Film is a powerful instrument that has the capability of transferring massive amounts of information to the general populace. The data portrayed does not have to be factual to get the message across, but it has to be presented in a way that will capture the attention of an audience. Good films will give an individual an experience emotionally, intellectually, or even physically. This is one of the reasons people find movies entertaining. The written novel can also produce the same experiences as a film. Just like motion pictures, books have the ability to communicate an enormous amount of data in an entertaining and meaningful way. The average person, however, seems more likely to go to Blockbuster than their local Barnes & Noble. The professional historian traditionally prefers the written word as a more precise interpretation of the past. They find the popularity of film very disturbing because it constantly manipulates the past while their more accurate works gather dust at the local bookstore. This does not mean that movies are useless for the purpose of teaching history, nor does it mean the written word is never wrong. Despite Hollywood’s notorious reputation for fumbling the facts, films can bring to life historically correct themes. This conundrum is illustrated very well in Shekhar Kapur’s 1998 movie Elizabeth.
Kapur’s goal for this film was not an interpretation of history but of personality. He wished to explore what possibly went into the making of the Elizabethan icon. To accomplish this he explored the earlier years of Elizabeth’s life beginning with the end of Mary Tudor’s reign. The movie opened with dramatically violent music, and an introductory text to supply contextual information. The year was 1554, King Henry VIII was dead, and his daughter Mary was a childless Queen. England was divided between Protestant and Catholic, and the current administration feared the ascension of Elizabeth. The presentation of this information was not inaccurate historically, but there were some things missing. Edward VI was the ruler of England between the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary Tudor. The English Reformation took place under his administration, and legislation was passed to strengthen Protestantism. After the death of Edward VI, the Catholic Mary Tudor was to be crowned Queen according to the Acts of Succession created by Henry VIII. Despite some small obstacles Mary was crowned Queen in 1554, and returned the country to Catholicism. The movies failure to mention Edward’s reign is perplexing, and because of this absence an ignorant audience may—among other things—believe that Mary Tudor succeeded Henry VIII.
After the opening text, a brutal scene illustrated Mary’s infamous zeal for burning Protestants vividly portraying the veracity of England’s religious problems. The menacing Bishop Gardiner pronounced the heretics guilty of abandoning the one true faith with great passion. The Bishops very appearance was intimidating with his long black robes and single glass eye. The commotion and comments from the crowd depicted anger against this inhuman act attesting to the actual dislike of Bloody Mary’s reign. During the execution the crowd attempted to hasten the victim’s death by adding wood to the fire as armored guards pushed them back. Where did this animosity between Mary and her people originate? Was it, as the film depicts, simply the wicked Catholic authority versus the powerless Protestant majority? It was true that Protestantism had taken hold in many places throughout England during the sixteenth century, but it was by no means the universal practice. Catholicism had been in the country for over a thousand years, and this faith was not going to be erased over one generation—especially in the north. It could have been the very nature of Mary’s anti-Protestantism that angered the populace. Being burnt alive was a more gruesome death then a decapitation or hanging—the traditional English execution. Mary would burn about three hundred Protestants, and the victims were usually members of the lower and middle class. The upper classes converted with greater ease and this probably further alienated the Queen from her people. Never forget, however, that every good story has villains and heroes. Throughout this film Catholics were the antagonists and the Protestants were the protagonists. This opening scene helped establish the roles of these two religions in the plot, while it simultaneously illustrated an oversimplified interpretation of England’s religious issues in the sixteenth century.
Mary’s Catholic husband King Phillip II of Spain was another reason for the peoples unhappiness. They disliked the idea of being ruled by a foreigner, and Protestant leaders did not want to see the progress made during Edward’ reign destroyed. The Catholic powers at Mary’s court did not want her to fail in consummating a successor. If Mary produced an heir, Elizabeth would not be able to succeed her and Catholicism would be likely to stay in England. The hope of a future Catholic English king was worth tolerating Mary’s choice to marry Phillip II, but despite the marriage some nobles began to worry about an heir. There were rumors that Phillip and Mary did not share a bed like husband and wife. The Spanish King apparently found his new bride dull and was unenthusiastic to produce a son. The fear of Protestant succession crept into the minds of many powerful Catholics, and this lead to plots against the young Elizabeth’s life. The movie Elizabeth, introduces these issues and others with the scene following the heretics execution.
Bells ring in the background as the Duke of Norfolk was seen with his entourage of followers clad in yellow. They walked briskly through court toward the Royal Bedchamber. Norfolk paused to talk to a Lady of the Bedroom. He inquired if the rumors about the Queens pregnancy were true. The maiden admitted that there were signs of a child, but doubted its validity with the continual absence of Phillip II from Mary’s bedroom. Norfolk then proceeded into the Royal Bedchamber, and personally congratulated the Queen and King for this miracle. Mary was seen smiling appropriately at this complement, but Phillip was brilliantly shown sulking in his chair unexcited with his current situation. Ending the awkwardness, Mary moved on with the business of securing her realm. The Earl of Sussex announced that Sir Thomas Wyatt was in custody and the other rebels had been dealt with. Bishop Gardiner—Mary’s chief councilor—proclaimed that Wyatt intended to overthrow the government and put Elizabeth on the throne. Norfolk, Sussex, Gardiner, and the Spanish Ambassador pushed for Elizabeth’s arrest but Lord Arundel suggested caution. He warned of her powerful Protestant allies, and suggested action only with sufficient proof. Assured that evidence would be found against her sister, Mary ordered the arrest in a fit of rage: “My sister was born of that whore Anne Boleyn! She was born a bastard. She will never rule England! You your Grace will find some proof of her treachery. I am most sure of it.”
