There are two things here, timallan: firstly, you talk of Elizabeth herself, her character, as interpreted through the book; then of the glories of her age. I haven't read any biographies or detailed historical interpretations of the Queen herself and her government, but I am well steeped in the achievements of her reign.

It is impossible to deny that the Elizabethan age must be the greatest for drama/theatre, not just in this country but possibly in the whole world: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Kydd, Johnson and more. An age, too, for great poetry: Shakespeare (again), Spencer, Donne. Then there's the music: William Byrd, Thomas Tallis, and others in church music; Dowland, Gibbons, Weelkes, Morley and many more in secular music - all world-class composers. Then there are the explorers: Raleigh (also an excellent poet), Drake, Chapman etc. who explored the external wide world and ruminated on their findings to look inward to explore the essence of humankind itself. She must have been a pretty good war strategist too (she or her councillors - same thing because she chose them) - beating the Spanish Armada hands down, as we did.

Whatever was the truth of Elizabeth herself (and we'll never really know), in my opinion she must have had a magnificent, intellligent, generous core to her, to have brought all this and more together in her time; to have chosen the best people around her and encouraged them each to realise his enormous potential.

Those are my thoughts.

Dido

Tim, I think Dido has summed up the cultural greatness of the reign of Elizabeth so neatly there is nothing else that needs adding.
You ask for recommendations of other books. As you have jumped in at the deep end with the Jasper Ridley I don't think you would gain much by reading some 'girly' historical romance, so would suggest you go straight to Elizabeth I by David Starkey. Interestingly this deals with her early life up until her accession to the throne. And if anybody thinks Royalty had it easy this will show you the other side of the coin. A modern person would need years of therapy to deal with all that had befallen her as a child and young woman.
These very traumatic youthful years probably dictated how she went on to rule her people. eg You mention her 'legendary indecisiveness'. Was this a clever ploy to keep everyone guessing as to her next move and to gain her time to see how the wind was blowing?
Was she a 'Protestant icon'? I don't think she wanted to be seen as one. She trod a 'middle path' having watched her sister Mary, a religious 'maniac' if ever there was one, try to bring an unwilling people back into the Catholic fold, with hundreds going to the stake. Elizabeth regarded religion as a private matter. This had to change with the plotting of Mary Queen of Scots, and when Philip of Spain, with the backing of the Pope, sent the Armada in an attempt to overthrow her. This was followed by young men, trained as priests in France, entering the country to destabalise her position; described by a Jesuit academic as the Taliban of their day.
Elizabeth toughened up as her reign progressed.

Here is a link that might be useful: Elizabeth I

Vee beat me to the recommendation of "Elizabeth" by David Starkey, which I second. I agree that in her wisdom, she trod the "middle way" . I think she came down too heavy-handed in Ireland, but I am sure there are arguments pro and con. She was certainly one of the most fascinating and complex personnages in Western History. She was as well a scholar, a writer, and a true "Renaissance woman."

This period of English (and American) history is one of my favorites, in terms of my own interests: the explorers: Drake, Raleigh, Captain John Smith, Sir Christopher Newport, et al. when they founded the colony of Virginia, named for the "Virgin Queen." And I concur with Dido about the incredible music and literature of that age. It was the "English Renaissance." I've read biographies of Raleigh, Newport, and the Bard. The early map-makers and astrologers of the day were also of interest. (I think I read that Sir John Dee predicted the defeat of the Spanish Armada).

I beg to differ with Vee on only one point: there were many loyal Catholics in the North of England, and the nation was very split into two opposing camps during the time of Elizabeth.

Queen Elizabeth bore as best she could the burdens of her father, mother and half-sister. Ridley's study persuasively argues how difficult it was to be both a political and religious figurehead. The book is provocative, but still based on careful study based on historical fact.

There were many unsettling revelations in this particular book, ones which I would be interested to read treated by other historians.

