Elizabeth did go on hunting expiditions with small numbers of her servants and courtiers, yes.
How would she get a disguise without arousing suspicion?
How would she don this garment without arousing suspicion? She likely didn’t even know how to dress herself, having been tended to all of her life. She couldn’t have changed in the woods because she wouldn’t have been able to remove her clothing herself, because the fastners were generally in the back.
Mary was not allowed to recieve visitors without the express permission of the queen. They would not have allowed a disguised woman access to her rooms.
A clothing disguise wouldn’t have been enough. Elizabeth would have had to get another horse, since people noticed things like fine horses and the kind of elaborate saddles Elizabeth favored. They also noticed things like people’s skin. Elizabeth was too pale and pampered to pass as a peasant. (Mary’s white, soft hands were what gave her away when she tried to escape from captivity in Scotland using this trick.
I guess I shouldn’t say impossible, because it’s not impossible that Elizabeth never existed at all and we’ve all been duped by an elaborate historical conspiracy.
Let’s just say it would have taken insanely intricate efforts on the part of all involved for Elizabeth to meet a woman she probably didn’t like, or respect, very much.
Were her body servants likely to tell tales out of school? I mean, if they put her in a simple dress and she threw a hooded cloak over it (as she did in the movie), how many of her maids would have to be involved? And really, could she not dress herself in a non-insanely-elaborate outfit? You know, just a dress, gloves (to cover up those perfectly white hands), and a concealing cloak?
Overall, though, OK, I’m convinced that it wasn’t terrifically possible. I guess the people who make these movies just can’t resist putting in a secret meeting between those two, though, eh?
Yes. With little exaggeration, every time Elizabeth farted, ambassadors had a dispatch to their home country in the hand of a rider within minutes. The maids were bribed copiously, by people who wanted to know everything from how regularly Elizabeth mensturated to what she muttered in her sleep. Bribery was a tradition nearly as enshrined as royalty itself. That’s why those positions were so hotly sought-after. They were very lucrative.
Elizabeth knew her servants were bribed, of course, and probably counted on it a great deal-- she could say things in the spy’s hearing and be sure it reached the ears of people she wanted to influence. There was no real way to avoid bribery of her servants. Her royal status kept her from making what we’d call true friends-- she couldn’t open her heart and be truly open with anyone, and she had been raised that servants and their superiors must retain a certain distance. After all, she was selected by God Himself and was above all other mortals. She had affectionate relationships with some of her servants, but she never forgot her queenly status.
Lastly, almost everyone has a price. If it’s pretty much accepted that you’ll be bribed, and someone offers you more than you can make in a year as a maidservant, you’ll likely talk.
By the time that Elizabeth supposedly met Mary (later in her reign) she probably didn’t own a simple dress. As Princess Elizabeth, she had dressed very simply to show how Protestant and abstentious she was as compared to Mary I (her sister) and her ornate Catholicism. When she became queen, Elizabeth subscribed to her father’s theory that royalty should be absolutely dazzling, impressing on those who saw them the wealth and power of England as embodied by the monarch.
The catalogue of her gowns still survives, and while I didn’t peruse it in composing my answer, my memory lists only gowns elaborately embroidered, covered in costly furs and jewels. If she’d started to walk through the palace in a simple gopwn, she would have effectively shouted, “I’m up to no good! Yoo-hoo! Look at me! I’m leaving with a small party and behaving grossly out of character!”
Actually, the inventory of Elizabeth’s gowns lists many simpler garments for hunting, riding, etc. Mantles and guard-skirts out of wool so that she wouldn’t ruin her finery while riding. Still didn’t stop her from losing thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of gems off her clothing, though.
As for this, many gowns in Elizabeth’s wardrobe opened up the front. High-necked doublet gowns were very popular in the latter half of her reign, and prior to that, French-gowns were very popular. (French gowns have an arched neckline and open up the front center.) Looking through the sixteenth century Patterns of Fashion Book, I see one kirtle that laces up the back. The rest all have fasteners up the front, except for the Eleanora di Toledo gown, which is side-lacing. The underbodice for the Toledo dress is front-fastening, though. Elizabeth’s own effigy corset is front-lacing. Most paintings of corsets–even of upper class women–show front-lacing corsets. The majority of portraits from the period show front-fastening clothing. Some earlier Tudor portraits show a flat front, but there is a faint line of pins to one side that appear to be pinning a stomacher across the front, presumably to hide lacing. Back fastenings might make sense in a modern world, but they make less sense in a world of split foreskirts and meticulous fabric layouts.
I’m not saying that she did do a quick-change in a forest, but buttons, hooks-and-eyes, and laces are fairly straightforward things to figure out. Elizabeth by no means was a stupid woman, and I can’t imagine her not knowing what order her clothes went on or not knowing how to dress herself. More complicated than today, but less complicated than Victorian.
I stand corrected. I thought bodices always fastened in the back.
I will note that even Elizabeth’s “simple” clothes were probably made out of fine materials-- finer wool than a peasant would have, for example, and most likely had excesses of fabric and other decorative touches that you wouldn’t find on poor women’s clothes.
Liz was certainly smart enough to be able to figure out her fastenings, but it’s possible she might have been shocked at the idea of having to dress herself, regardless of the circumstance. People in those days had very firm ideas of status. She would never have dreamed of picking up after herself, or emptying her own chamberpot. It was an insult to her rank. She probably never opened a door in her life or even poured herself a cup of wine. That was a servant’s job, not a queen’s. I know, it seems odd to we modern folks, but the stratification was very real and very serious at the time. (Prnce Albert once caused shock and consternation that he stoked his own fire.)