The scene summarized above was overwhelmingly historically correct. Norfolk’s followers did wear yellow, and using the bedchamber maiden as a source of information was very common. Ladies of the Royal Bedchamber were around the Queen almost twenty-four hours a day, and would have been privy to all of the monarchs private affairs. Mary’s court fluttered with rumors that her child was a fake, and it was probable that they began with gossiping maidens. Sir Thomas Wyatt had rebelled against Queen Mary in January of 1554 in response to her marriage to Phillip II. The revolt had not lasted long, but it had raised an opportunity to ensure Elizabeth’s incarceration. The Spanish Ambassador Renard and Bishop Gardiner had recommended her arrest and later sought execution. It is important to note that in the movie the Spanish Ambassador was Bishop Alvarez de Quadra despite the fact that there were many different ambassadors throughout this time period. Letters written to Elizabeth from Wyatt were intercepted and used as the principle evidence needed for the arrest. This, however, was not mentioned in the film, and not all of the advisors present were eager to act against Elizabeth. Arundel illustrated sympathy in this scene, and sources suggest others would have joined him. The Earl of Sussex was a man with an eye on the future and knew very well that Elizabeth could become Queen. For this reason he was obliged to show sympathy towards the princess, offering her more comfort than necessary during her initial arrival to the Tower. In the film, however, Sussex never amounted to anything but a henchman for the Duke of Norfolk. These inaccuracies may be frustrating for historians, but they do not take away from themes of this scene. Mary and her councilman’s fears about Elizabeth were denoted clearly along with the uncertainty of the Queen’s pregnancy.
Acting on Queen Mary’s orders, Sussex arrested Elizabeth and proceeded to take her to the Tower from her home in Whitehall. In the film, Robert Dudley was introduced before the arrest was made which, in reality, was physically impossible. In 1554, Dudley was a prisoner in the Tower for his family’s opposition to Mary after the death of Edward VI. His father, Lord Northumberland, was a commanding figure throughout Edward’s reign. During the power vacuum of the 1550’s he attempted to place his son Guildford on the throne via a marriage to Lady Jane Grey. This ended up in the execution of Guildford, Northumberland, and Lady Jane Grey while the remaining brothers of the Dudley family were locked in the Tower. Why then does the movie ignore this segment of history? The scene in question was the first time Elizabeth and Robert were shown as intimate friends. Dudley was first seen on a white stallion taking a maiden for a joy ride. Upon his dismount he saw young Elizabeth dancing in a field and asked to join. They were shown dancing together, playfully flirting, and leaving little question to the intimacy between them. This was vital to the love element of this movies plot, and this may be the reason that history was abused. There was, however, a possible alternative that the creators of this film overlooked.
When Elizabeth was taken to the Tower in March of 1554, Robert Dudley had been already incarcerated there for over six months. During this time period the Tower’s security was very strict because of the fear of rebellion and the number of political prisoners there. Elizabeth, however, was a princess and was able to get a number of personal freedoms— better food, walking in the garden, the ability to have servants, etc. While strolling through the garden one day a young boy brought her a bundle of flowers. The gift was rumored to have secret messages in them from fellow prisoner and childhood acquaintance Robert Dudley. This idea is not universally accepted amongst the historical community, but it is not unfeasible. Security systems were not perfect in sixteenth century England, and Robert was an ingenious character. The two had many things in common; they both had Acsham as a teacher, and they grew up in Edward’s court at the same time. These two individuals, with a common history, in a very uncertain point in their lives would seem like natural companions. The creators of the movie Elizabeth should have taken advantage of this setting to establish the intimacy of Robert and Elizabeth with historical correct themes. Instead they butcher history with complete falsehoods displayed for the sake of their story.
Elizabeth’s entrance to the Tower was an eerie sight. The camera slowly fell down the massive pillar towards the water below. Elizabeth was seen on a boat with a group of her personal servants. She stared in horror at the head on a pike to her right as she slowly entered the infamous prison with the gates closing behind her. This quick scene failed to mention that Elizabeth was being taken through Traitors Gate. The princess refused to go through initially, and claimed that she was no traitor. “O Lord, I never thought to have come in here as prisoner; and I pray you all, good friends and fellows, bear me witness that I come in no traitor, but as true a woman to the Queen’s majesty as any is now living; and thereon will I take my death.” Her escorts, Earls Sussex and Winchester, were very patient knowing that their captive was a potential monarch. During the ordeal Winchester offered his coat to Elizabeth, and Sussex allowed her to write to Queen Mary. Absent from the film, these historical moments was perhaps made up in imagery. The head on a pike was a good allusion to the gruesome end most experienced in the Tower, and she was taken through Traitors Gate despite the lack of its identification. The polite treatment given to Elizabeth by her captors would be seen later in the film along with her proclamation of innocence’s.
The film moved from Elizabeth’s initial incarceration to her interrogation. Encircled by Arundel, Sussex, and Gardiner she was accused of conspiring against the Queen with Sir Thomas Wyatt. She was indirectly called a heretic, and was treated harshly. Standing firm under the pressure Elizabeth asked for proof of her crimes. She declared herself to be a loyal subject to the crown, and true to the Catholic faith. Gardiner in this scene acted as the traditional bad cop, along with Sussex, and both of them viciously attacked her with accusations. Elizabeth asked, “…why must we tear ourselves apart over this small question of religion?” They replied that there was only one true religion the others being heresy. Arundel played the good cop and asked the princess very cordially to confess if there was any hint of truth in the charges. His kindness continued after the interview when he gave his coat to Elizabeth. Although Winchester was the actual man to perform this generous act, the idea that Elizabeth had sympathizers amongst those in power was portrayed well. Interestingly, the genuine Arundel had dropped to his knees during the interrogation begging Elizabeth for forgiveness. He would later be one of the many suitors for her hand in marriage. These facts may have persuaded the filmmakers to illustrate Arundel as the friendly Catholic or sympathetic villain throughout the film.
