Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

Sheffield Castle.jpg

It really frustrates me that not enough is known about Sheffield Castle.

We don't really seem to have any information at all on this place considering what an important Sheffield structure it was. 

Sheffield Castle is still an enigma. Why is that?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was pulled down on Cromwell's orders ( the story goes that he was so disgusted that it changed hands so many times with scarcely a shot being fired that he ordered its destruction) Locals used the stone to build and repair their property and with no local post restoration nobility ,of any note, living nearby wanting to preserve it, I imagine it became just so much of a "blot on the landscape". Interest in our past is something more recent than it was in earlier times when life was a struggle for very many.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many buildings it was rebuilt several times.

The main structure that was demolished by Cromwell, was built by the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury John Talbot. Prior to that the Furnival Family had left it a ruin. For in 1383 it was worth NOTHING.

Before that it was a wooden structure destroyed by fire by a chap who was actually called Evil!

Even after Talbot, it was modernised and new buildings were added inside and outside the moat area, so it covered a much greater ground than the artist impressions show.

It suffered damage from an earthquake when Mary Stuart was living it up in the building, being treated as a Royal, living the high life. Whilst complaining all the time. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


There should surely be more Castle remnants underground than we know of?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish academics would stop making mistakes like saying Mary Stuart was a prisoner in Sheffield. She wasn't. All you have to do is look at George Talbot's monument in the Cathedral and it tells you he was custodian to Mary. In other words Mary Stuart was in what we would call "protective custody". For the reason she had had been forcible told to abdicate by the Scottish people. Which she did, though it was very clear she wasn't to bothered about this! So she was no longer Queen of anything. However Queen Elizabeth would not accept this situation and continued to treat her as a Queen. However because Mary was in danger, she kept her in protective custody. But like people kept in protective custody today, it is like being a prisoner. So that is why she moans about it. All Mary had to do was sit in her surroundings and wait. Because if Elizabeth had died she would have become Queen of England. Contrary to popular views. This was not frowned upon by the Queen, as long as she died of natural causes, Elizabeth couldn't give a dam about who was on the throne after her, as long as they didn't take it from her whilst she was alive! Mary's claim was as valid as anyone else's in Elizabeth's eyes. And of course Elizabeth could have passed away from natural causes at any time. But Mary couldn't wait and wanted to the throne of England at any cost. So when she was caught doing that, at her trial she was found to be a "private person" since she had abdicated. Plus her son was King of Scotland. So she was Queen of nothing!             

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote from Mary Walton's, Sheffield:Its story and achievements... "It is one of the most pitiful affairs in {English/Scots} history, because from the moment Mary stepped upon English soil there was no way, in the circumstances, in which either queen could do right. Each might plead with Morris's Jehane:

"For in such wise they hem me in,

I cannot choose but sin and sin."

But when all Mary's misfortunes and Elizabeth's weaknesses are taken into account, an impartial historian is forced to the conclusion that Elizabeth Tudor tried harder to avoid the graver sins than Mary Stuart did, though she fell more easier into meaner ones"..........The castle became a prison not only for Mary Queen of Scots, but for the Earl and Countess {of Shrewsbury}, for the slightest relaxation in vigilance set Mary plotting her escape and brought the awful possibility of the wrath of her cousin in London."

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lysander said:

To quote from Mary Walton's, Sheffield:Its story and achievements... "It is one of the most pitiful affairs in {English/Scots} history, because from the moment Mary stepped upon English soil there was no way, in the circumstances, in which either queen could do right. Each might plead with Morris's Jehane:

"For in such wise they hem me in,

I cannot choose but sin and sin."

But when all Mary's misfortunes and Elizabeth's weaknesses are taken into account, an impartial historian is forced to the conclusion that Elizabeth Tudor tried harder to avoid the graver sins than Mary Stuart did, though she fell more easier into meaner ones"..........The castle became a prison not only for Mary Queen of Scots, but for the Earl and Countess {of Shrewsbury}, for the slightest relaxation in vigilance set Mary plotting her escape and brought the awful possibility of the wrath of her cousin in London."

