elizabeth.....help! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mmhmm
- Start date
CalmlyInsane
New Member
Yeah ok, well if you want different opinions of Elizabeth *bring out notes from some seminar*
If you want a feminist viewpoint look at Susan Doran, if you want an agressive critical viewpoint look at Christopher Haigh. Infact Doran criticizes Haigh's viewpoints saying that he's sexist and he should re-evaluate his evidence.
You can also look at some things by Camden, Elton, Weir, Plowden, Levin and Neale. You can also use visual representations such as paintings and the Kapur film 'Elizabeth', and Sloan's BBC series 'Elizabeth R'... and talk about dramatic themes and why the people who directed the series and the film (mostly the film, the series is pretty correct) didn't stick to the real life story and used dramatic over tones....
Anyway I can't give you notes, because, well there's a lot of them.. so much so they take up 2 folders... but I can recommend books to look at
-Elizabeth and the Queen - Alison Weir
-England under the Tudors - G.R. Elton
-Two Queens in one Isle and
-Dangers to Elizabeth - Alison Plowden
-Profiles in Power: Elizabeth - Christopher Haigh (I can't believe I was the only one in that seminar doing the book!)
most of them are pretty feminist, and I hate feminism,.. but still they're historians to use
But I think the most important thing is that when you write about historians opinions note the time frame when the opinions were written and relate them to the time of Elizabeth.
If you want a feminist viewpoint look at Susan Doran, if you want an agressive critical viewpoint look at Christopher Haigh. Infact Doran criticizes Haigh's viewpoints saying that he's sexist and he should re-evaluate his evidence.
You can also look at some things by Camden, Elton, Weir, Plowden, Levin and Neale. You can also use visual representations such as paintings and the Kapur film 'Elizabeth', and Sloan's BBC series 'Elizabeth R'... and talk about dramatic themes and why the people who directed the series and the film (mostly the film, the series is pretty correct) didn't stick to the real life story and used dramatic over tones....
Anyway I can't give you notes, because, well there's a lot of them.. so much so they take up 2 folders... but I can recommend books to look at
-Elizabeth and the Queen - Alison Weir
-England under the Tudors - G.R. Elton
-Two Queens in one Isle and
-Dangers to Elizabeth - Alison Plowden
-Profiles in Power: Elizabeth - Christopher Haigh (I can't believe I was the only one in that seminar doing the book!)
most of them are pretty feminist, and I hate feminism,.. but still they're historians to use
But I think the most important thing is that when you write about historians opinions note the time frame when the opinions were written and relate them to the time of Elizabeth.
CalmlyInsane
New Member
elizabeth just goes on... and on... and on..
yeah i'm pretty damn sure i do,.. i'll look into it, and if for some strange reason i don't, i'll ask others.. but not right now, after modern history exam,...when i have more time,..and enough stamina to look through all this crap that has been handed to me,.. I've done Elizabeth all year and what has the teacher taught me....NOTHING....every lesson was just sheets being given out and watching a video. No discussion... wow... My teacher SUCKED!
but yeah what the exams are 12% of the final mark, and the project is 80%.. and my my,.. did i screw up that one good
yeah i'm pretty damn sure i do,.. i'll look into it, and if for some strange reason i don't, i'll ask others.. but not right now, after modern history exam,...when i have more time,..and enough stamina to look through all this crap that has been handed to me,.. I've done Elizabeth all year and what has the teacher taught me....NOTHING....every lesson was just sheets being given out and watching a video. No discussion... wow... My teacher SUCKED!
but yeah what the exams are 12% of the final mark, and the project is 80%.. and my my,.. did i screw up that one good
Last edited:
CalmlyInsane
New Member
omfg
okies, omfg. I am SO SORRY... i went to post something here,.. last week, and i could never get here because either my internet is screwed or something else... i feel like such an *&^% right now.
weellll...after extensive looking , specifically points out doran but he does say
"One or two reviewers, and a few colleagues and students, suggested that the first edition of this book was unkind and unfair portrait of Elizabeth I. I hope they were wrong. Perhaps 1987 at the height of Margaret Thatcher's dominance was not the best time for writing a sympathetic study of a female ruler! But Mrs Thatcher was overthrown, and I have not changed my mind. Of course, each age rewrites history and each era rewrites Elizabeth. Perhaps mine is a post-modernist Elizabeth, an Elizabeth for a time which distrusts big agendas and big government, which expects projects to fail, and which is attuned to signs and symbols and modes of discourse... If the book is less laudatory then most of its other assessments of the Queen, it is partly because it's not a biography. Examining Elizabeth's relationships with different political groups and institutions reveal her problems, and show her fighting to manage her subjects and get her way"
- Take from that what you will, you can point out that Haigh acknowledges that people disagree with what he states and gives reasons such as... etc etc..
