• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Not-So Virgin Queen

Secondly, trying to turn the character of the Doctor into a sexual or romantic figure (with regards to humans at least) makes the character less mysterious, is a cheap way of manufacturing drama on the level of bad slash fiction, and makes little sense when you consider Time Lords as more advanced than humans. The Doctor being in love with, say, Romana could make sense.
Yeah, the more human The Doctor is, the less interesting he is to me. I preferred the 9th Doctor casually flirting with that tree woman than any of the Doctor/Human relationships.
whilst I agree that the less human the Doctor is the better, why is him flirting with Jabe (if I recall correct) any different to him flirting with a human woman, her species did not seem that more evolved than humans.
 
I love the idea of a rollicking adventure with Elizabeth Tudor and the Doctor. I can see her running around with her skirts bustling and her hair trailing. Maybe they have to save Hampton Court Palace or something and they spend a lot of time dodging around the gardens. Then there will be strategy and so forth and Liz will have some really great idea that the Doctor will be able to capitalise on. I can see it all in my mind's eye and it looks fabulous! Also, Elizabeth Tudor was a redhead. There have been a lot of redheads lately for the Doctor!
 
I love the idea of a rollicking adventure with Elizabeth Tudor and the Doctor. I can see her running around with her skirts bustling and her hair trailing. Maybe they have to save Hampton Court Palace or something and they spend a lot of time dodging around the gardens. Then there will be strategy and so forth and Liz will have some really great idea that the Doctor will be able to capitalise on. I can see it all in my mind's eye and it looks fabulous! Also, Elizabeth Tudor was a redhead. There have been a lot of redheads lately for the Doctor!

You do realize that Elizabeth Tudor was the fourth child of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, not the Queen Regnant of the Kingdom of England who reigned from 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603, right? Her full legal name was simply Elizabeth (retroactively changed to Elizabeth I upon the ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms in 1952).

English and British monarchs don't have surnames.
 
I love the idea of a rollicking adventure with Elizabeth Tudor and the Doctor. I can see her running around with her skirts bustling and her hair trailing. Maybe they have to save Hampton Court Palace or something and they spend a lot of time dodging around the gardens. Then there will be strategy and so forth and Liz will have some really great idea that the Doctor will be able to capitalise on. I can see it all in my mind's eye and it looks fabulous! Also, Elizabeth Tudor was a redhead. There have been a lot of redheads lately for the Doctor!

You do realize that Elizabeth Tudor was the fourth child of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, not the Queen Regnant of the Kingdom of England who reigned from 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603, right? Her full legal name was simply Elizabeth (retroactively changed to Elizabeth I upon the ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms in 1952).

English and British monarchs don't have surnames.

Do you just spend your time on wiki looking for ways to prove people wrong? :lol:

Irrespective of the inaccuracies, I really liked WillsBabe's idea. Much like people only think of Henry VIII as a large older man (forgetting he was young and vital once) people tend to view Elizabeth only as the dour virgin queen. One reason I'm slightly annoyed we're getting the "classic" WW2 Churchill. I was really hoping we'd get the over eager young man of action he was in his youth when he finally appeared in Who.
 
You do realize that Elizabeth Tudor was the fourth child of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, not the Queen Regnant of the Kingdom of England who reigned from 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603, right? Her full legal name was simply Elizabeth (retroactively changed to Elizabeth I upon the ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms in 1952).

English and British monarchs don't have surnames.
British monarchs do not have surnames, correct. But before they are crowned, they do. Surnames are replaced with their regnal titles.

Once she was on the throne, no one in their right mind would have called her Elizabeth Tudor. But before she was crowned, and especially at points where she was delegitimated, Elizabeth Tudor was correct. So if the tenth Doctor met Elizabeth prior to her ascension, she would be Elizabeth Tudor at that time.

The current Prince of Wales is Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor. When he ascends to the throne, he will probably be Charles III. Mountbatten-Windsor will vanish from his name. (However, the official name of the British royal house will continue to be Windsor.)

On a semi-related note, I think that Lady Mary from The Tudors, Elizabeth's sister, would make a fantastic companion. The actress, Sarah Bolger, would be a good companion, but the character as well.
 
I love the idea of a rollicking adventure with Elizabeth Tudor and the Doctor. I can see her running around with her skirts bustling and her hair trailing. Maybe they have to save Hampton Court Palace or something and they spend a lot of time dodging around the gardens. Then there will be strategy and so forth and Liz will have some really great idea that the Doctor will be able to capitalise on. I can see it all in my mind's eye and it looks fabulous! Also, Elizabeth Tudor was a redhead. There have been a lot of redheads lately for the Doctor!

You do realize that Elizabeth Tudor was the fourth child of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, not the Queen Regnant of the Kingdom of England who reigned from 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603, right? Her full legal name was simply Elizabeth (retroactively changed to Elizabeth I upon the ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms in 1952).

English and British monarchs don't have surnames.

Seriously? Do you think it matters what some woman was or was not called over four centuries ago or do you feel proud and more of a man for going on wikipedia (the most trusted of sources known to man kind) and proving someone is factually incorrect?

