arrested for harbouring priests. Margaret refused to enter a plea and was sentenced to the horrific punishment of being pressed to death. She was executed in York on the 25th of March 1586.

Her story perhaps shows most clearly how the religious struggle reached far beyond queens, popes and noblemen and into ordinary homes.

Another striking case was Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, who had spent time at Elizabeth’s court but he was reconciled to the Catholic Church. He attempted to leave England in 1585, was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He remained there for around ten years and died in captivity in 1595.

So why did Elizabeth become increasingly harsh?

Her own experiences may also have influenced her. Her mother, Anne Boleyn, had been executed when Elizabeth was a small child. Elizabeth’s own legitimacy had been questioned, and during Mary I’s reign she had herself been imprisoned in the Tower while suspected of involvement in rebellion.

As queen she then faced the Northern Rising, papal excommunication, repeated plots involving Mary, Queen of Scots, threats from Catholic powers abroad and eventually war with Spain.

None of this lessens the suffering of people who simply wanted to practise their faith. But it does help explain why Elizabeth increasingly struggled to separate Catholic religion from political danger.

What I find most interesting is that there was never one single Catholic experience under Elizabeth. Some remained quietly Catholic and avoided serious punishment. Others paid enormous recusancy fines. By 1581 recusancy fines could reach £20 a month. Some nobles retained Elizabeth’s trust, while others found themselves imprisoned or executed.

It leaves me with a difficult question.

Was Elizabeth’s treatment of Catholics primarily religious persecution, or had the political dangers surrounding her reign made it almost impossible for her government to separate Catholic faith from the threat of rebellion?

The Ridolfi Plot: How Close Did Elizabeth I Come to Losing Her Throne?

The Ridolfi Plot: How Close Did Elizabeth I Come to Losing Her Throne?

In our last Tudor post, we looked at Elizabeth I’s increasingly dangerous relationship with the Pope and how, in 1570, Pope Pius V excommunicated the English queen and declared that her subjects were no longer bound to obey her.

Mary, Queen of Scots

Credit: Mary, Queen of Scots in captivity, after Nicholas Hilliard, inscribed 1578. Via Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons – Public Domain.

But what happened when those religious tensions moved beyond words?

Within a year, Elizabeth’s government uncovered a conspiracy involving Mary, Queen of Scots, one of England’s most powerful noblemen, Spain and a Florentine banker with connections across Europe.

Today I want to look at the Ridolfi Plot of 1571, because it raises a rather unsettling question. How close did Elizabeth actually come to being removed from the throne?

By this point, Mary, Queen of Scots had been in England for several years. She had been forced to abdicate the Scottish throne in 1567 and fled to England the following year, hoping Elizabeth might help restore her. Instead, she found herself kept under increasingly close supervision.

Elizabeth I

Credit: Queen Elizabeth I, the ‘Darnley Portrait’, unknown continental artist, c.1575. Via Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons – Public Domain

Mary was not simply an inconvenient royal cousin. As a Catholic with a strong claim to the English throne, she became a natural focus for those who wanted Elizabeth replaced.

That did not mean England’s Catholics were all plotting against Elizabeth. Many remained loyal to their queen. But Mary’s presence created something potentially dangerous: an alternative monarch around whom Elizabeth’s enemies could gather.

Then came Roberto Ridolfi.

Ridolfi was a Florentine banker who had worked in London and moved comfortably through diplomatic and financial circles. He was also a committed Catholic, with the contacts and freedom to travel between some of the most powerful people in Europe.

The plan that developed around him was extraordinarily ambitious.

Elizabeth would be removed from power. Mary would be freed and placed on the English throne, and she would marry Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, one of the highest-ranking noblemen in England.

But the conspirators needed more than supporters inside England.

They needed soldiers.

Ridolfi travelled through Europe seeking support from the Pope and from Philip II of Spain. The hope was that Spanish troops based in the Netherlands could cross into England while supporters of Mary rose against Elizabeth from within.

And this is where our previous post about Elizabeth and the Pope becomes so important.

Only the year before, Pope Pius V had declared Elizabeth excommunicated. Now a conspiracy was developing that looked towards Catholic powers abroad and planned to place the Catholic Mary on Elizabeth’s throne.

For Elizabeth and her government, religion, foreign policy and the Queen’s own survival were becoming almost impossible to separate.

But the plot had one enormous weakness.

Too many people knew about it.

In 1571, Charles Baillie, a messenger connected with Mary’s supporters, was arrested at Dover carrying suspicious letters. Elizabeth’s government began piecing together the conspiracy. Messages were intercepted, servants were questioned and evidence slowly led investigators towards Norfolk.

