Talk:The Triumphs of Oriana

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music

We have no eveidence that proves "Oriana" refers to Queen Elizabeth I. Her nickname was "Gloriana", and people assumed "Oriana" was short for that.

I think we have a mistake--didn't Thomas Morley do this collection, not Thomas Weelkes? (See for example, the page on Morley, and the page on madgrial.) I also checked Grove music, which definitely says it was Morley.

I don't understand how publishing a collection lauding Anne of Denmark (a Lutheran) wife of James VI and soon I (also a Protestant) could be in any way an 'early attempt to ... restore England to Catholicism'. Even if Anne and James were raging Catholics, I can't really understand how anyone would be trying to depose Elizabeth by publishing a book of madrigals unless they were going to beat her to death with it. And since she was childless and very old, by Early Modern standards, no one was trying to depose her by 1601 anyway. I don't have access to the JAMS article so will not correct this, but I'm not sure one article's speculation about the identity of Oriana is important enough to cloud the issue in a general use article that kids will be using for essays. Or was the accession of Anne as Queen the 'attempt'? I think this sentence needs re-writing.

--- Of course Anne had converted to Catholicism and no one was attempting to say that the book was anything more than propaganda. More importantly, the sentence --"In his book 'The English Madrigalists', Edmund Fellowes, one of the leading madrigal scholars declares this theory to be false," which appears to have been added in response to the above comment is patently false.

Fellowes could not have "refuted" the theory in question since he died almost half a century before it was propounded. To properly challenge it, one would have to cite evidence specifically contradicting the arguments made in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlssylmls (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]