As promised, we finally present our sequel to the Top 10 Most Evil Women list. The women on this list are all infamous for the horrors they caused. It is a very difficult topic to rank, so I have done my best to do so in an objective manner. If you think anyone is missing from either of these two lists, be sure to tell us in the comments.
10. Williamina “Minnie” Dean 1844 – 1895
Death Toll: 3+
Minnie Dean was the first, and only, woman to be executed in the history of New Zealand. She was executed by hanging. Under the guise of helping poor young girls, this evil woman murdered their children and took what little money they had to improve her own lifestyle. At the time, a young woman becoming pregnant without a father was severely stigmatized by society. This gave rise to a phenomenon called “baby farming”, in which people would offer to take the children and raise them for a moderate regular fee. Dean was one such farmer, but rather than raising the children, she murdered them at the soonest opportunity and kept the money. This was made possible because “adopting” parents were not required to be registered by law. In many cases the children simply vanished in to the homes of these “farmers” never to be seen again. Dean murdered at least 3 children, but it is likely that there were many more whose bodies were not recovered. In my youth I was given a tour of the New Zealand Police private museum, and I saw the bones of the 3 recovered children – it was something I will never forget.
9. Dorothea Puente 1929
Death Toll: 9
Dorothy Puente was an elderly woman who ran a boarding house for down and outs. During her years in the house she slowly murdered the people who lived with her, and forged their signatures on social security checks, in order to live the high life. She refused to allow her tenants to touch the phone or mail. She would take any money that was sent to them and keep most of it for herself. Among her victims were drunks, and schizophrenics. One of the bodies found in the back yard had had its head, arms and legs removed. The money she stole helped pay for luxury clothing and perfume, as well as a face lift shortly before she was caught. Puente showed no remorse for her crimes and is currently serving time in jail where she will die.
8. Karla Homolka 1970
Death Toll: 3 (at least 5 others suspected)
Karla Homolka is a Canadian serial killer who attracted worldwide media attention when she was convicted of helping her husband, Paul Bernardo, rape and murder teenage girls. Her victims included her sister, Tammy Homolka. Karla videotaped her husband brutalizing and murdering young women – these videotapes were used against them in court, and parts have leaked on to the internet despite the fact that the Canadian government ordered the videos destroyed. Shockingly, Homolka was released from jail in 2005 after just 12 years, and is now living in the sunny paradise that is the West Indies. Justice, commonwealth style.
7. Elena Ceauşescu 1916 – 1989
Death Toll: Genocidal
Elena Ceauşescu was a Romanian self-proclaimed scientist, wife of Romania’s Communist leader, Nicolae Ceauşescu, and Vice Prime Minister of Romania. Romanians hold Elena Ceauşescu responsible for the elimination of birth control, which created crisis conditions during the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in a flood of unwanted infants, babies and children, that were housed in substandard state operated orphanages throughout the country. She also headed the State health commission, which denied the existence of AIDS in Romania, leading to one of the largest outbreaks (including pediatric cases) in the western world. She was also responsible for the destruction of churches and the food rationing that took place in Romania in the 1980s. She was eventually executed for her crimes against humanity, and died screaming “go to hell” to her executor. I wonder how she is finding it there.
6. Elizabeth I of England 1533 – 1603
Death Toll: Thousands (at least)
Elizabeth I, in order to suppress Catholicism, had thousands of Catholics in England and Ireland murdered. While she did good things with regards to parliament, she was an evil tyrant who is, unfortunately, portrayed as “Good Queen Bess” these days (as we know, the victors write history). Additionally, Elizabeth gave Mary, Queen of Scots refuge, then immediately betrayed her and kept her prisoner for nearly 19 years, before murdering her (with no intervening freedom!). She encouraged piracy against Spanish ships and allowed the slave trade to thrive.
5. Marybeth Tinning 1942
Death Toll: 9
Between 1972 and 1985, Tinning had 8 children and adopted another one, all of whom she murdered. Throughout the period of the deaths, no one had any suspicion that she was murdering them, and genetics was blamed. This happened despite the fact that her adopted child was the seventh child murdered. She confessed to smothering her children, but later retracted the confession. She was eventually sentenced to 20 years in prison – since then, both attempts at parole have been denied.
4. Rosemary West 1953
Death Toll: 12+
Together with her husband Fred, Rosemary West is believed to have tortured and murdered at least 12 young women. In August, 1992, Fred West was arrested after being accused of raping his 13-year-old daughter three times, and Rosemary West was arrested for child cruelty. The Wests developed a habit of picking up girls from bus stops in and around Gloucester, England, and imprisoning them in their home for several days before killing them. West had a voracious sexual appetite and enjoyed extreme bondage and sadomasochistic sex. She was bisexual, and many of their victims were picked up for her and her husband’s sexual pleasure. West also worked as a prostitute. Two of her children were fathered by these clients. West is one of only two women ever to be condemned to die in prison in the United Kingdom (the other was Myra Hindley, who has since died in prison).
3. Phoolan Devi 1963 – 2001
Death Toll: 22+
Phoolan Devi was an Indian Dacoit (armed robber), who had a brief career as a politician later in her life. In the 1970s she was kidnapped by a gang of dacoits, and she eventually joined them in their crimes. At one point she was raped by a group of men in Behmai, a village they attacked. She managed to escape and continued her life of crime, stealing from the wealthy. She eventually returned to Behmai, where she ordered all of the men in the village lined up and shot. At least 22 men were murdered at her command. She was finally arrested, and spent 11 years in jail. She went in to politics but her short lived career ended due to abuse of her power. Shockingly, in 1998, Phoolan Devi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by some members of the British Parliament. In 2001, she was assassinated by a man in revenge for the murders she caused in Behmai.