Norfolk tried to distance himself from what had happened, but the evidence against him mounted.

He was arrested, imprisoned in the Tower of London and tried for high treason. He was found guilty and executed on Tower Hill on the 2nd of June 1572.

Ridolfi himself escaped. He was abroad when the conspiracy collapsed and never returned to England.

But there was one person whose position became considerably more dangerous.

Mary, Queen of Scots.

Elizabeth did not have Mary executed after the Ridolfi Plot. Mary would remain alive for another fifteen years. Elizabeth repeatedly hesitated over taking the life of another anointed queen, and proving exactly how far Mary had personally agreed to every part of the conspiracy was not straightforward.

But the Ridolfi Plot changed the atmosphere around her.

Mary was no longer simply the former Queen of Scots living under English supervision. She had become the figure around whom plots to replace Elizabeth could form.

And there would be more.

The Throckmorton Plot followed in 1583, and then the Babington Plot in 1586 would finally give Elizabeth’s government the evidence it needed to move directly against Mary.

Looking back, the Ridolfi Plot feels almost like a warning of everything that was still to come. Elizabeth had survived religious division and challenges to her legitimacy. Now she faced the possibility that her enemies were prepared to seek foreign military support to remove her.

Perhaps the most interesting question is not why Elizabeth became more suspicious afterwards.

It is how she could possibly have avoided becoming suspicious.

Do you think Elizabeth should have acted against Mary, Queen of Scots after the Ridolfi Plot, or was she right to keep her alive?

Elizabeth I and the Pope: How England’s Break with Rome Became a Battle for Loyalty

Elizabeth I and the Pope: How England’s Break with Rome Became a Battle for Loyalty

We all know that Henry VIII’s relationship with the Pope and Rome was, to put it mildly, complicated. His determination to end his marriage to Catherine of Aragon eventually helped bring about England’s break with Rome, and in 1534 Henry was declared Supreme Head of the Church of England. But what happened after Henry died? Mary I restored England to the Roman Catholic Church, so when Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558, the relationship between the English Crown and the Pope was once again about to become enormously important.

Portrait of Pope Pius V by Scipione Pulzone, late 16th century. Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

Today I want to look at Elizabeth’s relationship with Rome and the Pope, because it developed very differently from her father’s. There was no single dramatic dispute over a marriage. Instead, Elizabeth’s reign saw a much longer struggle over religion, authority and, eventually, something even more dangerous: whether an English Catholic could remain loyal both to the Pope and to their Queen.

Elizabeth I in Coronation Robes, unknown artist, c.1600–1610, after a lost original of c.1559. Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

When Elizabeth became Queen on the 17th of November 1558, the Pope was Paul IV. England had officially returned to Roman Catholicism during the reign of Elizabeth’s half-sister Mary I, and Rome was therefore watching closely to see what the new Queen would do. Elizabeth was the daughter of Anne Boleyn, whose marriage to Henry VIII had never been accepted as valid by Rome in the way Henry wanted, and this meant her legitimacy had long been controversial from a Catholic point of view.

There is an old story that Paul IV immediately rejected Elizabeth as illegitimate and refused to recognise her as Queen, but the appears to have been more complicated. French representatives certainly encouraged the Pope to act against Elizabeth, partly because this would have strengthened the position of the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, but Paul did not immediately move to excommunicate Elizabeth.

For a while, there was still uncertainty about exactly what Elizabeth intended to do religiously. That did not last long. In 1559, Elizabeth’s Parliament passed a new Act of Supremacy, reversing Mary I’s reunion with Rome and restoring the monarch’s authority over the English Church. Elizabeth did not use exactly the same title as her father. Henry VIII had been called Supreme Head of the Church of England, whereas Elizabeth became Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Alongside the Act of Supremacy came the Act of Uniformity, which restored the Book of Common Prayer and established the religious framework that became known as the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. The message was clear: the Pope no longer held religious authority within Elizabeth’s kingdom, and England had once again separated itself from Rome.

Interestingly, Pope Paul IV was not the man who eventually excommunicated Elizabeth. He died in August 1559, only months after the new religious settlement had been introduced. He was succeeded by Pope Pius IV, and there were still moments when Rome appears to have hoped that Elizabeth might somehow be persuaded back towards Catholicism. Elizabeth was even invited to send representatives to the Council of Trent, but she did not accept.

Then came Pope Pius V, who became Pope in 1566, and this was where Elizabeth’s relationship with Rome entered a much more dangerous phase. By the late 1560s, the political situation in England had become increasingly tense. Mary, Queen of Scots had arrived in England in 1568 and provided Catholic opponents of Elizabeth with a possible alternative monarch. Then, in 1569, the Northern Rebellion saw Catholic nobles attempt to challenge Elizabeth’s government and restore Catholic worship.

