In medieval and early modern Europe women were constantly in the powerless minority. In some places they had a lot of trouble making their opinions and needs heard by those in charge, who were often men in Europe’s Christian, patriarchal societies. This power structure was mimicked within the sacrament of marriage. When a woman got married the power over her transferred from her father to her new husband. Some unlucky women were never truly in control of their own destinies, not having found the power to operate outside of their subservient relationships. Yet in November of 1558 Elizabeth I was crowned Queen of England. For fifty-four years England was ruled by a woman who was one of the country’s most effective monarch in the history of the kingdom.
Christianity tells us that women are without a doubt the weaker of the two sexes. In fact, there is one version of the Genesis creation narrative that maintains that Eve was made from one of Adam’s ribs, and her inferior status was defined the moment she was created. While there certainly were less extreme versions of this story, it was often accepted that women were weaker in mind and body than men, and it was man's job to rule over them in all things, including marriage. Following this way of thinking, it stands to reason that any woman must be subservient to her husband within the bonds of marriage, and defer to them in all matters of life. This idea becomes problematic when the wife wields power over others outside of the marriage. If Elizabeth had taken a husband, how much power would he have held over her? Would it have affected her political policies? After all, she could not have be left to make decisions for herself. As a wife she would not have had that right. A husband had full control over the direction of his wife’s life. And yet as queen she had to be able to effectively implement policies. This power dynamic had been tested by her elder half-sister Mary’s reign with mixed results.
Mary Tudor was crowned Queen of England in October 1553. Throughout her life there had been many different unions proposed for her, but each had somehow ceased to be politically advantageous and were dropped for various reasons. In 1554 Mary was married to Philip of Spain, and their relationship gave members of parliament cause to worry. “...politicians were bound to fear that a female ruler’s marriage might jeopardise her authority, since they believed that a wife should always defer to her husband when making decisions…”(Doran, 7) There was no real precedent in England for a man becoming king through marriage. Both the Empress Matilda and Jane Gray were rulers for too brief a time for the idea of female sovereignty to become problematic. Officials were worried that within the traditional bonds of marriage, all of the wife’s holdings would be transferred to the husband and that he would have complete power over her. They were forced to make provisions to the marriage contracts, allowing Phillip to claim the title of King of England, but not allowing him to make political policies.
Christianity tells us that women are without a doubt the weaker of the two sexes. In fact, there is one version of the Genesis creation narrative that maintains that Eve was made from one of Adam’s ribs, and her inferior status was defined the moment she was created. While there certainly were less extreme versions of this story, it was often accepted that women were weaker in mind and body than men, and it was man's job to rule over them in all things, including marriage. Following this way of thinking, it stands to reason that any woman must be subservient to her husband within the bonds of marriage, and defer to them in all matters of life. This idea becomes problematic when the wife wields power over others outside of the marriage. If Elizabeth had taken a husband, how much power would he have held over her? Would it have affected her political policies? After all, she could not have be left to make decisions for herself. As a wife she would not have had that right. A husband had full control over the direction of his wife’s life. And yet as queen she had to be able to effectively implement policies. This power dynamic had been tested by her elder half-sister Mary’s reign with mixed results.
Mary Tudor was crowned Queen of England in October 1553. Throughout her life there had been many different unions proposed for her, but each had somehow ceased to be politically advantageous and were dropped for various reasons. In 1554 Mary was married to Philip of Spain, and their relationship gave members of parliament cause to worry. “...politicians were bound to fear that a female ruler’s marriage might jeopardise her authority, since they believed that a wife should always defer to her husband when making decisions…”(Doran, 7) There was no real precedent in England for a man becoming king through marriage. Both the Empress Matilda and Jane Gray were rulers for too brief a time for the idea of female sovereignty to become problematic. Officials were worried that within the traditional bonds of marriage, all of the wife’s holdings would be transferred to the husband and that he would have complete power over her. They were forced to make provisions to the marriage contracts, allowing Phillip to claim the title of King of England, but not allowing him to make political policies.