 

I rather think that Mary Walton was a bit biased. Possibly maybe even a Catholic in views. Like many historians before she went on the latest thinking and did not have access to all the information. 

It is very clear that George Talbot wanted the task of looking after Mary Stuart and went over the top in treating her as a Queen. Mary Stuart also requested the treatment to keep her safe, then changed her mind afterwards. Oddly if she needed to she would have ceased being a Catholic if it suited her needs. She had already married the Protestant Bothwell, even though he was already married, much to the annoyance of the Pope in Rome! She was prepared also to marry the Duke of Norfolk who said to her that he was a Protestant, to which she replied that she would change her religion.

George Talbot's relationship with Bess broke down during the custody of Mary. However it is very clear that it was just a cooling of their relationship which was a love match, as well as property match. One of the reasons he got the task of looking after the "Scots Queen". The reason this being important due to the fact that the first member of the court to see Mary sent back information to Elizabeth about how Mary was all over any man. She was the type of woman who would be right up in the face of any man, probably with lots of touching in a flirty way. This is further backed up by the fact as soon as she had landed in England, she had proposed marriage to the local Lord's son! She was also advised by her officials to go to France - not England, but ignored them. Anyway it was clear to Elizabeth that only a married man, which was a love match, not the arranged property deals marriages of most of the court, could look after Mary. 

Mary had a generous amount of money from her own sources. But she gave George nothing of it. Instead she used it it to stir up trouble in England. He was forced to pay for her. Such as bathing in wine!  All she did was complain to the Queen about everything. Once she even complained about the midwife coming into her room in the castle by mistake! 

George didn't have an affair with Mary, though it's likely she did spread rumours about it, then of course was outraged by them! However George's relationship with his wife did break down. I think it was because he had taken up with the servant (cook) at Handsworth Hall. For he left her something in his will! 

Mary wrote a nasty letter to Elizabeth, which is probably twisted tales of the truth. It is highly critical of Bess, so Mary had fallen out with her too. I don't know if Elizabeth ever saw the letter.

Had Mary escaped she would have been killed probably by a Scottish person and the blame would have fallen on the English.

In the end after Elizabeth was shot at during the Babbington plot. She had her arrested and tried - which by the way was a "fair" trial. So when Mary admitted that she had plotted to take the Queen's life. They would find her guilty. 

Even then Elizabeth would not sign her death warranty. When she finally did, Elizabeth's thought that would put an end to any plots on her life, because she would send the warranty off and execute her. She did NOT intend to execute her straight away.  Only if someone tried again to kill Elizabeth or hatch another plot with Mary. However one official at her court attached the great seal to the warrant without permission from the Queen. So she played hell with him. He then took the warrant to Cecil, with his knowledge of the law he got to the privy Council together and explained to them that they could send off the warrant under the law and there was nothing the Queen could do against them. So they did. And Cecil was right. She could do nothing against them. But Cecil lost all his favour with the Queen. Walsingham the spy-master also went to his grave penniless. 

Mary went to her execution a martyr to the Catholic cause. But actually was in a panic and shook uncontrollably like hell and shook so much they had to hold her down. Even then the executioner didn't hit the right place, so chopped several times to take the head off. He lifted the head up and because she was in a panic the lips were still moving. The head fell to the floor as the wig detached from it. The scene was that horrific that several of the people watching were sick or in shock from it.       

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really cannot say whether Mary Walton was a  Roman Catholic or not...but having met the lady on more than one occasion I imagine even if she was, she would have tried  to maintain her unbiased focus. Of course, I was quoting from a secondary source... and not a recent one at that. and  I presume that your opinions have been guided by taking advantage of primary sources... otherwise, the danger is that of repeating the opinions of others. All I would say,  and I really haven't got any axe to grind, is that almost all us would have "panicked and shook uncontrollably" when faced with the executioners block and the axe...so I cannot see how this could be held as any criticism of her.