The book did make me wonder about the glories of the Elizabethan Age. For example, I have already read several reputable histories of Elizabeth's reign yet had never heard anything about the massacre at Rathlin Island in 1575, during which not soldiers, but all the women and children of the M'Donnell clan, were brutally put to sword at the behest of Elizabeth's commander (and kinsman) John Norris. Those women and children who escaped were hunted down and killed. I can't help but wonder if the subsequent mythologizing of Elizabeth's reign has succeeded in erasing this event.

Elizabeth's influence on dramatists seems a bit overstated, especially considering that she did not admire theatre and rarely attended.She distrusted Shakespeare, for example, because she interpreted his play Richard II as a veiled attack on her. It speaks to her principles, however, that she did not take any action against him.

I don't want to give the impression that Ridley's book butchers Elizabeth I. For her time, she was an amazingly tolerant woman, who often kept her personal feelings in check. For all her faults, she understood many issues, such as personal religious freedom, in way that makes her seem very modern to us. Reading about her anxieties and opinions about the destabilizing effects of religious fanaticism, made me feel like I was encountering a personality who was not ahead of her time by centuries. What a stark contrast to the rulers, Catholic and Protestant alike, who waged endless and expensive wars which could not possibly be won by either side.

Tim, I don't know anything about Rathlin Island and the whole of Irish history of that period is full of the doings of old-style chieftains plotting, attacking, counter-attacking, double-dealing (much as went on in most other countries). Certainly trying to keep any sort of law and order was well-nigh impossible and brutality was meted out by both sides . . . and that was without religion being added to the brew.
Mary/woodnymph, you have mentioned previously a book you read describing the theory of continued Catholic support in the North of England during Elizabeth's reign. Are you able to remember the title or the author please? This isn't a line of thought that is generally held and I would be interested in following it further.
Re Elizabeth and the theatre (and I think the 'players' came to her rather than her to their theatres) and what we would now call 'the Arts'. Because the country was for the most part prosperous and at peace with its neighbours (war was a very expensive business and in those days the Monarch had to foot the bill for the army if Parliament wouldn't cough-up) there was the opportunity for writers, artists, dramatists to ply their trade. Having a Queen 'in charge' meant they could flatter both her and her courtiers with their poems, music, miniatures etc. The courtiers, in their turn could act as patrons to these people and in an attempt to out-do each other often commissioned beautiful new houses hoping that the Queen would visit them during her Summer 'progresses' round the Kingdom, although this often became a quick way to bankrupt yourself.

I did not carefully reread my last post, which contained several errors. What I meant to say was that I feel Elizabeth I was ahead of her time in trying to foster a certain amount of religious tolerance. She was deeply distrustful of Anabaptists and other Protestant splinter sects. But she understood the fundamental pointlessness of the Catholic versus Protestant wars. For all her faults, I think she tried to create a stable society for her subjects.

Ridley suggests, somewhat controversially I think, that Ireland was still very much for the taking during Elizabeth's reign. Protestant theology, he suggests, easily could have swayed Ireland away from Catholicism, but for several reasons, this did not happen. It is certainly fascinating to think what would have been the effect on British history if it was spared its Irish struggles.

I would also like to know the name of the book Woodnymph mentions. I have a yet-unread copy of Geoffrey Morehouse's The Pilgrimage of Grace, an examination of the bloody and tragic Catholic uprising which occurred during the reign of Henry VIII.

Another surprise from Ridley's book is his surprisingly sympathetic treatment of Catherine de Medici. As a descendant of Palatine refugees, I'm used to thinking of her as a monster of religious fanaticism. Ridley's suggests that the slaughter of Protestants at her behest was motivated by politics, not inflexible religious beliefs. Not that this would have made much difference to the thousands of Protestant men, women and children who lost their lives.

I recently read 2 books which mention the support for Catholicism in Northern England during this time: "Will in the World: How Shakespeare became Shakespeare" by Stephen Greenblatt. The other is "Soul of the Age: A Biography of the Mind of William Shakespeare" by Jonathan Bate. I found both to be excellent. I have the distinct impression that Mary, Queen of Scots, had quite a strong influence upon the North of the England during this period, one reason being the proximity to Scotland of that region. I gather the borders were rather fluid.

