Talk:Speech to the Troops at Tilbury

A piece of propaganda?

Am I wrong in thinking that this speech was first recorded in print many years later, when Elizabeth's reputation was being rehabilitated in protest against Stuart rule? I recall reading that the speech became significant in Camden's histories. Worth looking in to.--Shtove 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The speach was recorded only once by someone many years later. I don't think the gentleman was even there and I think it was even out of living memory of the event. There are no contempory records of Elizabeth even making a speech. I suppose it was made up for a political purpose.--86.20.247.36 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

there was a second version recently discovered from 1612. The other one we have (the one on this page) was in a letter by Leonel Sharp.Cptjeff 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2022

If you watched Lucy Worsley who has debunked myths that are presented as historical fact, this is precisely the point she makes, I have to admit that until recently I didn't know this speech if made at all doesn't represent the facts and was "invented" years later. I studied History at Uni in 1969-72 but to be honest this wasn't even worthy of mention. One thing that puzzles me is that as long ago as 2006 user Shtove and in 2007 user 86.20.247.36 made the point that the words were written much later and "made up" for a political purpose, which definitely seems to be true so please tell me why Wikipedia still presents it as fact? Lucy Worsley doesn't tell lies and would not come on TV stating something that wasn't true. I won't edit this but ask Wikipedia to bring it up to date -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Neville 1995 (talk o contribs) 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any evidence that Elizabeth did not make a speech, so it's not a hoax in that sense. As late as the 18th century, historians sometimes had a very different idea of historical authenticity than modern historians do, and felt free to write pre-battle speeches etc. which they felt that military commanders should have delivered, whether they did so or not:

"The speeches that are put into the heroes' mouths, their thoughts and designs -- the chief of all this must be invention": Catherine Morland in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey.

"If a speech be well drawn up, I read it with pleasure by whomsoever it may be made -- and probably with much greater, if the production of Mr. Hume or Mr. Robertson than if the words of Caractacus, Agricola, or Alfred the Great.": Eleanor Tilney in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey.

This issue does not affect the Tilbury speech only... AnonMoos (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Did she say it?

I think it should be noted in the article that most notable historians regard this speech as apocryphal since the only known record of it comes from a letter dated 40 years after the speech was given.82.5.123.162 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you name these "most notable historians"? J. E. Neale (an expert on the Elizabethan age) and her Oxford DNB biographer Patrick Collinson both acknowledged the authenticity of the speech. Also Garrett Mattingly, who wrote the standard account of the Spanish Aramada, uses the speech.--Johnbull (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

The claim that there are "primary sources" "available" from some project is dubious. Sound recording was not invented until centuries later, so if a "primary source" exists, it would have to be the Queen's script in her own hand, or something like that. If such "primary sources" existed surely they would have been much better known and would have been prominently noted in the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that: "primary source" does not mean "holograph manuscript"; it means something which is not produced by scholarly study or journalistic reporting from other documents (i.e. is not derived or secondary). The Bible is generally considered a primary source for purposes of Wikipedia articles, but there are no holograph manuscripts of the Bible. AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the meaning of "primary source". In the context of a historical speech, a "primary source" for that speech must be something which is, as you say, not derived or secondary. A verbatim record by a contemporary would be a primary source. Any other type of reporting must, by definition, be secondary. Nowhere above did I mention "holograph manuscripts" or "the Bible", so I am not sure how the second part of your comment is relevant, or why you would consider yourself justified in removing a tag on that basis. In any case, the Bible is a primary source only for itself, it is not a primary source for, for example, the historical question of the actual words spoken by Moses on the mount.

My point is, if another primary source exists for the speech, then it would be expected to be much better known and should be reported in the article. It seems dubious that not only one, but *two* primary sources exist in addition to what is already reported in the article, but such sources are so little known that the reader needs to be directed to some project in order to read about them. And if the "primary sources" referred to are already dealt with in the article, then there is no cause to mention them again simply because they are included in some project which would otherwise have little connection with this article.

My suspiciou is that the line is simply an ad for the said project to increase traffic to the Wiki article on the project and thence to its own website.