Mary, in Roman Catholic eyes ( and therefore in the eyes of most of Europe) was, without doubt, the legitimate heir to the throne...since Elizabeth was considered to be illegitimate...and, yes, I know that Henry on his deathbed made it clear to whom the Crown should pass. Mary was by any event a victim in the clash between English politics and religion...as was George Talbot who, arguably, in my own reading of the records, had Mary foisted on him, to look after her, at his own expense, by a Monarch who ,recognising his immense wealth, chose not to spend a single penny of her own in "keeping her cousin safe".

We might not agree but it is good to have a little reasoned debate.??

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary was no victim she was a psychopath! Not in the way that we read about them. They are much more common than we think. What they do in essence is use people for their own ends, whilst being friends to them or pretending to be interested. This is also obvious for her actions over a religion as she would have switched religions if it suited her.

Mary made a mess of everything even when not in England. She had to get out of France, because she was planning to marry again. She certainly wasn't wanted in Scotland. Though she did not kill Lord Darnley her husband. Though she thought Bothwell had, because they had talked about it. He hadn't killed him either, though he thought she had arranged it. In fact Darnley had committed suicide. He was intending to blow himself and Mary, but she didn't turn up. So he did himself in. His loyal servants found him dead, took him out to the garden and laid him out neatly under a tree. With a few other items such as a dagger. One servant then took his own life, the other went back to the house and blew it up to kill the rest of the household to prevent news of a suicide getting out, which would have MASSIVE implications for the body of Darnley. Making the whole thing seem like somebody had killed him. Which is still repeated by historians who don't see the evidence that questions this belief. 

Don't read the records, read Talbot's tomb in the Cathedral it paints a different story to a man who was painted by historians who fell for the nonsense of Mary's religious crap.

As for the money angle. The state lavished in today's money millions of pounds on the looking after Mary Stuart. George Talbot was very rich, it was his duty to support his Queen. That is the way they did things then. He moans because he knows that Mary Stuart won't spend her money and she had her income.   

Below is an accurate drawing of the death scene, if you look carefully you can see the marks on his legs caused by syphilis. This meant he could not walk. So how did he escape from the house and he died on a winter day. So what was he doing in the garden in his nightshirt. 

Darnleydeath1.jpg

Edited by History dude
Picture added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my time I have not only looked at Shrewsbury's tomb but have also examined many contemporary manuscripts and am ambivalent ... but you, self evidently, are no fan of Mary Stuart whose son eventually inherited the throne and whose grandson was the indirect cause of the demolition of Sheffield Castle...just to keep the thread on track!?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite true. For though Mary Stuart son did inherit the throne, it turns out that James was infertile caused by a childhood disease. So he had to get somebody else to step in and make his wife pregnant. That person was William Shakespeare. This is why a childhood picture of Charles looks like William Shakespeare and not James.

Don't believe me. Well you decide:

Charles is the red picture, James 1st and William Shakespeare holding a hand.

By the way all the current Royal Family are descended from Elizabeth, James or rather Shakespeare's daughter. 

You name one Royal from the present or past that looks a bit like James, even our present Queen looked like that young man when she was his age.

 

Charles 1st young001.jpg

James.png

Shakespeare-Portraits-of--004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, and what exactly has that to do with Sheffield castle especially when the rumour was that Mary's son,James, died at ,or shortly after birth, and was replaced by a child of the earl of Mar ( who, bringing up the future King, added some credence to the rumour).... any more than the possibility that Marlowe wrote the majority of Shakespear's works? Whatever,James (and Charles) carried the bloodline of the Stuarts and with that the very good claim to the throne of England...a far, far richer kingdom than Scotland,,, as the profligate James quickly found out upon being crowned.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary Stuart is key to the Castle's status.

If Mary was just a prisoner then it's just a castle that was a prison.

If Queen Elizabeth held her up as "Royal". Then Sheffield Castle becomes a Royal Palace!

Mary Stuart supporters can't have it both ways. She's either a prisoner whilst in England or she's a Royal in protective custody. 

This is what I believe. That Mary asked Elizabeth to protect her and she got it. Elizabeth treat her like a Queen, but confined her. That means that Sheffield Castle was a palace!!

You also need to understand that Queen Elizabeth was not interested in who got the throne after she was dead. As long as nobody tried to kill her to get it, it could have gone to anybody as far as she was concerned. Even Mary Stuart! Elizabeth refused point blank to name an heir, even on her death bed she said nothing. She had been through it all with her half sister and half brother and Jane Grey. So she couldn't give a monkeys on the succession. 

As for Mary Stuart I have cleared her of murdering her husband. However the fact is that she thought her new husband Bothwell had done it, which means they had discussed the deed.

Mary only had to wait in captivity to take the throne if Elizabeth had died, which could have been at any time, but she would not and instead took up with crackpot fanatics, who had no chance of taking the throne of England. Even her son didn't like her and grew up a Protestant.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Elizabeth wasn't interested in her succession then please explain why she paid the young King James of Scotland a pension until he succeeded her and why she was also in regular communication with him?  Unusually, they wrote their letters themselves, in their own handwriting ( and  with, from my own experience in studying some of them, an array of "interesting" spellings to our modern eyes): indeed, in 1587 King James V1 of Scotland wrote pleading with Elizabeth to save his mother. The records show that Elizabeth and her Parliament had  real concerns about the succession... The situation was far from straightforward...with , for example, other potential claimants and also arcane laws forbidding any foreigner to own English land. To leave it in the air and totally unsettled would have led to "confusion" and, as it  so happens , the succession went very smoothly.

As for your earlier assertion that Shakespeare fathered the future King Charles on account of King James's infertility...then , presumably you theorise that  he also fathered King James's eldest son, Henry, Prince of Wales, who died aged 18 and Elizabeth, from whom our own Queen is descended as well as the other five children who didn't survive childhood and all the miscarriages his wife had. If you do, then our Will must have been a very busy man and a very regular traveller...especially as he fathered at least three of his own and all three of James surviving children were born in Scotland....not in England!

I wrote earlier I am ambivalent but tend to agree with Mary Walton that neither Queen could do right....and I still believe that... but would be interested,HD, if you can show us some primary source evidence which substantiates the views you express.

As for the Castle, by the time of the Civil War all castles were obsolete...their walls offered little protection from "modern weapons" and it would be left to later military architects and engineers such as the Frenchman, Vauban, to design fortifications offering substantial resistance to aggressors...but even these static defences, as vastly modernised and improved by Maginot, failed to stop Blitzkreig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Passionate debate
I'm going to read this in more detail and see what's what!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lysander said:

If Elizabeth wasn't interested in her succession then please explain why she paid the young King James of Scotland a pension until he succeeded her and why she was also in regular communication with him?  Unusually, they wrote their letters themselves, in their own handwriting ( and  with, from my own experience in studying some of them, an array of interesting spellings): indeed, in 1587 King James V1 of Scotland wrote pleading with Elizabeth to save his mother from the executioner. The records show that Elizabeth and her Parliament had  real concerns about the succession... The situation was far from straightforward...with , for example, other potential claimants and laws forbidding any foreigner to own English land. To leave it in the air and totally unsettled would have led to "confusion" and, as it happens , the succession went very smoothly.

As for your earlier assertion that Shakespeare fathered the future King Charles on account of King James's infertility...then , presumably you theorise that  he also fathered King James's eldest son, Henry, Prince of Wales, who died aged 18 and Elizabeth, from whom our own Queen is descended as well as all the miscarriages his wife had. If you do then he must have been a busy man...especially as he fathered at least three of his own!

I wrote earlier I am ambivalent but tend to agree with Mary Walton that neither Queen could do right....and I still believe that... but would be interested if you can show some primary source evidence which substantiates the views you express.

As for the Castle, by the time of the Civil War all castles were obsolete...their walls offered little protection from "modern weapons" and it would be left to later military architects and engineers such as the Frenchman, Vauban, to design fortifications offering substantial resistance to aggressors...but even these static defences, as modernised and improved by Maginot, failed to stop Blitzkreig.

