Marie v Elizabeth

Sometimes it sucks royally being Mary, Queen of Scots. Especially because it's very difficult arguing with Elizabeth and Anne simultaneously, and neither will ever admit they are wrong ... because they usually aren't. I seem to always be unpopular ...

Not always .... I like all the characters here for diffrent reasons but Marie is one of the most intresting, and one of the most fun to interact with. Bless her she is damned if she does and damned if she dont lol

Yep, that's pretty much it. It's hard not to feel sorry for her, and hate her at the same time. Sir Nicholas is fun too, but I can't help thinking any normal man would have ... err ... how to put this delicately ...

ravaged her senseless or kicked her ass to the curb ? Or both, not nessasarily in that order ? lol

He has been tempted on all counts but he is a man of honor, and his honor is his life. Can you tell that all my roleplaying experience has been in Dungens and Dragons? lol

Marie Stuart wrote:

It's hard not to feel sorry for her, and hate her at the same time.

I think that's my view of Mary Queen of Scots full stop. But I wonder how she would have gone on had there been a decent and loyal set of ministers to help her rule Scotland. People who believed in her, not people who just expected to be able to push her around and use her as an instument to press their religion.

Marie Stuart wrote:

it's very difficult arguing with Elizabeth and Anne simultaneously, and neither will ever admit they are wrong ... because they usually aren't.

LOL! That's one of the best things about being Elizabeth. She's always right. LOL! ...but she's damn hard to play in that she's supposed to be diplomatic, fast thinking and intelligent all the time. I wish she had some courtiers of her own about so she could let her hair down a bit and have more fun. Being surrounded by other monarchs sadly makes Elizabeth permanently in "business mode".

However "Elizabeth" is incredibly pleased with Marie's ruling of Scotland at present and thinks her coming along in leaps and bounds. She ist most proud of her cousin, and especially proud because of her being a fellow female monarch.

I think Marie needs loyal courtiers to give her support just as Elizabeth needs them to encurage her to have a bit of fun. We're the younger generation on here Marie, surrounded by grown ups made up mainly of my vast collection of step mothers.

@Elizabeth EXACTLY! I feel that if Mary had had Elizabeth's adivsors and luck Elizabeth would be the murderess/whore and Mary would be the wonderful Queen. And I'm happy "Elizabeth" is happy. Of course I'm blatantly using hindsight to improve her reign. By Executing her nobles, giving her money and a husband who is English and good advisor you solve all her problems. However, I have some problems with your Elizabeth. she seems to lack the actual Elizabeth blatant hypocrisy, back-stabbing, indecisiveness and cruelty. As a matter of fact I like your Elizabeth very much, which is a very strange feeling!

@ Nicholas I meant ravage her senseless, but the other one works as well. But no man would ever have kicked Marie Stuart to the curb. Even the ones who hated her were fascinated by her.

I see Elizabeth's indecisiveness as her greatest weakness... but it got her out of a lot of troubles too. There are a lot of people that a more decisive ruler would have had killed immediately - including Marie Stuart - and then brought war upon their realm because of it.

As much as she's portrayed as an axe happy "send them to the Tower" type in modern culture she often blanched a lot at having people arrested and killed. She risked her own life and the safety of her realm just because she was a little soft on certain people and loyal to certain families. She made everyone in these families prove fully how much of a threat they were before having them removed, but had any of them been successful she'd have been murdered. Examples being Thomas Percy (7th Earl of Northumberland), the Earl of Essex and Marie Stuart but there's loads more. She had all three put to death for treason in the end, but only after things had gone too far and often keeping them locked up for horrendous amounts of times when their fate was inevitable, all because she was willing a way for them to be proved safe and innocent to magically appear out of nowhere.

I see *that* as her greatest cruelty, that and stringing men like the Earl of Leicester along. The amount of times she cast him aside, ordered him around, shamed him in front of the court, had the courts of all Europe laughing at him and toyed with his affections to keep him close just on the off chance that one day she may change her mind and marry him. She loved him and he her, but in many ways she destroyed his masculinity and the position he'd worked so hard for under Mary's reign.

...not sure on "blatant hypocrisy and back-stabbing" though. You'll have to persuade me of those before I can portray them.

There's still no way Marie would have won against Elizabeth no matter how many fabulous ministers she had to advise her, and no way Elizabeth would have gone down as a murderess of a whore. Elizabeth was too careful, loved her subjects too dearly, inspired great love and loyalty in them.. and there's something about her that made many people risk their lives to keep her safe.

