Yes I agree with that Sharon.
Lady Princess yes you are right, that did happen in the film.
You have got to admit it was a very guty decision thart Elizabeth made. in not wanting the husband and the old 2.4 kids bit.
I rather think that by saying she was stagnant I mean barren born it was her way of not only making sure it would chase away any suitors who were just there for what they could get, but it was also her way of telling her council, that. what you see here is what you get I will not be a man’s play thing and I won’t have a child that can steal my thunder. I am the power and the glory. I rule here and I will rule alone, like it or lump it.
In some respects Elizabth in that way was like her father.. Henry Tulip was jealously protective of the limelight and hated it when someone else got more attention than him. For Elizabeth her court was her stage and her reign (brilliant as it was) was really a one woman show from beginning to end. Cecil, Dudley, etc were just bit parts in her show.

DuchessofBrittany said

Sharon said

She never put it to the test! I don’t believe Elizabeth knew or thought she might have been barren. She decided not to get married erego, no children. All of her decisions on marriage and childbirth were due to what she had seen in her lifetime. KP’s death during childbirth and her foolish husband’s flirting ways, KH and her mother losing their lives because of their husband, along with his need for a new wife every few years, and then her sister Mary’s failure to produce a child, put her off childbirth and marriage.

Last year, there was a programme on the history channel called “The Secret Life of…,” which feartured historical figures personal lives from the viewpoint of today’s celebrity culture. The adorable Suzannah Lipscombe was featured. One episode was about Elizabeth I. They joked that the celeb mags would claim Elizabeth never married because she was really a man! Of course, it highlighted the fact of a woman not marrying as cultural obscure. Suzannah did a wonderful job of explaining Elizabeth.

But, if one reads deeper, there are many rumors (all unfounded) that Elizabeth was a baby maker (Thomas Seymour, Robert Dudley, Robert Devereaux, Edward de Vere, who was her own son!). These claims are used to support he Prince Tudor Theory I and II, that claims Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford was really Shakespeare.

I share Sharon’s opinion of Elizabeth’s choice to remain unmarried. It was a brave and bold move, but one which guaranteed her absolute authority. I doubt any man she married would be willing to play second fiddle to her, and she was not going to let anyone take her birthright, again! I am sure this decision was not without its shortcomings, but I often wonder how Elizabeth’s life would have turned out had she married? It did not work out well for her sister.

There would always be trouble for Elizabeth if she had married. Because whoever she took for a husband, would always want to do something that was a no no. Look at Philip of Spain. Marriage to him was just another notch on his mast. He would have always and did work for Spain and the Catholic cause. England to him was just another bank of money to finance his wars. Elizabeth’s main prority from the start was England.
I agree her decision to not marry or have children was one hell of a risk, but it was a risk that worked. I think if push cme to shove and she was really left with no other option to marry then she would have, but not to produce children. She made her desicion that she wouls never have children when she was still a child herself.Yet I can’t help wonder what type of a mother she would have made?

The Other Boleyn Boy said

when Mary Queen of Scots gave birth to James I/VI, Elizabeth apparently sank to the ground and wailed, ‘The Queen of Scots is lighter of a fair son, and I am but a barren stock’. Some sources say this never happened, others it did, and to be truthful, we’ll never know for sure. But I also agree with ‘Boleyn’ – in those days how would they know?

The same could be said about KH. we all know that Henry and her had loud and noisy sex and yet there was no hint of a pregnancy. Could that be Henry’s fault? maybe, it does seem that could be possible and that tit took a while to get Jane pregnant. Maybe as illness overtook him and bear in mind he wasn’t a young man when he married K.H he could well be he was firing blanks.
However it could be said that K.H was barren, as she admitted as did Dereham, that they had had sex on numerous and sundry occations. It’s open to debate whether she had sex with Mannox or Culpepper personally I don’t think so, Mannox may of tinkered with her and possibly they may have anal sex but this is purely an opinion not a statement of fact with no basis. Culpepper I believe was just her shoulder to cry on and perhaps her advisor on howw to deal with Lard Lad when he was having a hissy fit or a temper tantrum.
K.H may of course used some rudimentary birth control method or even she herself was barren.

As for the words that Elzabeth may or may not of used when she found out that Mary QOS had had James, Hmmm? she might have said it perhaps for pure dramatic emaphasis, and to perhaps hammer home the point that she was never going to marry or have children. Elizabeth was under enormous pressure from her council to marry and produce an heir, I believe that in the court at the time there were several suitors all playing to wed and bed her. It was perhaps her way of telling them all to sod off. In fact I think that Elizabeth breathed a massive sigh of relief that she was probably rather glad that Mary had had James, because at least then she knew that England now had a suitable heir to the throne. James was after all of Tudor blood stock. If Elizabeth had been disappointed over the birth I don’t think she would have agreed to have been his Godmother or sent a costly gift of a silver bowl.

LadyPrincess said

The Other Boleyn Boy said

when Mary Queen of Scots gave birth to James I/VI, Elizabeth apparently sank to the ground and wailed, ‘The Queen of Scots is lighter of a fair son, and I am but a barren stock’. Some sources say this never happened, others it did, and to be truthful, we’ll never know for sure. But I also agree with ‘Boleyn’ – in those days how would they know?