2. Delphine LaLaurie 1775 – 1842(?)
Death Toll: 10+
LaLaurie was a sadistic socialite who lived in New Orleans. Her home was a chamber of horrors. On April 10, 1834, a fire broke out in the mansion’s kitchen, and firefighters found two slaves chained to the stove. They appeared to have started the fire themselves, in order to attract attention. The firefighters were lead by other slaves to the attic, where the real surprise was. Over a dozen disfigured and maimed slaves were manacled to the walls or floors. Several had been the subjects of gruesome medical experiments. One man appeared to be part of some bizarre sex change, a woman was trapped in a small cage with her limbs broken and reset to look like a crab, and another woman with arms and legs removed, and patches of her flesh sliced off in a circular motion to resemble a caterpillar. Some had had their mouths sewn shut and had subsequently starved to death, whilst others had their hands sewn to different parts of their bodies. Most were found dead, but some were alive and begging to be killed, to release them from the pain. LaLaurie fled before she could be bought to justice – she was never caught. You can read a more indepth article on Delphine LaLaurie here.
1. Jiang Qing 1914 – 1991
Death Toll: 500,000+
Jiang Qing was the wife of Mao Tse-tung, the Communist dictator of China. Through clever maneuvering she managed to reach the highest position of power within the communist party (short of being President). It is believed that she was the main driving force behind China’s Cultural Revolution (of which she was the deputy director). During the Cultural Revolution, much economic activity was halted, and countless ancient buildings, artifacts, antiques, books and paintings were destroyed by Red Guards. The 10 years of the Cultural Revolution also brought the education system to a virtual halt, and many intellectuals were sent to prison camps. Millions of people in China reportedly had their human rights annulled during the Cultural Revolution. Millions more were also forcibly displaced. Estimates of the death toll – civilians and Red Guards – from various Western and Eastern sources are about 500,000 in the true years of chaos of 1966—1969, but some estimates are as high as 3 million deaths, with 36 million being persecuted.
Conclusion
We have now shown 20 evil women and I am sorry to say that I have found enough to do a third list in the future. Women, and mothers in particular, are trusted by society to raise future generations – what a tragedy when things go so wrong that we end up with murderous mothers. It strikes me that there must be some warning sign of impending evil with these people – is there any way we can detect it, and if so, can anything be done to prevent the evil from blossoming? Do we have a moral right to dispose of these people before they can do any damage?
This article uses some material from Wikipedia
Number 2 was extremely evil! What a cold woman. And for those of you feminazis *****ing about Number 8, you are crazy! She killed random men not the ones that raped her, and even if she did kill the ones that raped her, that still doesn’t make it right.
I’m sorry, I meant number 3 had no right to kill those men.
no,she killed the men who raped her but yes some other were killed accidently but these were the same men who watched while she was raped.
and we might be ‘feminazis’ but if i was in her position i wud do the same thing…..and atleast i am being honest abt it..
I just want to post to say that since I first posted on here, this site/page has probably attracted more attention than ever before……………….the webmaster or site-proprieter MUST have noticed this.
I am posting on here, for the final time, to thank those of you who take such an avid interest in me…. it is your constant attentions that have helped me to get through all of this, because even though your attentions are ill-intended, I am sure, you make me feel very close with certain celebrities…………you may talk badly about me, but at least you talk.
If I were not just a bit more fascinating than the average person, would all eyes be on me?
I love my fans.
Thank you SO much. (Hugs n kisses to all!)
P.s those that this message is directed at know who they are.
P.p.s And to the men who have recently tried to contact me… wait until next year, guys, and we shall see.
xoxox
Guess what, everyone?
I had planned to not write even one more entry on here, but I feel that I MUST, because I am putting pieces of the puzzle together, finally.
I know WHY the Government has done this to me.
I am a scapegoat.
A political one.
I am horrified to have discovered that an NDP representitive, a Ms Cheri DiNovo, sat on the Parole Board two years ago…. and before that.
She helped to make the decision to keep me in the state that I am in, and I know WHY; if you Wikipedia Cheri DiNovo, you’ll see that she was chastised several years back for making comments about Karla Homolka that apparently seemed kind. This was around the time that they let Karla out.
I now understand that is is highly likely that because Karla was getting out, (due to the shoddy deal given to her) all efforts have been made to dehumanize me and make me appear as a monster so that everyone could shift their attentions to tormenting me, and keeping me locked up…………
I have become a convenient scapegoat, and if you all only knew how terrible and disgusting this is, you would be HORRIFIED.
I was born to a drug addict/alcoholic prostitute, and was likely raped repeatedly by men who visited my mother’s apartment from the age of two to the age of five- to be honest, I remember most of it, although I have never mentioned this to a single soul.
My mother bought drugs and starved me, so for the first four years of my life, I was starved and raped damn near every night.
I was finally taken by ambulance to a hospital at the age of five, where a rape test was performed on me, and I was removed from my mothers care immediately and placed in foster care for two years, were was again assaulted.(In at least two seperate homes)
Unfortunately, I had the misfortune of being an exceptionally pretty little girl, as any remaining pictures of me at that time will attest to. It would seem, in hindsight, that the CAS had trouble getting pedophiles to keep their hands off of me anywhere I went.( In one of my Foster homes, I even had my foster parents drag me kicking and screaming out of a toy box in my room, where I was trying to hide from a *****ual assault underneath a pile of stuffed animals, and I remember this as if it happened yesterday)
Anyway, that was the first seven years of my life.
At eight, I was adopted by a wealthy young couple in Dundas Ontario, who, it turned out, were unable to have children of their own- this was placing a strain on the marriage, so I was to be the saving grace.
It did not work.
When I was ten, they divorced, and I remained in the home with my adoptive mother, who turned the balance of her wrath upon me.
I could not handle this, and began to run away from the abuse, by running out of the home at all times of the day and night.
Finally, I was placed in a group home, and visited on my fourteenth birthday with papers to sign by my adoptive mother, saying that she had unadopted me.
In the group homes, I lived with very troubled and volatile adolescents- When Paul Bernardo was arrested, I, like everyone else, paid very close attention to the case, and soon discovered that expressing sympathy for him ( by saying ‘ How can you guys say all of that mean stuff when he hasn’t even been convicted?) was a way to get people around me incensed, and because I had issues of being bullied due to my small size, I soon learned that if I acted REALLY interested in him, it caused people to think that I was a little strange, and leave me alone.