...and besides all else, Elizabeth was truly English whereas Marie was very French. People in Britain are still growly today that the monarchy has too much foreign blood so they'd never completely accept Marie unless she turned out to be the most phenomenal and most lovable monarch ever to exist.

I'm a major royalist, believe in the divine right and all that... but even I like it when the Royals "marry down" and get more English blood. Of course it helps that the English blood they're "marrying down" into (the Queen mother, Fergie, Diana) are descendants of the houses of Tudor, Howard, York and Lancaster.

I do agree, but the British people have accepted several foreign monarchs. Sure they've grumbled, but they've accepted them. And I do think that with good advisors Marie could have been loved. She was just as foreign and Catholic in Scotland and she won the common people over. Marie also inspired great love in her subjects, also compelled great loyalty in her (and even sometimes Elizabeth's) subjects and was careful, though not as much as she should have been. Your arguments are very thin.

Blatant hyposcrisy? Sure:

Beheading her own nobles for Treason while bribing Marie's into rebellion.
Advising Marie to be tolerant while making it harder and harder for Catholics
Talking about how much she loved Marie and imprisoning her, illegallly.
Talking about how much she loved her sister and rebelling against her.
Keeping tight morals in her court while having flagrant affairs.
Championing Protestants while refusing them military support.


You may be right about the back-stabbing though.

(this is all said in the way of discussion and in defence of Elizabeth so don't take it the wrong way and please pick holes in it if you see any as I love to learn and see things from other angles... but am exceedingly blinkered when it comes to my Bess)

Keeping tight morals in her court while having flagrant affairs.

Like hell she did! Take that back! D'you honestly think Elizabeth Tudor stupid enough to risk the safety of herself and her realm by getting herself pregnant while unmarried?! And she certainly wasn't going to risk getting married either and have a man take control of her and her throne as marriage meant nothing but death to her. She and many of her ministers were in constant fear that when she did marry the childbirth may kill her and leave the country with no ruler.

A deep love for the Earl of leicester and playful flirtation to keep her from feeling old and unloved with the Earl of Essex is not exactly "a string of flagrant affairs" now is it? think it possible she may have succombed to the Earl of Leicester if she'd totally lost her mind for a moment, but that's hardly an affair and I'm sure she'd freak out afterward at what she'd done.

Talking about how much she loved her sister and rebelling against her.

She did love her sister. She'd grown up with her sister there taking care of her and she believed in the act of succession that placed Mary before her.

Admittedly Elizabeth played a bit of a game with her willingness to learn about Catholicism but other than that she did nothing to defy Mary.

Rebellion? No chance! If Elizabeth threw Mary off the throne to take it herself she would only have someone else come and throw her off it later. And the very risk she'd take in any kind of involvement with a rebellion is rediculous and she was just too intelligent to do that. Unlike Mary she wasn't openly defiant to the monarch, didn't court conspirators against the monarch and didn't put her name to anything except please of her innosence.

Beheading her own nobles for Treason while bribing Marie's into rebellion.

It makes sense to bribe Marie's corrupt nobles into doing as she wished. They were a wrotten lot and someone needed to control them. The country was a complete and utter shambles. I see not why England should go to hell along with Scotland. Elizabeth and Cecil were but doing their best to make sure they were always on top and had some sort of control over the chaotic neighbouring realm full of *literally* mad scotsmen.

Advising Marie to be tolerant while making it harder and harder for Catholics

Making it harder in comparison to what? Mary's treatment of the Protestants? Edward's and Henry's treatment of the Catholics before her? Who did she destroy that wasn't plotting her death or harbouring those who wished her dead?

Talking about how much she loved Marie and imprisoning her, illegallly.

Bearing in mind Marie and her followers wanted Elizabeth's crown and weren't going to get it without murdering her, I'd do the same thing. ...the alternative of course being to offer marie no strong walls at all and have her own enemies kill her as she fled through England from them.

Championing Protestants while refusing them military support.

Now you've got me on that one. But with Elizabeth's mindset she could hardly be against the Protestant cause, but isn't going to be fond of the idea of spending the lives and money of her subjects on fighting for others. I can't think of a better way of dealing with that at all, can you? But then we don't have her brilliant mind do we?