On the 25th of February 1570, Pope Pius V issued the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis. It formally excommunicated Elizabeth from the Roman Catholic Church, condemned her religious settlement and declared that her subjects were released from their obligation of loyalty to her.

From Elizabeth’s point of view, this was far more dangerous than a simple religious condemnation. The Pope was not just saying that he disapproved of the Queen’s religious policies. He was effectively saying that Catholics did not have to obey her. That was something else entirely.

That placed ordinary English Catholics in an incredibly difficult position. Many had no intention of rebelling against Elizabeth at all. They regarded themselves as loyal English men and women who happened to remain Catholic, but after 1570 it became much harder for the government to separate private faith from political loyalty. Increasingly, Elizabeth’s advisers worried that loyalty to Rome might also mean disloyalty to the Crown.

Those fears were strengthened by a series of plots involving Mary, Queen of Scots. The Ridolfi Plot followed in 1571, while later conspiracies such as the Throckmorton and Babington plots reinforced the belief that foreign Catholic powers might support attempts to overthrow or even assassinate Elizabeth. As a result, laws against Catholic priests, recusants and those accused of helping them became increasingly severe as Elizabeth’s reign continued.

This is what I find so fascinating about Elizabeth’s relationship with Rome. Henry VIII’s break with the Pope began largely with one king’s struggle to secure the annulment of his marriage, but under Elizabeth the conflict had become something much bigger. It was now about who possessed authority in England, whether the Pope could challenge the legitimacy of an English monarch and whether religious belief could be separated from political loyalty.

The papal bull of 1570 may have been intended to weaken Elizabeth, but in many ways it created an enormous problem for English Catholics themselves. People who might previously have quietly practised their faith while remaining loyal to their Queen were increasingly viewed with suspicion because religion and rebellion were now being linked together.

Elizabeth would remain on the throne for another thirty-three years after her excommunication. Rome never succeeded in removing her, and the Church of England survived. But the conflict between Elizabeth and the papacy helped transform religious disagreement into a question of national security, with consequences for thousands of ordinary people caught between faith and loyalty.

I think it is easy to remember Henry VIII as the Tudor monarch who fought with the Pope, but Elizabeth’s relationship with Rome was arguably just as fascinating and perhaps even more dangerous.

If you had been a Catholic living in Elizabethan England after 1570, where do you think your loyalty would have fallen- with your faith, your Queen, or would you have tried somehow to remain loyal to both?

Elizabeth I: Who Were the Puritans and Why Did They Want More Reform?

Elizabeth I: Who Were the Puritans and Why Did They Want More Reform?

Today I want to find out about one of the biggest religious challenges that Elizabeth I faced during her reign.

When we think about the Puritans, many of us think of Oliver Cromwell or the settlers who travelled to North America. But the Puritan movement actually started much earlier than you would think. It began during the reign of Elizabeth I.

When Elizabeth became Queen in 1558, she introduced the Religious Settlement of 1559, which ae talked about a few days ago. It established the Church of England as a Protestant church. But importantly it still kept some traditional practices of the Catholic church that many people were more familiar with. Elizabeth hoped that the compromise would bring some stability after many years of religious conflict.

For many people it did. But, not everyone was satisfied.

A group of people who became known as the Puritans were among those who were not satisfied. They believed that the Church of England had not gone far enough in its reforms. They wanted to remove anything that they thought resembled the Roman Catholic church or worship. They pushed hard for the introduction of simpler church services with fewer ceremonies. They wanted plain clothing for the clergy and a greater emphasis on preaching and studying the Bible. Some also wanted to replace bishops with a different form of church government.

Image info:

Thomas Cartwright

Elizabeth did not share their views. Although she was a Protestant, she believed that her Religious Settlement struck the right balance. She wanted one national church that most of her subjects could accept and she feared that making any further changes would divide the country again.

Throughout her reign, Elizabeth insisted that the clergy follow the rules of the Church of England. As time went on, some Puritans even criticised the Queen’s authority over the Church, something Elizabeth would not tolerate.

Elizabeth was prepared to take action against any Puritans who openly challenged her Religious Settlement or who refused to obey the rules of the Church of England. Some ministers who would not wear the required clerical clothing were suspended or removed from their positions, while others who published attacks on the Church or called for further reforms were arrested and imprisoned. Elizabeth thought that if she allowed these challenges to go unpunished it could undermine the Church and even her own authority as Queen, so she insisted that her religious settlement must be obeyed.