After questioning Elizabeth was locked in the Tower. The scene cuts to a distraught Mary foreshadowing the loss of her baby and eventual death. Elizabeth was sent for and as the guards approached the princess gravely stated, “Tonight I think I die.” She was taken through London’s streets as armed guards were seen pillaging, attacking, and killing commoners. This imagery continued to illustrate the violence of Mary’s reign, and the division between Protestant victims and Catholic villains. Upon Elizabeth’s arrival the two sisters meet for the first and only time in this film. Elizabeth entered the room and immediately went to her knees to proclaim her innocence. Mary was sulking in the shadows, and initially came out enraged at Elizabeth. This, however, did not last long as she broke down emotionally. Mary was in a state of hysteria. Her husband had abandoned her, she claimed her baby was poisoned, and seemed displeased that doctors diagnosed her pregnancy symptoms as the result of a tumor. Desperately she took Elizabeth’s hands into her own, and pleaded her sister to keep Catholicism as the one true faith of England. Elizabeth stated that she would “…act as her conscious dictates.” This did not please Mary, but she did not condemn Elizabeth to the fate of her mother. Elizabeth would be under house arrest in her manor at Hatfield.
The film’s denotation of time was unclear in the segment described above. Elizabeth was imprisoned for about four years, first in the Tower and later under house arrest at Woodstock and Hatfield. One moment in the movie Elizabeth was in her Tower cell, and two scenes later she was being escorted for a meeting with Queen Mary. The period between scenes could have been two days, a week, a month, or any other amount of time. Why was the filmmaker so ambiguous with chronology during this moment in Elizabeth’s life? Couldn’t there have been a way to better illustrate the events that occurred during her imprisonment? Yes and no. One of the challenges of creating a movie is time management. There are moments when it is necessary to summarize large amounts of time within a few minutes. This is as true for the writers of Hollywood as it is for the authors of history.
The filmmaker was able to accurately portray many important themes despite the manipulation of time. Mary was truly worried about her child being poisoned, and there were many doctors that believed she had cancer. Her husband had left her, and Elizabeth’s ascension was guaranteed as long as Mary refused to sign her death sentence. Elizabeth’s strong conviction to follow her own beliefs was shown in her inability to promise Mary the continuation of Catholicism. Life for Elizabeth was also uneventful during her time under house arrest. She would continue her various studies, visit with approved guests, and wait for the news of her sister’s inevitable death. If the filmmaker had not summarized this segment of history, than the story would have become too long and unentertaining. Notwithstanding the uncertainty of time, the failure to mention Elizabeth’s imprisonment in Woodstock and her time under house arrest in general, the movie summarizes the important relevant historical events as well as any high school textbook.
Between the time of Mary’s death and Elizabeth’s ascension the film began to clearly highlight the main protagonists and antagonists. Sir William Cecil and Sir Francis Walsingham were introduced, illustrated as enemies to Catholics and supporters of Elizabeth. Cecil would become Secretary of State under Elizabeth’s reign, and was one of the most influential advisors in her majesty’s court. He was forced—according to the film—to meet with Elizabeth in secret before Mary’s death. This was done in a confessional, but more than likely any correspondence between the two was done through letters. After all he had a close relationship with Elizabeth, and was the official Surveyor of her land and property since 1551. Cecil’s character, his relationship with Elizabeth, and role in her court was very well portrayed throughout the movie. He was always by her side offering advice that he believed beneficial to England and the survival of her reign. As the film depicted he strongly pushed for Elizabeth’s marriage, and believed the best suitor to be a member of either France or Spain. He hoped to gain national security through an alliance with one of the powerhouses of sixteenth century Europe. He also sought protection from enemies within Elizabeth’s court, and was notorious for discovering plots against her majesty. There were only a couple major qualities not depicted in Cecil’s character. His strong Protestant beliefs were never illustrated, nor were the extent of his espionage contributions to Elizabeth’s government.
Unfortunately, the creators of this film did not produce as nearly an accurate representation of Francis Walsingham as they did for William Cecil. Walsingham’s name was first brought up in a court scene following the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth. Norfolk feared his return and arranged a futile assassination attempt shown in the following scene. This introduction clearly established Walsingham as an opponent to Catholicism, and supporter of the new Protestant queen. Throughout the movie he was depicted as an influential member of Elizabeth’s inner circle responsible for much of the Queen’s success. He was the secret agent man lurking in the shadows to discover the many threats to Elizabeth. Walsingham, however, was in France from the mid 1550’s to about 1570 first as an exile and latter as an English ambassador. In reality he was not a prominent member of Elizabeth’s court until the mid 1570’s, and before this time he corresponded more with the man responsible for starting his political carrier –William Cecil. In addition Walsingham’s deep Puritan beliefs were never denoted, and he had little to no part in the affairs of Norfolk. The filmmakers, however, paid little tribute to these historical particulars. As the film moved on Walsingham and Norfolk increasingly became the main representatives for good and evil, Protestant and Catholic, protector and assassin, protagonist and antagonist.
