She had a regal and statuesque beauty, fit for a queen. If it is true, in this channel's earlier stream, she cut spending on her clothing, jewelry, and other items the monarchy usually purchase from the treasury, to create outfits, by using old dresses and spare jewelry and other items. By observing the video of pictures of her, whoever she delegated to make the outfits, was quite creative, as her outfits and her image, in addition to the headresses and "crowns", to me, leaves no doubt that she is the ultimate queen.
Another aspect of Elizabeth's use of makeup, etc. has to do with public appearance. Later in life Elizabeth's makeup was clown like in our eyes. It is said that was intentional so that she was the center of all attention in crowded, poorly lit rooms. All eyes were to be on her. There are also some interesting facts about clothing and jewels not specific to Elizabeth. Certain decorations and fabrics caught the poor lighting of the times.
Stage makeup is also meant to draw attention to the wearer, but it isn’t meant to make the actor look monstrous. Elizabeth was just a seriously unattractive woman.
People of state in those leading positions do age hard, the responsibility, long hours put in, stress, thoughts and planning in mind, not to mention the constant threats, would strain. I think we see it today too, the us presidents for example, age fast during their 4 years. Our royal monarchy not so much, since they are a cultural, historical preservence and ambassdors, without the same command of duty.
Correction. Henry VIII did NOT start Protestantism! He declared himself head of the Catholic Church of England. He was never a Protestant and persecuted them with the same vigour as he punished Catholics for heresy. His son, Edward VI , was the first Protestant King.
Yes you are right. Edward VI was the Protestant King. Henry kept all the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Henry was the head of the Church of England instead of a Pope. The RCC priests and Bishops always had his ear. The reason Ann Boleyn was beheaded was because she was a staunch Protestant. The Bishop brought false charges against her. Henry was tired of her plus no son and had eyes for Jane Seymour. To me , Ann Boleyn was a Martyr for Christ Jesus.
No, Henry VIII was the first Protestant king. The word 'Protestant' means 'one who protests' - i.e. Henry was in protest against Rome and hence a 'Protestant'. The Protestants he persecuted - and who would go on being persecuted in Elizabeth's reign - were those who weren't satisfied with simply protesting or reforming - they wanted to tear down the church and replace it with a better one. Sadly for them, huge political power rested in the conventional structure of 'Christendom' and while Henry might have hated them (being at heart an obedient Catholic, not a protestant one), Elizabeth couldn't afford to let them take the Reformation any further than it had already gone.
Great vid, though I cringed when you said the reason Mary Tudor was known as 'Bloody Mary' was because she was a staunch Catholic. It really wasn't - it was because she had so many people executed for being protestants. That's not typically seen as good Catholic behaviour!
Please, please stop with the myth she was badly scarred from smallpox. Virtually every biography I have on Elizabeth that mentions the scarring after her bout of smallpox says she was not badly scarred. Quite a few say her scars actually faded. None of the ones I have read mention that she was badly scarred (as Mary Sidney was). It is only with onset of the Internet has the story that she was badly scarred seem to have been perpetrated. Please check your sources. Also if Elizabeth used lead make - it was much later in her life. Also Mary Sidney was a good friend of Elizabeth’s, and Robert Dudley’s sister.
I would venture to say that your biographies were not written by anyone who actually saw her alive and without makeup, and it is subjective. Even if they acquired their information from written accounts of the day, it would have been a massive faux pas to discuss how scarred the Queen was so it is highly unlikely that we actually know definitively if she was heavily or lightly scarred. The only people who probably saw her without makeup would have been her closest and most trusted members of the household and they very likely didn’t write objectively about her appearance, if at all.
@@DangerousCurves357 Or today’s internet is informed by memes and misinformation and the like, rather than actual research. I trust the research of historians. We actually know the recipe for Elizabeth’s makeup, and it didn’t actually include lead ( at least when she was younger). So that is another reason to think she wasn’t badly scarred - because she was not wearing heavy makeup to cover face when she was young. It’s a little like those who think Henry VIII had syphilis. We know he probably didn’t have any active form of the disease, because there are records of what his doctors were treating him with and his household accounts to show what was being paid for. Mercury (which was the treatment for syphilis) was not featured. On the other hand the records for Francis I, who was the King of France both record he had the disease and show records of treatment for it. We also know what was in Elizabeth’s makeup because we have the recipe and also have the household accounts (so what ingredients she was buying to make the makeup) for Elizabeth. She used fairly light make up when she was younger.
Yes - Elizabeth’s actual face make up. Her face make up has been described as “ white-of-egg, powdered egg-she’ll, alum, borax and poppyseeds, moistened with mill water” (Paul Johnston Elizabeth I : a Study in Power and Intellect Futurama Publications Aylesbury Bucks 1974 p 197). She may have used white lead makeup, but it was not until she was old.
Yeah, which were highly cherry picked by her majesty herself. It's unfortunate we'll never know what she _really_ looked like - or perhaps it is fortunate.
I put on the closed captioning and it was hilarious! You really need to correct it or not, it is funny and not even near what you actually said. It's as if a non English speaker wrote the captions.
It's because RUclips generates the cc unless the owner of the channel writes it themselves. On Claire Ridgeway's channel, the RUclips cc changes "damask" to "dumbass". 😂
I believe the actual numbers of protestants and catholics killed by the Queens were similar, but the difference was Mary I ruled for five or six years, whereas Elizabeth I ruled for forty five years.
That's not true. Not according to percentage or by the literal numbers. Mary ruled for five years and had 287 Protestants executed for religious treason. That's a rate of 57.4%. Elizabeth, on the other hand, had approximately 190 Catholics executed across her 45 year long reign. That's a rate of 4.2%. It's very obvious which one of them was more tolerant.
Most of the plots to kill Elizabeth were Catholic-based. Was she executing them for being Catholic or being treasonous? In the end she WAS persecuting Catholics because of the number of assassination attempts by them, backed by the Pope. In the early days of her reign she promoted religious tolerance.
She had a regal and statuesque beauty, fit for a queen. If it is true, in this channel's earlier stream, she cut spending on her clothing, jewelry, and other items the monarchy usually purchase from the treasury, to create outfits, by using old dresses and spare jewelry and other items. By observing the video of pictures of her, whoever she delegated to make the outfits, was quite creative, as her outfits and her image, in addition to the headresses and "crowns", to me, leaves no doubt that she is the ultimate queen.
Really interesting perspective of this enigmatic queen.
its always my favorite to wake up then see a notification that you've posted another fantastic history video!
I like how you included the courtier's accounts of Elizabeth's appearance through the years, I have never heard those before
Aww thanks! And thank you for your support, it means a lot!
Same!!!
Another aspect of Elizabeth's use of makeup, etc. has to do with public appearance. Later in life Elizabeth's makeup was clown like in our eyes. It is said that was intentional so that she was the center of all attention in crowded, poorly lit rooms. All eyes were to be on her.
There are also some interesting facts about clothing and jewels not specific to Elizabeth. Certain decorations and fabrics caught the poor lighting of the times.
Stage makeup is also meant to draw attention to the wearer, but it isn’t meant to make the actor look monstrous. Elizabeth was just a seriously unattractive woman.
Yes, Majesty has to be seen..gorgeous clothes, jewelry…..everyone used arsenic and mercury in makeup…
I think in the portraits during her later years she looked exhausted.
People of state in those leading positions do age hard, the responsibility, long hours put in, stress, thoughts and planning in mind, not to mention the constant threats, would strain.
I think we see it today too, the us presidents for example, age fast during their 4 years. Our royal monarchy not so much, since they are a cultural, historical preservence and ambassdors, without the same command of duty.
Elisabeth I was known to suffer insomnia too
She definitely carried a heavy load throughout her reign.
@@iconsnart No doubt she did.
She probably was..she ruled for a long time….she was amazing…
Correction. Henry VIII did NOT start Protestantism! He declared himself head of the Catholic Church of England. He was never a Protestant and persecuted them with the same vigour as he punished Catholics for heresy.
His son, Edward VI , was the first Protestant King.
I’m not sure I agree. What about his development of the doctrine of The Church Of England?
Yes you are right. Edward VI was the Protestant King. Henry kept all the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Henry was the head of the Church of England instead of a Pope. The RCC priests and Bishops always had his ear. The reason Ann Boleyn was beheaded was because she was a staunch Protestant. The Bishop brought false charges against her. Henry was tired of her plus no son and had eyes for Jane Seymour. To me , Ann Boleyn was a Martyr for Christ Jesus.
No, Henry VIII was the first Protestant king. The word 'Protestant' means 'one who protests' - i.e. Henry was in protest against Rome and hence a 'Protestant'. The Protestants he persecuted - and who would go on being persecuted in Elizabeth's reign - were those who weren't satisfied with simply protesting or reforming - they wanted to tear down the church and replace it with a better one. Sadly for them, huge political power rested in the conventional structure of 'Christendom' and while Henry might have hated them (being at heart an obedient Catholic, not a protestant one), Elizabeth couldn't afford to let them take the Reformation any further than it had already gone.
Well, disregarding the supremacy of the pope is not something that fits well with catholicism...
Great vid, though I cringed when you said the reason Mary Tudor was known as 'Bloody Mary' was because she was a staunch Catholic. It really wasn't - it was because she had so many people executed for being protestants. That's not typically seen as good Catholic behaviour!
Even in those days people wanted to be showed in the best light possible, just like when I take a selfie and pick the best filter and features lol
Please, please stop with the myth she was badly scarred from smallpox. Virtually every biography I have on Elizabeth that mentions the scarring after her bout of smallpox says she was not badly scarred. Quite a few say her scars actually faded. None of the ones I have read mention that she was badly scarred (as Mary Sidney was). It is only with onset of the Internet has the story that she was badly scarred seem to have been perpetrated. Please check your sources.
Also if Elizabeth used lead make - it was much later in her life.
Also Mary Sidney was a good friend of Elizabeth’s, and Robert Dudley’s sister.
I would venture to say that your biographies were not written by anyone who actually saw her alive and without makeup, and it is subjective. Even if they acquired their information from written accounts of the day, it would have been a massive faux pas to discuss how scarred the Queen was so it is highly unlikely that we actually know definitively if she was heavily or lightly scarred. The only people who probably saw her without makeup would have been her closest and most trusted members of the household and they very likely didn’t write objectively about her appearance, if at all.
@@DangerousCurves357 Or today’s internet is informed by memes and misinformation and the like, rather than actual research.
I trust the research of historians. We actually know the recipe for Elizabeth’s makeup, and it didn’t actually include lead ( at least when she was younger). So that is another reason to think she wasn’t badly scarred - because she was not wearing heavy makeup to cover face when she was young.
It’s a little like those who think Henry VIII had syphilis. We know he probably didn’t have any active form of the disease, because there are records of what his doctors were treating him with and his household accounts to show what was being paid for. Mercury (which was the treatment for syphilis) was not featured. On the other hand the records for Francis I, who was the King of France both record he had the disease and show records of treatment for it.
We also know what was in Elizabeth’s makeup because we have the recipe and also have the household accounts (so what ingredients she was buying to make the makeup) for Elizabeth. She used fairly light make up when she was younger.
Were there any safe alternatives to the toxic cosmetics at this time?
Only botanicals made by the lower classes. The upper class used the finest, most expensive, most toxic cosmetics they could buy.
Yes - Elizabeth’s actual face make up. Her face make up has been described as “ white-of-egg, powdered egg-she’ll, alum, borax and poppyseeds, moistened with mill water” (Paul Johnston Elizabeth I : a Study in Power and Intellect Futurama Publications Aylesbury Bucks 1974 p 197).
She may have used white lead makeup, but it was not until she was old.
Great video. Fabulous content.
Elizabeth I obviously had depression. Her strength was her mask. Not her makeup. She had to deal with attacks on her looks DAILY.
And the fact that she was a woman in an era ruled by men
Thank you for sharing!
I think she looked so beautiful
at least in her paintings
Yeah, which were highly cherry picked by her majesty herself. It's unfortunate we'll never know what she _really_ looked like - or perhaps it is fortunate.
Remarkable Queen
Well done!
Does anyone know the source of her portrait at 6:24 ? I have never seen it before and I think is one of the best of her
Smallpox…incredible she lived ….
Just realized both Queen Elizabeth’s were in their twenties when becoming queen.
entonces era bonita
pena k no podiera! tener hijos, habiera! sido 1 magnifica reina de las Españas
pena k no podiera! tener hijos, haberia! sido una magnifica reina de las Españas
Watched a video about her and that white powder, it had lead in it and was slowly poisoning her and caused her hair to fall out
I put on the closed captioning and it was hilarious! You really need to correct it or not, it is funny and not even near what you actually said. It's as if a non English speaker wrote the captions.
I'm deaf in one ear and need to have captions and yes! The way the captions are presented are too funny. Please fix this. LOVE this channel :)
Great video…. CC tho, was like reading one of my sisters texts¡😏
It's because RUclips generates the cc unless the owner of the channel writes it themselves. On Claire Ridgeway's channel, the RUclips cc changes "damask" to "dumbass". 😂
When you're over compensating 🤣🤣🤣 ngl tho, I like her style. Very iconic.
More Catholics died under Elizabeth than under Mary. Mary got revenge for those who wronged her mom.
Duh, yeah, Elizabeth I was Protestant and some Catholics were put to death but many more Protestants were persecuted, and killed under Mary I.
I believe the actual numbers of protestants and catholics killed by the Queens were similar, but the difference was Mary I ruled for five or six years, whereas Elizabeth I ruled for forty five years.
That's not true. Not according to percentage or by the literal numbers. Mary ruled for five years and had 287 Protestants executed for religious treason. That's a rate of 57.4%. Elizabeth, on the other hand, had approximately 190 Catholics executed across her 45 year long reign. That's a rate of 4.2%.
It's very obvious which one of them was more tolerant.
Most of the plots to kill Elizabeth were Catholic-based. Was she executing them for being Catholic or being treasonous? In the end she WAS persecuting Catholics because of the number of assassination attempts by them, backed by the Pope. In the early days of her reign she promoted religious tolerance.
Duh, Mary did not reign for 45 years like Elizabeth, of course she executed less people. You should account for the length of their rule.
Fight for survival in that family
❤️
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Im not a mirror fan now in my 49th year ....same reasons as her lol....dont remind me....
I don’t understand how she , and everyone else thought that a white face makes you look beautiful!
Wonderful stuff . Loving this channel. What do you think of the theory that Elizabeth was actually a man ?
pena k no podiera! tener hijos, haberia! sido una magnifica reina de las Españas
The reasons for wearing hideous lead based white makeup was absolutely racial as well as social.
I think you need to rewatch the video and pay attention.