Some of those who were punished were the Puritan ministers John Field and Thomas Wilcox. They were imprisoned at Newgate Prison in 1572 after they had published An Admonition to the Parliament, which was a book that called for major changes to the Church of England. They were released after about a year. Thomas Cartwright was one of the leading Puritan thinkers of the time. He also faced repeated dismissal from his university and church positions because of his views. This shows that while Elizabeth accepted moderate differences of opinion, she would not tolerate anyone who openly challenged the authority of the Church or her role as its Supreme Governor.

The Puritans remained part of English religious life throughout Elizabeth’s reign. They didn’t stop calling for more reform.

After Elizabeth I died in 1603, many Puritans had hoped that James I would introduce further reforms. But he largely kept the Church of England as Elizabeth had left it. During Charles I reign, religious tensions sharply increased, which influenced some Puritans to leave England and emigrate to North America in search of greater religious freedom. Others that stayed behind became involved in the conflicts that led to the English Civil War. Puritan influence reached its height under Oliver Cromwell in the 1650s before declining after the monarchy was restored in 1660.

How different do you think English history might have been if Elizabeth had agreed to the Puritans' demands?

Elizabeth I Part 3: How Did Elizabeth I Try to Unite a Religiously Divided England?

Elizabeth I Part 3: How Did Elizabeth I Try to Unite a Religiously Divided England?

Today I want to find out how Elizabeth I tried to deal with one of the biggest challenges that she faced as Queen. England had experienced decades of religious upheaval. Many people were still deeply divided over whether the country should be Protestant or Roman Catholic.

Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558 after the reign of her half-sister, Mary I. Mary had restored Roman Catholicism. Before that, her brother, Edward VI, had introduced Protestant reforms, and their father, Henry VIII, well... he had broken away from the authority of the Pope and made himself head of the Church of England. Years of changes had left England clearly divided.

In 1559, Elizabeth introduced what became known as the Religious Settlement. It was a series of laws that were designed to create a national Church that most of her subjects could accept. It also strengthened her authority as Queen.

The Religious Settlement was planned by Elizabeth I and her chief adviser, William Cecil. They Once Elizabeth had approved the proposals, Parliament passed them into law in 1559 through the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity, establishing the Church of England under Elizabeth's leadership.

The Act of Supremacy made Elizabeth the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. She chose the title "Supreme Governor" instead of "Supreme Head", as some people believed only Christ could be the Head of the Church, and others objected to a woman holding that title. It was a clever compromise to try and appease both factions.

The Act of Uniformity required churches to use an updated Book of Common Prayer. People were expected to attend Church of England services each Sunday. Anyone who didn’t attend without a good reason could be fined.

Elizabeth's Church became known as a middle way. It was Protestant in its beliefs, had services held in English, but it also kept some of the traditional features. This included bishops, church music and certain ceremonies. Elizabeth hoped this compromise would be acceptable to as many people as possible.

But, the Religious Settlement did not end religious conflict. Some Roman Catholics refused to accept Elizabeth as head of the Church, they still believed that the Pope was head. Some Protestants believed her reforms did not go far enough. This caused friction. Throughout her reign, Elizabeth faced religious plots, opposition and continued tension.

Even so, the Religious Settlement brought greater stability than England had experienced for many years and it laid the foundations of the Church of England that still exists today.

Do you think that Elizabeth's compromise was the best way to try and keep England united, or was religious conflict impossible to avoid?

Elizabeth I's First Days as Queen: The Decisions That Shaped Her Reign

Elizabeth I's First Days as Queen: The Decisions That Shaped Her Reign

Today I want to find out what happened during Elizabeth I's first days as Queen. After years of imprisonment and constant danger, she suddenly found herself ruling England at only twenty-five years old.

Elizabeth learned that Queen Mary I had died on the 17th of November 1558 while she was at Hatfield House. 

Although Elizabeth appeared calm and confident in public, it is quite possible that she felt nervous. She had spent much of her life watching people around her fall from power. Her mother, Anne Boleyn, had been executed when Elizabeth was only two years old. She had seen queens imprisoned, nobles executed and religious beliefs change with each new monarch. She knew better than almost anyone that wearing the Crown did not guarantee her safety.

Rather than rushing into massive dramatic changes, Elizabeth was careful. One of her first decisions was to keep the government functioning by confirming that most of Queen Mary's officials could remain in their posts temporarily. This avoided any panic and showed that England would continue to be governed in an orderly way while she chose the people she really trusted.

Within weeks she started appointing her own advisers. Her most important choice was William Cecil as her Principal Secretary. Cecil became one of her closest and most trusted advisers for decades. She also appointed trusted nobles and experienced administrators to the Privy Council, deliberately making it smaller than it had been under Mary. Elizabeth wanted loyal, capable advisers, but she made it clear that any final decisions would always be made by her.

