14 Comments

  1. These articles never research the info on Katherine Parr! They always throw Katherine Parr under the bus without even questioning where the info came from and from whom.

    The testimony and the statements accusing Parr of joining in Seymour’s antics came from Kat Ashley (Elizabeth’s governess) who was threatened to be tortured until she spoke up about Seymour and Parr.

    Katherine Parr had been dead for several months by the time Ashley was arrested and put in the Tower. Ashley knew that women were no longer spared from torture (i.e Anne Askew). The interrogators of Ashley were trying to implicate and charge Seymour after he had tried to marry Elizabeth again and kidnap Edward. Everyone had tired of his lunatic moves to take some power.

    When Elizabeth was staying with the couple, they were seated at Chelsea Manor–in what is now known as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The Manor was situated on the Thames and was close to several important establishments used by the Lord Protector and his council. At the time Ashley claims Parr was involved in Seymour’s damaging antics, Parr had a HUGE household with a lot of staff on watch. If Parr had participated in these acts, why did no one else contribute, with the SAME story? Ashley was the only one to speak of Parr is such a demeanour.

    We also have evidence that Ashley encouraged Elizabeth to play along with Seymour. Ashley told Elizabeth that she would be lucky to have such a man. This was ALL done while Seymour was still married to Parr. Evidence also states that Ashley was jealous and had a crush on Seymour — so the weight of her testimony … Is basically worth a grain of salt. Parr never had any inappropriate relations with her stepchildren recorded as described by Ashley. Parr had stepchildren from 1534 until her death in September of 1548. If she was not trustworthy, her second husband never would have left his daughter in Parr’s care. Also, King Henry never would have left Parr in control of everything while he was in France if he believed her to be a bad influence and what not. Her Regency during this time in her reign, could have become a permanent status if Henry had died in France–The behaviour fits Seymour, but not Parr.

  2. Hans van Felius

    Why did Elizabeth not get married? I have read most of these reasons before. And I am not convinced.

    Was the treatment of women, by her father, but also in other cases so threatening that she decided not to get married? As I said, I am not convinced. We humans have the capability to think that what happened to others will not happen to us, and to some extent, it is a good thing to think that way. So, unless we find evidence that Elizabeth was influenced by the treatment of her mother, all this is pure speculation. The only thing we do know is that during her life she had some items around in memory of her mother, and she seems to have been fond of some of her maternal relatives. But does this mean she was afraid to get married? As I said, no proof, and pure speculation…

    I am not convinced that the sorrow her sister had due to her phantom pregnancies made Elizabeth think again about getting married. Pregnancies were a risk, but a risk people had to live with. It was not a reason not to have sex or to stay single. More a fact of life I think…

    What I do find conceivable is that she realised the problems of marrying outside England, due to what happened during her sister’s reign. Yes, alliances can be cemented by marrying a foreign prince or princess. But taking into account the position of women in that age, and politics, marrying a foreign prince, and even a king in his own right as Philip was made, could mean being drawn into disputes that were not to the advantage of England. And that did happen during Mary’s reign. Apart from that, a foreign husband, a “stranger” was a liability. Could he accept that he was supposed to be number 2? In an age when officially men were supposed to be the number 1? It may have made her wary to marry a stranger…
    As she is said to have stated: her first duty and concern was to her country and her people.

    Would marrying in England have been a problem? We do know that in Henry’s case it did not always work out that well; people did not always like the Norfolk party being in the lead, and vice versa. Edward IV had problems due to his marriage to Elizabeth Wydville. But in the end most accepted the fact that the king was married to her. Marriage or no marriage, courts were always infested by strife. The Scottish and French courts were the living proof of that. The personality and wisdom of the monarch were important in that respect.
    I think it is plausible that Elizabeth some times considered marriage to Robert Dudley. But he was a married man, and once he was not married anymore, the situation he was in prevented her to go through with that (if she was considering it at that time). What we know about her relationship with him (all circumstantial), seems to point into the direction that he was a very important person in her life. She must at least have cared about him, possibly loved him (or even probably?).

    The “other man” Thomas Seymour was considered to be a very attractive man. Possibly she was attracted to the idea that he wanted her. She was a teen at the time, and possibly impressed by the idea. Was she in love, puppy love? We really have no idea. The evidence is scarce. I agree with Meg that we have no real evidence on what part Catharine Parr played. It seems rather suggestive that she sent Elizabeth away. It suggests a mother (stepmother) making certain that all temptation was gone. But suppose Elizabeth was infatuated, would that have been a reason not to get married? If we think that is the case, I am surprised that any person got (or gets!) married at all, or started a new relationship. I mean, I think it is safe to say that we all experienced something like that. I can say I did, and I got over it…

    All in all, I think that she was not against getting married at all, but circumstances made her staying single. Political cirumstances for the most part. Which does not mean “a virgin”. Virgin Queen is more a public relations thing…
    She may have been wary to get married outside England, and it is plausible that the Englishman she wanted was already taken. But I have to admit: that is pure speculation as well…

    • Elizabeth S.