(Absolutely! I love a good debate. I may fight you to the teeth over your love of Elizabeth, but you seem like a very nice woman and I have nothing at all against you personally. I am probably as biased about Marie as you are about Elizabeth)

1. I WILL NOT take that back! A "deep love" and a "playful flirtation"?! Are you insane? I will bet you my life that Elizabeth and Raleigh went all the way many, many, many times. And while I do agree that Elizabeth was very cautious she did show, VERY OFTEN, a near delirious love of pleasure which would probably have pushed her into having sex. And only those two men? What about Raleigh? What about the courtful of handsome charming men?

2. Okay. I'm sure the fact that almost all of the Protestant rebellions were plotted by or centered around people who knew Elizabeth and were in close contact with her was coincedence.

3. What we're debating here is Elizabeth's hypocrisy. You didn't even deny it, you just made good excuses for it, which is irrevelant.

4. Margaret Countess of Lennox. And Marie wasn't plotting against her at the time she imprisoned her.

5. Or treating her as any kind of human being would and making her her successor which was what she deserved, and nothing more.

6. And no, we don't. Lol.

Marie Stuart wrote:

(Absolutely! I love a good debate. I may fight you to the teeth over your love of Elizabeth, but you seem like a very nice woman and I have nothing at all against you personally. I am probably as biased about Marie as you are about Elizabeth)

Hurrah! SHould be a fun argument from both sides then. And I really do want to learn to appreciate Marie Stuart more, and you are doing very well at that already.

Thank you. As are you with Elizabeth. I find her not SO totally repulsive as I did before.

I will bet you my life that Elizabeth and Raleigh went all the way many, many, many times.

Raleigh?! Seriously?! He was either at sea, had his head in a poetry book or chasing after Bess Throckmorton! He was just playing the courtly game of love and flirtation as eveyone did at the English court in the Tudor period. Having said that he's a pretty thing, good with words, and his adventures delight her.



If his poetry and his Hilliard portrait are anything to go by I probably would... but then I'm not actually Elizabeth and don't have as much to risk as her.

If she slept with anyone it would be Robert Dudley, but that's all in a period when she had the most to loose and the most to fear. So who knows. But flagrant affairs? No way.

...I agree with your argument of her being a pleasure seeker. She loved fine things, beautiful things, luxuries. But, well, she had a very sheltered upbringing, (apart from the probably fearful encounters with Tom Seymour) and maybe what you don't know you don't miss?

I'm sure the fact that almost all of the Protestant rebellions were plotted by or centered around people who knew Elizabeth and were in close contact with her was coincedence.

It's totally not a coincidence. She made up the majority of her court with those who had previously been exiled, imprisoned or in some way accused of treason. The rest had declared devotion to her sister and wished her dead so she trusted very few of them enough to allow them at her court. She also took people wanting her dead badly and held it against people, naturally.

What we're debating here is Elizabeth's hypocrisy. You didn't even deny it, you just made good excuses for it, which is irrevelant.

If she was doing something to save her realm and her life then I don't care whether it's hypocritical or not. Her job was to sit firmly upon that throne and take care of her kingdom and her subjects. So long as she did that and did it well whilst sparing more lives than any other ruler would even consider than good.

Margaret Countess of Lennox

Elizabeth didn't kill her! She imprisoner her a couple of times for meddling with the line of succession and trying to do exectly what John Dudley lost his head for in Mary's reign! ...and when she did die, Elizabeth gave her a very lovely expensive funeral.

And Marie wasn't plotting against her at the time she imprisoned her.

No, she wasn't... but she'd made a right shambles of Scotland and was fleeing through Elizabeth's realm collecting plotters who wished Elizabeth dead and being chased by a load of mad scotsmen who wanted Marie dead. Going "hello cousin, I've come to stay. Those ones want you dead and these ones want me dead, I've totally screwed up your neighbouring Kingdom and they're all fighting each other. Can you hide me somewhere safe, get rid of all the mess and then spend a fortune on putting me back on my throne so I can screw it up again?" It isn't really the best thing to do when Elizabeth really had more pressing matters of state to deal with. And the whole Darnley murder and Bothwell marriage can't have gone down too well with Elizabeth... or the Darnley marriage in the first place for that matter.

...was Marie putting great effort into doing Elizabeth's head in or was it all just luck and natural talent?!

making her her successor which was what she deserved, and nothing more.

So that Marie's followers, the French, the Spanish, the Pope or whatever others would murder in the name of Catholicism had even more notice to bump Elizabeth off?