That is the balance of and the explanation behind my purported evil.
At sixteen years of age, in a desperate desire to actually be sent to prison in order to escape negative living conditions in a group home, I called Ms mahaffy, and said a couple of nasty things.
If I remember correctly, I felt justified, because I was a little upset at her having locked Leslie out of the house and all, having had my own adopted mother do the same thing to me.
By this time, as I said before, I was not very hard on the eyes (I could hardly say the same now, though! LOL!) Long blond hair, bleached several shades lighter than my natural gold, on account of being a Beverly Hills 90210 fan like every other adolescent at the time.
I will never understand why it is that not one single adult I ever encountered at that time ( social workers, child care workers, police officers) ever even once sat me down to explain to me that Paul Bernardo was a bad man, and that what I had done was a very cruel thing to do.
They had difficulty seeing me as the naive child I was, I believe, because they were looking at me and seeing Karla Homolka, due to my appearence. ( I had more than a couple of photos taken around this period, and I am sure that most of them are still floating around out there somewhere!!!)
Ms Homolka was twenty four at the time.
Instead of trying to set me straight, all I got from people (in my naive, impressionable state) were evil looks, nasty comments, and cruel treatment.
I wound up serving two years in a youth facility for a phone call.
When I was released, now a CAS ward again, the CAS paid for me to get an apartment, then came to me in the second month, in 1999, and told me that they could no longer support me, and gave me my last check.
I was left with nothing, and with noone.
With no way to pay for my apartment and NOT EVEN ONE SUPPORT (familial or otherwise), I ended up having a psychiatric breakdown, and I set the carpet in my hallway on fire in a suicide bid.
Since then, my life has been a nightmare.
A woman wrote a book called ‘Paul’s case’ about a ‘fan’ of Mr Bernardo, and I strongly believe that people mistook the fictional book to be about me, which it ABSOLUTELY was NOT!!!
As a result, when I went inside, I was treated horribly, every where I went.
I, who never harmed anyone, never did a single thing to a single soul.
I am the unknown Scapegoat, the whipping girl of the government- in order to not feel guilty about having to let Karla go, they have focussed every possible attention on tormenting me.
I have been locked up FOR THAT SUICIDE ATTEMPT since 1999, and during that time, I have never been involved in even one physical altercation, NEVER, EVER harmed even one single soul,and yet everywhere I have gone, everything I have tried to do, it has been as if I were a scarlet woman- I even had the Toronto sun write a couple of articles about me calling me a ‘Bernardo fan’ and saying that I was ‘violent’, both of which are terrible untruths)
I still have pedophiles follow me relentlessly, and this is my life- I have always harbored a desire to join the army and defend my country, and I have always had a passion for politics, possibly instilled by my adoptive mother, who used to take me out delivering campaign fliers for local NDP reps.
It is highly ironic that I now discover that the very political party that I have helped in years past ( during the federal election, I made history inside of a federal prison by urging politically uninvolved women to come out and vote… ordinarily, in a women’s prison, during an election,the vote returners will be lucky if FIVE women show up, and I got over forty to pore in through the gym doors and sit down to vote) it is this political party that may hold some responsibility for what has been done to me.
It will NEVER ever be said that I was not an intelligent woman with boundless potential, but, unfortunately, my Government would rather kill me.
I just recently went on to a website to sign a petition for a woman named Brenda Martin, who is being held unlawfully (as most claim) in a Mexican prison, because I am familiar with prison conditions (including suicide watches) and I am familiar with being in Prison for nothing.
I made the mistake of signing the petition with my real name, and it was deleted.
There is nothing that I can do- other than continue to suffer repeatedly- that will satisfy my Government.
For some strange reason, God has decided that it is my lot in life to live every single moment in persecution and suffering, for absolutely no crime at all.
I am not allowed to do ANYTHING except be a constant effigy for all of the governments failures and shortcomings concerning Karla Homolka.
And that is the truth.
So, I hope that Karla is enjoying her freedom, because I am serving the sentence and receiving all of the treatment that should have been hers.
Paul, Karla, and the Canadian Governments Body Count:
1. Tammy Lyn Homolka
2. Leslie Erin Mahaffy
3. Kristen Dawn French
4. Michelle Lynn Lisson
The reason that I came back on this site to post this, is because during my initial post, I did not understand WHY any of it.
Now I do.
And with regards to my previous narcissistic sounding post- most of it was sarcasm, directed at certain folks in my life who ALL have me confused with Karla Homolka, and pore over and watch my every move avidly, up to the point of Internet stalking.
I am not a bad person at all, or an evil person.
THAT is why I am not on your list.
P.S I had been considering penning an autobiography, but I think I just did it here!!!!!!!
P.s To the list writer: No matter what should happen in the future, please do not EVER add me to your list, because I so far removed from these women that it is obscene.
But, would you consider adding Cheri DiNovo? Just kidding.
P.P.S To Karla Homolka, who undoubtedly glances at this page from time to time: Happy Easter. Hope you are enjoying it with your wonderful new family, something that Tammy, Leslie, Kristen and I will all NEVER be able to have.
you just sound like an attention seeking lunatic with a really vivid imagination
woaaaah…hold it. you are scary. slow down for us please. its hard to swallow. why are you saying you belong on this list? are you a psychopathic torturing murdering btch from hell???? oh god….have mercy on us all -_-
i think the lists should be combined
A third list? Good idea. Here are 5 more:
Velma Barfield
Gertrude Baniszewski
Jane Toppan
Tzu Hsi
Catherine the Great
i have been pushin gertrude for….months now haha
I’m with the others that commented; as I place revenge (even misguided revenge) on a different level than sadistic killing of innocents, Phoolan Devi does not deserve to be #3 on this list, or possibly on the list at all.
How about Magda Goebbels? She killed her 6 children and all because of the “führer”… yuck!!! I’d like to think she did it to protect them but… I just can’t… How can a mother do that? I think that’s pure evil (as everything else related to the Holocaust…)
Elizabeth Bathory should be on this list too.