      I really like the theory that “Elizabeth” was really “The Bisley Boy”, and that the true Elizabeth died as a young girl. Makes an excellent story, anyway!

    • Alison

      So Elizabeth was the most succesful ruler England ever had, because she was really a man. Otherwise she would have destroyed herself for a quick shag. Well it’s not like she thought of anything higher than her knickers, obviously.

      • LegalDoc

        For those even considering Elizabeth I was male – think Occam’s razor. There are at least a dozen reasons why she could never have pulled that off, not the least of which was that monarchs in her day had absolutely no privacy. They were bathed and dressed by servants.

        Half-sister Mary came close to having her executed to eliminate her as a rival. Exposing Elizabeth as an imposter and fraud would have given Queen Mary the perfect out!

        It is curious to me that rather than embracing the obvious, some would prefer to cling to the most far fetched. Elizabeth never married bc she did not wish to be subservient to ANYONE. Including a husband. She made statements to this effect on many occasions.

        Both Elizabeth and Cleopatra fall into the same category. Had they been male, each would have been acknowledged amongst the most capable (and intelligent) monarchs their respective countries had ever seen. How frustrating that must have been to one so gifted!

  3. Gina

    Interesting article, much to consider when reading about Elizabeth l because there was so much commotion and social drama going on inside the court circles, as you have illustrated. Nonetheless, a good read and still some left for the imagination.

  4. Jill

    Although it’s easy to understand her reluctance to marry from an emotional standpoint, she knew that by not producing heirs it would spell the end of the Tudor dynasty. I’d think that knowledge would be incentive enough to overcome her aversion to marriage. Not much point in having Mary Queen of Scots executed if you’re going to ultimately hand the crown to the Stuarts.

    I wonder what Henry would have thought. Elizabeth served the dynasty so well, even though Henry placed all-consuming importance on a male heir to the point of executing the future queen’s mother. Would he have been proud of her accomplishments or confounded by her decision to end the Tudor reign after a mere hundred years?

  5. I have never read any evidence of a relationship between Elizabeth and Robert Dudley prior to his marriage with Amy in 1550, and certainly nothing hinting that Robert had aspirations of marrying her at such an early age (Elizabeth was only 16 when Robert got married). Is there documentation that “Robert Dudley married Amy Robsart after he realized that Elizabeth would never marry him”? I’ve read a dozen or more Elizabeth biographies and never seen this.

  6. Miss Kitty

    Ive read a historical fiction book about young Elizabeth it said she actually had sex with him and was in love with him I think I agree with you guys Kat Ashley was an adult it was all her who held Elizabeth down and helped Seymour really Katherine Parr had no need to do any of that stuff she was a good person so she blamed the long dead Katherine who on her death bed was a bit nasty about Thomas kat Ashley wanted the throne for her charge any way she could they were very lucky that KP died

  7. Carol

    That’s all very interesting. I think she didn’t marry because she didn’t want to. If she wanted to marry Dudley she could have, but she didn’t want to. Not so complicated.

  8. Carol

    I think she didn’t marry because she didn’t want to. If she wanted to marry Dudley she could have, but she didn’t want to. Not so complicated.

  9. But she did marry: The evidence is indrect but there for those who are willing to understand her meaning when confessing her sins during her small pox illness. She had made Robert Dudley Lord Protector and instructed parliment to grant him 20,000 lbs sterling/year in case she died. Further her confession included the words: I have observed all the rights of the church in my life, meaning her children if any were born with a marriage contract. When Queen Victoria burned the proof of that marriage and who officiated at the Earl of Pembrook’s home it was because the first born daughter: Mary Sidney who married the Earld of Pembrook William Herbert handed that proof down to her descendant. The Good Queen burned it and James I paid the 40,000 debt of Sir Frances BAcon on condition he never seek the crown as was his right. BACON agreed and had all his debts paid by the Crown. Thus tow of at least 3 children are accounted for…Mary Sidney was raised by Dudley’s sister Mary Dudley-Sidney. Leaving a 3rd unknown child male born in November 1565 about the 22nd while the queen was in a 5 day reclusion….Lord Burleigh said it was due to SEASONAL AFFICTIONS…..sniff! DCR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight − 4 =