Because he was King of Scotland and Mary's son he was a monarch and that's how Monarch's communicate with each other. Back then and even now a monarch has to be invited to visit a place, otherwise a monarch turning up unannounced was considered an act of war. Since they have invaded your country. So you wrote to each other instead. The money was probably a way to sooth things over after the execution of Mary. Elizabeth as I said had no intention of executing her. William Cecil however knew that under a previous piece of legislation following a plot of Mary. That anyone who tried to take the Monarch's life could be killed by any person in the Country. They didn't need the Queen's permission. Of course nobody was prepared to undertake the deed without a warrant and in fact Elizabeth told Paulet that as he could have done the deed, sarcastic she was being! He of course sent a message back saying he wouldn't without a warrant. But as Walsingham was ill, and William Davidson was acting as Principal Secretary in his place. He had the great seal attached without permission, which Cecil knew then he could send off to execute Mary without telling the Queen anything.

The court had great concerns, Elizabeth didn't. She had Robert Dudley appointed to take over if she had passed over, without an heir. But that was only put in place after she nearly died after a sickness.

The first thing Mary did was asked to be declared and heir, but Elizabeth replied to that "she didn't want a winding sheet before her eyes". In other words saying who would be heir would have been a death sentence. As there were lots of people interested in the throne, not just a a so called Catholic girl from France! 

It did cause confusion the succession. But if those days applied to day Prince Charles would have bumped off his mother and in turn would have been bumped off by his kids! I don't think Elizabeth II would have been naming an heir in that case! It went smoothly due to Cecil's son. He did it largely in secret from the Queen. The Catholics also tried to blow James up too!

I don't theorise at all. The portraits of all the Royal Family of James all look like the pictures of Shakespeare. Yes Shakespeare had a reputation with the women. But as most of the aristocracy were arranged marriages, the husband often couldn't stand the wife. So you find someone else to do it who will keep the mouth shut. James after all didn't want to through the motion of what Henry VIII went through to get an heir and solve the heir question. When I first arrived at the conclusion I thought it might be that James, who most historians will tell, you liked men! Of course that didn't stop him just doing the deed! But I suspect he was most likely firing blanks. The records do show a big gap after James' marriage before the first one pops out. Then they come out like rabbits out of the hat. That to me points to someone else doing the deed. Of course portraits don't always tell the truth. However James is recorded as having "piggy" eyes and none of the Royals have them!

Other pictures of Shakespeare look like the Royals too. But the proof of the pudding comes from another play-writer. Thomas Middleton, who edits the true story into a play called "A Chaste Maid in Cheapside." He has Shakespeare as the character Touchwood who drops kids at the drop of a hat! He also has Lord and Lady Kix who are having problems getting a baby so they get Touchwood to do the deed.  You can see where this is going!....

I came into the story of Mary Stuart from living in Queen Mary Road and finding out the wall at the bottom of our garden was the deer park wall to Sheffield Manor and Park. I started researching the Manor Lodge and Park and I could not understand why Mary was kept in the captivity if she was that hated by Queen Elizabeth. Most monarchs would have the woman done in as soon as she landed in England. But not Elizabeth. My research found a document where George Talbot was in London being kept waiting by the Queen. She had requested him to come but had not told him why. Though he was very keen to get the Custody of the Scots Queen. Which was rumoured to be up for grabs. So he went up to the Queen and demand to know why he was kept waiting. But the Queen took him off guard and told him "I trust you as few as I do". He was so taken back, he forgot to ask her what she wanted wanted him for. Later he wrote back to his wife that it was the Scots Queen's Custody. 

But what got me was that trust issue. I thought that sounds like she is shy! So I did some more research on Elizabeth and confirmed it to be the case.  Though NO OTHER historian had spotted it. 

