Had never heard of Dallam – so looked him up. Very interesting that Lizzy should send such a large gift to the Emperor.

What has to be borne in mind when trying to understand Queen Lizzy, is

(a) Al-Andalus - I know it had been taken over by the Spanish, but what had been England's relationship? What had England learned from that very advanced culture?

(b) that slavery was common there - not restricted to any particular ethnic group (much milder, as far as I know, than the Europeans' treatment of enslaved Africans)

(c) that Europeans were enslaved by North Africans - some taken from Cornwall and that Europe was ransoming them from the 1530s. (see Robert Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters (2003)

Lizzy needed money to ransome the English…..

-----Original Message-----
From: The Black and Asian Studies Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fabian
Sent: 30 August 2014 00:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the Deportation that never was

When we bear in mind the complexities of the relationships, eg Thomas Dallam, organ builder, was dispatchedfrom Elizabeth's court to the Ottoman Empire at a time when Van Senden's sponsor Thomas Sherley wa steaming up with Rudolf II, the Hapsburg Emperor. The entanglement of politics and policy goes far beyond an approach which tries to fit these machinations within a framework based on early 21st century politics.

However, our 21st century politics is alos based on the ability to handle information, i.e the remarks in the paragraph above arose from an ability to extract info from the internet, combined with an overarching perspective, ratyher than many years of highly focused research.

all the best

Fabian

On Fri, August 29, 2014 11:28 pm, Miranda Kaufmann wrote:

> Yes, but even worse, the authors of the book "Tudor Royal

> Proclamations"(1964) mistakenly included the c.1601 document (it is in

> fact undated) which only exists as a draft in Cecil's papers, is not

> in the Acts of the Privy Council and so was never promulgated, thus

> giving it a status it never had.

> On Friday, 29 August 2014, Susan Bolton / Jeffrey Green <

> [log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> The 1971 "The Black Presence. A Documentary History of the Negro in

>> England" by James Walvin (London: Orbach and Chambers) has on its

>> back cover the Royal Proclamation of 1601 which says 'the said kind

>> of people shall be with all speed avoided and discharged out of her

>> majesty's realms'. which Fryer (1984) quotes (page 12) and adds 'But

>> this second attempt to get rid of black people was no more successful

>> than the first. From that day to this, there has been a continuous

>> black presence in Britain'.

>> Fryer is not guilty, it seems: and suggestions that expulsions took

>> place need to be proved.

>> Jeff Green

>> ========================================

>> Message Received: Aug 29 2014, 10:46 PM

>> From: "Fabian"

>> To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>> Cc:

>> Subject: Re: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the

>> Deportation that never was

>> Thanks Miranda for this.

>> I think the quest for historical accuracy is very important and I

>> welcome your efforts for clarification.

>> I have started an article on wikipedia on Casper Van Senden:

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casper_Van_Senden

>> which I shall expand.

>> It is important to remember that British merchants had been engaged

>> inthe slave trade for some time by 1596 (see Ungerer, Gustav (2008).

>> The Mediterranean Apprenticeship of British Slavery) even if it had

>> yet been adopted as a money making strategy in England.

>> Strategically, I am up for working on the wikipedia article, already

>> in the top five on a google search, using Miranda's artcile as a source.

>> I

>> think this is perhaps a suitable route to getting a balanced view of

>> this topic?

>> all teh best

>> Fabian

>> On Fri, August 29, 2014 6:50 pm, Miranda Kaufmann wrote:

>>> Thanks Jeff-

>>>

>>> It wasn't even an "edict" or a "bill"- it didn't go past Parliament.

>>> It

>>> was merely a letter from the Privy Council- which, my friends who

>>> work on local government records of the time tell me, were routinely

>>> ignored in the localities- as this one seems to have been.

>>>

>>> And, the continuing appearance of Africans in parish registers

>>> across England post-1596 (e.g. these in London:

>>> http://www.history.ac.uk/gh/baentries.htm) most strongly

>>> demonstrates that there was no deportation.

>>>

>>> Miranda.

>>>

>>> Dr. Miranda Kaufmann

>>>

>>> www.mirandakaufmann.com

>>>

>>> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>>>

>>> 07855 792 885

>>>

>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Susan Bolton / Jeffrey Green <

>>> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> I don't want my republican sympathies to be praised but why does

>>>> anyone think that a royal edict (or an act of parliament, or school

>>>> rules on uniforms etc etc) has an impact on 100% of the alleged

>>>> victims? Is there any evidence of deportation - surely the essence

>>>> of Miranda's e mail? Jeff Green

>>>>

>>>> ========================================

>>>> Message Received: Aug 29 2014, 10:26 AM

>>>> From: "Angela Allison"

>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>>>> Cc:

>>>> Subject: Re: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the

>>>> Deportation that never was

>>>>

>>>> Huguenot refugees were arriving in 1570s - 1790s?

>>>> When did the Huguenots stop arriving? Why?

>>>>

>>>> In 1440 Henry VI taxed all foreigners living in Exeter.

>>>> However, I thought that, since Edward IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s 1290 expulsion of

>>>> them, Jews had not been allowed to return to England until 1655?

