Talk:Beware, Princess Elizabeth

Stepsister Controversy
A couple of editors of this article seem very incensed over any suggestion that Mary and Elizabeth were stepsisters instead of half-sisters (of course, the third possibility is they weren't even stepsisters if Henry's later claim that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was illegitimate). The suggestion is not mine; it was one made in Anne Boleyn's time and led to her death. She may have died for trumped-up charges, I don't know, nor does anyone living now know for certainty. I merely present the dilemma as a historical fact, and more importantly, as a plot point for this novel, which is not necessarily governed by strict historicity anyway. For clarity of record, I'm copying all remarks here. --Alwpoe (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Alwpoe! Elizabeth I of England and Mary I of England were half-sisters. No serious historian doubts that. Please read the articles about them and also read stepfamily. If you wish to prove otherwise (which would be impossible), please start a discussion at Talk:Elizabeth I of England. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually had this discussion before, q.v., thanks. [earlier discussion]Alwpoe (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your recent removal from the article on Beware, Princess Elizabeth of the clause differentiating whether Mary and Elizabeth are half- or step-sisters. This is a real historical dilemma, even involving the scandal of accused incest on Anne Boleyn's part, and a significant plot point in the novel. No doubt you were attempting to simplify or clarify, but this is too great a loss of substance to let stand.--Alwpoe (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth and Mary I are half sisters. Anne Boleyn never commited incest or adultery. That was simply a tanact used by Henry so he could marry someone else. You probably should do more research on the subject. Warriormartin (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not there, and I doubt you were either, so I am suspicious of your certainty. Besides, I was not claiming Anne Boleyn committed adultery or incest, only that the accusation was there, that it is a plot point in the novel, and that English history turned on whether it was accepted or not. Had it been widely accepted, Elizabeth never would have come to the throne, and probably not have survived. So don't be snide about my research needs, just read and consider more carefully before you edit.--Alwpoe (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not a real discussion. You've discussed with one user. I'll start a discussion at Talk:Elizabeth I of England. Two persons who share one parent are half-siblings. I sincerely hope you'll learn the difference between half-siblings and stepsiblings. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is not about whether Elizabeth and Mary are legitimate half-sisters or not, but whether there was an accusation they were not. Anne Boleyn died because of these accusations. This is both a historical fact and an integral plot point to the novels. You are welcome to your opinion about the historical truth of Elizabeth's legitimacy, but you can't change history or the novel by your bias or your vehemence. I have returned this crucial point to the article about Beware, Princess Elizabeth. Thank you, Alwpoe (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth was definitely illegitimate. But Henry was definitely the father of both Mary and Elizabeth. When Henry had Elizabeth declared illegitimate, he did it because he had had his marriage to Anne declared null and void, not because he questioned Elizabeth's paternity. Anne did not die because Henry questioned Elizabeth's paternity. That "point" is so crucial that it's not mentioned in the articles about Elizabeth and Mary. Please take part in the discussion I started at Talk:Elizabeth I of England. Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that Elizabeth was "definitely illegitimate" any more than I know she was even Henry's daughter. Nor do you. It's all speculation at this point, however much you weigh the historical record. However, this discussion is not really about Mary and Elizabeth, but the novel, so the discussion should be here. However, you are welcome to discuss anything anywhere. --Alwpoe (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, let's have this discussion at Talk:Elizabeth I of England. More people will respond there. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the thread here, but respond because it was asked for on the Elizabeth I talk page: Of course they were half-sisters, as they had one and the same father. BUT it is stated by some historians (for example by David Starkey, I think) that Mary I of England possibly believed, or at least accused, Elizabeth of being Anne Boleyn's child with another man than Henry VIII! There certainly exist sources as to such a notion, whether true or not, and it is perfectly believable that a novel might use such accounts. If this were the case in this novel, then they are stepsisters rather than half-sisters as regards the plot of the novel. Buchraeumer (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim is not related to the novel. The article describes Mary as Elizabeth's stepsister as if it were a historical fact. Mary believed Anne to be a whore and a witch; it's only natural that she accused Elizabeth of being fathered by a man other than Henry. Yet I doubt she ever truly believed that; if she had believed that, she would have had Elizabeth executed after the plot to restore Jane Grey, she wouldn't have had invited her to the court when she believed that she was pregnant and she would have tried to designate her cousin (Mary I of Scotland) as her heir instead of allowing the crown to pass to Elizabeth. Anyway, all historians agree that Elizabeth was Henry's daughter. That's a fact. What they believe that Mary believed is relevant only to the article about Mary I of England, if relevant at all. Please, let's have this discussion at Talk:Elizabeth I of England. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Novels for children are not deemed reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. This is not a discussion about historical fact, but what is the plot of this novel. If we were going to discuss history, I would say, show me the DNA evidence or admit it is all speculation at this point. --Alwpoe (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * DNA testing was unknown in the 16th-century. If you want to get technical then all history is speculative including the Punic Wars, Crusades, Battle of Hastings, discovery of America in 1492, and the Battle of Waterloo (How do we really know Napoleon was defeated? After all, nobody alive today actually witnessed his surrender), etc, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The plot section of this article also claims that, in the novel (as well as in history), Henry was Elizabeth's father. So what is Alwpoe trying to say?! That we shouldn't describe Elizabeth and Mary as sisters because nothing is certain? Should we have history articles at all, seeing that nothing is certain? And how on Earth could Elizabeth and Mary be step sisters?! Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