Mickilyne; Just can’t get enough of yourself, eh? You’re not on the list because you are a self-obsessed weirdo. Ever try writing anything which didn’t have ‘I’ in every sentence? Oh, and ‘..I still have pedophiles follow me relentlessly’, eh? You’re an adult now, so why would pedophiles be interested in you at all? And what’s more, over the years you’ve done a far better job of killing yourself than the government has. Hope you get back to your own planet ok.
I so agree with you. She is deluded and attention seeking
Have you heard of Gesche Gottfried? In 15 years she killed 15 people by rat poison (and tried it on another 20) and at the same time cared for them until they were dead (her 3 children, her parents, two husbands and friends were the victims). She lived around 1850 at Bremen, Germany and was beheaded in the end.
The Lalaurie Photo above was stolen off a site http://www.hauntedAmericatours.com that has the best info on Madame Lalarie to date.
Phoolan Devi was, apparently, the ‘saviour of India’s working classes’. She was not evil, just a female version of Robin Hood!
Daisy de Melker, she was on crazy South African women
most of these women are psychotic.. but 2 of these i do not think should be in here..
putting the 2, elizabeth I and phoolan devi, is just *****ist.
elizabeth had to do what she did because public urged her too, because b4 her the anglican/protestants suffered a lot on hands of a catholic
and as for phoolan devi
she is kidnapped when she was just 7, and *****ing raped.
hell man i will hate all men if i was raped..
seriously
cold blood, not really.
One question? Why is my ex-wife not on this list? She’s the ***** to beat them all.
#2 gives me nightmares. wtf?
so…
about Elena Ceausescu…like i told some months ago in another comment, they were pretty brave and looked up to the soldiers that lead their trial (it was a military trial, that took about 2 hours, and lead to their execution… 
) no 6 months trial like Saddam ) , but at the end when they ralized what’s really happening she says somethin’ like “oooh…common boys…i was good to you…don’t be rough” 
Here in Romania we can view every yeah on the 25 december (the day of the revolution) the whole trial and execution…it’s like a hollyday…
here is one footages of the trial
thank you twinkle for acknowledging how serious rape is. However unlike you I would not cut off their dicks I would kill them. To rape someone is to not only rape their body but also to rape their soul. Can you blame a woman for killing a rapist?
Great website, I’ve really enjoyed reading the lists, but I have to question your concluding paragraph.
Why are murderous mothers deemed for evil than rapist fathers? Why even feel you had to summarise the list with a personal opinion at the end?
“Do we have a moral right to dispose of these people before they can do any damage?”
Seen as most crimes are committed by men, I find it odd that you think society should be able to predict female murderers and take whatever steps necessary to prevent any possible deaths from occuring. Do we not need to stop the men before they murder?
I suppose we could always just stop having baby boys – prison population down by 90%, violent crimes down, rape virtually irradicated etc, need I go on…..
She killed every man in town; unless all 22 of them raped her, she was wrong. Still, since she started as a victim I don’t think she should be on this list.
I think most of the women that agree with Phoolan Devi are overreacting. Also, Delphine is my favorite on this list.
Karla Homolka can burn in hell for she matters in this life…
Just throwing this out to everyone. Perhaps the most evil women in the world are not those who kill.
There are historians who maintain that Mme. Delphine Lalaurie was indeed innocent of the atrocities for which she is accused:
[Stanley Arthur, president of the board of curators of the Louisiana State Museum, is staunch in his support of Madame Lalaurie.
"I have always thought," he said, "that Madame Lalaurie was the first victim of yellow journalism. There is nothing in the record to indicate that she was the type of a woman pictured by them. One must remember that there was much social jealousy in those days, and that Madame Lalaurie occupied an enviable position socially."
He revealed that he had found a record of Madame Lalaurie granting permission for the emancipation of a slave in the early 1830s, which contradicts the tales of her cruelty.]
http://www.nola.com/lalaurie/trail/plate.html
Since there is no documented, factual or tangible evidence of these cruelties for which Mme. Lalaurie is blamed, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to label her as evil. Part of New Orleans’ draw is its reputation as ‘one of America’s most haunted cities’. Any story – true or not – that supports that image is obviously going to be kept alive to bolster tourism (on which New Orleans’ economy largely depends). Just pointing out…one cannot believe everything one reads.
Oh, and in case the lack of verifiable evidence prompts the removal of Delphine Lalaurie (which is the responsible thing to do considering it’s libel otherwise), perhaps she can be replaced with Christine and Lea Papin. Their crime is well-documented and they were tried and convicted.
Watch ‘Bandit Queen’. Its on the life of Phoolan Devi. Then you might have some idea why she is what she is. Life of a woman in the backwater of India is sheer misery. Watch the movie to have some idea what its like to live in a place where women have no say in anything and treated like chattels. Directed by Shekar Kapoor the guy who made Elizabeth.
i don’t think phoolan devi should be on the list…
Some suggestions
Gertrude Baniszwecki, Catherine De’Medici, and Magda Goebbels
Mao Tse-tung was not a dictator~! He was a great leader.
But like all great leaders, he also had made some mistakes
his wife was one of those mistakes
Elizabeth 1
Mary queen of scots had gone round killing all the protestant priests and dont for get it was the pope behind the gunpowder plot
Mary queen of scots had elizabeth imprisoned 1st
The gold she had pirated from the spanish was stolen from the aztecs anyway
Ah, the madness continues. This has to be the most shallow description of Elizabeth I. I have ever read, I am sorry. If England’s greatest monarch should be criticized, let her opponent be worthy of her and, indeed, she had several such worthy opponents.
Let me start out by stating that accusing brilliant historians of willfully distorting her biography and traits is ludicrous and could easily be uncovered by the wealth of documents that remain from her reign. You throw together some half truths, simplify them and present them as facts, each of them being terribly biased and untrue.
Lets begin with this idea:
“Elizabeth I, in order to suppress Catholicism, had thousands of Catholics in England and Ireland murdered.”