...her councillors had therefore taken care to negotiate a marriage-treaty which
would fix clear limits on Philip’s political power in England; thus, while he was
able to enjoy all Mary’s titles, policy-making and the exercise of patronage were
reserved for the queen. (Doran, 7)
This would have been all well and good, except that Mary seems to have wanted Phillip to engage in the traditional gender roles of their marriage, which in her opinion extended towards her holdings as queen. As Susan Doran notes, “It is often argued... that Mary failed to abide by the treaty, as she wanted her husband to share in her rule. In particular she has been criticised for allowing him to take control of foreign policy which resulted in the untimely French war and loss of Calais.”(Doran, 7) Not only was it concerning that a person politically involved in the interests of a foreign country was wielding power within England with the consent of the queen, but it was even more alarming to the Protestant faction in England since Phillip was a powerful Catholic ruler.
This would have been all well and good, except that Mary seems to have wanted Phillip to engage in the traditional gender roles of their marriage, which in her opinion extended towards her holdings as queen. As Susan Doran notes, “It is often argued... that Mary failed to abide by the treaty, as she wanted her husband to share in her rule. In particular she has been criticised for allowing him to take control of foreign policy which resulted in the untimely French war and loss of Calais.”(Doran, 7) Not only was it concerning that a person politically involved in the interests of a foreign country was wielding power within England with the consent of the queen, but it was even more alarming to the Protestant faction in England since Phillip was a powerful Catholic ruler.
One of the biggest political contentions in England during the time was between the Catholics and the Protestants. This divide stemmed from the reign of King Henry VIII, who in order to divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon, Queen Mary’s mother, broke from the papacy and declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England in 1534. Following the creation of the Church of England, the country was ruled by Protestants until Mary’s accession to the throne in 1553. Mary effectively reversed the religious policies of her father, and attempted so rigorously to return the country to “the true faith” of Catholicism, that she had over 280 Protestants burned at the stake, earning her the title of Bloody Mary after her death. It is therefore understandable that Protestants were wary of Mary’s marriage alliance with one of the most powerful Catholic countries in Europe.
All of these issues were fresh in the minds of those politicians at the forefront of the debate over whether or not Elizabeth should marry. Interestingly enough, the image we have of the queen with the stomach of a man and a king, who pledged herself to the virgin life at the beginning of her reign, is mostly the invention of historians of the Jacobean era looking back and idealizing Elizabeth in light of their own political struggles. In fact the idea of a perpetually virginal queen was not introduced until Elizabeth was about fifty years old. “Rather it was an image first used extensively between 1578 and 1581 by some of her subjects who were opposed to her plans to marry the duke of Anjou. Only later did she adopt and exploit it for her own political benefit.”(Doran, 11) Elizabeth’s sexual history does in fact exist, and is much more complicated than one might imagine.
While we don’t really have details, the first historical mention of Elizabeth’s sexuality comes in the form of allegations that Thomas Seymore of Sudeley had engaged in activities of a sexual nature with Elizabeth. Thomas Seymore was married to Catherine Parr, Elizabeth’s last step-mother, who had managed to outlive Henry VIII. Elizabeth was living with them when she was fourteen during her brother Edward’s reign. It seems that Seymore made advances towards the young, inexperienced princess, and that Catherine did little to stop it, occasionally becoming a participant in some Seymore’s questionable actions, until it became too much for her, and in a state of jealousy she sent Elizabeth away. After Catherine’s death, Seymore lobbied for Elizabeth’s hand, but his political opponents were able to block the marriage after his former inappropriate behavior came to light. He was arrested, tried for conspiring against the king as well as the flirtation with Elizabeth, and executed.