Elizabeth also chose to make London the centre of her government. She still continued to visit other royal palaces around the country, but she established her principal court at the Palace of Whitehall, where she could oversee government, meet ambassadors and remain close to Parliament. Its central location next to the River Thames and close to Parliament made it an ideal base.

Elizabeth was faced with several urgent challenges during her first few months on the throne. She ordered a review of the finances, because she had inherited a country that was burdened by debt after years of war and heavy spending. Religion also needed to be handled carefully. Rather than introducing any immediate changes, Elizabeth took a cautious approach. She allowed time for Parliament to establish a religious settlement and made only small changes to church services. Ambassadors from across Europe also pressed the question of her marriage, hoping she would strengthen political alliances by choosing a husband. Elizabeth listened to the proposals but she refused to be rushed, she was determined that such an important decision would remain entirely her own. Meanwhile, preparations began for her coronation on the 15th of January 1559. The ceremony and the grand procession through London were carefully organised, and Elizabeth’s warmth towards the cheering crowds helped to create a strong bond with her people from the very beginning of her reign.

Many powerful men expected that, because she was a young unmarried woman, they would be able to influence or even control her. Foreign rulers hoped that she would marry one of their relatives, some English nobles believed that a husband should govern in her place. Elizabeth quickly proved them wrong. She listened carefully to advice but rarely allowed anyone to dictate her decisions. She understood that being underestimated was sometimes one of her greatest strengths.

Being a woman and a monarch presented her with unique challenges in the sixteenth century. Many people believed that women were naturally unsuited to rule. But she famously declared that although she was a woman, she had both the heart and courage needed to rule her country. 

The reaction across much of England was positive. After years of religious conflict and uncertainty, many people hoped that the young Queen would bring greater stability. Large crowds welcomed her as she travelled towards London for her coronation, and many believed that a new chapter was starting.

It is impossible to know exactly how much Anne Boleyn influenced Elizabeth's decisions, as Anne died when Elizabeth was very young. But, Elizabeth never forgot who her mother was. Anne had been intelligent, highly educated and politically aware, and Elizabeth inherited many of those same qualities. She knew how quickly her mother's fortunes changed, so Elizabeth may also have learned an important lesson. She trusted carefully, thought before acting, and never allow others to control her.

Elizabeth's first days as Queen were remarkable. It showed many of the qualities that defined her forty-four-year reign. She remained cautious but decisive, she was willing to listen but she was determined to rule in her own way. Those first decisions laid the foundations for one of the most famous reigns in English history.

Do you think that Elizabeth's difficult childhood helped her to make her one of England's greatest monarchs?

The Extraordinary Day Elizabeth I Became Queen of England

The Extraordinary Day Elizabeth I Became Queen of England

Imagine spending years under suspicion...only to wake up one day to find out you were now Queen of England. That is exactly what happened to Elizabeth on the 17th of November 1558.

Elizabeth I

Today I want to take a look at the day Elizabeth I became Queen of England and how her life changed forever.

Tower of London

On the 17th of November 1558, 25-year-old Elizabeth was living at Hatfield Palace in Hertfordshire when news arrived that her half-sister, Queen Mary I, had died after a long illness at the age of 42. She had reigned for just over 5 years.

Elizabeth I

Mary had been seriously ill for several weeks before her death. She had suffered two phantom pregnancies during her reign, which left her physically and emotionally drained. The exact cause of her illness is unknown, but historians believe she may have died from influenza, pneumonia or an underlying illness such as cancer.

Mary I

Elizabeth was not with Mary when she died. The sisters had shared a difficult relationship for many years. After Wyatt's Rebellion in 1554, Mary suspected Elizabeth of supporting the plot to overthrow her. Although no evidence was ever found against her, Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower of London for about two months before she was moved to Woodstock Palace, where she stayed under house arrest for about a year.

Hatfield House

Eventually, Mary allowed Elizabeth to live at Hatfield Palace. She was no longer a prisoner, but she was still kept under close watch and she also needed to get permission to travel. Hatfield had become her main residence during the final years of Mary's reign, so it was there that she waited as Mary's health steadily declined.

When Mary died, members of the Privy Council, including Sir William Cecil, travelled to Hatfield to tell Elizabeth that she was now Queen of England. It is believed that Elizabeth walked into the palace gardens, knelt beneath an oak tree and quoted Psalm 118:23:

"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes."

In a single moment, everything changed for Elizabeth. She had spent years living under suspicion and uncertainty but now found herself ruling a country that was deeply divided by religion, facing financial difficulties and threatened by powerful enemies.