Now there’s skewed logic for you. Elizabeth I. actually showed a religious tolerance beyond her times. Yes, she established the Protestant faith but even kept some Catholic symbols and traditions. Catholics were still permitted to read mass, all they had to do was what any Christian subject had to do in those times, accept her authority. As long as you did that, you had little to fear. Catholics who could not cope with that weren’t hunted down or stripped of their possessions, they had plenty of countries to choose from if their faith was the main reason of their lives. Elizabeth was forced to enforce laws against Catholics after being excommunicated by the Pope and a quick succession of Catholic plots to depose her. Unlike your idea, excommunication of a ruler in those times meant more than just not being allowed to take the sacrament. It cut all of her Catholic subjects off their duty to her as queen for one and it also meant that it “would not be a sin to murder her”, quite the contrary, whoever murdered her was guaranteed a place in paradise for the brave deed. Only a fool would have permitted these suggestions to take root and Elizabeth I. was anything but a fool. However, she took no delight in having to become stricter and more like her Catholic counterparts to ensure her survival and reign. She had Catholics on her Council. When the Catholic Armada attacked her Catholic subjects fought happily by her side rather than joining Philip II. or the Duke of Parma. As for Ireland, this had little to do with Catholicism but rather with the very normal state of war between two countries. As for the Jesuit Priests….You know what their mission was, right? To infiltrate England, convert Elizabeth’s subjects and support assassination plots as well as sedition. They were SCHOOLED in these things. You think Philip II. would have tolerated it if she had sent missionaries to Spain to convert them to Anglicanism, support assassination plots and causing sedition? THINK AGAIN!
“While she did good things with regards to parliament, she was an evil tyrant who is, unfortunately, portrayed as “Good Queen Bess” these days (as we know, the victors write history).”
How was she an evil tyrant? To which of her 44 years of reign are you referring? The woman who said that “she did not want to carve windows into men’s souls” and that there “was but one Jesus Christ, the rest is a dispute over trifles.” certainly doesn’t sound like a tyrant. A tyrant…Lets look at how easy or hard her succession to the crown had been. Imprisoned in the Tower twice she escaped by using her wits. When she succeeded her odds were not the best. She inherited an impoverished country, the most powerful monarchs regarded her to be a bastard, heretic and usurper. What kept her so safely on her throne? The love of her people, both Catholic and Protestant. She built strong relations to both Catholic and Protestant powers. The Pope praised her even. (Both as a ruler and a woman) In her reign the sea trade flourished, the arts blossomed, England was rid of Medieval heresy laws… I suggest you look up the meaning of tyrant. Try Caligula if you want a tyrant.
“Additionally, Elizabeth gave Queen Mary of Scots refuge, then immediately betrayed her and kept her prisoner for nearly 19 years, then murdered her (with no intervening freedom!).”
Once again simplified and utterly without historical backup. The Mary Stuart affair was VERY complex, I shall try to keep this short however and suggest several books on the matter. Have you studied Mary Stuart’s life at all? If you had you’d know that she was a granddaughter of Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s older sister and therefore had a claim to the English throne. Henry however struck Margaret’s line out of the succession in his will. Many believed that Mary was, by right, Queen of England, not Elizabeth. Being a spoiled, foolish girl she antagonized Elizabeth with a gesture rather than an outright challenge. She adopted the English crown into her Coat of Arms. The Peace of Chateau Cambresis however established Elizabeth as Queen. When Mary returned to Scotland she found the country she had left as a Catholic to be Protestant, way more Protestant than England ever became. (If you’re interested, study John Knox to see just how far the fanaticism went) Mary went on to marry a fool (Henry Darnley), got sick of him and there’s a lot to suggest that she had a hand in his murder for it was her new lover who killed him. She was an adulteress who married her husband’s murderer. The Scottish Lords forced her to abdicate in favor of her little son. But rather than having the intelligence to flee to France or Spain she fled to the country whose ruler she had antagonized, insulted and regarded to be a usurper. Elizabeth was put in the ungrateful position of housing a Queen whose country had wanted to burn as a harlot and murderess and her desire to protect a fellow anointed monarch. Also, Mary was not imprisoned by any means. She lived in beautiful castles, had a staff made of hundreds of those loyal to her, she could hunt, enjoy anything she wanted and had every luxury a queen could require. George Talbot, her “keeper”, treated her adoringly. Mary however could not aknowledge defeat, she wanted her crown back and she wanted Elizabeth’s to sweeten up the deed. She participated in countless plots to have Elizabeth killed (Without ever being held accountable, Elizabeth continually defended her) and it was only when it was clear that the foolish woman would never cease plotting that the Council decided to make her accountable. Elizabeth agonized over this sad duty for months and it was only under duress that she finally gave her consent. It tormented her for the rest of her life. Who is more to blame? The English queen who warned Mary countless times (When she was still in Scotland), who stomached assassination plots and the daily risk of her life…who was forced to act so she might survive…or the Scottish Queen whose life, though tragic, was marred by deceit, lust and ambition? Would she have had ANY qualms to condemn Elizabeth had the roles been reversed? Hell no. She sold her “right” to both the crowns of Scotland and England to Philip II, thus committing high treason and betraying her only son. Mary Stuart was no ignorant victim. That is a long disproved myth.
“She encouraged piracy against Spanish ships”
Piracy was a common tool of war back then. How do you think the Spaniards got their gold? Bought it from the Native Americans? I think not. Hardly evil, resourceful rather.
“and allowed the slave trade to thrive.”
That’s a blame you should lay at Philip II’s door. While England had its share of slave traders (Hawkins, Drake) it wasn’t the main focus of English policy. Also, back then the principle of slavery was regarded much differently than today.
Once again I can only recommend good biographies on both Elizabeth and Mary Stuart to shed light on this rather close minded assertion. Fraser, Starkey, Somerset and Dunn are good starters.