History is, for the most part, speculation, though of varying quality. The most reliable is based on physical evidence that can be continuously verified. DNA testing does not have to be performed at the time in question. A recent finding has proved from DNA evidence that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens interbred, evidence 30,000 years old. Frankly, I don't really care if Elizabeth was legitimate or not. I am only presenting the plot of this novel. You are really beating a dead horse here. Alwpoe (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please make it clear that the novel claims that Elizabeth may not have been Henry's daughter. The article must not suggest that it is a historical fact. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please make it clear that you have or have not read the novel. Alwpoe (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not. I have, however, read books about Elizabeth written by scholars. You cannot say that it is possible that they were not sisters. You can say that the novel says that it is possible that they were not sisters. That is a huge difference. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of personal attacks, I have to say that you are an incredibly stubborn person! Why do you keep ignoring all my requests for a discussion and a compromise? Why do you disagree with this option? If you only claim that the novel presents Elizabeth as a child who might not have been fathered by Henry VIII, what's your problem with the sentence It is part of the Young Royals series, beginning with Mary, Bloody Mary, about Mary I, whom the novel presents as Elizabeth's half-sister and a possible stepsister?

Finally, I will not allow you to make a mockery out of this encyclopaedia. As long as I can do anything about it, Wikipedia will not claim that Elizabeth was fathered by any man other than Henry VIII on the basis of a children's novel! Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted any reference to Mary being anything other than Elizabeth's half-sister. There's no need to give undue weight to the author's speculation about her paternity in a fictional novel for children. The novel is about Elizabeth's youth, not the moment of her conception.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if the plot of the novel includes speculations about Elizabeth's paternity, we should mention that. This is after all fiction, a novel. The author could have claimed that Elizabeth married the Chinese emperor; she is entitled to (licentia poetica). However, we must stress out that it is fiction and that in reality, Elizabeth was fathered by Henry. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither I nor the novelist is making an argument that Elizabeth is Mary's stepsister. In the novel cycle, various claims by and about the characters are made, including the paternity of Elizabeth, the legitimacy of both Catherine of Aragon's and Anne Boleyn's marriages to Henry, and the rightful inheritance of the throne. These are not presented to make final historical claims but to present human behaviour and emotions in an artistic fashion. That is why I say the novel is "about" this, and added the reference for (I think unnecessary) clarity. All your other arguments are just historic bias bordering on fetishism. Alwpoe (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fetishism???!!!!!!! Whaaaaaaaaaaat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what gave me away? Was it my black, pointed-toed boots?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Add fishnet stockings and we can call it a date. Alwpoe (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clear that all our efforts to discuss and reach a compromise have failed and will never succeed. Alwpoe rejects all kinds of compromises. So what do we do now? I won't let Alwpoe make a mockery of Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that first you read the novels you are criticising. Second, I would suggest you relinquish dogmatism for the sake of scientific accountability in historical investigations. Third, I would suggest that you look up the definition of "compromise", which does not mean "make everyone agree with my own views". Of course, for the dogmatist, everyone else is stubborn. Alwpoe (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I proposed several solutions to this problem. You rejected each of them. You are simply pushing your own POV and your original research. Well, that won't work. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing any research, just presenting the plot as it is, whether you like it or not. Again, read the novels you are criticising. I now consider your reverts mere vandalism. Alwpoe (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's vandalism now and longer a fetish? Anyway, if you are only presenting the plot as it is, why on Earth do you refuse to allow me to stress out the fact that Elizabeth's paternity is questioned in the novel, rather than in history? Why do you refuse to change the sentence just a bit so that readers can know what is fictiona and what is history? Why? Surtsicna (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I will not have your dogmatism make a mockery of Wikipedia, to quote a phrase. Alwpoe (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be rather late, but according to google books, Beware, Princess Elizabeth is juvenile fiction. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Silly Question
I thought I'd drop in since there was a request for more eyes, and I studied lit in another lifetime. Could you not simply say in first paragraph, or in a paragraph below the lead, something like "one theme in the novel is question of Mary and Elizabeth are half sisters or step sisters?" We are talking about a historical novel, so there is clearly a blend of fact and fiction. Also, would a wikilink to a historical article clarify the situation sufficiently to clarify the situation? -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I proposed. Unfortunatly, User:Alwpoe reverted and insisted that the article should refer to Elizabeth as Mary's possible step-sister as if it were a historical possibility. Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, my suggestion is that we not worry about what happened before, and try to reach a reasonable compromise and move forward, especially since there's an AFD now. Surtsicna, are you relatively happy with the wording now, or would you propose changes? I think the prose could use some work, but for now, I'm just thinking of content. -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am extremely unhappy with this. We cannot say that the plot of the novel could be a historical fact. Doing such thing simply doesn't make sense. Scholars say that they were siblings. Wikipedia cannot say that Elizabeth was Mary's stepsister, if accusations of Boleyn's infidelity by certain characters in the novel are true. Had certain characters in the novel accused Boleyn of being a green alien, would we mention that? It's a novel, it's fiction! P.S. I did not intend to "attack" you; sorry if I sounded hostile towards you! I am hostile only to the idea of presenting plot of a novel as a historical fact. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, I don't have a dog in this race. But the edit warring isn't helping, so let's try to find some way of putting this that you and the others involved are happy with. I think part of the confusion, at least on my part, is that since this is a novel, I wouldn't take any of what it says at face value, nor would I confuse it with an historical account. Of course, that might be because I cut teeth the "we were there" series in grade school and moved on to Mary Renault's works. For that reason, yes, if a character said Anne was a green alien, it wouldn't bother me. But I also see your point, and surely there's no objection to saying what the characters say if we make it clear that in those respect it's a fictional account. Can you cast a sentence as a suggestion that meets both needs? -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I can. In fact, I agree with your original proposal but User:Alwpoe doesn't. What's wrong with ...about Mary I, whom the novel presents as Elizabeth's half-sister and a possible stepsister? Or simply (and better yet), ...about Mary I, Elizabeth I's half-sister. and then mention that Elizabeth's paternity was questioned in the Plot section. It belongs to the Plot section, after all. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think those are good suggestions. I invited Alwpoe to join us here for discussion, hopefully she will drop in soon. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Surtsicna's suggestion that it's placed in the Plot section, but not the lead. It does not belong there. I hope Alwpoe will agree to the compromise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this?
In the current series section
 * Beware, Princess Elizabeth is part of the Young Royals series, which includes Doomed Queen Anne, concerning the rise and fall of Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn, and Mary, Bloody Mary, about Mary I.

