Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Mock Tudor
I hated the 1998 movie Elizabeth, and I don't expect to think much of the sequel, Elizabeth: The Golden Age. So I'm pleased to report that Turner Classic Movies will be airing an antidote tonight: John Ford's Mary of Scotland, based on Maxwell Anderson's play of the same name. I'm not ordinarily a fan of Ford's Old World pictures, and I can't say this one is a particularly good film in itself. Nor is it very accurate as history. But it's the one Hollywood movie I'm aware of that presents Elizabeth I as a villain, an approach so rare that I'll recommend it on those grounds alone.
I figure that as an Irishman, Ford hated the English. Either that, or he decided deriding a beloved English heroine might make up for all the roles he would give to Victor McLaglen, the Steppin Fetchit of Irish America.
Mary of Scotland airs at 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, when it kicks off 24 hours of historical biopics. But if you're a hard-core Elizabeth-hater, you should turn off TCM when the movie is done and rent the second season of Blackadder, with Miranda Richardson playing the queen as a ditsy twit.
robc|10.15.07 @ 10:07AM|#
just watched the BlackAdder season II Dvd from netflix last
week.
Heads is my probably my favorite episode of the whole series.
|10.15.07 @ 10:20AM|#
To libertarian eyes, which monarch was not a villain?. Her predecessor, Mary Tudor, burned at least 300 heretics for holding that bread and wine was symbolic of Christ, not actually Christ. If anything, I think the Brits are happy with Elizabeth having kept England independent of the Catholic French and Spainards by ultimately refusing to marry one or another Princes put forward for her.
|10.15.07 @ 10:25AM|#
I like the Stuarts. Scots who came down and undermined the
English monarchy. On purpose, if you ask me.
Elizabeth I was a fascinating historical character, but she was an
absolutist. Just like her dear Pa-Pa.
|10.15.07 @ 10:47AM|#
A villain compared to which available alternative, Jesse?
You surely know by now that politics being the art of the possible,
she can only be judged a villain if the alternatives were
better.
|10.15.07 @ 10:55AM|#
I saw "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" last week. Don't waste your money. It was either not historical enough or not fictional enough -- and either way, it wasn't good writing nor good acting.
Mad Max|10.15.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Jesse Walker,
Congratulations, I'm glad to hear you support the legitimate,
Catholic queen Mary Stuart over the heretical usurping bastard
Elizabeth
dhex|10.15.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Either that, or he decided deriding a beloved English
heroine might make up for all the roles he would give to Victor
McLaglen, the Steppin Fetchit of Irish America.
goid bliss ye, mistar wawker!
Syloson of Samos|10.15.07 @ 11:30AM|#
At best Elizabeth I ran what would be called a "police state"
these days.
Pro Libertate,
The Stuarts have a mixed record; for example, at times as his
fortunes changed Charles II was either a champion of religious
liberty or its opponent. Of course it could be argued that the
radical Whigs forced Charles' hand, that he would have much rather
tolerated a far greater degree of religious liberty than many
elements of British (a problematic term even at this point)
political society would have ever allowed for.
|10.15.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Mary Stuart
1) Murdered her husband.
2) Made war on her people
3) Participated in at least three plots against Elizabeth during
her exile in England.
Elizabeth Tudor:
1) Made war on the Irish.
2) Oppressed the English Catholics
3) Had her last lover's head cut off.
Neither of them very nice.
OTOH:
Elizabeth was an effective ruler who took over a country on the
verge of civil war and made it one of the great powers of Europe.
England prospered during her reign.
Mary caused civil war in her country, lost her throne and
essentially turned Scotland over to the rule of the Presbyterian
church. The Scots Liards were virtually unchecked during Mary's
reign.
Brian Sorgatz|10.15.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Blackadder's second "series" (i.e. season) is fun. But the third series has libertarian food for thought. The prince regent, the future King George IV (Hugh Laurie of House), loves to go to the theater. But he's so stupid, he always thinks the murder and mayhem on stage are real, not made up. It seems to me that claims that video games make people violent, porn causes rape, advertising causes materialism, etc., treat us all like stupid Prince Georges.
|10.15.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Of course Elizabeth was a bloody-handed absolutist - it was the 16th century. But until we have a national leader who is a religious moderate by the standards of their contemporaries, doesn't start wars they don't need to, and goes light on the judicial torture, perhaps we shouldn't throw stones, yes?
|10.15.07 @ 12:08PM|#
...and made it one of the great powers of Europe.