I think in Elizabeth R. Glenda Jackson quotes that same line. Hers is definitely the best portrayal of Elizabeth imho. Who does everyone else think has played the best Elizabeth? (sorry if this has been asked/answered already). A lot of people seem to prefer Cate Blanchett’s portrayal but to me it was just OK – nothing spectacular. But my least favorite was Helen Mirren’s portrayal. She’s a good actress but I felt she was really playing herself and not that of Elizabeth.

Has to be Glenda Jackson for me. Her potrayal in Elizabeth the series and the film Mary Queen of Scots was brilliant I could just see Elizabeth, being like that.. Her mother’s wit and her father’s fire. a dangerous mix but boy was it a good one too.

Sharon said

LadyPrincess said

Sharon said

The Other Boleyn Boy said

when Mary Queen of Scots gave birth to James I/VI, Elizabeth apparently sank to the ground and wailed, ‘The Queen of Scots is lighter of a fair son, and I am but a barren stock’. Some sources say this never happened, others it did, and to be truthful, we’ll never know for sure. But I also agree with ‘Boleyn’ – in those days how would they know?

I have heard that quote before. The fact that she sank to her knees when she said this, and for me this is a big IF, makes me think that Mary’s joy caused Elizabeth great pain; but her pain IMO stems from the decision she made not to have children.

Hi Sharon

If E.R. really did say this then it could very well have been (as you stated) because she regretted not having children of her own.

But, it could also mean that she was afraid for the stability of her kingdom and her own position because Mary had given birth to a male heir.

Hi LadyPrincess,
When the announcement came that Mary was going to have a baby, there was much consternation amongst Elizabeth’s council. The birth added to the long running debate over the succession. She probably knew her council would start badgering her again. She was very angry and gave them hell when they refused to give her funds until she settled on an heir. After her remarks to them, they gave her the funds she wanted and stopped pushing her. Her council seemed to be more upset about the birth of Mary’s son and the succession than Elizabeth was. For Elizabeth, I think it was much more personal.

It’s also been said (whether it’s true or not I don’t know) that when pressured by her council to marry she countered on them just as her father would have done and “If I had been crested instead of cloven you would have never dared to speak to me thus” a somewhat coarse reference to her sex, but effective as they shut up for the moment on the subject of her marriage.
I agree James’s birth was a very personal issue for Elizabeth, it exposed her as being un-natural (loosely worded) in her desicion not to want to have children. whether she was capable of having them or not.
I still feel that he statement of “the queen of Scots is lighter of a fair son and I am but a barren stock” If she did say it and it’s open to debate, it was said for pure dramatic effect., to perhaps tell her council and her suitors both in court at the time and those who were thinking of paying a visit to England, that if they married her there would be no hope of children again whether she was capable or not, and that in short they would be wasting their time.. Sod off was the message I think we can deduce from that.

Lady Princess said:
She used him to gain an alliance with France, to silence her detractors, and I think to make Dudley a little jealous. She did write a poem for Francis so I do think she was very fond of him; perhaps more than she realized at the time. But again, I still do not believe she loved him. If she did she was strong willed enough to ignore her council’s objections and her own qualms and marry him. After all, that’s what Henry and Anne did. And she had many of the same personality traits that they had.

I agree but at the same time she must have learned what impetious natures could do to a relationship. Mary was determined to marry Philip come hell or high water, and all it earned her was the hatred of the people and the upmost contempt and loathing of Philip who only saw Mary as a money bank.
Henry and Anne’s relationship was all fire and brimstone literely, once they were married all that fire and brimstone slowly fizzled out. Elizabeth would have not know that of course being that she was barely 3 when her father killed her mother, but she would have seen but perhaps not quite understand what the situation was between her father and K.H when K.H’s past caught up with her. One day she would have seen her father playing the ever loving doting lover of a young vivacious vibrant woman. (we don’t really know how old K.H was when Henry killed her but I would place her age at around 18 or 19) The next day of course Elizabeth would have seen a very different attitude in her father one of anger, betrayal humiliation, bitterness, even perhaps jealously at the thought that someone else had soiled his perfect rose first.
I think it’s in Elizabeth the series that Glenda Jackson says “First there is Passion, then there is hatred, then death. She must have remembered that from the time of K.H’s downfall. She didn’t want to fall into the same trap she loved the thrill of the chase just as her father had done but was content to hunt and not capture her prey.
Elizabeth was the fire and brimstone of her father and mother passion for each other but she was also more far sighted then perhaps her mother and father were at the time. Henry’s passion for Anne was more to do with a son and heir. He forgave Anne for baring Elizabeth, only because he was so sure that his next child would be a son. If Anne had, had a son I doubt Henry would have killed her but I feel that Anne would have ended up as K.O.A was largely ignored and only brought out when ceremony dictated it.
Henry had got what he wanted a son.
The sad thing is that Anne truly loved Henry, but Henry’s love for Anne was fickle and was solely dependant on a son an heir.