Other things soon fitted in place, the reluctance to marry and then I clinched it. Elizabeth was a very beautiful blond, with an inferiority complex the size of Mount Everest. Then everything made sense. Why she treated Mary the way she did, and the heir issue. I also managed to piece more of her personality together. Though I don't mean to be rude to women, she was what most of us would call a dumb blond, even though she was highly intelligent.  That's just how she was! Now imagine modern politicians dealing with a Queen like Marilyn Monroe and you can understand why back then all the men were bonkers about her behaviour. And also why many wanted to marry her! 

Mary on the other hand was a snob, mean, after anything in trousers or kilts! And not to clever either.

You can read more on my blog. With all the sources you want.

     https://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/p/william-shakespeare-and-queen-elizabeth.html

As for the castle it had already become a home by the time she was there, but it wasn't all that nice, so they rebuilt the Manor Lodge as a home so she could have her own apartments turning that into a Royal residence. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Elizabeth was a very beautiful blond(e)”..... etc.

Forgive me if we’ve covered this, in the voluminous posts beforehand, but really?

“Elizabeth I, the all-glorious queen of magnificence and spectacular display, was celebrated for her ageless glamour, her white flawless skin and sumptuous clothing. She was hailed as an iconic, unchanging beauty whose appearances at court before ambassadors and other visitors were greeted with wondrous praise, celebrated in plays and poems and immortalised in countless portraits.

Elizabeth’s contemporaries believed that beauty amplified female power, and so they regarded the queen’s splendour  as confirmation of her claim to the throne. Yet over the five decades of her rule, the young and nubile Elizabeth, with her pretty face, red hair and slender physique, aged into an old woman with wrinkles, a reddish coloured wig to cover her balding hair, and black, rotten and foul-smelling teeth.

The marks left by smallpox, which despite the queen’s protestations were definitely there, together with the lines and wrinkles around her eyes and mouth, were skilfully hidden with layers of caustic cosmetics – pungent white lead and vinegar. It was the job of Elizabeth’s trusted ladies to administer to her withering face and ensure she was ready to face her public. Yet the use of lead over time ate into her skin, making it grey and wrinkled, and so she would have to wear the lead base even more thickly. As Elizabeth aged, more vivid colours were applied to her cheeks and lips.

Elizabeth wore a garish vermilion, also known as cinnabar, which gave an intense red colour. However, vermilion was mercuric sulphide and so every time Elizabeth licked her lips she ingested this toxic substance and may have begun to experience symptoms of mercury poisoning, including lack of co-ordination, sensory impairment, memory loss, irritability, slurred speech and depression.

The wigless, derobed, unmade-up queen should never have been seen by any except her trusted ladies. Yet in September 1599, Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex, broke all the rules and stormed into the queen’s bedchamber at Nonsuch Palace “where he found the queen newly up, the hair about her face”. Elizabeth had just a simple robe over her nightdress, her wrinkled skin was free of cosmetics and, without her wig, Essex saw her bald head with just wisps of thinning grey hair “hanging about her ears”. This was the unadorned reality of the queen’s body, and the earl would pay the ultimate price for his tendency for such impulsive behaviour (he was executed for treason in 1601).

The mask of youth that Elizabeth’s ladies had to daily create was also represented in portraits, while the fiction of the queen’s eternal beauty was sustained by officially sanctioned face patterns. Any portraits that revealed a true likeness were to be destroyed.“

 Now, I know that beauty is said to be in he eye of beholder, but if any or all of the above were true, that’s not my definition of beautiful?! 

That is beyond “Coyote Woman” or the “Ten-to-two” (if you’re with me?)

..... or are we talking about a different Queen Elizabeth??? ?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not certain where you got the quotes from, but it is all nonsense from start to finish.

The first surprise is that Elizabeth had blond hair. Several people saw her and quoted the colour. In one document it was translated to red, from the Latin, when in fact if you translate it, it turns out as "gold". I have never seen red gold, so that doesn't work. She was not bald and though she did wear wigs it wasn't because she didn't have hair. It was too improve her appearance. Not that she needed to improve her appearance, but she thought she did. The teeth were yellow or black, depending on which accounts you read, but that was when she was in her 60's. 