How wonderful, someone one here who has obviously studied English History and not relied on pathetic made for America soap operas which have no basis on fact at all. This is the first time I have ever studied one of the lists or forums and amazed at the ignorance that prevails on the fforums.
Elisabetta: I wonder what books you have been reading: “The love of her people, both Catholic and Protestant.” and “The Pope praised her even.” Really? In fact, this is EXACTLY what the Pope said of her (in his famous encyclical Regnans in Excelsis):
You can read the whole thing here. I have never once met an English Catholic, nor read any writing by an English Catholic that showed love towards her. If you can show me quotes from Catholics in her time, I will happily reconsider.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. The Pope ruled the entire civilised world as a despot and hated the fact that in England the church under Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church. Whether this was right or wrong is debatable. Henry broke away to secure his marriage to Anne Boleyn and to plunder the riches of the monastries. Both Elizabeth and Mary were the product of their times and can not be judged under contempary morals. They did what they thought was right to maintain their thrones
“Elisabetta: I wonder what books you have been reading: “The love of her people, both Catholic and Protestant.” and “The Pope praised her even.” Really? In fact, this is EXACTLY what the Pope said of her (in his famous encyclical Regnans in Excelsis):”
I have read each and every biography on her that the most brilliant scholars and Tudor historians regard to be essential. I have studied a wealth of documents (Letters, calendars etc.) from the era. I even studied the libels by the likes of Nicholas Sander. Do research. It’s not hard, really. What does a writer’s religion matter? Are historians measured by their faiths or their studies and knowledge? As for Catholic Princes admiring Elizabeth….Catherine de Medici, Queen of France. Philip II. All of them spoke positively of her out of justice, even her fierce opponents.
I am familiar with said document, one does not make the other impossible. And if you are familiar with this document, why then the flimsy explanation about excommunication just meaning not being allowed to take the sacrament?
“What a valiant woman! It is a pity that Elizabeth and I cannot marry. Our children would have ruled the world!” (Pope Sixtus V)
Her people adored her till the end. Which is why no replacement ever had a chance, including Catholics like Mary Stuart and Philip II. Why did her Catholics follow her banner to fight the Spanish Armada? Just add 2+2. Elizabeth I. was no saint. But she was a brilliant ruler in an age of unrest, war and turmoil. The English, Catholics as well as Protestants value her to this day.
And an Addendum to the Mary Stuart affair. Only about the last 1 1/2 years of her life may be regarded as imprisonment. Talbot was replaced by Paulet, a very devout Protestant and there was no love lost between him and Mary. Mary had only herself to blame however. Had she enjoyed the luxuries offered to her under Elizabeth’s protection rather than plotting to kill her, she’d have lived. And why did no Catholic power raise a finger in Mary’s defense? Cowardly, yes, but hardly to be expected if Elizabeth had been an evil tyrant who abused her unjustly imprisoned sister queen.^^
Elisabetta: what is most interesting about the quote you provide from Sixtus V is that there is no verifiable source for it – and it appears to only be quoted in questionable locations (including the movie about Elizabeth – is this where you are getting your history?). On the other hand, Sixtus V confirmed the excommunication of Elizabeth and provided funding for her opponents.
Oh – and I have to question this: “And if you are familiar with this document, why then the flimsy explanation about excommunication just meaning not being allowed to take the sacrament?”
That is a very odd phrase – “the sacrament” – it appears you don’t understand what excommunication is – this phrase is exclusively used by people with almost no understanding of Catholicism. There is no such thing as “the sacrament” – there are seven sacraments and all are forbidden to the excommunicant except extreme unction (as there may be a death-bed repentance) and possibly confession (in the case of an excommunicable sin which a priest can absolve).
Holy communion (the host at a Catholic Mass) is NEVER referred to as “the sacrament” except in b-movies and very badly researched protestant literature.
And finally – again I say, having lived in England – amongst Catholics, I have never met a one who had anything but bad words to say of Elizabeth. From your writing I presume you know no Catholics and have read no Catholic literature, so I cannot give any credence to such comments as “The English, Catholics as well as Protestants value her to this day.”
Elisabetta: ” I even studied the libels by the likes of Nicholas Sander. Do research. It’s not hard, really. What does a writer’s religion matter?”
Apparently a great deal, as you consider Sanders writings to be libelous – yet they reflect the status quo of Catholic thinking from the time to now – and the only difference between him and the historians you prefer, are that he was Catholic. So – to the merit of Sanders’ writing:
I have provided where “I get my history” from (Most certainly not movies, I do not take kindly to that ludicrous claim) and mentioned several historians you may find interesting. So far you have commented on NONE of these books.
As for calling it “the sacrament”, I am a Catholic myself, a devout one at that. My mother died a Catholic, I go to mass every Sunday, my patron saint is Catherine of Siena (Catharina is my first name) and another field I have studied a lot are Catholic mystics from the middle ages to this day. I’m not a native, I’m Austrian. My first language is German. We see no offense in calling it that as it merely translates into “das Sakrament”. Excommunication means a lot of things and thankfully I have never been on the receiving end of it. This is how YOU explained Elizabeth’s excommunication: “DCD: excommunication is not the same as a death warrant – it simply excluded her from receiving the sacraments of the Catholic Church – something she had already refused anyway.” Now who omitted more essentials? Mine was a mistranslation from a phrase used in my mother tongue, not an attempt to simplify something to suit my case.
I’m surrounded by Catholics every day, I am one myself. I read Catholic literature every day. You won’t get out of this debate on Elizabeth I. by turning it into an argument about the nature of my personal faith or a theological debate. I have offered you countless arguments, you have countered little to none except the old “No Catholic I ever knew liked her.” I don’t give a damn what people unknown to me think. What matters to me how historians (No matter the creed) who have studied her reign for a long time conclude. I don’t care whether you give credence to what I have to say or not. I merely urge you to study the works of the most prominent and revered Tudor historians. Which you obviously haven’t done. I gave you several names to start out on. Now it’s up to you.
And a last question: Why is a Catholic opinion more valuable than a Protestant one? What does it matter as long as the HISTORIAN in question did his damn job with as little bias as possible?