The Duke of Norfolk in this movie was the leader of the Catholic opposition to Elizabeth. This was illustrated through his ordering of Walsinghams assassination, his attempts to have Elizabeth dethroned or killed, and his overall demeanor at court. Norfolk would constantly belittle Elizabeth both in council and in private. In the film, he was the one who unreluctantly pushed for battle against Mary of Guise in Scotland, and he constantly told his many lovers that the heretic Queen would fall. Members of his entourage included the Earl of Sussex, Lord Arundel, Bishop Gardiner, and the Spanish ambassador De Quadra. He would later correspond with these men and the Pope in an attempt to assassinate Elizabeth. This picture of the Duke of Norfolk, however, was terribly inaccurate. The man was Protestant, and was regarded as an ignorant nobleman of high blood that was too proud for his own good. Records indicate the man lacked the ability to coordinate the detailed plots against Elizabeth, and was more than likely a patsy to greater minds. Why then make Norfolk the villainous mastermind behind an assassination attempt on Elizabeth? There were certainly other members of the aristocracy that would have been a better candidate for an enemy of Elizabeth. Lord Northumberland, for example, led an army against the Queen in an attempt to overthrow her reign. What Norfolk’s history has, however, that Northumberland’s and others lacked was drama. Norfolk “planned” to overthrow Elizabeth by marrying Mary Queen of Scots, and this was much more exciting than an average armed rebellion. Northumberland also survived his uprising in exile, but Norfolk was arrested and eventually executed for treason. The historical drama surrounding the end of the Duke’s life was just to tempting for filmmakers to pass up, and in order to produce a traditional tale of good versus evil Norfolk was villainized.
By the time of Elizabeth’s coronation, the film had established important character traits. Norfolk and his party were the villainous Catholics while Elizabeth and her supporters were the righteous Protestants. This was accomplished by bending chronological facts via Walsingham’s appearance in England, and the manipulation of Norfolk’s historical persona. William Cecil was portrayed with greater accuracy, but this hardly justified neglecting these other historical truths. The inaccuracies of various characters in history, represented in this film, would later taint attempts to illustrate acceptable historical themes. Fortunately the filmmakers created a more palatable vision of Elizabeth’s courtship and her early years as Queen.
With the heroes firmly separated from the villains, Mary dead, and Elizabeth crowned, the film began to indicate the problems with the new Queen’s kingdom. The filmmakers kept the historical facts accurate when they described England as a pitiable nation with little security and treasure. Cecil warned that Spain and France threaten from abroad, and Mary Queen of Scots along with Norfolk were plotting to overthrow her majesty from within. He stated that until she married and produced an heir, her reign would not be safe. Elizabeth was urged to marry by everyone in hopes of obtaining security through a foreign alliance, or if the husband was an Englishman domestic peace via the creation of a successor. The movie does not depict why England’s treasury was empty, but it was true that Mary’s various unsuccessful military campaigns bankrupted the nation. It was also accurate in its assertion that Mary Queen of Scots declared herself the true Catholic Queen of England. The film, however, failed to mention Mary’s religion, and Norfolk was not involved in any plots to eliminate Elizabeth at this time. Once again historically accurate themes were illustrated, but the details omitted would surely anger authors of written history.
Another issue that required immediate attention upon Elizabeth’s ascension was religion. The film denoted very little contextual information in regards to the assembly scene at Westminster Abbey in March of 1559. The Act of Uniformity was mentioned in Elizabeth’s dialogue with the clergy, but the significances of this law was not explained. The Act of Supremacy, which was introduced and passed at the same time, was completely ignored. Under the Act of Supremacy, Elizabeth became the “supreme governor” of the English Church. The Act of Uniformity banned all non-Protestant worship within England, but this law was not very effective until the Subscription Act of 1571. These acts were originally created and passed under Henry VIII, but were revoked by Bloody Mary. With Elizabeth as queen, the laws were reinitiated and re-established royal supremacy with full Protestant worship. These religious changes could not have occurred with out the help of William Cecil. He was the one who arranged the Westminster Abbey debate, and limited it to only include information justified by Scripture alone. These parameters angered many Catholics bishops, and they walked out of the assembly. Cecil also had two bishops imprisoned, and these laws became the first religious legislation to be ratified without the churches consent.
The film only depicted the incarcerated bishops, the Act of Uniformity, and a tense atmosphere during the Westminster debate. Norfolk was seen at the meeting wondering where Bishop Gardiner and other influential Catholic bishops were. After the debate, Walsingham was shown releasing the absent bishops from a prison cell, and announced that the legislation passed by five votes. In the film there were too many incarcerated bishops, and Walsingham—as stated before—was in France at this time. William Cecil should have been indicated as the one responsible for this action, but his character was not depicted as a masterful conniver like Walsingham. It should also be noted that Gardiner at this time was dead despite his appearance in this scene. Another issue with the films depiction was Elizabeth declaration that these laws were for her people. Although she knew the dangers of alienating the masses, Elizabeth was not afraid to boost her own position. The Act of Supremacy gave her the Pope’s role for the Church of England, and this significantly increased her power. Finally the movie failed to mention the other religious laws ratified at this time, and primarily used this moment in history to encompass two themes. The first was the same Catholic versus Protestant confrontation that has been denoted since the beginning, and the second was Elizabeth’s political acuteness.
Elizabeth’s famous ability to charm her way through debates was illustrated very well by the filmmakers, and was the most accurate display of a historical theme. Both in history and in this movie she was knowledgeable, knew when to be cautious, and when to be assertive. When the bishops at the Westminster assembly proclaimed that a separation from the Pope was heresy Elizabeth replied, “No your grace. This is common sense, which is a most English virtue.” This amused the crowd greatly, which then turned to the question of marriage. Once again sharp witty replies were made. She declared that so many people had so many different selections that she could only appease everyone by marrying everyone. This statement brought a lecture from one of the bishops about the sanctity of marriage, but Elizabeth shot him down by bringing up his rather long divorce record. These exchanges in the film highlighted Elizabeth’s playful yet determined nature, and her ability to move along the middle path in politics.