There were no marks by smallpox, because she never had it. She probably had some other form of sickness with spots, as the Elizabethans called every spotted sickness the pox. I wouldn't trust any doctors opinions of what she had at that time. Models today wear all sorts of dangerous make up, or if it's not you can bet in another two hundred years time it will be seen as that. So that is speculation. The white make up was probably only done on certain days.  The white colour of her skin could have been natural. I once saw a young woman who had completely white skin. Knowing the Elizabeth thing, I asked her if there was any cause to this. She said no. However in Elizabeth's case it could have caused by blood loss in heavy period bleeds. Especially when she was younger. Paintings of Elizabeth also have changed that much that the colour loss is shocking. You only have to look at the Rainbow Portrait to see a rainbow that looks like a floating chair back. The colour gone completely. It is true that Elizabeth had paintings destroyed that were not to her liking. But what was to her liking? And the Red hair in most was once yellow.

Also which is Queen Elizabeth in some pictures? In one there is the Queen and she is surrounded by three goddess. But actual to an Elizabethan you would have to merge the lot together to get the real Elizabeth.  

If you ask me it's largely the ugly pictures that have lasted, which she probably liked. The ones that showed her true beauty being lost or destroyed. 

As for the Essex bit, It depends on who wrote that description of Elizabeth if a woman servant wrote the account they might have been jealous of the Queen. But Essex was madly in love with the woman. And more to the point he wanted the throne of England and was prepared to take it by force. So he paid the price for that. Not walking into the Queen's bed chamber. 

If you take independent sources you soon realise that even in her 60's Elizabeth could compete for grace and beauty with an 18 year old. Which is what one ambassador said of her. 

Roy Strong invented the "Cult of Elizabeth" to try an explain the fuss. Like many academics he couldn't see that a woman in her 60's can be be beautiful, and if they are - young men will chase after them.

If a Supermodel were to say that she wasn't beautiful and had a face like a bucket, then nobody know would believe them.

But Elizabeth saying it yes, then these historians would. However  when people at the time said she was beautiful (aged around 59). This is what she said. "I had that reputation in the past, but not now".

Now if you were Elizabeth would you destroy pictures that show you really beautiful, or ones that portray you as the pictures which we have? If you had her attitude?

Her use of that word "reputation" implies that even in the past she would not accept it. And you can't have a reputation for being beautiful, you either are or your not. People decide if you are and judging by contemporary reports and the fact that people went out of her way to marry Elizabeth, with jealousy between the male members breaking out. Proves that they DID see her as beautiful. 

Sorry that this thread is turning into a debate on Elizabeth and Mary. But without the clarification it turns Sheffield Castle into a prison and the Manor into a mere hunting lodge. 

And the only person that decided if Mary was still a Queen was Elizabeth. And she did say she was still a Queen.

So she was Mary Queen of Scots. Even though she had resigned and her son was now King of Scotland. So in fact she wasn't Queen of anything. In the end, at her trail, they used that against her. Declaring her a "private person". One of the Queen's subjects.  

But for her time in Sheffield she was still a Queen and treated like one, which makes both the Castle and Manor Royal residences.  

Edited by History dude
Corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to the debate I wonder if HD realises that there is no portrait of Shakespeare extant which is acknowledged to be 100% accurate...After years of investigation, prior to his 400th anniversary, it was acknowledged by a team of experts that the most likely one was that once owned by Chandos...and , strangely enough, that is not one of those provided as evidence by HD.

As for his comments regarding Elizabeth's "beauty" perhaps the fact that she DID contracted smallpox, aged 29, encouraged her to wear layers of what even then was acknowledged to be "corrosive" make up. This makeup was renowned for withering the skin... so it was self defeating...the more she used it the more she had to if she was to keep up appearances...which also extended to wearing wigs and wearing sumptuous dresses.

She was a remarkable woman ,by any standards, and one who outwitted her many enemies and avoided the excesses of religion and the religious wars at a time when Roman Catholicism and Protestantism were dividing Europe.