England was a second-tier power at her death. Basically Spain was
still the primary European power.
|10.15.07 @ 12:14PM|#
As someone said at Hollywood Elsewhere, they were waiting for
the moment in the trailer of Elizabeth: The Shower of a Golden Age
for Elizabeth's hand to be cut off in battle, and for her to
replace it with a grenade launcher.
Fortunately, an antidote is no further than the HBO two-part
Elizabeth with Helen Mirren, which does a great job of showing her
as teetering atop a constantly shifting court jockeying for
position, and torn by the conflict between her emotional needs and
the fact that people like Essex who got close to the woman
invariably got drunk on the prospect of power instead and went down
in flames. Not sure if that is any truer than all the other
Elizabeths, but it seemed new next to all the icy virgin queens
before her.
Franklin Harris|10.15.07 @ 12:27PM|#
And now, Part 1 of "The Death of Mary, Queen of Scots"...
"Are you Mary, Queen of Scots?"
"I am."
*thunk, rattle, hammer, saw, clank*
|10.15.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Mike G,
I liked the HBO miniseries as well. I thought the portrayal of
Elizabeth was much better than in other recent efforts.
|10.15.07 @ 12:51PM|#
A point of clarification / disagreement:
Victor McLaglen is NOT the Steppin Fetchit of Irish America. Unlike
Steppin Fetchit, who is reviled by most African-Americans,
McGlaglen was (and is) generally well-liked.
That damnable, silly leprechaun mascot of the University of Notre
Dame is reviled as a disgusting stereotype, and is probably the
closest equivalent.
|10.15.07 @ 1:08PM|#
"And then that disgrace to humanity, that pest of society,
Elizabeth. Who, murderous and wicked Queen that she was, confined
her cousin, the lovely Mary Queen of Scots, for nineteen years, and
then brought her to an untimely, unmerited, unscandalous death.
Much to the eternal shame of the Monarchy, and the entire kingdom."
- Fanny Price, Mansfield Park (the movie*)
*I don't recall this particular passage being in Jane Austen's
wonderful novel.
|10.15.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Basically Spain was still the primary European
power.
By Elizabeth's death, Spain was in severe decline. Parma had
retired in 1592 and Medina-Sidonia had known that the Armada was
incapable of destroying the English fleet. The expulsion of the
Jews and Moriscos in 1492 had deprived Spain of much of its middle
class. The gold of the Americas had gone into the hands of the
Church and the Nobility and the inflation that resulted had
completed the job of decimating the Spanish middle class. The Dutch
became independent. After 1600, Spain did have some influence in
Italy for a time, but even that quickly faded. By 1650, Spain was
no longer a major power.
The primary power was France, which had been ably restored by Henri
IV - who was, incidentally, a fervent admirer of Elizabeth's
abilities as a monarch.
The English were rising, but were not yet the dominant power. The
Dutch and Sweden were also rising. Due to the interference of the
French and the Austrians, the Italian states were divided and no
longer played a major role.
The primary rival the French was the Austrians, but they were
preoccupied with the Turks, so the French were essentially
unrivalled at the time.
|10.15.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Pro Libertate | October 15, 2007, 10:25am | #
I like the Stuarts. Scots who came down and undermined the English monarchy. On purpose, if you ask me.
I agree, although I doubt it was intentional. For sheer stupidity, ineptitude and feeklessness, the English Stuarts have few rivals. Their lack of ability allowed Parliament to gain supremacy and set the stage for the English Bill of Rights.
The one merit the Stuarts did have was that they were tolerant (for their time.)
|10.15.07 @ 1:36PM|#
If I didn't think certain habitues of this board proud of their
Scottish heritage would blow a gasket, I'd characterise the Stuarts
as a wimp who sold out to the Spanish, a fool who deservedly lost
his head, a fool who sold out to the French and a mediocre admiral.
But I won't.
The Eighty Years' War is one of the classic cases of a superpower
enthusiastically cutting its own throat. Too bad our current makers
of foreign policy studied polisci instead of history...
|10.15.07 @ 1:52PM|#
I'm proud of my Scottish heritage, and I think the Stuarts were poor rulers. Unless my joke about them trying to screw up the English throne was actually true.
|10.15.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Nah, I think they were just incompetent. Although they did contrive to inflict the House of Hanover on the English, which was a pretty diabolical stroke. (Poor Anne; five children, none who lived into their teens, and twelve - twelve! - still-births.)
|10.15.07 @ 2:01PM|#
. . . that disgrace to humanity, that pest of society,
Elizabeth. Who, murderous and wicked Queen that she was, confined
her cousin, the lovely Mary Queen of Scots, for nineteen years, and
then brought her to an untimely, unmerited, unscandalous
death.
