Because she has no husband.
The time to watch this film coincides with the arrival of Hume's "History of England". When talking about this courtly history, the philosopher used the words "hypocrisy", "incompetence" and "despicable" to his heart's content. Obviously he didn't understand neither love nor women: no matter how hypocritical, despicable, and incompetent a man is , or only earning £200 a month, or taking down other people's companies by tweeting fake news, but in the eyes of the woman who loves him, he's a treasure. By philosophical standards, many husbands in the world must be mediocre, but their wives are too old with them. Of course, philosophy can advocate that people must find the "lovable" person, and often the result is that they never find that person in their life. Philosophy also focuses on great things that can change history, and that definitely doesn't include loving a queen.
This may also be a kind of interlacing. Because in those days, philosophers probably couldn't deal with a shrew like Helen Mirren. Even Shakespeare, who was most adapted to the worldly life, had to go to London and leave his wife a light-year away before he could settle down and write the script. In terms of partners, they would rather choose a nanny who does not know one big character - such as Rousseau, instead of simply pretending that there is no such thing in the world - such as Kant. A woman who speaks Latin, Greek, and has more power than men, is a disaster. Only a "despicable" and "incompetent" person like the Earl of Leicester would face her and endure her nagging, moody, and all kinds of humiliation that may be thrown at her anytime, anywhere. She should be flattered, cared for, and coaxed as a woman, and she should be obeyed, served, and worshipped as a king. Who would do this if it wasn't for the benefit of money and power?
Jeremy Irons is probably the best person to do this kind of "bullshit". Most of his films are about one mistake after another: the underage stepdaughter, the butterfly-kun disguised as a woman, his daughter-in-law-to-be, the French lieutenant's woman, and the courtesan Odette. These screen images seem to be the mouthpiece of a certain kind of male cowardice and dazedness: he is always tempted by invincibility, and quickly disarms himself, knowing that the end may be destruction, but he still cannot escape. "A person worthy of love" is a non-existent concept for him. The desire to love happens before he has the ability to weigh in on reality and ethics, and after that, it's a complete failure.
This condition usually occurs more with women. The Queen is no exception: she seems genuinely convinced that she is in love with the Duke of Anjou—a man twenty years her junior with a reputation for friendship. In fact, everyone already knew what the marriage of the monarch was about: it was just a deal and a covenant, and it had nothing to do with age, looks or feelings. But no matter how sensible, smart, and powerful a woman is, she can't help but close her eyes and be deceived once. Because a woman is such an animal that needs love to survive. If there is no love, she pretends to have it.
In the end she failed to do so. Public opinion was fierce, and the king had to give in. So she admitted that she still needed the count. He came back, as incompetently defeated on the battlefield as usual, and continued to be ridiculed and reviled by the world. Later he died. Hume said she sold his estate and land, showing that shrewdness and ruthlessness triumphed over love. But maybe it was just her own belief that she had the right to deal with his estate—just like his widow.
View more about Elizabeth I reviews