Perhaps we ought to consider the possibility that Sheffield castle was a "Royal Palace". I doubt it since Mary was not Queen of England but merely a "visiting member of royalty" ....held there against her will. Had she been free to travel could/would she have left and where could she have gone?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have answered most of the points.

As for the experts they might as well go back to school.

Mary wrote to Elizabeth and asked to be protected, she was not held against her will. The English negotiated with the Scots to send her back to to Scotland. They didn't want her back. As she had resigned. She was not a Queen. So she wasn't "visiting"  anything. 

The picture of Shakespeare was confirmed:

 

Shakespeare identified.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have satisfactorily answered any of the questions raised. For a start,who confirmed the portrait was a true likeness of Shakespeare? After over 3 years research experts( yes I know what you think about them) agreed that of all the alleged likenesses of Shakespeare the one known as the Chandos portrait was the most likely to be the nearest and this was confirmed by the National Portrait Gallery. Importantly, it bears a striking resemblance to the statue in Stratford Parish Church, presented to the Church only a few years after his death...and one would have expected his living relatives to have objected were it not a reasonable likeness. as well as of the death mask! You object to the views of experts but, strangely, seem to accept those of Professor Hillard who ,almost alone, believes the miniature to be that of our Will whilst others suggest it is of Dudley.

Secondly, in your  assertion that Shakespeare fathered King Charles and the rest of Elizabeth's children ( and miscarriages) you have failed to answer how he managed to make the long, expensive and tedious journey up to Scotland on such a regular basis when he was a jobbing actor/author, and how  he escaped detection from a King and his courtiers who jealously believed in the awful "Right of Kings"

BTW Royalty don't "resign" they abdicate and at this point I suggest we let this matter drop since, self evidently, you are unable to provide a shred of evidence save your own prejudiced opinions and I would like to learn more about our Castle and not waste time on speculation!?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not very good at history if you don't know that Nicholas Hilliard was the miniature painter to Queen Elizabeth. He also painted Mary Stuart. Leslie Hotson is the academic that discovered it was William Shakespeare. It certainly is NOT Robert Dudley as he would be fare to old for that man. And he died in 1588 (the picture is dated) and was as very fat as a painting in the N.P.G. shows him to be. 

The pictures of Shakespeare are when he was older and the bust is too. This is Shakespeare as a young man. My aviator is also Shakespeare, by the way. 

Anyone who wishes to know about my extensive research on both Queens and find out that Mary Stuart had a thyroid disorder, can visit my blog and download the free PDF file of my book.

All the information on Shakespeare and his connection with Queen Elizabeth is also on there.

But I would like to state that the Sheffield Castle and Manor story is totally dependent on the status of Mary Stuart. Downgrade her to a prisoner and the castle and Manor is no more important than any old castle and building. So think carefully before calling Mary a prisoner. 

Hilliard's miniature of Mary. And the likeness taken from her death mask. Painters didn't show eyebrows, but they did show up on the mask.  

Mary2.jpg

Mary's death mask colour 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

? Did I mistakenly hit a link to “www.tudorhistory.co.uk”, somewhere along the way?

Whatever happened to deciphering the location of old photos, family history mysteries, reminiscences of old industry, steelworks and other associated interesting stuff about Sheffield that makes this site a regular look-in?

I may be a lone voice here and with all due respect to the contributors to this thread, but do I really care if ‘Good Queen Bess’ was a traffic-stopping stunner, or had a fizzogg like a slate-hangers nail bag?...... Nope

I’m also not losing any sleep over whether Bill Shakespeare was the Tudor Royal ‘studmeister’, incredible as it may seem? I always thought it was Lord Flasheart, who was sowing more oats than Quakers?! WOOF WOOF 

“Painters don’t show eyebrows”, yet every portrait in this thread has a cracking pair... unless they are all expert slug balancers (Baldrick)...... or was that moustaches?!

I’d rather read about some previously undiscovered facts and details about Sheffield Castle, rather than if someone had been banged up in it, or was a guest in it?

Just thought I’d pitch in and try to lighten the mood a little?!...... ?

p.s. why do all the emojis now show as question marks???

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×