Talk:Speech to the Troops at Tilbury

message: I think it should be noted in the article that most notable historians regard this speech as apocryphal since the only known record of it comes from a letter dated 40 years after the speech was given.82.5.123.162 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you name these "most notable historians"? J. E. Neale (an expert on the Elizabethan age) and her Oxford DNB biographer Patrick Collinson both acknowledged the authenticity of the speech. Also Garrett Mattingly, who wrote the standard account of the Spanish Aramada, uses the speech.--Johnbull (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Did she say it?

message: This article really needs expanding to discuss the historicity of the speech. It's likely that she gave some kind of speech, but unlikely that these three versions of the text are what she actually said. Presumably there's been plenty of academic discussion of it over the centuries, we need a section on this.Gymnophoria (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: This article says, 9 August. The Armada article says, 8 August. Are there arguments for both? I wonder if 8/8/88 appealed to Elizabeth.Fotoguzzi (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of speech 

message: There is no good reason to remove the wikilinks to Parma and Spain which help in explaining who is being referred to in the speech.
I have reverted some other changes which are based on a misunderstanding of MOS:CAPS
armada = Armada (see MOS:NAMECAPS - it's the specific Armada not a generic armada, in the same sense as the example given at NAMECAPS of the Three Great Gardens of Japan)
master of the horse = Master of the Horse, a specific formal title, see MOS:JOBTITLES, ditto for Duke of Buckingham and pope = Pope as it's a specific one, not the generic role.
Ghughesarch (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2015 edits and capitalisation 

message: The only sources for the speech were written down 30 years after the event. </br>
Citations re doubt: Real Britannia, </br>"The Myth of Elizabeth at Tilbury"  The Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 95-114.;</br> Glory and Bollocks: The Truth Behind Ten Defining Events in British History;</br> Elizabethan Silent Language p285 81.152.137.214 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious historical doubt as to whether she ever gave such a speech

message: Currently under significance the article  says "" Of course she was supreme leader! She was the anointed monarch ie the personification of the state. Until the 1980s (with the exception of the 1650s) the English were not citizens but subjects of the English (and then the British) monarch.
I think that the the speech was predominately propaganda. However like Churchill's back to the wall speeches in 1940 the value of propaganda should not be underestimated. One important part of the propaganda contained in the speech was that until that time kings of England were also warlords who would lead their men into battle (think Henry V/Richard III etc), by being seen at Tilbury Elizabeth was indicating and explicitly said in her speech that although she was a queen she would, like a king, lead her army into battle (this was significant as it is still being debated in Britain if women should fight in the front line).
I am going to remove the sentence as it is unsourced and I suggest that if a "significance section" is going to be included that the significance is carries in-text attribution to a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance