On the 24th of March 1603 Elizabeth I died at Richmond Palace. It was the eve of the annunciation of the Virgin Mary, an appropriate day for the Virgin Queen to die, and, according, to the Julian Calendar in use at the time, it was the last day of the year 1602.
In the late winter of 1602/3 Elizabeth was feeling unwell. She had caught a chill after walking out in the cold winter air, and complained of a sore throat as well as aches and pains. “I am not well” she declared, but refused the administrations of her doctors. She also refused to rest in bed and stood for hours on end, occasionally just sitting in a chair. Her condition became worse and her ladies-in-waiting spread cushions across the floor. She lay on the floor for nearly four days – mostly in complete silence and eventually grew so weak that when her servants insisted on making her more comfortable in her bed she was unable to argue. Contemporaries thought that she would have recovered had she fought against her illness, but she was did not want to. She was old, she was tired, and she was lonely. As her condition deteriorated, Archbishop Whitgift (her favorite of all her Archbishops of Canterbury) was called to her side, and the Queen clung tight to his hand. When he spoke to her of getting better, she made no response, but when he spoke to her of the joys of Heaven, she squeezed his hand contentedly. By this time she was beyond speech and could only communicate with gestures. She finally fell into a deep sleep from which she did not wake.
There have been various suggestions as to cause of death: pneumonia, blood poisoning from the arsenic in her make up, cancer or just old age, but, as the Queen had decreed, there was no post mortem.
Elizabeth’s Speech to Parliament in 1601 will serve as her memorial:
To be a King and wear a crown is a thing more pleasant to them that see it, than it is pleasant to them that bear it.
I were content to hear matters argued and debated pro and contra as all princes must that will understand what is right, yet I look ever as it were upon a plain tablet wherein is written neither partility or prejudice.
There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a price, which I set before this jewel; I mean your love.
Though God hath raised me high, yet this I account the glory of my reign, that I have reigned with your loves.
I have ever used to set the last Judgement Day before mine eyes, and so to rule as I shall be judged to answer before a higher judge.
You may have many a wiser prince sitting in this seat, but you never have had, or shall have, any who loves you better.
It is not my desire to live or to reign longer than my life and reign shall be for your good.
And, thus, on this day – 24th of March 1603 began the first Scottish Invasion!
Boadicea's Chariot 
Thank you Boadicea, I continue to enjoy your historical contributions. I have two questions. You referred to the old and new calendars. Is there a convention amongst (notice the use of ‘amongst’) historians to use the old or the new. How do I know which calendar is being used to date events that occurred before the change. I am sometimes curious to know the impact that the seasons had on various historical events, such as battles for example. If 31st December Julian is actually 24th March Gregorian then January would be April and spring time. It also raises the question of contemporary writings. Consider this:
“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate;
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer’s lease hath all too short a date;”
Shakespeare has ‘buds of May’, i.e. spring, but his May would be our July.
My second question is more of an observation. Queen Elizabeth seemed to use the masculine form when speaking of her role as monarch. She talks about kings, kingdoms and princes. In her Armada speech she says amongst other things, “and we do assure you, on the word of a prince,”. Of course I realise there is no such thing as a ‘queendom’, but her masculine bias does seem fairly pointed. Presumably she was differentiating herself from queen consorts. Or perhaps she was fearful of the fact that some of her subjects resented being ruled by a woman. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter.
Another good blog, Boadicea, and a couple of good questions from Sipu – and yet may trees still bloom in May???
Call me a soppy wuss, but when ‘Our Gywnnie’ read that sonnet in ‘Shakespeare in Love’ it gave me goosebumps. He does that to me does old Shakespeare. The balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet and the Agincourt speech in Henry V, have the same effect.
Nice blog Boadicea. Thank you.
Sipu, With you on the Agincourt speech in Henry V and will pass on Romeo and Juliet.
Sipu, you’re a soppy wuss.
Thank you Brendano, I knew there would be one out there who would recognise one when he saw one.
Tocino, you are just a big tough bloke. Get in touch with your feminine side. It is all the rage these days. Apparently.
Sipu
The dating of historical documents is a nightmare! Different types of documents used different ‘year-starting’ dates.
I think I may not have explained this this properly. In England until 1752 New Year’s Day was the 25th of March and not the 1st of January. So according to the Elizabethan England, Elizabeth died on the last day of 1602 – 24th March 1602.
To confuse matters, Scotland had changed to our way of reckoning in 1599, with the 1st of January being New Year’s Day and thus, according to the Scots she died on the 24th of March 1603… same day – same month – different year tag.
http://bearsy.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/on-this-day-19th-february-1700-in-england-and-elsewhere/
The normal convention is to ‘convert’ the year to modern usage – so we would say that she died in 1603.
However, the Julian Calendar was eleven days behind the Gregorian Calendar in 1582 and the convention is … to do absolutely nothing and leave the day and the month just as stated.
To calculate exactly how many days ‘out’ every single date is would be impossible.
So, 31 Dec Julian is still 31 Dec Gregorian. But the 1st of January 1602 Julian becomes 1st of January 1603 in modern history books.
Thus the ‘buds of May’ bloomed in May, just eleven days later in May!
My thoughts on your second question are simply that she wanted to associate herself with former kings – especially her father. She was, after all, only the second queen of England. I don’t think it was anything to do with fear, just simply a turn of phrase to make sure everyone knew she was no weak woman…
… she could, so they say, drink most men under the table….
Thank you for the blog BO
Ah, thank you. I must admit I did not think it was a much as two months between old and new but nor did I know it was only 11. Also, I had not appreciated the start of the old and New Years, which of course explains Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec. = 7, 8, 9, 10.
“The first Scottish invasion”, Boadicea. We gave you lot good Stuart kings and what did you do? Chopped off one head and later called in Dutch and then German replacements.
Sheona – Seems perfectly reasonable bearing in mind all the “good” Scottish politicians you have foisted on us of late. Pity the old standards no longer apply. And your problem is?? 🙂
OZ
Well OZ the problem is that the old chopping block on Tower Hill is no longer in operation. I think Brown should be impeached for treason. But can you not see the difference between a royal family and a socialist? I can only apologise for the crap bunch of NuLab politicians from Scotland, but the trick is not to vote for the party they represent. Once the English get the hang of this, pop goes the weasel!
Evening Boadicea:
” Elizabeth’s Speech to Parliament in 1601 will serve as her memorial:”
Indeed, and I happen to think that the Elizabeth 11, has followed this philosophy, albeit in difference times and circumstances.
Thanks for the comments.
Sipu. Glad to clear up the misconception. It amuses me that we’ve retained the 7ber, 8ber, etc and so few people seem to notice.
Sheona. Slow down! The Dutchman Willie III wouldn’t have got a look in had his wife not been a Stuart by birth…
Araminta. I think you are right.
Sipu, maybe ERI was a seer, knowing that any claim to be a queen would be misunderstood later.
Boa, I still prefer the original Roman calendar wherein the ten months were followed by 60 days of winter, unnamed, unnoticed – so everybody could feel miserable and hang out in the tavernae.
Sounds like a great idea, Janus. Did one have to work during those unnamed, unnoticed days?
Boa, only if you were a slave, which means ‘one’ didn’t. The only reason akshully why there were no dates was that there were no official entries in the calendar for magistrates and such. It was one long bank holiday excused by the inclement weather. Yes, in Italy! Imagine if the Ancient Brits had adopted the same principle.