#william cecil

[bawdiestrhymester]

Happy 17th Anniversary, Horrible Histories!!

A Faces of Ben to celebrate the 17th anniversary of HH!!

All my favourites!

[elizabethboleyn]

What do you think happened to Amy Dudley/Robsart regarding her death?

She fell down the stairs - accident

She fell down the stairs - suicide

She fell down the stairs - accident/cancer

Elizabeth ordered it independently

Cecil ordered it independently

Robert ordered it independently

Elizabeth and Cecil ordered it together

Elizabeth and Robert ordered it together

Something else

Voting ended onJun 2

[theladyelizabeth]

hope you don't mind the ask, but re: Cecil wanting Dudley appointed as ambassador to France- do we know if/do you think that Cecil genuinley thought Dudley was a good fit for the role, just wanted to get the English Channel between Dudley and the Queen, or a combination of the two...?

Full disclosure, this tidbit of information comes purely from a podcast that Joanne Paul did in 2025 on Not Just the Tudors, so I haven't looked deeply into it myself, but my understanding is that this occurred literally in the very first few days of Elizabeth's reign, possibly even just before Mary died. According to Paul in her book, Cecil drew up a list of men who he thought would be good servants and what positions he thought they'd be most useful in - for Robert, he thought he would make a useful ambassador in France and that isn't for no reason. Robert had been to France before (albeit for war), was well educated, an expert in court manners, and could speak the language so it made sense. At this point in time, Cecil would have only had limited interaction with Robert himself, although he had been in the service of Robert's father. As there's no evidence of any scandalous relationship between Elizabeth and Robert before 1559, Cecil would have had no real reason for wanting them apart. He just figured this would be a sensible position for him.

But Elizabeth had the last word when it came to who she wanted closely serving her and her decision to have Robert be Master of the Horse overruled Cecil's recommendation. This position also made sense for him as his older brother (now dead) held the same position during Edward's reign and Robert had a natural flair for drama, which helped with the work associated with that position. At that point, Robert and Elizabeth had a positive relationship, so its no wonder she wanted him close by.

If anything, the only reason might have felt cautious around Robert is more because he might have been nervous that Robert would want to take revenge for Cecil effectively abandoning Northumberland when the going got tough. He would have had no way of knowing that that would end up being the least of his worries when it came to Robert.

And that's what makes me laugh lol - I do love dramatic irony. And more poignantly, its such a small change, such a seemingly insignificant decision on Elizabeth's part that has such a massive impact on all three of their lives.

[captainsamta]

I was trying to redraw a scene from Elizabeth I (2005) but I think I went overboard

[royalty-nobility]

A Procession of Queen Elizabeth I

Artist: After Robert Peake the Elder (English, c. 1551–1619)

Date: 1800-1840

Medium: Oil on panel

Collection: Manchester Art Gallery, Manchester, United Kingdom

Description

Procession of Queen Elizabeth I and her court through the centre of a town. The Queen is in a canopy chair of state in the centre, carried by six gentlemen. Several Knights of the Garter, distinguished by their collars, walk before the Queen, her ladies in waiting following behind to the right. The Yeomen of the Guard follow, and a band of gentlemen pensioners line the way. Amongst the Knights of the Garter, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester is nearest the Queen, and Henry Lord Hernoden carries the Sword of State before her. As those knights walk two and two, the next is William Cecil, Lord Burghley, Lord High Treasurer, with his white staff in hand. Next before him is Charles Howard, Admiral, afterwards Lord Nottingham. The other three Knights of the Garter, Lords Clinton (George Clifford, 3rd Earl of Cumberland and Queen's Champion), Russel and Sussex as those before mentioned, each of them having a ribbon about his neck with a small gem or intaglio appendant to it.

[wildeanwithoutaclue]

st martin's church cemetery in stamford

bonus: william cecil's tomb inside the church

[elizabethan-memes]

On a scale of 1 to the Bond of Association, how vengeful and bloodthirsty is your life insurance policy

[maximumphilosopheranchor]

The extent of Hatton’s links with Catholics inevitably calls for some explanation of how this was possible in a regime which has often been regarded as reflexively anti-Catholic. In many ways the most surprising thing is how little this appears to have affected Hatton’s career. If Hatton indeed was some kind of Catholic, or even simply an unusually strong enemy of the Puritans, what does this say about the regime and Hatton’s place in it? Ultimately, this can only be answered by looking at the Queen herself. In short, Hatton’s career suggests that Elizabeth was not especially concerned if her servants were, or were widely believed to be, either Catholic or something close to it. Hatton’s protection of Catholics was clearly against the spirit of the law, and in some senses a kind of challenge to the authority of the regime, the law and the Queen. Elizabeth promoted him all the same, surely knowing what he was doing and what people said about him. We can surely not regard that as an accident. This might suggest that Elizabeth was simply pursuing a ‘secular, disengaged’ approach to politics, that she was unconcerned about Hatton’s religion and was promoting him because she liked him. This is quite interesting in itself; the notion that we might easily overstate the level of interest that nobles and royals of this period had in religious differences seems quite plausible. However, another possibility is that Elizabeth promoted Hatton (and perhaps others) because of his religious attitudes, using her choice of councillors to send signals to the wider population (Hatton’s prominence as a public face for the regime’s politics is again relevant here). Since this was not a police state, much political activity can be seen as signaling about what was acceptable and what was not at any given moment. Hatton’s prominence demonstrated that Elizabeth was not a bigot, but tolerated Catholics or their favourers. One virtue of using Hatton to demonstrate this was that he was her creation; if Elizabeth acceded to powerful conservative nobles like Norfolk, she looked weak; by using her own man, she could look strong and magnanimous. This also showed that she was not a puppet of the Protestants, of Leicester and Burghley, who were often claimed to be in effect holding her captive, but that she had her own agenda. Hatton was a living demonstration of the Queen’s moderation, and, perhaps, a model of loyal Catholicism. Catholics who behaved themselves, stayed loyal, and were prepared if necessary to roundly criticize the Pope were acceptable, and windows would not be made into their souls. This was of course a marked contrast with Burghley’s approach of drawing clear boundaries between Protestants and Catholics, trustworthy and not, loyal and traitor – as we see in the Bond of Association, the lord lieutenancies and other plans.

Neil Younger, Religion and politics in Elizabethan England: The life of Sir Christopher Hatton