A sensible monarch in those days didn't even name their own child successor for fear of being run through. You wait til you're dying first before you put your name to any act of succession!

...is it my imagination or does Raleigh have a big white flower in his hair in that picture?! LOL!!!!!

Marie Stuart wrote:

I find her not SO totally repulsive as I did before.

Yep, that's totally how I feel too... but about Marie Stuart, LOL!

I've been so many places she's been and "seen" so many of her belongings and so much of her needlework. But I have always scoffed with disgust and marched off before. Now I shall actually be intrigued and pay rapt attention.

Time to venture back to nearby Hardwick Hall methinks.

I still intend to shout at Vanessa Redgrave most of the way through the film "Mary Queen of Scots" though.

1. I meant Dudley. He and Elizabeth practically lived as a married couple. The idea that she didn't have sex with him is ludicrous.

2.Maybe you're right on that one. *Grumble*.

3.Yes, true. But the whole point of this argument was that I had to convince you she was hypocritical, ergo ...

4.I KNOW! What I said was that she made it hard for Catholics, and that was an example of one.

5.YES! That's exactly what you're supposed ot do! Louis did it for Margaret of Anjou, the Spanish and French bourbons did it for the displaced Stuarts. It's what family does!

6. Once again, we're arguing Elizabeth's personality. And if Elizabeth didn't give it to her, can you blame her for wanting to take it.

Okay, so we can agree on Dudley then. But that's only one man. She had more sense than to mess around with the others.

I will accept that she was hypocritical then, when there was good reason to be.

All Elizabeth really knew of family amongst royalty is that they tend to betray you, destroy you, kill you, get themselves killed or send you far away from them and try to forget you ever existed. She lived mainly upon the kindness of her loyal subjects. They were her real family, the ones who cared for her and protected her.

...and I can totally blame Marie for wanting to take Elizabeth's crown. She already had a kingdom of her own and was dreadful at ruling it. Why would she want to stuff up a whole other kingdom too? If Marie struggled with Scotland, England with all of the religous turmoil and historical enemies wasn't really a sensible thing to crave. All it would give her was a sense of power and responsibility she couldn't carry. It wasn't a role with an empire like that of Charles V or a stash of riches like Marie already had herself. Elizabeth was the true heir to the throne of England before Marie. For Marie to try and take England from her was selfish and pure vanity.

I meant that Elizabeth should have acknowledged her as her heiress. It was nothing else but her right.

HEY! MARIE WAS NOT DREADFUL AT RULING HER COUNTRY (Yes it took me a while to catch that one, lol. Sue me).

Go on then. enlighten me.

So what did she do that proves she wasn't dreadful at ruling her country? Cos all I can see is chaotic mess.

I wish to be enlightened too, because I agree with Elizabeth.

The Chaseabout Raid.
I know you're going to disagree with this, but the Darnley marriage.
Her acceptance of advice from good advisors.
Her good relations with her fellow rulers.

I still think she'd have served better as Queen Consort (if only her firest hisband had lived).

Charming visiting ambassadors to court
Using her taste, learning, culture and beauty to enhance the court and make everyone want to visit.
Advising her husband, knowing that if the decision was bad it'd be his own fault for accepting it.
Producing wonderful works of embroidery which would be treasured heirlooms to her country.

She did do well with that raid, but it was largely down to whether the Protestant Scots could be bothered to fight or not. Which apparently they couldn't, LOL!

It seems she ignored all the good advice telling her not to go ahead with the darnley marriage. Showing how she was ruled by love and lust when she should have used her mind and put her realm first.

Her good relations with fellow rulers didn't quite cover her neighbour Elizabeth. Which I think is a failing in them both. They should have tried harder and told their advisors to get stuffed because I think they both wanted to get on. The religion issue and Marie's "good relations" with other Catholic rulers who wished Elizabeth dead got in the way. I think if they'd been able to meet and see each other regularly infront of their courtiers they would have ignored their advisors and formed a good partnership. Damn distance and interfering ministers.

Alas I feel that the main reason Marie had a good alliance with other rulers was down to her being Catholic, being female (therefore giving the false impression she'd let them push her around) and having a claim to Elizabeth's throne.

...Elizabeth's ability to not have England constantly under invasion or be killed by the Catholics is somewhat a miracle I think. A miracle that she had the ability to play games and keep enough people either on side or indecisive. But still totally astonishing as everything was against her on paper.