After the various religious reforms were initiated many angry Catholic clergyman wrote to Elizabeth denouncing the Protestant heresy. In a letter to a group of “deprived bishops” the Queen decided to give an intelligent rebuttal while concurrently illustrating a firm yet forgiving position. This was very similar to her approach at Westminster in the film, but contained a less humorist’s tone due to her strong political position with the issue at hand. She rebutted the claim that the Pope was a higher authority with historical examples. “For our Savior Christ paid His tribute unto Caesar, as the chief superior; which shows your Romish supremacy is usurped.” She went on to warn the bishops that continued provocation of this issue would lead to “penalties enacted for the punishing of our resisters: which out of our clemency we have forborne.” Elizabeth was not going to make the mistake of her sister reign and come down with an iron fist against the opposing religion. At the same time she could not afford to be portrayed as a weakling. She would attempt a middle path between the extremes, which often worked towards her advantage. This was her position in politics, and the film does an excellent job portraying this trait with few factual mistakes.
The middle path also severed her well against the many men that would seek her hand in marriage. The numerous courtships of Elizabeth were summarized in this film through three suitors: Phillip II, Robert Dudley, and the Duke of Anjou. There were actually many more men seeking the Queen’s hand, and they are vividly described in many written works such as Josephine Ross’s Suitors to the Queen. It would have been impossible for the creators of this film to include all of Elizabeth’s early courtships without sacrificing the overall story and its flow. The Earl of Devon, Philip II, William Pickering, Robert Dudley, the Earl of Arran, Archduke Ferdinand, Lord Arundel, the King of Sweden, and Archduke Charles were all interested in becoming Elizabeth’s husband. As stated earlier there is just not enough time to illustrate every historical event on a subject in one movie. This limitation and the filmmaker’s ignorance of history, tainted the general atmosphere of the three courtships, but Elizabeth’s reactions to her suitors was well crafted. When De Quadra asked Elizabeth to consider Phillip II as a husband—while Mary Tudor was still alive—she was disgusted. She was later seen talking to Robert Dudley about the proposal, and her concerns about Phillip’s absenteeism as a ruler and husband were expressed. The film never bothers with Phillip’s request again because the two main suitors for Elizabeth were Dudley and Anjou. The King of Spain, however, was much more persistent than exemplified. He sought the Queen’s hand in marriage through various means until the mid 1560’s but was always rejected. Afterwards he would attempt to control and/or check English power first by supporting certain suitors of Elizabeth and later through military might via the Spanish Armada.
One of Phillip’s constituents was none other than Robert Dudley. The King of Spain recruited the surviving Dudley brothers from their imprisonment in the Tower in October 1554. As vassals to Phillip II they were sent to fight against France, and Robert would be commended for his performance as Master of the Ordinance. In March of 1557, Robert would return home with his family “restored in blood,” and was able to acquire some of his father’s property. He would later sell a portion of this property to help out his lifelong personal friend Elizabeth with financial difficulties. This act of generosity was one of the reasons Elizabeth was so fond of Robert. They were also—as stated earlier—children in the court of Edward VI and cellmates in the Tower. None of this history, however, was portrayed in the movie, and neither were the promotions rewarded to Robert from the new Queen. Few in court were surprised that Elizabeth granted many favors to Robert, and he was not the only one to benefit from her becoming queen. Walsingham and especially Cecil—later Lord Burghley—also gained many favors and titles under Elizabeth’s reign. Robert would become Master of the Queen’s Horse, and was given a position in the Privy Council. He would later become Earl of Leicester, which was actually mentioned by Walsingham towards the end of the film. Robert’s influential and intimate relationship with Elizabeth steadily increased throughout her early reign much to the dislike of other members in court. This theme was well illustrated in the film, but the contextual information regarding Robert’s relationship with Elizabeth was blatantly skewed.
After the controversial death of his wife in September of 1560, Robert began a strong campaign to marry Elizabeth. The Queen defiantly held deep affections for Robert, but she never gave concrete answers to his inquiries about marriage. Never the less Robert sought the support of his old benefactor the King of Spain. He accomplished this alliance through the Spanish Ambassador De Quadra. It was agreed that Phillip II would support the marriage of Robert and Elizabeth—politically and militarily—if the Queen converted to Catholicism and declared herself a vassal of the King of Spain. Elizabeth would never agree to these terms, but Robert convinced De Quadra he could turn her around. The Spanish Ambassador illustrated skepticism at this boast, but at the same time he believed Robert to be the only man capable of accomplishing such a feat. In court De Quadra would indicate that Phillip II would not object to Elizabeth marrying Robert, and regularly recommend him as a suitor.
The filmmakers left out this layer of Robert’s courtship to Elizabeth. On the silver screen he was the hopeless romantic trying to win the woman of his dreams through dancing, poetry, and charm. Robert Dudley, the whimpering lover of Elizabeth who was heartbroken by her eventual rejection. De Quadra never recommended Robert as a husband to Elizabeth in the film. Instead the relationship between Robert and Spain was distorted. It is not towards the end of the movie that he allies with the Catholic enemy under pressure to save his Elizabeth from the dangers of remaining single. This was shown as an act of desperation. In reality Robert’s allegiance with Spain was well calculated, and was not initiated by De Quadra. The absences of this information from the film hinder its portrayal of Robert and Elizabeth’s relationship. Robert was not only the hopeless romantic that Hollywood portrays. He had a dark side to his life, and was not afraid to go against Elizabeth’s interests to further his own position.
On June 24th, 1561, the three players in this love connection found themselves together at a Thames River party hosted by Robert himself. The event was very festive with elaborate decorations, fantastic fireworks, and lively music. At one point the three of them were alone on a boat, and De Quadra described the scene as follows:
They began joking, which she likes to do much better than talking about business. They went so far with their jokes that Lord Robert told her that, if she liked, I could be the minister to perform the act of marriage and she, nothing loath to hear it, said she was not sure whether I knew enough English.