Elizabeth herself was rigorously interrogated over the affair, and while her name was cleared of any accusations of conspiring with Seymore, it taught Elizabeth that she needed to be extremely careful with her relationships, as it could jeopardize her chances to inherit the throne. In her time growing up in Henry VIII’s court, Elizabeth saw that men had all the power, and that she and her sister were merely pawns in Henry’s political game. He used them when he needed, and then discarded them, even declaring them to be illegitimate when he didn’t. There are scholars, such as Larissa J. Taylor-Smither and Allison Heisch, who argue that Elizabeth took from these experiences an understanding that one needed to identify as “male” or “masculine” in order to wield power. Doran observes, citing Larissa Taylor-Smither, that “Elizabeth came to value and adopt the masculine qualities of dominance, aggression and fearlessness, which made it impossible for her to assume the subservient role expected of a wife.”(Doran, 5) This explanation may be a bit extreme, but it captures the essence of the struggle between the two power dynamics which are at work here. Since Christian tradition held that Eve was made from Adam’s rib, females had been seen as weaker than men both physically and mentally. “...Given that women were naturally inferior to men and that god had ordained female subordination to men in all private relationships.”(Doran, 7) It was expected that men would always be in a position of power over women, whether in a father-daughter dynamic, a husband-wife dynamic, or a king-country dynamic. Women rulers were not expected, and there was very little precedent before Mary. It was potentially very difficult for men to accept a woman in a role traditionally occupied by a man, and any action that made Elizabeth seem weak could have been politically devastating. If she had married, would she have been able to project herself as a strong, “masculine” individual, or would her subservience to a husband within the marriage have made her appear weak? Elizabeth’s decision not to marry was clearly more complex than the simple fact that she had to act like a king on the throne, but it is an important factor.
Marriages of royals were very public in the middle ages, and they were often treated as high-profile issues. Whom a ruler married, and and trouble therein was not only a matter between husband and wife, but of the entire country, and often the rest of Europe as well. Every marriage had to benefit their country in some way. One example of this is the marriage of Lothar II and the controversy that surrounded it. Lothar II was a Carolingian king in the mid to late 800’s who tried to divorce his queen, Theutberga. He had been in love with a woman named Waldrada, and had had a child with her before his marriage to Theutberga. He married Theutberga because her family was much more politically powerful than Waldrada’s was. It was the right course of action for the country at the time of the marriage. “Whatever political factors had made this marriage desirable in 855 had evaporated by 857, when he attempted to separate from her by bringing the aforementioned charges of sodomite incest and abortoin against her.”(Airlie, 8-9) While Lothar II ran into many difficulties obtaining the divorce, the idea of political use in marriage was important.
As was already stated, Elizabeth did not come out as completely against marriage at the beginning of her reign. She recognized that she may have to marry for her country. In a speech she made to parliament in 1559 in answer to a petition that she marry, Elizabeth is reported to have said:
All of these issues were fresh in the minds of those politicians at the forefront of the debate over whether or not Elizabeth should marry. Interestingly enough, the image we have of the queen with the stomach of a man and a king, who pledged herself to the virgin life at the beginning of her reign, is mostly the invention of historians of the Jacobean era looking back and idealizing Elizabeth in light of their own political struggles. In fact the idea of a perpetually virginal queen was not introduced until Elizabeth was about fifty years old. “Rather it was an image first used extensively between 1578 and 1581 by some of her subjects who were opposed to her plans to marry the duke of Anjou. Only later did she adopt and exploit it for her own political benefit.”(Doran, 11) Elizabeth’s sexual history does in fact exist, and is much more complicated than one might imagine.
While we don’t really have details, the first historical mention of Elizabeth’s sexuality comes in the form of allegations that Thomas Seymore of Sudeley had engaged in activities of a sexual nature with Elizabeth. Thomas Seymore was married to Catherine Parr, Elizabeth’s last step-mother, who had managed to outlive Henry VIII. Elizabeth was living with them when she was fourteen during her brother Edward’s reign. It seems that Seymore made advances towards the young, inexperienced princess, and that Catherine did little to stop it, occasionally becoming a participant in some Seymore’s questionable actions, until it became too much for her, and in a state of jealousy she sent Elizabeth away. After Catherine’s death, Seymore lobbied for Elizabeth’s hand, but his political opponents were able to block the marriage after his former inappropriate behavior came to light. He was arrested, tried for conspiring against the king as well as the flirtation with Elizabeth, and executed.