>>>>

>>>> Angela Allison, Coventry UK

>>>>

>>>> ----- Original Message -----

>>>> From: Kathleen Chater

>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>>>> Sent: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)

>>>> Subject: Re: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the

>>>> Deportation that never was

>>>>

>>>> You have to look at the wider picture too. It wasn't just Black

>>>> people who were being targeted for potential expulsion. There were

>>>> numerous proposed edicts against Huguenots, Protestant refugees

>>>> from France and the Low Countries. The City of London also imposed

>>>> various regulations against them (and later against Jews who were

>>>> even more discriminated against). There was general xenophobia,

>>>> resulting in (oh joy for the

>>>> researcher!) lists of "strangers" mainly in London but also in the

>>>> towns, like Maidstone, where Hugeunots had settled. There's a good

>>>> examination of this in an introduction to one of the Huguenot

>>>> Society Quarto Series Publications. It might be the Returns of

>>>> Strangers but if anyone really wants to follow it up I can find the

>>>> exact volume and extract info from it.

>>>>

>>>> Kathy

>>>>

>>>>> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:42:16 +0000

>>>>> From: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>>>>> Subject: Re: FW: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors':

>>>>> the

>>>>>

>>>> Deportation that never was

>>>>

>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>>>>>

>>>>> So now I need to investigate people of African origin, living in

>>>>>

>>>> England, Portugal & Spain who could read and write.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I also need to investigate evidence of how wide awareness of the

>>>>> 1596

>>>>>

>>>> bill was, even if diseminated by word-of-mouth, as oppose to

>>>> reading it for themselves. eg. did it make coffee-shop talk?

>>>> (Coffee houses began in Istanbul in 1550s and by 1650s were more

>>>> common in England). Did it feature in the plays of the day?, esp.

>>>> the street-theatres?

>>>>>

>>>>> Brilliant. I like a challenge.

>>>>>

>>>>> Angela Allison, Coventry UK

>>>>>

>>>>> ----- Original Message -----

>>>>> From: msherwood

>>>>>

>>>>> Elizabeth wanted the money, I think to pay the ransom for the

>>>>> kidnapped

>>>> Brits.....

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> If the population could read, if there had been newspapers, the

>>>>> effect

>>>> of the Bill might have been similar to what Angela lists below, but

>>>> as they couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t and there weren't....

>>>>>

>>>>> ----- Original Message -----

>>>>>

>>>>> From: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>>>>> To: The Black and Asian Studies Association

>>>>> Sent: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 20:58:44 -0000 (UTC)

>>>>> Subject: Re: FW: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors':

>>>>> the

>>>>>

>>>> Deportation that never was

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I'm amazed that anyone would seek to justify the actions of QE1

>>>>> with

>>>>>

>>>> regard to Senden.

>>>>>

>>>>> Did QE1 authorise the 1596 bill by signing it? Yes Had she

>>>>> authorised similar removals a week earlier by an Edward Baynes?

>>>>>

>>>> Yes

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Even though the Senden's bill proved to be void, and just a

>>>>> delaying

>>>>>

>>>> tactic, what impact would it have had on hearts & minds of all

>>>> those who were aware of it (both black & white), the fact that the

>>>> country's ruler (not just some drunken lout at the local pub) had

>>>> been prepared to but her name to such a thing?

>>>>>

>>>>> Might it not have been similar in impact to the Tory election

>>>>> posters of

>>>> the 1964, stating 'If you want a nigger next door, vote Labour?

>>>>> Might it not have been similar in impact to Enoch Powell's 'Rivers

>>>>> of

>>>>>

>>>> Blood' speech of 1968 - just weeks after the assassination of MLK?

>>>>

>>>>> Might it not have been similar in impact to Maggie Thatcher's

>>>>>

>>>> anti-immigrants speeches, esp. when she used emotive words such a

>>>> 'flooded'

>>>> & 'swamped'?

>>>>

>>>>> Might it not have been similar in impact to David Cameron's recent

>>>>>

>>>> anti-immigrants vans/posters?

>>>>>

>>>>> Angela Allison, Coventry UK

>>>>>

>>>>> ----- Original Message -----

>>>>> From: msherwood

>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>>>>> Sent: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:29:20 -0000 (UTC)

>>>>> Subject: FW: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the

>>>>>

>>>> Deportation that never was

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> From: Miranda Kaufmann [mailto:[log in to unmask]

>>>>>

>> <javascript:;>]

>>>>>

>>>>> Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the Deportation that never was

>>>>>

>>>>> 28/08/2014

>>>>>

>>>>> 0 Comments

>>>>>

>>>>> Photo from the Guardian Black History Timeline

>>>>>

>>>>> Today I am compelled to blog. There is a wrong I must right. The

>>>>> world

>>>> simply cannot be allowed to continue to believe that Elizabeth I

>>>> expelled Africans from her realm in 1596.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> This is perhaps the most oft-quoted (sometimes the only quoted)

>>>>> "fact"

>>>>>

>>>> relating to the history of Africans in Tudor England. Recently, I

>>>> have seen it repeated in the Guardian Black History timeline, the

>>>> Medieval POC tumblr, and the New York Times.