De Quadra took the insult lightly, and continued to warn Elizabeth about the hazards of staying single. She reassured him that marriage was not out of the question, but this was probably more political than sincere. Elizabeth needed to keep Phillip II docile with the increased tension along the Scottish border and the fear of a Franco-Scot invasion. Robert Dudley would continue his futile pursuit for Elizabeth’s hand in marriage for as long as he lived. Elizabeth, however, would not allow such a thing to pass. Robert was an emotional anchor for her, and remained under her effective control as a suitor and/or lover. If he became king her power over him would be loss, and Elizabeth would not allow that to occur.
The creators of Elizbeth illustrated the historical event described above without consulting their local library. The Thames River party in the film was designed to further develop the intimate relationship between Robert and Elizabeth while illustrating the disgust it produced in court. The scene started by showing Robert and Elizabeth in the same boat together. Robert was performing romantic Shakespearean like poetry to her, and the camera shows other members of Elizabeth’s court—Norfolk, De Quadra, Anjou and his ambassador—staring with repugnance at their playful banter. The quote given before by De Quadra was played out in this scene, but the ambassador was denoted to be very offended by the audacity of Robert and Elizabeth. Robert was definitely trying to convince Elizabeth to marry, but Spanish aide was not illustrated. Also during the actual event there was no record of an assassination attempt on Elizabeth, and Anjou would not have been present. The French duke would not have become a possible suitor for another seven years. With the inaccuracies of the Thames River party, the filmmakers seem to have manipulated historical facts for historical themes that more closely fit their story. This is generally unacceptable for historians of written history. They cannot simply manipulate their research to coincide with whatever suits their interests. This destroys the integrity of history and produces inaccurate historical themes. The film also used this disruption of history for the Duke of Anjou’s courtship of Elizabeth.
Anjou has been depicted as a degenerate homosexual with devilish good looks. The filmmakers would take this historical description and run with it. In the movie, Elizabeth caught Anjou cross-dressing while his entire entourage partook in a bisexual orgy. This was every entertaining, but historicaly impossible. As seen before chronology was tampered with, and this time individuals were in countries that they never visited. In the case of the Duke of Anjou, his age relative to Elizabeth was much greater than depicted. The film was about young Elizabeth, and even if a few years had passed since her coronation she would still be in her late twenties. Elizabeth was actually forty-six at the time of this courtship, and Anjou was about half her age. Anjou, in the movie, was also present at the Thames River party that occurred in 1561. Serious communication about a possible marriage was not started until the late 1560’s, and the young French aristocrat never set foot in England. The only slight hint of historical truth for this subplot was the name of the French ambassador Paul de Foix. Catherine de Medici—Anjou’s mother and co ruler of France—sent him to England to personally handle Elizabeth’s courtship. In France, Elizabeth had Walsingham as her representative. Although the two would be lovers never met face to face, many on both sides of the English Channel were eager to accept the possibility of a successful match. In the end, however, all hope was futile. Anjou’s marriage contract was overzealous. He demanded to rule jointly with Elizabeth and wanted an allowance of 60,000 pounds annually. He insisted on the right to practice Catholicism, and would not attend the Church of England. In addition if Elizabeth dies these benefits would continue throughout Anjou’s life. The Queen and her councilors were willing to be flexible with the negotiations, but the lack of a religious comprise doomed the Duke of Anjou’s chance at marriage.
In the film, unfortunately, the courtship between Anjou and Elizabeth fails to highlight any relevant historical themes. The chronology, placement of characters, and the method of communication were completely inaccurate. This would not be the only time during this film that a crime against history was committed. The plots climax was crammed with errors, which doomed this film’s ability to portray historically accurate themes as a whole. The concluding clash between Protestant and Catholic took the form of what historians call the Ridolfi Plot. This was one of three catholic conspiracies that involved disgruntle English nobles, Mary of Scots, the Pope, and Spain. The idea was to have the Duke of Norfolk wed Mary of Scots, and once this occurred a Spanish army would provide reinforcements to English rebels lead by Earls Westmorland and Northumberland. When Elizabeth’s forces were defeated Norfolk and Mary would take the English crown, and with the Pope’s support restore Catholicism throughout the kingdom.
These conspiracies to overthrow Elizabeth started shortly after Mary of Scots escaped her prison in Lochleven in 1568, and fled to England for protection. Mary was originally imprisoned for the supposed murder of her previous Scottish husband Lord Darnley, and Elizabeth was well aware of her notorious reputation. Shortly after arriving in England, Norfolk met with Mary’s representatives: John Leslie, Bishop of Ross, and Maitland of Lethington. Maitland would suggest during a hunting expedition that Norfolk—whose third wife had recently died in childbirth—should wed Mary of Scots. Norfolk was the only duke in England, and held considerable power throughout the land. His Protestantism would balance out Mary’s Catholicism, and this would supposedly create peace between the religions. He had the wealth, the noble blood, and the means to accomplish this scheme. Unfortunately for the duke, these best laid plans would go to waste.
Rumors of the conspiracy quickly spread throughout the kingdom. What Elizabeth, and probably Norfolk, didn’t know was how many simultaneous plots were being hatched. Three separate yet related schemes—all wanting to see Mary replace Elizabeth as queen—were played out from 1569 to 1571. The first plot involved Maitland, Norfolk, the current ruler of Scotland Regent Murray, Bishop of Ross, and Robert Dudley. This plan was the least violent of the three, and would only declare Mary and Norfolk as successors to Elizabeth. Robert’s support for this plan was key. He was the one that was supposed to gain Elizabeth’s favor for the idea, and deflect Cecil’s objections in court. Robert’s participation in this plot was yet another desperate attempt to marry Elizabeth. With Norfolk and Mary as successors the consequences of Robert marrying Elizabeth would become null and void. The second conspiracy involved the Pope, Lord Arundel, Northumberland, Westmorland, and other northern English Catholics. This plan was very similar to the one described earlier to lead an armed rebellion supported by Spain that coincided with the proposed marriage. The third plot involved participants from the second conspiracy—those left alive—and an Italian banker named Ridolfi. The Ridolfi plot, however, took place two years after the other conspiracies, and never reached the point of armed rebellion. All three of these plots occurred around the same time, and had the same goal; overthrow Elizabeth in order to put Norfolk and Mary of Scots on the English throne.