If you disagree that the statement is dubious, then I can agree to it being replaced with a "citation needed" tag plus a "clarifyme" tag, but I cannot agree to leaving that sentence unchallenged. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think that link is promotional/spammed, or is linked in the wrong way, then by all means proceed on that basis, but it seems extremely pointless to try to define the term "primary source" to have a meaning which different from the accepted Wikipedia meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The two versions catalogued at the Women Writers' Project are the two versions already quoted in full in the article, there seems to be no need to link to this particular source for them.Ghughesarch (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - the first of the two versions catalogued at the WWP is the long version quoted in the article, the second, "Aske's Version" as it's rather misleadingly catalogued, is the poetic reinterpretation of the speech in James Aske's "Elizabetha Triumphans", written in the Armada Year but certainly not a verbatim quote of what the Queen actually said:

We will them know that now by proof we see

Their loyal hearts to us their lawful Queen.

For sure we are that none beneath the heavens

Have readier subjects to defend their right:

Which happiness we count to us as chief.

And though of love their duties crave no less

Yet say to them that we in like regard

And estimate of this their dearest zeal

(In time of need shall ever call them forth

To dare in field their fierce and cruel foes)

Will be ourself their noted General

Ne dear at all to us shall be our life,

Ne palaces or Castles huge of stone

Shall hold as then our presence from their view:

But in the midst and very heart of them

Bellona-like we mean as then to march;

On common lot of gain or loss to both

They well shall see we recke shall then betide.

And as for honour with most large rewards,

Let them not care they common there shall be:

The meanest man who shall deserve a might,

A mountain shall for his desart receive.

And this our speech and this our solemn vow

In fervent love to those our subjects dear,

Say, seargeant-major, tell them from our self,

On kingly faith we will perform it there…

Ghughesarch (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Historicity

This article really needs expanding to discuss the historicity of the speech. It's likely that she gave some kind of speech, but unlikely that these three versions of the text are what she actually said. Presumably there's been plenty of academic discussion of it over the centuries, we need a section on this.Gymnophoria (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of speech

This article says, 9 August. The Armada article says, 8 August. Are there arguments for both? I wonder if 8/8/88 appealed to Elizabeth.Fotoguzzi (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2015 edits and capitalisation

There is no good reason to remove the wikilinks to Parma and Spain which help in explaining who is being referred to in the speech.

I have reverted some other changes which are based on a misunderstanding of MOS:CAPS

armada = Armada (see MOS:NAMECAPS - it's the specific Armada not a generic armada, in the same sense as the example given at NAMECAPS of the Three Great Gardens of Japan)

master of the horse = Master of the Horse, a specific formal title, see MOS:JOBTITLES, ditto for Duke of Buckingham and pope = Pope as it's a specific one, not the generic role.

Ghughesarch (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Serious historical doubt as to whether she ever gave such a speech

The only sources for the speech were written down 30 years after the event.
Citations re doubt: Real Britannia,
"The Myth of Elizabeth at Tilbury" The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 95-114.;
Glory and Bollocks: The Truth Behind Ten Defining Events in British History;
Elizabethan Silent Language p285 81.152.137.214 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Significance

Currently under significance the article says "another citizen and soldier in England’s army and a supreme leader." Of course she was supreme leader! She was the anointed monarch ie the personification of the state. Until the 1980s (with the exception of the 1650s) the English were not citizens but subjects of the English (and then the British) monarch.

I think that the the speech was predominately propaganda. However like Churchill's back to the wall speeches in 1940 the value of propaganda should not be underestimated. One important part of the propaganda contained in the speech was that until that time kings of England were also warlords who would lead their men into battle (think Henry V/Richard III etc), by being seen at Tilbury Elizabeth was indicating and explicitly said in her speech that although she was a queen she would, like a king, lead her army into battle (this was significant as it is still being debated in Britain if women should fight in the front line).

I am going to remove the sentence as it is unsourced and I suggest that if a "significance section" is going to be included that the significance is carries in-text attribution to a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)