Elizabeth didn't *want* to kill Mary; she was hoping that someone
would take the hint that Mary needed killing, like the similar hint
that Henry II let fall regarding Thomas Becket, and that Mary would
just end up dead. Unfortunately for Elizabeth, no one in her court
wanted to provide her with plausible deniability for this
particular killing, so she was forced to sign Mary's death warrant
to get the result she wanted.
|10.15.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Miranda Richardson is so hot.
Even (especially?) when she's saying things like, "Daddy always let
me take my little friends to the executions. If I wanted any of my
little friends executed."
|10.15.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Aresen,
By Elizabeth's death, Spain was in severe decline.
I do not agree. It was only with the Treaty of the Pyrenees that
France becomes the chief European power. If one had been living in
Europe in 1603 Spain would have looked and would have been the most
important power; able to throw armies up all over the continent and
present mortal danger to the Protestant powers.
|10.15.07 @ 2:04PM|#
If I didn't think certain habitues of this board proud of
their Scottish heritage would blow a gasket, I'd characterise the
Stuarts as a wimp who sold out to the Spanish, a fool who
deservedly lost his head, a fool who sold out to the French and a
mediocre admiral. But I won't.
Peachy
You needn't worry. My Scots ancestors were MacDonalds. The Stuarts
were d****d Lowlanders.
;)
|10.15.07 @ 2:06PM|#
James I and Charles II were quite competant monarchs,
particularly the latter given the near state of rebellion he was
constantly living in.
Seamus,
It is a quote from a movie.
|10.15.07 @ 2:09PM|#
In other words, that Charles II was able to maintain him crown until his death was in large part due to his own craftiness as a ruler. He was rather shrewd and had learned some significant lessons from the fate of his father as well as his experience fleeing from the New Model Army.
|10.15.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Of course it is also true that numerous of his subjects did not feel like living through the Civil War again or the dictatorship that eventually followed it.
|10.15.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Aresen,
I'm with you. Godforsaken Lowlanders.
S of S,
I find the Stuarts as a group unimpressive. James I was arguably
the best of the bunch, but he had some serious weaknesses and was
coasting on the goodwill and success of Elizabeth.
|10.15.07 @ 2:22PM|#
Pro Libertate,
Well, it depends on which "school" one belongs to on the matter of
his reign. I think in general he was rather good for the kingdoms
that he ruled.
|10.15.07 @ 2:26PM|#
One particular oddity is that the Stuarts produced two of the most religiously tolerant monarchs during the Reformation, but the judgment of history most often goes with the "winners" (who weren't the Stuarts).
|10.15.07 @ 2:41PM|#
S of S
Spain may have had the appearance of being a great power, but its
army was rotten. The Spanish economy was in tatters, reliant on
gold and silver from the Americas to support the Crown. They were
rebuilding their navy, but it never seriously rivalled the English
again. The Treaty of the Pyrenees was merely the certification of
the decline that had already taken place.
To borrow Mao's phrase, Spain was a Paper Tiger by 1600.
I agree that the Stuarts were tolerant. The Roundheads were far
more bigoted and, once Cromwell was in power, oppressive. James II
basically lost the throne because of ongoing Protestant bigotry in
addition to his own ineptitude.
|10.15.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Pro Libertate,
FWIW,
James I's career as a witch-hunter differs when it comes to where
he reigned.
|10.15.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Pro Libertate | October 15, 2007, 2:29pm | #
Unless you were a witch.
Peasants:
Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
Arthur:
Put the accused in a scale balanced by a feather. If she rises, she
is a witch, if she sinks she is not.
Witch is placed on scale. She rises.
Arthur:
Very well, you may burn the witch.
Peasants:
Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
|10.15.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Aresen,
A paper tiger is not feared the way Spain (and the Hapsburgs
generally) was feared in 1603 (the fact that numerous felt the need
to gang up on Spain illustrates that). Indeed, if one were involved
in the first phase of the Thirty Years' War one would have assumed
that it would gone in the favor of Spain and the Hapsburgs.
|10.15.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Ditsy twit she may be, but never forget that she had THE STOMACH OF A CONCRETE ELEPHANT!
|10.15.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Aresen,
Anyway, we are in apparent agreement that the decline gets underway
in the 17th century, I just see it as a result of Spain (and the
Hapsburgs generally overstretching themselves during the Thirty
Years' War). Then again, the war was more of a success for Catholic
forces than for Protestant, since it brought Catholicism back to
numerous regions of Europe which largely or partly turned
Protestant.
|10.15.07 @ 3:00PM|#
S of S
Yes, the French and English did gang up on Spain. But I still think
the strength of Spain was only apparent, not real. There were just
too many fundamental weakenesses in Spain for them to
prevail.
The fear was real, due to Spain's notorious intolerance and the
brutality of their forces. (The French and English were just as
brutal, but - typically for warring powers - each side only paid
attention to how evil the other side was.)
FWIW, the French hatred of the Hapsburgs continued right down to
Marie Antoinette - who was long after the apex of Hapsburg power.
Her Hapsburg ancestry was one of the reasons she was hated.
|10.15.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Syloson of Samos | October 15, 2007, 2:42pm | #
Pro Libertate,
FWIW, James I's career as a witch-hunter differs when it comes to where he reigned.
I read James I's (VI's if you are a Scot) Daemononlogie
when I was doing my final year of English Lit. It shows clearly why
he was called "the Wisest Fool in Christendom."
lunchstealer|10.15.07 @ 3:10PM|#
I'm waiting for Elizabeth III: Elizabeth Goes to Washington
Also known by the alternate "Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia"
title. "Elizabeth gets Croatan all over everybody's ass"
|10.15.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Aresen,
The English weren't formally involved in the Thirty Years' War. Now
France and Sweden (and some more minor powers) did eventually wage
war against the Hapsburgs, but that was deep into the Thirty Years'
War when Spain and the Hapsburgs were still garnering significant
military victories.
Anyway, it is a point of debate and I'll leave it at that.
|10.15.07 @ 3:11PM|#
I'm going to split the difference here.
Spanish power may have peaked as early as 1580-1585 (annexation of
Portugal to capture of Antwerp and Treaty of Nonsuch), but its
resources were so far out of everyone else's scale that it took
several decades of relative decline to lose its leading position.
(I would say Spain dropped the baton sometime between Nordlingen
and Rocroi.)
On the other hand, the Stuarts get nothing from me. (Except for
Anne - I have a sneaking fondness for her, for some reason.) James
I reduced the fleet to a shell, which wrecked the now unprotected
merchant marine, which cut deeply into revenue; a process which
pissed away all the gains made in the previous reign, hamstrung
English power in his own, and created the basis for disaster in the
next when Charlie boy tried to build a new navy without any money
in the treasury. One sorry specimen of a Scot.
(My own heritage is largely Irish Catholic, but I can't get too
worked up over the Tudor oppression of the island - it was my
Cambro-Norman ancestors who planted the English flag there to begin
with.)
|10.15.07 @ 3:47PM|#
S of S
OK
How about, instead of a rational debate, we fight about it?
Say, arquebuses at dawn?
;)
|10.15.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Lad, either challenge him with a claymore or with a rock. Anything else is unmanly.
|10.15.07 @ 4:04PM|#
There's nothing unmanly about a culverin. If you'll stand real close together now, not too far away...
Franklin Harris|10.15.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Miranda Richardson is so hot.
At least there is one uncontestable statement in this thread.
And if you do contest it, I'll chop your block of, won't I,
Nursie?
|10.15.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Let me take this opportunity to recommend these books about the world
of Elizabeth I and James I & VI. Fictional, but using mostly
actual characters and quite entertaining. The two out of print
Druid books are good, too, but unrelated to the topic.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the old BBC series Elizabeth
R starring Glenda Jackson. My father, a history professor,
always recommended that one as the most accurate film or TV version
of Liz. It shows both the human and the monarch. I'm especially
fond of the first two episodes that show her survival skills during
the reigns of her brother and sister. It's the most fascinating
period in English history to me; recent enough to still have
discernible effects, but far enough in the past to be a really
different world. Oh, and read the recommended books. I'm still
waiting hopelessly for another in the Robert Carey series.
|10.15.07 @ 4:28PM|#
I choose to fight like a sensible man - with heavy artillery.
Only fools and Scots get down in the muck with edged steel,
forsooth.