The movie Elizabeth, never alluded to the fact that three scandals were being displayed simultaneously. All were summarized into one inaccurate portrayal that vaguely represented the Ridolfi scandal—despite the films lack of Florentine bankers. There was a brief scene with the Pope that illustrated the Papal Bull declaring the assassination of Elizabeth free from sin. In a later segment, an English Catholic priest present during the Vatican scene, was shown handing copies of the Papal Bull to Norfolk. At this time, the priest also uncovered a spy loyal to Walsingham amongst Norfolk’s entourage and brutally beat him to death. This vicious act further illustrated the Catholics as the villains of this film. The next scene relevant to the conspiracy, denoted De Quadra, Norfolk, and the Catholic priest—no name was given to this character—leaving a room. The impression was that the plot was beginning to gain speed, and that Spain was somehow involved.
Walsingham would eventual discover the conspiracy against his queen. He warns her of Norfolk’s growing power, and the Papal Bull issued against her. With Elizabeth’s approval the priest would be found, arrested, and a confession would be tortured out of him. Walsingham was later shown reading his discoveries to Elizabeth. Gardiner, Arundel, Sussex, Norfolk, De Quadra, and Robert were named as traitors to the state. Walsingham also spoke about the approval of her assassination by the Pope. Elizabeth firm conviction to stop this conspiracy was strongly portrayed, and she gave the approval for Walsingham to act.
All of the traitors—accept Robert—were arrested and killed in the following montage. Robert was Elizabeth’s “reminder” of how close she came to destruction. Arundel would be convicted, but his children would receive no punishment because of his role as the sympathetic villain. Sussex was detained while relieving himself, and Gardiner along with De Quadra were simply executed on sight. Norfolk’s final speech exemplified his proud noble nature: “A man’s courage is in the manor of his death. I am content to die for my belief. So cut off my head, and make me a martyr. The people will always remember it.” Walsingham calmly told Norfolk that he was mistaken, and that the people would forget him soon enough. The main antagonist of the film was last shown on the execution block as the axe descended upon the back of his neck. The next shot illustrated that Sussex and Arundel shared the fate of Norfolk. The three traitors had their heads displayed on a pike. With her realm secure, and her heart made cold by Robert’s betrayal, Elizabeth donned the image of a Virgin. According to the closing texts Elizabeth would lead England to a Golden Age, and one can assume that everyone would live happily ever after.
The segment of the film described above had a terrible sense of chronology, misrepresented historical figures, and over simplified the multiple conspiracies from 1569-1571. By this time Gardiner and De Quadra would have already been dead. The Spanish Ambassador involved in the conspiracies was Don Gerald de Spes, and he was not killed in Elizabeth’s court. Sussex, as mentioned at the beginning of this paper, was not a traitor to the queen. He would serve her majesty’s army well, and died an honorable death in 1583. Arundel was not executed for his participation but was put under house arrest. Once again, Walsingham was in France at this time, and would not be in England for another few years. Finally, the priest whom was captured by Walsingham, and sent by the Pope to assassinate Elizabeth was completely fictional. Charles Baily was the closest historical figure that was even remotely similar to this Catholic priest. Charles was a simple Scotsman who was arrested for carrying prohibited books and ciphered letters for Mary’s advisor Bishop of Ross. Cecil had discovered the vial intention of these letters by placing a spy in the same prison as Charles. When more information was needed, and could not be obtained through espionage Cecil used torture. Charles confession lead to further arrests of suspects involved with the Ridolfi plot. The only connection between Charles and the film’s villainous priest was their arrest and torture for conspiring against the queen.
Robert Dudley and Norfolk’s characters were abused to a greater degree than those mentioned above furthering the destruction of historically accurate themes. Firstly, Norfolk was arrested before the Ridolfi plot. By the end of 1569, the current conspiracy afloat was the one involving an actual armed rebellion along side Norfolk’s marriage to Mary—the Ridolfi plot would occur later. All of the key players were in place. Northumberland along with sympathetic northern nobles were ready and waiting to capture Mary at Wingfield. Once this occurred Spanish troops were suppose to land, and meet up with the northern rebels. Meanwhile Robert had taken ill, and requested to have Elizabeth at his bedside. When she came he confessed all the details concerning the scheme to overthrow her. He was privy to this information because of his involvement of in the first conspiracy earlier that year. He pleaded for a pardon, which he eventually received. Elizabeth feared for her life and began to prepare for a possible civil war. She quickly relocated Mary to the fortress at Tutbury, and shut herself in Windsor Castle for her own protection. Ports across the nation were shut down, and the queen’s army was called into service. None of this information was displayed in the film, and even more data would be left out.
Cecil and Robert were commanded to write to Norfolk, and demand his presence at court. Norfolk previously left court after being confronted about his dealings with Mary by Elizabeth. Under the council of Robert he denied all involvement, and once this was said his pride would not allow him to go against his word—even if it was a lie. Cecil and Robert’s letters to Norfolk only increased his fear. He received the impression that if he came to court he would be sent to the Tower. He refused to return to court, stating his poor health prevented travel. Elizabeth now wrote to Norfolk:
Which manner of answer we have not been accustomed to receive from any person; neither would we have you to think us so mean a consideration as to allow an excuse by a fever, having had so straight a commandment from us; and the case also made so notorious, as first by your departure, and now by your delay in coming, that our estimation herein cannot but be in some discredit, except you do immediately repair to us, though the same be in a litter, and so we do expressly command you: in which doing you shall make demonstration by deeds of the humbleness and loyalty that you have by your letters and messages expressed.