The news spread across England, but the reaction was mixed. Many Protestants celebrated Elizabeth’s accession, they hoped she would bring an end to the religious persecutions of Mary’s reign. Many Catholics, mourned Mary’s death and feared that England would again move away from the Catholic faith. For most ordinary people, the greatest hope was simply that the new queen would bring peace and stability.

For the six days she stayed at Hatfield, she received members of the Privy Council, welcomed nobles and ambassadors, held her first meetings with advisers and also began making important decisions about her new reign. Although she had only just become queen, the work of governing England had already begun.

Six days after becoming queen, on 23rd of November 1558, Elizabeth made her way to London. There were crowds lining the streets to welcome her, and she took up residence in the Tower of London. Just four years earlier she had entered the Tower as a prisoner. Now, she returned as Queen of England. How dramatically her fortunes had changed!

Against all expectations, Elizabeth would reign for almost 45 years. Her reign became known as the Elizabethan Age, it is remembered for its relative stability, flourishing culture, exploration and some of England's greatest achievements.

How do you think Elizabeth felt that she had survived Mary's reign? 

Do You Think You Could Survive Tudor Beauty Standards? They Were Brutal.

Do You Think You Could Survive Tudor Beauty Standards? They Were Brutal

Today I want to take a look at Tudor beauty standards and how people in Tudor England viewed physical appearance.

Beauty has always, and no doubt will always be influenced by society. In Tudor England things were no different. What people considered attractive during this period was often influenced by wealth, status, religion, fashion, and even politics. Looking beautiful was not just about vanity. For many people, their appearance could actually affect their marriage prospects, social standing, and even how others judged their character.

Image info:

The "Darnley Portrait" of Elizabeth I 

Date: 1575

In the early Tudor period, during the reign of King Henry VII beauty standards were still  influenced by the late medieval world. A fuller figure was seen as desirable, especially for women. Soft curves suggested they were in good health, fertile, and, importantly, they had access to plenty of food. Ordinary people struggled to eat well, so a fuller body showed wealth and security. Pale skin was also very highly prized. If your skin remained fair and untouched by the sun, it suggested you did not have to work outdoors in the fields.

For Tudor women, a smooth pale complexion quickly became one of the most desired features. Many women tried to protect their skin from the sun by wearing hats, hoods, or veils outdoors. Some even used homemade mixtures made from things like egg whites, rosewater or herbs to soften the skin. Beauty ideals often favoured the wealthy because they were easier for the wealthy to achieve.

Image info:

Elizabeth of York

Artist: After Meynnart Wewyck

Date: 1470-1498

Tudor court records suggest some ordinary people were criticised for dressing above their social rank. Tudor sumptuary laws under Henry VIII, restricted who could wear luxurious fabrics and decorations. Even poorer households sometimes owned ribbons, caps, combs, or mirrors. They most likely used simple homemade remedies. But for most poorer people, survival mattered far more than fashion.

During the reign of Henry VIII, fashion and beauty became almost synonymous with the royal court. Courtly appearance was hugely important. Clothing and fabrics became richer and more luxurious, and grooming was much more important. For women, an ideal face often included high cheekbones, a small mouth, rosy lips, and a high forehead. That high forehead became so fashionable that some women plucked or shaved back their hairlines to make their foreheads appear larger. It was seen as elegant and refined. Portraits of women like Elizabeth of York and later Elizabeth I show this fashionable high forehead, but portraits were often idealised. It may seem strange, but beauty trends evolve and often involved sacrifice.  Eyebrows were often thinned or plucked too, not so different from today.

Image info:

Elizabeth 1

Artist: Nicholas Hilliard

Date: 1573-1575

Walker Art Gallery

Hair colour was also important. Blonde or reddish-gold hair was hugely admired, partly because lighter hair was associated with being young and beautiful. Some women tried to lighten their hair using the sun or mixtures that contained really harsh ingredients like saffron or lye to help bleach it, sitting in the sun to strengthen the effect. Some historical recipes also used ingredients like lemon juice or vinegar. The process could dry out and damage the hair.

 

Men also had beauty expectations, although they were different. A handsome Tudor man was expected to look and be strong, broad-shouldered, and confident. Physical strength suggested power and authority. Well-groomed facial hair became fashionable during parts of the Tudor era, especially beards in the later years of Henry VIII’s reign. Rich clothing, broad shoulders created by padded garments, and a commanding posture all helped create an image of masculinity and status.