Oh and I like that thought of The Doctor and Elizabeth Tudor running around Hampton Court Palace and then ending up rollicking in the hay :devil:
 
Elizabeth I was brilliant, educated, creative, and one of the most fascinating and fabulous monarchs of history. Forget the older Judi-Dench-style version we saw in The Shakespere Code, and imagine her young, sexual, and with a brain so amazing the Doctor couldn't help but have one hell of a romp with her.

It is likely he left her after their marriage, and very likely this was when he was having trouble coming to terms with his prophesized 'death'.

You know, this makes me wish that they were still doing NA-style novels. Somebody like David McIntee (who wrote the great historical NA Sanctuary) would do a great job with a novel about this storyline.
 
Somehow I can't stop snickering. :lol:

ETA: Not at you, WillsBabe.

You do realize that Elizabeth Tudor was the fourth child of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, not the Queen Regnant of the Kingdom of England who reigned from 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603, right? Her full legal name was simply Elizabeth (retroactively changed to Elizabeth I upon the ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms in 1952).

English and British monarchs don't have surnames.

Seriously? Do you think it matters what some woman was or was not called over four centuries ago or do you feel proud and more of a man for going on wikipedia (the most trusted of sources known to man kind) and proving someone is factually incorrect?

Oh and I like that thought of The Doctor and Elizabeth Tudor running around Hampton Court Palace and then ending up rollicking in the hay :devil:

Just not "the fourth child of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York" please, since she was apparently only three. We know the Doctor likes younger women, but... :shifty:

"The Queen Regnant of the Kingdom of England who reigned from 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603" though, I'd be up for that. :techman:
 
When he ascends to the throne, he will probably be Charles III.

The "probably" part probably makes your post incorrect. The prevailing opinion is that he will not use "Charles" as his regnal name due to the bad juju surrounding the last guys to use the name Charles.

Oddsmakers are currently betting that he'll go with "George".

EDIT: Found where I had originally read this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article782407.ece
 
When he ascends to the throne, he will probably be Charles III.

The "probably" part probably makes your post incorrect. The prevailing opinion is that he will not use "Charles" as his regnal name due to the bad juju surrounding the last guys to use the name Charles.

Oddsmakers are currently betting that he'll go with "George".

EDIT: Found where I had originally read this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article782407.ece
And here's the denial of that article from the Times.

Maybe Charles will adopt a different regnal name. Maybe he won't. We won't truly know until it happens.
 
When he ascends to the throne, he will probably be Charles III.

The "probably" part probably makes your post incorrect. The prevailing opinion is that he will not use "Charles" as his regnal name due to the bad juju surrounding the last guys to use the name Charles.

Oddsmakers are currently betting that he'll go with "George".

EDIT: Found where I had originally read this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article782407.ece
And here's the denial of that article from the Times.

Maybe Charles will adopt a different regnal name. Maybe he won't. We won't truly know until it happens.

If it happens :p
 
yeah, with luck we can skip Chas and go straight to Wills.

or better still, we can dump the whole bloody parasitic waste of space and go Republic.
 
When he ascends to the throne, he will probably be Charles III.

The "probably" part probably makes your post incorrect. The prevailing opinion is that he will not use "Charles" as his regnal name due to the bad juju surrounding the last guys to use the name Charles.

Oddsmakers are currently betting that he'll go with "George".

EDIT: Found where I had originally read this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article782407.ece
And here's the denial of that article from the Times.

Maybe Charles will adopt a different regnal name. Maybe he won't. We won't truly know until it happens.

That article is a little thin on substance and a bit fat on editorial speculation and commentary.
 
^Off with his head!! (oops, I meant Captcalhoun, not you Chaoa!)

I think he should go with Charles III, I mean the only juju is around Charles the 1st.

I hope Wills abdicates so that Harry can be Henry IX :D
 
One of Chucky's names is "Arthur". What if he decided to go with "King Arthur"? Does the (fictional) King Arthur count as Arthur I or do possibly apocryphal kings not count?
 
One of Chucky's names is "Arthur". What if he decided to go with "King Arthur"? Does the (fictional) King Arthur count as Arthur I or do possibly apocryphal kings not count?
The historical Anglo-Saxon kings have not "counted" in terms of numbering (otherwise, Edward VIII would have been Edward XI), though in college I heard that if Henry VIII's brother Arthur had lived to reign he may have taken the name Arthur II.
 
yeah, with luck we can skip Chas and go straight to Wills.

or better still, we can dump the whole bloody parasitic waste of space and go Republic.
I'm curious, because a book I was reading recently (P.D. James' The Children of Men) has me curious.

What is it about British culture today that makes republicanism so attractive? It seems like every dystopian British future suggests that the monarchy and hereditary aristrocracy is one stiff wind away from blowing over and the country is on the cusp of totalitarianism and fascism. Is British society so fragile and so precarious that it will collapse so quickly? Are British dystopias so compelling because they point to the rot underlying society?

I'm trying to understand. This puzzles me.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top