(Although someone bludgeoned with a culverin would be very, very
dead - and I'd hate to meet the creature that did the
bludgeoning.)
|10.15.07 @ 4:30PM|#
I am actually curious to hear Jesse expound on his reasons for disliking Elizabeth. As a Catholic, I despise Elizabeth's religious policy and the innocent people who suffered and died because of it (and I would love to see an Edmund Campion movie, as Mel Gibson was once supposedly contemplating making; Campion is a far better poster child for Catholicism than the flightly and overrated Mary Stuart). On the other hand, I can't help but be impressed by a monarch of notable courage and skill who presided over one of the few genuine Golden Ages of literature and chivalry. I tend to agree with Pope Sixtus V himself, who was rather in awe of Elizabeth and complained that if only she had been a Catholic she would have been the greatest monarch in Europe. (He also said, probably with tongue in cheek, that if only he and Elizabeth could have married, their children would have been so intelligent and clever that they could have taken over the world.)
|10.15.07 @ 4:57PM|#
"Sixtus V" is the best named Pope ever. I told my husband when we married I might consider converting if JPII were succeeded by Sixtus VII.
|10.15.07 @ 5:05PM|#
During a reign of forty-five years, the Elizabethan government
executed approximately 200 Catholics for treason, mostly due to
involvement with Mary Stuart or Spain or both (the majority of
deaths being in the peak crisis years 1581-1593.) It executed 4 for
being Catholics.
If you "despise" a religious policy with that kind of body count,
are there words to do justice to your feelings about the policy of
Philip II?
|10.15.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Mary Stuart always impressed me as showing what a dingbat could do if given royal power. She had to really work at getting overthrown and executed.
|10.15.07 @ 6:27PM|#
Syd Henderson
Let's not forget Nicholas II of Russia, Peter II of Russia, Louis
XVI, Edward III, Caligula and others too numerous to mention.
The only reason George III and IV didn't go to the block is that,
by their reigns, Parliament was too firmly in control and found
them useful as figureheads.
|10.15.07 @ 6:46PM|#
OOPS
Wrong Edward.
Edward II, who took it in the back end, not Edward III, who checked
out from the back end.
|10.15.07 @ 8:47PM|#
peachy: There certainly were genuine plotters against Elizabeth who deserved punishment, but whatever the official charge may have been, most of the executed were not involved in such plots - e.g., Campion, or the poet Fr. Robert Southwell, or the obscure Yorkshire laywoman Margaret Clitherow, the most famous of several laywomen specifically charged with "harboring priests" as their primary crime (and also, after accused Salem witch Giles Corey, the most famous victim of peine forte et dure). And I never said anything nice about Philip II (or Mary Tudor), but there is certainly no shortage of books and movies portraying them in a bad light.
|10.16.07 @ 1:42AM|#
I think we're arguing from different points. You've been focusing on the specific injustices; I've been focusing on the general theme of state security. And under the circumstances - with a papal bull of excommunication and deposition hovering in the background, multiple plots against the Queen's life, and an increasingly hot war against the very Catholic super-power of the age - one can understand a policy that led to Douai trained priests and those associated with them getting the short end of the stick... without necessarily endorsing it, mind you.
Technomad|10.16.07 @ 3:11AM|#
If the Popes had had the common sense to keep their big pie
holes SHUT about the English succession, I don't think Elizabeth
would have bothered the Catholics.
Frankly, I blame Henry I---Henry the Lion. If he'd named his
intelligent, talented bastard son Robert Fitzroy as his successor
after the White Ship went down with his only legitimate son,
William the Aetheling, instead of dragging his harridan of a
daughter home from Germany, where she was happy and contented as a
dowager Empress (and far, far away from Daddy) to marry her off to
a man she despised, the precedent for a bastard succeeding to the
throne would have been well set. If the Church objected, Henry
should have told them that since _he_ didn't have any input as to
who got to be Pope, they could keep their d*mn flytraps shut about
who was to be next King of England and Duke of Normandy. Among
other things, this would have prevented the Anarchy---"when Christ
and his saints slept."
|10.16.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Technomad: Interesting point, but since William the Conqueror himself was a bastard and no one (as far as I know) suggested that this precedent had any relevance 500 years later, I don't know if a second precedent from time immemorial would have done much good. (Of course, if Robert Fitzroy had succeeded to the throne, the whole history of England and royal marriages would have been different and Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would most likely never have existed, let alone succeeded to the throne.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245