Beauty standards shifted once again during the reign of Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth had an enormous influence on fashion and beauty. After surviving Smallpox in 1562, she was left with facial scars. She started to wear heavy white face makeup. It is debated as to whether it was to cover them up or because pale faces were already popular. This created the famous pale face look that is now associated with the Elizabethan court. Many women copied her and a white face became fashionable. They often used a cosmetic called Venetian ceruse also known as “Spirits of Saturn", which was made with white lead and vinegar. It created the sought after smooth pale appearance, but it was so incredibly dangerous and slowly poisoned them.

Rosy cheeks were also considered attractive in Tudor England because they gave the impression of being young and healthy and they were bold against the pale complexion. Some women got this look by pinching or rubbing their cheeks but recipes and trade records show that wealthier women used pigments made from plant dyes. It is believed that some may have even used crushed insects such as cochineal to add extra colour.

Behind the elegance and fine dresses, the lengths women especially went to in order to meet these high beauty expectations make me think there must have been some insecurity, or at the very least a great deal of pressure. We cannot know exactly how Tudor women felt, but the popularity of cosmetics, harsh beauty treatments, and even dangerous products suggests that appearance mattered a lot. Many people were likely comparing themselves to ideals they could never reach, just as people often do today.

 

Do you think the pressure to look “perfect” was easier or harder in Tudor times than today?

 

Tomorrow I will be finding out more about Tudor fashion by looking into what they wore. 

The Royal Progresses Of Elizabeth I And The Pressure They Brought To Tudor England

The Royal Progresses Of Elizabeth I And The Pressure They Brought To Tudor England

Yesterday I wrote about what ordinary people may have thought of the Tudor monarchs, and I mentioned the royal progresses of Queen Elizabeth I. Today I want to find out a little more about what these progresses actually involved and how towns and villages prepared for them. They were not simply glamorous journeys of pageantry. For many ordinary people, a royal progress could bring with it excitement, fear, opportunities and a huge amount of pressure.

Royal progresses became especially important during the Tudor period. Rather than staying permanently in London, Tudor monarchs travelled around the country with large households made up of courtiers, servants, guards, musicians, cooks, and officials. Henry VIII travelled widely, partly because he enjoyed hunting and magnificent displays of royal power, but also because rulers needed to be seen by their subjects. In an age without newspapers, photographs, or television, many people would never see their monarch in person in any other way. A visit from the king or queen could therefore feel almost unbelievable.

By the reign of Elizabeth I, royal progresses had become carefully planned political events. Elizabeth travelled across southern England for many summers, staying at the homes of nobles and wealthy courtiers. This allowed her to display her royal authority but it also reduced some of the financial strain that came with feeding the enormous royal household at court. Noble families would often spend huge amounts of money in order to prepare for her arrival. Hosting the queen could improve status and influence, so they took full advantage. But if you failed to impress her you could be humiliated and it could even be politically damaging.

Preparations for a royal progress usually began weeks or even months ahead of time. Roads might need to be repaired, buildings cleaned, and the decorations prepared. Local officials would have worried about the organisation and the expense. Villages and towns could suddenly find themselves responsible for feeding hundreds of people and providing accommodation for royal servants, horses, carts, and guards. Fresh food, ale, candles, firewood, and bedding all had to be found. For poorer communities this could cause real anxiety because the costs were sometimes so overwhelming.

Despite all of the pressure, many people probably still felt a level of excitement. Church bells would ring out when the monarch was approaching. Crowds gathered along the roads in the hopes of getting a glimpse of the royal procession.

It may well have been a time that children remembered for the rest of their lives. Some towns organised plays, music, speeches and huge elaborate welcomes that were filled with symbolism praising the monarch. One famous progress happened in 1575 when Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, hosted Elizabeth for nearly three weeks at Kenilworth Castle. The entertainment was extraordinary. There were fireworks, bear baiting, hunting, dancing, musicians, masques, and large outdoor performances. Actors that were dressed as characters from classical mythology greeted the queen, and there were dramatic speeches praising her wisdom and beauty. At one point, a performer pretending to be the “Lady of the Lake” appeared on the water to welcome Elizabeth. Dudley spent a fortune on the visit, partly because many people believed he still hoped to marry her. People understood that the queen’s reaction mattered greatly.

Not everyone welcomed progresses as warmly though. While the nobles might compete for royal favour, ordinary labourers most likely resented the extra taxes, additional labour demands or the rising prices they had to pay to fund the visit. Inns became overcrowded and supplies would quickly disappear. Some villagers may have been worried about saying or doing the wrong thing in front of royal officials.

For a short time, the ordinary villages and market towns of England were transformed by the glitzy world of Tudor royalty.

Do you think that you would have felt excitement or would you have been worried about the disruption and expense it would bring?