After this summons was sent, Norfolk contacted his allies in the north and attempted to stop the rebellion before things got any worse. Unfortunately for the duke it was to late. On November 14th, 1569, Northumberland and his followers began their attack by sacking Durham Cathedral. After destroying much of the churches property—including vernacular Bibles—the rebel army marched southward.
The Queen’s militia was lead by Lord Sussex who was the current President of the North—a villain in the movie but a hero in history. Without the promised support from Norfolk or Spain the revolt was easily crushed. Norfolk and Mary of Scots were arrested and sent to the Tower. Other members were either in exile or arrested, while Robert escaped any punishment—thanks to his sick bed confession. Norfolk in 1572 was beheaded followed by Mary in 1587. Elizabeth delayed their execution because they were both her cousins, and she was uncertain about the political and moral ramifications. Norfolk might have spent the rest of his days under house arrest, but he got involved in the Ridolfi plot of 1571. This was the last of the three conspiracies mentioned earlier which ended in failure. Cecil had gotten wind of this plot early. First Charles was arrested which lead to the incarceration and eventual confession of the Bishop of Ross. The information derived from these two men implicated Norfolk for treason beyond any doubt. In the film, this information was either ignored and/or manipulated. The creators of this movie attempted to illustrate an oversimplified version of a complex historical event. This failure to accurately summarize events inhibited the display of effective and accurate historical themes.
The filmmakers also failed to demonstrate the context of Norfolk’s execution, and did not denote the change in Elizabeth’s government after the conspiracies from 1569 and 1571. Despite the vast amount of evidence towards Norfolk’s disloyalty, it took an angry Parliament to finally get Elizabeth signature on his death sentence. Cecil also urged the execution. The powerful traitor had to be made an example. Unfortunately, Elizabeth was not as pleased with Norfolk’s death as Cecil was, and would blame him for years to come. The film depicted Walsingham pushing for Norfolk’s arrest, and Elizabeth approved his execution without any signs of regret. Also not illustrated in the film was Cecil’s newfound political power. The movie simply depicted Cecil receiving his title of Lord Burghley, and was forced by Elizabeth to retire before the conspiracies. In reality, he was far from retirement and the various scandals had diminished all of his opponent’s power. Robert Dudley, the only other political contender, was pardoned but in disfavor with Elizabeth. Cecil took advantage of this time to raise his own men to power in Elizabeth’s government. This included his long time companion Francis Walsingham. With all of the changes occurring after the various conspiracies of the late 1560’s Elizabeth’s government would never look the same.
This film ignored massive amounts of written records in its attempt to illustrate a historically based story. Chronology, members of Elizabeth’s court, and their personalities were manipulated to fit the movies plot. Events displayed took place between 1554-1572. The audience has no indication of these dates other than the opening text at the films start. Years fly by in seconds without the slightest explanation of what occurred and how it was significant. The beginning of the movie semi-successfully established the many problems of Elizabeth’s reign using historically accurate themes. The end of Mary Tudor’s reign, Elizabeth’s life before becoming queen, and her political abilities as queen lacked some details but was overwhelmingly correct. As the movie progressed, however, history was left farther back in the dust. The courtships of Elizabeth exemplified were oversimplified and chronologically inaccurate. Robert Dudley’s attempt, however, was not as bad despite using false data to produce the desired effect. The fall and execution of Norfolk was handled horribly as well as the consequence it had on Elizabeth’s government. Mary of Scots and her supporter’s involvement in the various scandals were completely ignored. Norfolk personality in the movie was the opposite of what history denotes, and according to the film all was well in England after the death of Norfolk. The film does not say why Elizabeth adopted the Virgin Queen persona, and became the strong ruler that led England through the Golden Age.
With these numerous inaccuracies can this movie truly be used to represent history? Certain segments of this film can be used as an accurate depiction for the early life of Elizabeth. The film as a whole, however, is not useable for the teaching of history. The number of factual inaccuracies in this movie far out weigh the display of valid historical themes. Historical themes are partial created by accepted historical data. Themes can still be portrayed correctly with some facts out of place, but you cannot ignore history completely. This is what the movie Elizabeth does. It displays themes from Elizabeth’s early life, but uses so many inaccurate facts that it blurs the historical message it portrayed.
Bibliography
Budiansky, Stephen. Her Majesty’s Spymaster: Elizabeth I, Sir Francis Walsingham, and the
Birth of Modern Espionage. London: Penguin Books, 2005.
Harrison, G. B. The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1968.
Jenkins, Elizabeth. Elizabeth and Leicester. New York: Coward-McCann Inc., 1961.
Elizabeth. DVD. Directed by Shekhar Kapur. California: Universal Studios, 1998.
Morgan, Kenneth O. The Oxford History of Britain. New York: Oxford Press, 2001.
Plowden, Alison. The Young Elizabeth. New York: Stein and Day Publishers, 1971.
Plowden, Alison. Marriage with My Kingdom. New York: Stein and Day Publishers, 1977.
Read, Conyers. Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth. New York: Alden Press, 1960.
Ross, Joesphine. Suitors to the Queen: The Men in the Life of Elizabeth I of England. New York:
Coward, MacCann & Geoghegan Inc., 1975.
Williams, Neville. All the Queen’s Men: Elizabeth I and Her Courtiers. New York: The
MacMillan Company, 1972.
No comments:
Post a Comment