“Apparently a great deal, as you consider Sanders writings to be libelous – yet they reflect the status quo of Catholic thinking from the time to now – and the only difference between him and the historians you prefer, are that he was Catholic. So – to the merit of Sanders’ writing:”
His writing is libelous. Just read what he wrote on Anne Boleyn. Stop quoting Wikipedia and read real books. I don’t care if a historian is Catholic or Protestant. My grandfather is a historian and a devout Catholic. What I care for is research, knowledge and as little bias as possible. No historian takes Sanders (Oh, pardon the typo, I do know his name) seriously. And even the lousiest libel writer gets some facts right. (Pere Duchesne about Marie Antoinette) There are Catholic as well as Protestant historians who wrote brilliant things on this time period. Atheists too. Creeds don’t matter to me. Knowledge does.
Elisabetta: first of all, I am not saying that a Catholic historian has more credence than a protestant one – I simply said that Sanders’ anti-Elizabeth views have been corroborated by evidence. You can’t say I am ignoring the historians you mention as I specifically dealt with one. As for the confusion over “the sacrament” – I will forget it as it is clearly a linguistic difference.
As for my comment on excommunication – what is simplified in it? It literally means exclusion from the sacraments – that is exactly what I said – it means nothing more.
I am certainly not trying to turn this in to an argument about your faith – clearly there was some confusion due to language but were you a native speaker of English – and were this clear (which it was not because you have excellent English) I would still be right. So let us put aside the excommunication issue as we obviously agree.
What does remain is the fact that Elizabeth executed those who did not “convert” to her father’s religion. That alone is sufficient grounds for her to be on this list. Her achievements as a statesman are not relevant to the debate. To murder people who don’t agree with your religion is evil. Queen Mary is on the original list for the very same reason, though she be Catholic.
Elisabetta: “Stop quoting Wikipedia and read real books.”
Actually, I was quoting the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica – not Wikipedia. And as I said in my previous comment, the statements Sanders made about Boleyn were regurgitated from literature in his own time; his original writing based upon his witness has been corroborated.
“e.g. his story that Ann Boleyn was Henry VIII’s own daughter, were simply borrowed by him from earlier writers.”
Any “historian” who writes/plagiarizes NONSENSE like this cannot be taken seriously. Catholic or Protestant, doesn’t matter. Anne Boleyn is a woman I have studied almost as long as Elizabeth I. Have you ever READ Sanders entire work? If so, give me a detailed *****ysis or a review at least. So far all you do is quote Wikipedia. And that is not enough. I agree EVERY source must be considered. It’s the duty of a historian to cast his personal feelings aside and check every source, good or bad. Sanders is an embarrassment to Catholics, just like John Foxe is an embarrassment to Protestants. Both blatantly lied, used hearsay, blew things out of proportion and lacked any kind of insight whatsoever.
Elisabetta: “Sanders is an embarrassment to Catholics, just like John Foxe is an embarrassment to Protestants. Both blatantly lied, used hearsay, blew things out of proportion and lacked any kind of insight whatsoever.”
I prefer to think (as is my prerogative) that Sanders referred to that which was believed at the time – it doesn’t make him a liar, it makes him gullible. As for the majority of his writing, it has been confirmed as true. Making one mistake does not repudiate an entire oeuvre surely!
And we agree on Foxe – his writing has little value outside of fuel
“I simply said that Sanders’ anti-Elizabeth views have been corroborated by evidence.”
Give me an example of Sanders’ work that actually represents the sober truth. But then, even Pere Duchesne contained half truths about Marie Antoinette. Would you call Hebert, its writer, a historian?
“You can’t say I am ignoring the historians you mention as I specifically dealt with one.”
Sanders wasn’t a historian and will never be considered as one.
“As for my comment on excommunication – what is simplified in it? It literally means exclusion from the sacraments – that is exactly what I said – it means nothing more.”
It meant a lot more to a monarch in that century. As we both know.
“What does remain is the fact that Elizabeth executed those who did not “convert” to her father’s religion.”
She actually did not. She never persecuted people “just” for their religion. I explained that in my loooooooooooooooong post and I’ll not do so again. I explained the Cuius regio, eius religio concept. I explained the problem with the Jesuits. And lots more. After the St. Bartholomew’s Eve massacre the Protestants on Elizabeth’s council asked her to react in kind in England. She refused. She had Catholics executed who broke her laws, conspired to kill her and caused sedition. She did not attempt to “convert” anyone, not in her country OR abroad. Hence her Catholics being loyal to her rather than supporting the Armada. That fact speaks louder than any words.
“To murder people who don’t agree with your religion is evil. Queen Mary is on the original list for the very same reason, though she be Catholic.”
You still haven’t understood the historical context. That you can’t judge people who lived 500 years ago by 21st century standards. Elizabeth was shockingly tolerant for her age. She abhorred the Puritan Protestants and refused to have a St. Bartholomew’s Eve massacre in England. And bloodlusty tyrant would have jumped at that chance. She did not.
“I prefer to think (as is my prerogative) that Sanders referred to that which was believed at the time – it doesn’t make him a liar, it makes him gullible. As for the majority of his writing, it has been confirmed as true. Making one mistake does not repudiate an entire oeuvre surely!
And we agree on Foxe – his writing has little value outside of fuel”
Shockingly differing standards here. ONE mistake? ONE? Have you read Sanders entire work? It reads like a 16th century Pere Duchesne. Fanaticism, lewd perversion, blatant lies he was only to happy to come up with/plagiarize…..his writing has no historical value whatsoever. A few raisins don’t make a rotten pie taste good. Same goes for Foxe.
And as for evil women….
Try Catherine of Medici. You’ll have a field day!
If you like we can continue this debate tomorrow. Let me once more urge you to take a look at these books. They are amazing reads and not at all glorifications of Elizabeth. None argues that she was without fault. But EVIL? In a time when Catherine of Medici was around? Hardly. She was the greatest and most tolerant monarch (Not 21st century tolerant, but shockingly tolerant) of her time. Of course her reign or her conduct isn’t flawless. But if one were to compare her to two the girls you admire (Catherine of Russia and Eve Peron) then Elizabeth’s biography is way less sordid, way less controversial and certainly way less polarizing.
Yikes, I meant to say “No one argues the fact that she wasn’t faultless” or something to that effect. Sorry, too tired to type correctly.^^
“Sanders wasn’t a historian and will never be considered as one.” – I, and many, consider him to be so – and he is quoted nowadays as such. You may not consider it so but you have chosen your camp and set your tent.
“It meant a lot more to a monarch in that century. As we both know.”
No – excommunication is an objective thing – it means the same today as it did then – exclusion from the sacraments. You said this: “It cut all of her Catholic subjects off their duty to her as queen for one and it also meant that it “would not be a sin to murder her”, quite the contrary, whoever murdered her was guaranteed a place in paradise for the brave deed.”
This is an extremely flawed comment. Excommunication vitandus merely means that a person be shunned. It does not abbrogate the moral law that prevents the execution of another person. Elizabeth was shunned by the Church and her subjects – it absolutely was not a death warrant as it would be immoral to kill her. And – let us not forget, the encyclical meant that “her subjects” were NOT her subjects – she lost her rights as Queen the moment she excluded herself from communication with the Church.
“Cuius regio, eius religio” – if we really must go down this track, do you support the idea that as the King of Saudi Arabia is Muslim, all of his subjects must be and death for not being so is acceptable? Is President Bush therefore allowed to demand that all Americans be Southern Baptist or else be killed?
“Catholics were still permitted to read mass, all they had to do was what any Christian subject had to do in those times, accept her authority. As long as you did that, you had little to fear.”
So – as long as you renounced the head of the Church for the past 1,500 years (the Pope), you had nothing to fear. You could go to Mass as long as the priest removed the words of reverence to the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy. You claim to be a Catholic – what would you think if your president turned around tomorrow and said you can go to Mass, but in future all mention of the Pope was forbidden and you would regard HIM as the head of the Church? By your argument you would immediately agree and not consider him bad for so doing. You would dump your religion and follow his new version (which looked the same but wasn’t the same) simply because he is the leader of the nation. I am not convinced that you believe in the indefectibility of the Church which all Catholics must believe.
And that’s EvA Peron of course!^^
Elisabetta: I agree to continue tomorrow – it is 1 in the morning here and I have had an incredibly hectic weekend! It has been a pleasure and I look forward to seeing (and hearing) more of you on my site!!
oh – I HAVE to reply to this one comment: “A few raisins don’t make a rotten pie taste good.”
In fact, it does! When you add some spice and fruit – you can make lovely pies from rotten meat – just ask the 17th century English – it worked for them and the result is Christmas Mince – or fruit mince if you prefer
Very apt for this time of year 
“This is an extremely flawed comment. Excommunication vitandus merely means that a person be shunned. It does not abbrogate the moral law that prevents the execution of another person. Elizabeth was shunned by the Church and her subjects – it absolutely was not a death warrant as it would be immoral to kill her. And – let us not forget, the encyclical meant that “her subjects” were NOT her subjects – she lost her rights as Queen the moment she excluded herself from communication with the Church.”
Which is her death warrant. If her subjects weren’t her subjects, she was a usurper, not a God anointed queen and it would have been necessary to dispose of her as a heretic. Anything else is naive.
““Cuius regio, eius religio” – if we really must go down this track, do you support the idea that as the King of Saudi Arabia is Muslim, all of his subjects must be and death for not being so is acceptable? Is President Bush therefore allowed to demand that all Americans be Southern Baptist or else be killed?”
Can’t you or won’t you understand the DIFFERENCE of mentality 500 years ago?
“So – as long as you renounced the head of the Church for the past 1,500 years (the Pope), you had nothing to fear.”
Yes. Quite a tolerant view for a 16th century ruler. No other ruler matched her in that regard.
“what would you think if your president turned around tomorrow and said you can go to Mass, but in future all mention of the Pope was forbidden and you would regard HIM as the head of the Church? By your argument you would immediately agree and not consider him bad for so doing. You would dump your religion and follow his new version (which looked the same but wasn’t the same) simply because he is the leader of the nation. I am not convinced that you believe in the indefectibility of the Church which all Catholics must believe.”
We are talking 16th century, not 21st century. Today this would not be possible. In the 16th century this was every day life.Her standards were loose compared to those of Philipp II, Charles IX and others. Had I lived in the 16th century I’d have left England & not conformed. I’d certainly not have broken the law. All Catholics must believe in the Catholic doctrine. The Church is not infallible, only God is. The Church even accepted that when it apologized for several historical offenses.
Thanks for not booting me off your site! Sweet dreams! I know I’m passionate about The Tudors, can’t help it.
Elisabetta: I don’t boot people off the site – it is good to hear all opinions – and passion is a good thing – I passionately hate Elizabeth I, and you passionately like her – but we can discuss it without hatred. That is the what this site is all about!
In closing, I do need to point out a small error in your previous comment: “The Church is not infallible, only God is.”
All Catholics are obliged to believe in the infallibility of the Pope – to disagree is considered heresy. To Catholics God is infallible – but so is the Pope – it is a solemnly defined dogma. In the words of Blessed Pope Pius IX:
This is a declaration of the First Vatican Council, the full text of which can be read here.
Yep, hatred is bad. But so are bias.
As for the infallibility of the Pope…that is a VERY delicate subject. As is heresy. But my beliefs matter little and are only my concern. This is about Elizabeth I., not theology. Read some books on the Tudors. You’ll love them, they are way more fun that dictionaries!^^ And that should balance things out. Nighty Nite!
BTW, if you want to start out with a critical historian, try David Starkey. He is deliciously snarky & witty.^^
Elena Ceauşescu could be #1 on a Top Ten Ugly Hags list….
Actually, one of Marybeth tinning’s children actually died of natural causes, which is believed to have tipped her over into killing the others. Still a horrible case.