Image info:

Artist: Attributed to Robert Peake the Elder

Date: 1600

Procession portrait of Elizabeth I

The Mysterious Death of Amy Robsart and the Tudor Scandal That Shocked England

The Mysterious Death of Amy Robsart and the Tudor Scandal That Shocked England

The Mysterious Death of Amy Robsart

Today I want to tell you about one of the most talked about scandals of the Tudor period. The death of Amy Robsart. It very quickly became one of the most intriguing mysteries of Elizabethan England and it still raises so many questions today.

Amy Robsart was born in 1532 into a wealthy Norfolk family. In 1550, when she was still only a teenager, she married Robert Dudley, the son of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Does that name sound familiar? At first their marriage seemed promising. They were young, well connected, and they moved in powerful circles close to the Tudor court. But England was politically dangerous during those years. When Robert’s father aided in an attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne in 1553, after the death of Edward VI. the plan failed and Robert Dudley was imprisoned in the Tower of London and Amy’s future suddenly became dangerous.

 His father, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, was executed for treason and Robert stayed in prison for about a year, from 1553 until 1554.

Robert was eventually released because Mary’s government no longer saw him as a major threat once her rule was secure. Philip II of Spain, who was preparing to marry Queen Mary, also encouraged mercy towards some of the prisoners. After his release, Robert slowly rebuilt his position by showing loyalty at court, although the Dudley family name was still badly damaged. He and Amy lived a much quieter life than before, and money was often tight.

Everything changed in 1558 when Elizabeth I became queen. Robert had known Elizabeth since they were children, and she brought him in close to her court, giving him the role of Master of the Horse. This meant he spent a lot of time with the queen, and rumours, as they inevitably do, soon spread that their feelings towards each other were more than friendship. Elizabeth trusted him and there were not many people she could truly rely on and trust, so he meant a lot to her. Rumours spread across court that the queen might even marry him. But there was one major obstacle standing in their way. Robert was already married to Amy.

Amy was living mostly away from court and historians still debate as to why. Some believe she preferred the countryside while others think she may have been deliberately kept distant as Robert’s influence with Elizabeth grew.

On the 8th of September 1560, Amy was found dead at Cumnor Place near Oxford. She was lying at the bottom of a staircase with a broken neck. The news spread quickly and suspicion that it was not an accident was rife. Some people suspected that Robert Dudley may have arranged her death so that he could marry Elizabeth. Others thought that it was political enemies. There were even rumours that Amy had been unhappy.

An official inquest was carried out and the jury concluded that Amy had died through an accidental fall down the stairs. Modern historians have also suggested she may have suffered from breast cancer, which could possibly have weakened her bones or caused her to become dizzy. But the timing of her death seemed to be far too convenient for many people to accept. Even though there was no evidence to prove that it was murd*r, the scandal damaged Robert Dudley’s reputation permanently.

For Elizabeth I, the situation very quickly became politically dangerous. If she married Dudley after Amy’s death, many people would probably have believed he had killed his wife to get close to the throne. The gossip and suspicion surrounding the case may also have helped to influence Elizabeth’s later decision never to marry at all.

Today the death of Amy Robsart remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of Tudor England. 

Was it truly a tragic accident, or was there something darker hidden behind the walls of Cumnor Place? And how different might English history have been if Amy had lived? Or if Dudley had married Elizabeth? So many questions!

Image info:

Date: 1877

Author: William Frederick Yeames

Washington A. Roebling II: The Racing Pioneer Lost on Titanic at Just 31

Washington A. Roebling II: The Racing Pioneer Lost on Titanic at Just 31

I have been learning about some of the people who were on board the Titanic, and I came across Washington Augustus Roebling II. He was born on the 25th of March 1881 in Trenton, New Jersey, into a family known for engineering and industry. His grandfather, John A. Roebling, had a connection to one of America’s most famous bridges, the Brooklyn Bridge.

He attended the Hill School in Pennsylvania, where he was good at athletics, before joining the family wire-rope business. But he did not stay there. He was attracted to the excitement of the new and rapidly developing world of automotives. By 1909, he helped reorganise the struggling Walter Automobile Company, which became the Mercer Automobile Company. As general manager, he worked with French designer Étienne Planche and personally tested cars, even racing them.

In early 1912, he travelled through Europe with friends, driving across Italy and France. When the time came to return home, they boarded Titanic as first-class passengers. During the disaster, he was seen helping women from the Bonnell and Wick families into a lifeboat, calmly reassuring them they would soon be reunited.

He sadly did not survive, and his body was never recovered. His family briefly hoped he had been saved. He was only thirty-one, a man of ambition and energy, caught at the height of his life.

I wonder, in those final moments, was he still believing everything would be alright, or did he simply choose calm for the sake of others?