"Elizabeth died unloved and almost unlamented, and it was party her own fault. She had aimed for popularity and political security by projecting herself as the ever young and ever beautiful virgin mother of her people, bringing them peace and prosperity; she ended her days as a irascible old woman, presiding over war and failure abroad and poverty and factionism at home"
- That's also from the same guy, in the same part of Profiles in Power: Elizabeth I, in the conclusion - except this is more of a Government thing,...I have a great one on the Gloriana period
"Elizabeth was a show-off, and she dressed to kill." - one sentence pretty much sums up his views on her Gloriana period
Edward Dwyer, told Hatton, who was courting Eliz. in 1572 "Consider with whom you have to deal, and what we be towards her who though she do descend very much in her sex as a woman yet we may not forget her place and the nature of it as our sovereign' - E Brooks ,'Sir Christopher Hatton.' - 1946
"Elizabeth came to the throne after thirty years of religious upheaval which had threatened the unity of the realm, leaving it weak and divided. She was no innovator in either politics or religion." - Geoffrey Regan, 'Elizabeth I:Topics in History' - 1988
Ok that's all i can come up with that makes sense, and actually has a source name attached... once again,.. i'm so sorry, for leaving it so late, but my internet has *&^($# up lately, if i can find anymore, with names attached, i'll post them:wave:
okies, omfg. I am SO SORRY... i went to post something here,.. last week, and i could never get here because either my internet is screwed or something else... i feel like such an *&^% right now.
weellll...after extensive looking , specifically points out doran but he does say
"One or two reviewers, and a few colleagues and students, suggested that the first edition of this book was unkind and unfair portrait of Elizabeth I. I hope they were wrong. Perhaps 1987 at the height of Margaret Thatcher's dominance was not the best time for writing a sympathetic study of a female ruler! But Mrs Thatcher was overthrown, and I have not changed my mind. Of course, each age rewrites history and each era rewrites Elizabeth. Perhaps mine is a post-modernist Elizabeth, an Elizabeth for a time which distrusts big agendas and big government, which expects projects to fail, and which is attuned to signs and symbols and modes of discourse... If the book is less laudatory then most of its other assessments of the Queen, it is partly because it's not a biography. Examining Elizabeth's relationships with different political groups and institutions reveal her problems, and show her fighting to manage her subjects and get her way"
- Take from that what you will, you can point out that Haigh acknowledges that people disagree with what he states and gives reasons such as... etc etc..
"Elizabeth died unloved and almost unlamented, and it was party her own fault. She had aimed for popularity and political security by projecting herself as the ever young and ever beautiful virgin mother of her people, bringing them peace and prosperity; she ended her days as a irascible old woman, presiding over war and failure abroad and poverty and factionism at home"
- That's also from the same guy, in the same part of Profiles in Power: Elizabeth I, in the conclusion - except this is more of a Government thing,...I have a great one on the Gloriana period
"Elizabeth was a show-off, and she dressed to kill." - one sentence pretty much sums up his views on her Gloriana period
Edward Dwyer, told Hatton, who was courting Eliz. in 1572 "Consider with whom you have to deal, and what we be towards her who though she do descend very much in her sex as a woman yet we may not forget her place and the nature of it as our sovereign' - E Brooks ,'Sir Christopher Hatton.' - 1946
"Elizabeth came to the throne after thirty years of religious upheaval which had threatened the unity of the realm, leaving it weak and divided. She was no innovator in either politics or religion." - Geoffrey Regan, 'Elizabeth I:Topics in History' - 1988
Ok that's all i can come up with that makes sense, and actually has a source name attached... once again,.. i'm so sorry, for leaving it so late, but my internet has *&^($# up lately, if i can find anymore, with names attached, i'll post them:wave:
CalmlyInsane
New Member
okies,. *whew*..
allright,
mwah! GOOD LUCK!!!:disco:
allright,
mwah! GOOD LUCK!!!:disco: