The Lemon Fool

Thanks, great link. Funny you should raise the subject. Only last night, I was watching Simon Schama's 23 year old account of Elizabeth and the two Marys (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... -the-queen), and it struck me, as a mere sassenach, how much of this Mary's colourful wretched history had somehow passed me by. Or maybe I was just crap at schoolbook history? (I was.) Or too preoccupied with other teenage stuff at the time, or simply too confused by the two Marys to ever get round to sorting them out and looking at the story properly?

There, that's my public confession over. But I was a little surprised to read on BBC Scotland (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-59351881) that, among 2,000 British (not Scottish) interviewees:

51% did not recognise her portrait, over three quarters (77%) did not know Mary was held captive for 19 years, and 48% were unaware which century she ascended the throne. And nearly three quarters (73%) of the 2,000 interviewees did not know how many children Mary had.

To my eternal disgrace, I think I'd have scored zero on all those questions apart from the century. I vaguely knew about Darnley and his murder by Dudley, but somehow my mind had been elsewhere when it came to putting all the details of the story together. I suppose I must have been thinking, typical Tudor/Stuart history, treachery, executions, serial marriages, serial murders, exiles, France, yadda yadda yadda. More murders, more executions, another Mary or two, everybody desperate for male heirs, and some more murders just to keep the pot boiling. Like Game of Thrones without the dragons.

How very wrong I was! Must try harder. (And I will, I promise.) Although I'm still surprised that 49% of Britons would recognise Mary Queen of Scots from the portrait alone. I must try that out on the folk at the local bus stop.

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:Thanks, great link. Funny you should raise the subject. Only last night, I was watching Simon Schama's 23 year old account of Elizabeth and the two Marys (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... -the-queen), and it struck me, as a mere sassenach, how much of this Mary's colourful wretched history had somehow passed me by. Or maybe I was just crap at schoolbook history? (I was.) Or too preoccupied with other teenage stuff at the time, or simply too confused by the two Marys to ever get round to sorting them out and looking at the story properly?

There, that's my public confession over. But I was a little surprised to read on BBC Scotland (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-59351881) that, among 2,000 British (not Scottish) interviewees:

51% did not recognise her portrait, over three quarters (77%) did not know Mary was held captive for 19 years, and 48% were unaware which century she ascended the throne. And nearly three quarters (73%) of the 2,000 interviewees did not know how many children Mary had.

To my eternal disgrace, I think I'd have scored zero on all those questions apart from the century. I vaguely knew about Darnley and his murder by Dudley, but somehow my mind had been elsewhere when it came to putting all the details of the story together. I suppose I must have been thinking, typical Tudor/Stuart history, treachery, executions, serial marriages, serial murders, exiles, France, yadda yadda yadda. More murders, more executions, another Mary or two, everybody desperate for male heirs, and some more murders just to keep the pot boiling. Like Game of Thrones without the dragons.

How very wrong I was! Must try harder. (And I will, I promise.) Although I'm still surprised that 49% of Britons would recognise Mary Queen of Scots from the portrait alone. I must try that out on the folk at the local bus stop.

BJ

I think I recognised it, but would prefer a multiple choice of a,b,c.

Being forced to choose three A-levels when I was only 16 was a pain and I went into Science. The decision was very much influenced by our Biology and Chemistry teachers and the fact that there was huge unemployment, so I reckoned that Science was the safer bet.

But under the surface, my heart was closer to Literature and History. As well as having a schoolboy crush on our beautiful English teacher.

So this sort of thing always fascinated me and made me realise just how little we have changed over the years. The Protestant - Catholic problems were very real, but I remember reading a collection of news stories/diaries from Elizabethan times that showed how important diplomacy was for the ruling classes. Most of Europe was Catholic and the monarch often had to host distinguished visitors from Italy, Spain, France etc, so despite the official anti-catholic sentiment, this had to be hidden during the visits.

What always struck me most was the decision to execute that woman after so many years in prison - albeit a prison befitting a Queen.


Steve

PS This is only volume 3.

https://books.google.it/books?id=0QdFAQ ... &q&f=false

I'm sure the vol. 1 & 2 are out there but all my old links are dead.

The Elizabethan tabloid press?

Steve

stevensfo wrote:PS This is only volume 3.

https://books.google.it/books?id=0QdFAQ ... &q&f=false

I'm sure the vol. 1 & 2 are out there but all my old links are dead.

The Elizabethan tabloid press?

Steve

I think this is what you're looking for:-
The Elizabethan Journals by G.B. Harrison :

https://archive.org/details/elizabethan ... 2/mode/1up

Comprising:-
An Elizabethan Journal 1591 - 4
A Second Elizabethan Journal 1595 - 8
A Last Elizabethan Journal 1599 - 1603

++++

To be honest, I'm a bit confused by what archive.org has to offer. At the bottom of the page they show various other offerings, so anyone interested can check through them to pin down what they're after.