And in the plot section:


 * ...and Mary, who grabs the throne by force and later has Jane Grey beheaded. Mary serves England a little reign of terror, as her personal unhappiness, religious intolerance, and inability to produce an heir leads to the death of hundreds of political opponents. In the novels, the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth is further complicated by the possibility that they are actually step sisters, rather than half sisters. Always under suspicion of treason, Elizabeth is imprisoned by Mary in the Tower of London and on various estates where she is isolated and forced to pretend a conversion to Catholicism. Elizabeth's strength of will and growing popular support sustain her through the cruelty of her older sister, upon whose death she finally inherits the throne.

Objections to this version? -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of moving forward in good faith as prompted by Nuujinn, I will no longer address individual editors who continue to attack me or this novel. I will preface by saying that history is a science, and all science is based on speculation, the slow accumulation of facts, the give and take of theory (thesis, antithesis, synthesis), an intellectual debate over time leading ever closer to refinement, but always short of absolute certainty, not a monolith to be held and upheld blindly. Fiction, as art, on the other hand, searches for and at times expresses a deeper truth. This novel does not purport to be a scholarly work; rather, it uses history as a source of conflict to reveal character. Sometimes history advances by accusations, rumours, lies, and misperceptions, bending the truth as gravity bends light; and how individuals respond to the conflicts reveals or forms their strengths and weaknesses. Elizabeth here is a symbol for the universal will for survival and the remaining true to oneself. This pontificating preamble is just to clarify why I disagree so strongly with the history-fundamentalists who misunderstand (and haven't read) the novel. But I should address the more concrete points. I think Nuujinn's addition of the Series section was a good idea. The point of contention should be here rather than in the Plot section because it concerns the arc of the novel cycle, The most basic concern I have is any statement that the novel is making some argument for history, whether it is Elizabeth's legitimacy or her parentage. Only characters in the novels make these claims. It would be equivalent to saying a novel about neo-Nazis "raised the question of the authenticity of the Holocaust", rather than describing (and perhaps even meting out poetic justice to) characters in the novel who held that view. For these reasons, I am reinstating this critical plot point, though I will attempt another (no doubt futile) redaction for appeasement. Alwpoe (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a plot point, please put it in the plot discussion. This does not belong in the lead. You may say "all science is speculation" but we have a rule WP:no original research which precludes us from speculating.  Diannaa  TALK 04:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The plot does not even include Anne's trial, as the novel doesn't even start until Elisabeth is fourteen. Where would you include it in the plot segment? Diannaa  TALK 04:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, since Alwpoe would prefer it in the series section anyway, and you're concerned about it not being a plot point, I'll try to recast it in the series section. It does seem tho that we're agreed that it's ok to include the information so long as it's clear that this is a novel with fictional elements, so I'll count that as a bit of progress.
 * I should also point out that anyone who wants this to survive the AFD should find more references.... -- Nuujinn (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this wording, though I think a little something is lost in not noting that accusation is a part of the plot, since we all know how even the vaguest rumours can affect our lives. --Alwpoe (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I think we can move forward. I'm added references and doing some copy editing, but I'm not familiar with the work, so please double check my edits, I'll be done in a few minutes. -- Nuujinn (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)