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.
The Not-So Virgin Queen
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
ETA: Not at you, WillsBabe.
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...
"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.
ETA: Not at you, WillsBabe.
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
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...
"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.
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.
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.
or better still, we can dump the whole bloody parasitic waste of space and go Republic.
That article is a little thin on substance and a bit fat on editorial speculation and commentary.
yeah, i'm a bloody lefty republican. boo hoo.
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.
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.
Similar threads