>>>>>

>>>>> It has also been peddled by historians, including the wonderful

>>>>> Peter

>>>>>

>>>> Fryer, who wrote in his magisterial Staying Power in 1984:

>>>> Ã¢â‚¬Å“The queen

>>>> was soon expressing strong disapproval of the presence of black

>>>> peopleÃ¢â‚¬Â¦in the realm and indeed, ordering that Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthose

>>>> kinde of peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ should be deported forthwith.Ã¢â‚¬ While

>>>> Ania Loomba went so far as to assert in 1992 that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Elizabeth

>>>> I's communique deporting blacks... [indicates that] the

>>>> 'preservation' of the white race is seen to be at stake.Ã¢â‚¬

>>>>>

>>>>> It's a prime example of how anything can become "fact" through

>>>>>

>>>> repetition. and it is a particularly dangerous story to peddle in

>>>> our immigration- obsessed times. It is all too easy to elide the

>>>> centuries and imagine that Elizabeth I had an immigration policy

>>>> that would have been approved of by Enoch Powell.

>>>>>

>>>>> The "fact" has made its way into the classroom. In 2009 year 7

>>>>> pupils at

>>>> St John Plessington Catholic College in the Wirral were to be

>>>> taught:

>>>> Ã¢â‚¬Å“To understand the reasons for Elizabeth IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s policy of

>>>> expulsionÃ¢â‚¬ , while the BlackHistory4Schools website has a

>>>> lesson plan which explicitly compares the Tudor rhetoric with

>>>> modern newspaper headlines.

>>>>>

>>>>> What makes this all worse, on a personal level, is that I wrote an

>>>>>

>>>> article disproving this so-called "fact" some seven years ago.

>>>> Clearly,

>>>> academic articles are not as widely read as academics might like.

>>>> And

>>>> looking back, I can see it is a bit dense. Maybe "Caspar van

>>>> Senden, Sir Thomas Sherley and the Ã¢â‚¬ËœBlackamoorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢

>>>> Project" wasn't the most catchy title?

>>>>>

>>>>> Anyway, now I'm taking to my blog to explain the truth behind the

>>>>> myth

>>>> once and for all, in plain terms (but still with some original

>>>> quotes!).

>>>>>

>>>>> So, What really happened?

>>>>>

>>>>> Well, on 18 July 1596, the Privy Council issued an open letter

>>>>>

>>>> addressed Ã¢â‚¬Å“to the Lord Mayor of London and to all

>>>> vice-admirals, Mayors and other public officers whatsoever to whom

>>>> it may appertain.Ã¢â‚¬ The letter authorised a merchant of Lubeck

>>>> named Caspar Van Senden to Ã¢â‚¬Å“take upÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Blackamoores here

>>>> in this Realm and to transport them into Spain and Portugal.Ã¢â‚¬

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Crucially this required the "consent of their masters.Ã¢â‚¬ It

>>>>> was this

>>>>>

>>>> requirement that made this a dead letter, as I learnt from reading

>>>> the various petitions from a disappointed Van Senden amongst Robert

>>>> CecilÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s papers. In an undated petition to the Queen, Van

>>>> Senden asks for a far more powerful authorisation to take Africans

>>>> out of the country, without the "interruption of their masters or

>>>> any other persons." He complains that the 1596 Council warrant was

>>>> not effective as he:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "together with a Pursivant [basically an enforcer] did travell at

>>>>> his

>>>>>

>>>> great Charges into dyvers partes of your highness Realme for the

>>>> said Blackamoores, But the masters of them, perceiving by the said

>>>> warrant that your orator could not take the Blackamoores without

>>>> the MasterÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s good will, would not suffer your Orator to have

>>>> any one of them."

>>>>>

>>>>> Van Senden did not get what he wanted. Another document of 1601

>>>>> has

>>>>>

>>>> been quoted as a second Privy Council letter or proclamation, but

>>>> in fact it was never promulgated, and only exists as a draft

>>>> amongst CecilÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s papers. It might have been drafted by Van

>>>> Senden himself, as it is more strongly worded that the 1596 letter.

>>>>>

>>>>> Ultimately Van Senden's schemes were unsuccessful. This was not a

>>>>>

>>>> deportation, but rather a small-scale bargain with a persistent

>>>> merchant, on an individual basis.

>>>>>

>>>>> Elizabeth I did not expel Africans from England. In fact,

>>>>> Africans, who

>>>> had been present in both England and Scotland from the earliest

>>>> years of the sixteenth century, continued to live here for the rest

>>>> of her reign, and beyond. I have found evidence of over 360 African

>>>> individuals living in these isles between 1500 and 1640. We no

>>>> longer need to rely on the 1596 document to make the point that

>>>> there were Africans in Tudor England.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> _____

>>>>>

>>>>> Dr. Miranda Kaufmann

>>>>>

>>>>> www.mirandakaufmann.com

>>>>>

>>>>> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>

>>>>>

>>>>> 07855 792 885

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>

> --

> Dr. Miranda Kaufmann

> www.mirandakaufmann.com

> [log in to unmask]

> 07855 792 885