I've read works as well about Sir Walter Raleigh and his forays into Ireland, on the Plantations. I have the impression there was much needless slaughter and cruelty by Raleigh and his men. I will have to look up the details, but I think one of the major battles was the "Battle of the Boyne." There were others. I will get back to you later, as time is short today....

I have always been fascinated with the relationship between Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots. A lot of that interest has been fueled by Margaret George's novel about Mary. It is of course a novel, but George has a way of going to the heart of the bits we find interesting, and I understand her research is very good. Although we can't actually know how these people thought and felt, it is interesting to try to imagine. There are so few women in history, and here we have two at the same time.

Siobhan, interesting about the Elizabeth/Mary Q of S thing. Although they were related by blood, they never met each other and I think as they years went on Eliz' became more and more frustrated by Mary making unsuitable/dangerous marriages and alliances. As you know eventually she had Mary 'held' in various castles (not quite imprisoned) probably to protect her from herself and to keep the spies/troublemakers at bay. It wasn't until the final plots were uncovered that she ordered M's execution . . . and reports were that she did it most unwillingly as M had been a monarch in her own right and was a 'cousin'.
Compare E's sister Mary with the same problem of another 'cousin' Lady Jane Gray . . . same outcome, different motives/reasons.

Mary, re Will in the World I just looked up a 7 page write-up about it from the 'New Yorker' and reviews from the Guardian and Telegraph.
I got the impression it has been more highly favoured in the US than the UK and much of Greenblatt's work is 'supposition' with no hard evidence for WS having ever been to Lancashire or that he was a Catholic, or that he met Edmund Campion in the North. Someone suggested a while ago that WS spent the early 1580's in the Netherlands (again with no proof).
The reviewer ender by saying " . . what matters is not that it is a true story, but a good story". . .But, again I must stress, I haven't read the book and am only quoting the newspaper articles.

Vee, the Jonathan Bate book is, in my opinion, far more comprehensive than the Stephen Greenblatt work, although both are scholarly, yet readable. As for the Catholic connection, Bate maintains what Greenblatt wrote about the evidence found in the walls of his house that John Shakespeare, father of the Bard, had Catholic leanings, if he was not a recusant. As well, the family had close Catholic relatives.

What I found interesting was the fear of or almost paranoia re the Irish. It was thought at that time that they could not be trusted against the Spanish, just because they were Catholics! (Surely the sort of Catholicism that was practiced in Spain, with the Inquisition and the Reconquista, etc. was quite, quite different than the Catholic mind-set in Ireland, which had had no such historical experiences.)

I've always been quite moved by the sad fate of Lady Jane Gray, queen for only a few days....

Mary, re the Irish and the Spanish. Was the book saying that the English thought the Irish would support the Spanish . . presumably in an attack against Elizabeth?
At this time there were very real fears that the Spanish (and years later) the French would get into England via the 'back door'. Once Philip II of Spain realised the Queen was not interested in marrying him (he had been married to her sister Mary) he persuaded the Pope to excommunicate her which made it 'legal' in Catholic eyes to overthrow her and put someone else (ie Philip) on the throne. The famous 'Spanish Armada' had the Pope's blessing and financial backing. Had it not failed it would have given the Irish 'clan' leaders and any other disaffected parties an excuse to join the Spanish. The fact that they would then become vassals of the Spanish throne probably hadn't occurred to them. So, yes, it was because both countries were Catholic that they would have united against England. And possibly the Irish were not familiar with the Inquisition, or maybe if they knew about it they saw themselves as helping with the torture of a few Protestant non-believers and stoking the fiery-pit.
I think it is easy to forget that 'then' the Pope was not the mild-mannered holy man of today, blessing the crowds in front of St Peters but a powerful ruler over a chunk of Italy, with the ability to raise armies, form alliances and dictate much of what went on in Europe. In his 'religious' capacity he could excommunicate the populations of whole countries, dissolve marriages (Henry VIII had been unlucky there) forbid the trial of clergy in civil courts (think Beckett and Henry II), divide parts of the world up. Brazil to Portugal and the rest of S America to Spain, or years before Ireland to England. Once his Papal authority (in a religious sense) started to falter when 'new' religions challenged his authority he (whichever Pope it was) had to work much harder to hold sway.

Philip was nothing if not savvy. He and his advisors were well-aware that the Irish were disaffected, and were quick to tempt the Irish chieftains with promises of whatever the Irish wanted to hear. Of course, in the long run, the Irish would not have been any more willing to be under Spanish rule than English, and the Spanish would have probably rued the day.
I have read both Starkey's book and a biography by Carolly Erickson, and enjoyed them both. After all, the facts don't vary, just the wordsmithing. I prefer Erickson's. Part of that might be because Starkey is such a grating personality on TV.
I would also recommend Bloody Mary, Erickson's biography of Elizabeth's sister, Mary Tudor, and also Elizabeth and Mary by Jane Dunn, a sort of parallel biography of Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots, her cousin. (How often has it been wished that the family could have shown a little more imagination and named one of them something other than Mary?)

As a side note, the double underlined random word ad links are beginning to annoy me no end. Anyone else seeing them? I know I don't need to click on them, but still.

Cece, yes, the underlined random word ad links have been annoying me for days, now. I don't know what to do about them.

Thanks for the book recommendations. I had forgotten how much I like Carolly Erickson as an author who knows her history.

Carolly Erickson's biography of Mary Tudor is excellent. It is incredible to think that at her death, Mary had an unsigned death warrant already drawn up for her half-sister Elizabeth.

Though not strictly on the topic of Elizabeth I, I highly recommend Maria Perry's dual biography, The Sisters of Henry VIII.

Woodnymph, mentions the tragic Lady Jane Grey. Ridley's book about Elizabeth discusses Jane's sisters, Lady Katherine and Lady Mary Grey. Both secretly married men at court without the knowledge or consent of "the Virgin Queen", and both suffered her terrible wrath. I wonder if any historian has ever told their stories?

Years ago, I read a biography of Lady Jane Gray (Queen for Nine Days) by Marguerite Vance (pub. 1961.) It was not comprehensive in scope, but I think there must be other, more scholarly works out there.

Here's a fascinating biography, very well researched by Anna R. Beer: "My Just Desire: The Life of Bess Raleigh, Wife to Sir Walter". Walter and the then pregnant Bess were married secretly because Bess was in the court of the Queen, Eliz. I, who wanted all her attendants as virginal as herself. The Queen clapped them both in the Tower of London, when she found out, as punishment for the deceit. They both managed to get out. Walter went on to make his explorations and to fight the Irish. Bess was a feisty, strong-willed woman, who endured perfectly awful goings-on. Walter was another one of those "Renaissance Men" of the time of Gloriana, very interesting to read of his life and death.

There is an exhibition of paintings at the National Gallery in London by the French artist Paul Delaroche. One that seems to have caught the public's attention is the 'Execution of Lady Jane Grey'. A recent radio discussion about the work told her 'back story' and said the character next to Jane was a priest sent by Queen Mary to try and make her recant her Protestant beliefs. If she had given up her heresy her life would have been spared, but she remained obdurate telling the priest on the scaffold that she would 'See him in Heaven'. The priest wept knowing that this would never be, as she would go to Hell.
As a person of Royal Blood she was spared burning at the stake.
btw, I had thought being burnt was just an extremely painful and nasty way to die, but is was the chosen Catholic punishment for 'heretics' as they believed that at the Terrible Day of Judgment bodies and souls would be reunited and only be burning of a body could this be prevented. Mary burnt over 300 Protestants in 2-3 years and Foxe's 'Book of Martyrs' kept the story alive for a couple of hundred years, frightening Protestants and severely damaging the Catholic cause in England.

Here is a link that might be useful: Delaroche's Painting