Elizabeth herself was rigorously interrogated over the affair, and while her name was cleared of any accusations of conspiring with Seymore, it taught Elizabeth that she needed to be extremely careful with her relationships, as it could jeopardize her chances to inherit the throne. In her time growing up in Henry VIII’s court, Elizabeth saw that men had all the power, and that she and her sister were merely pawns in Henry’s political game. He used them when he needed, and then discarded them, even declaring them to be illegitimate when he didn’t. There are scholars, such as Larissa J. Taylor-Smither and Allison Heisch, who argue that Elizabeth took from these experiences an understanding that one needed to identify as “male” or “masculine” in order to wield power. Doran observes, citing Larissa Taylor-Smither, that “Elizabeth came to value and adopt the masculine qualities of dominance, aggression and fearlessness, which made it impossible for her to assume the subservient role expected of a wife.”(Doran, 5) This explanation may be a bit extreme, but it captures the essence of the struggle between the two power dynamics which are at work here. Since Christian tradition held that Eve was made from Adam’s rib, females had been seen as weaker than men both physically and mentally. “...Given that women were naturally inferior to men and that god had ordained female subordination to men in all private relationships.”(Doran, 7) It was expected that men would always be in a position of power over women, whether in a father-daughter dynamic, a husband-wife dynamic, or a king-country dynamic. Women rulers were not expected, and there was very little precedent before Mary. It was potentially very difficult for men to accept a woman in a role traditionally occupied by a man, and any action that made Elizabeth seem weak could have been politically devastating. If she had married, would she have been able to project herself as a strong, “masculine” individual, or would her subservience to a husband within the marriage have made her appear weak? Elizabeth’s decision not to marry was clearly more complex than the simple fact that she had to act like a king on the throne, but it is an important factor.
Marriages of royals were very public in the middle ages, and they were often treated as high-profile issues. Whom a ruler married, and and trouble therein was not only a matter between husband and wife, but of the entire country, and often the rest of Europe as well. Every marriage had to benefit their country in some way. One example of this is the marriage of Lothar II and the controversy that surrounded it. Lothar II was a Carolingian king in the mid to late 800’s who tried to divorce his queen, Theutberga. He had been in love with a woman named Waldrada, and had had a child with her before his marriage to Theutberga. He married Theutberga because her family was much more politically powerful than Waldrada’s was. It was the right course of action for the country at the time of the marriage. “Whatever political factors had made this marriage desirable in 855 had evaporated by 857, when he attempted to separate from her by bringing the aforementioned charges of sodomite incest and abortoin against her.”(Airlie, 8-9) While Lothar II ran into many difficulties obtaining the divorce, the idea of political use in marriage was important.
As was already stated, Elizabeth did not come out as completely against marriage at the beginning of her reign. She recognized that she may have to marry for her country. In a speech she made to parliament in 1559 in answer to a petition that she marry, Elizabeth is reported to have said:
To conclude, I am already bound unto a husband, which is the kingdom of
England, and that my suffice you...And therewithal, stretching out her hand,
she showed them the ring with which she was given in marriage and inaugurated
to her kingdom in express and solemn terms. (Marcus, 59)
This quote is often used to “prove” that Elizabeth intended never to marry. More recently, however, some scholars, such as Susan Doran, have been moving away from this interpretation of her actions. “Furthermore, as Carole Levin has pointed out, even married monarchs used the metaphor of marriage as a rhetorical device to describe their relationship with their kingdoms…”(Doran, 2) Just because she was involved in one power dynamic with her country it did not mean she was barred from entering into another, however challenging it might have been to balance the two. In fact, this quotation only appears in one version of the speech, which is filled with many other references to being in the service of God and her country only. The conflicting versions make some scholars, such as Leah S. Marcus, Janel Mueller, and Mary Beth Rose who edited the volumes of Elizabeth’s letter cited in this paper, wary of taking this specific version at face value, and that perhaps this version was later shaped in order to fit the popular image of the virgin queen. (Marcus, 58. see footnote 1 for Speach 3 Version 2) In a different version of the letter, she emphasizes the fact that she will only marry if it is beneficial to the country.
And whomsoever my chance shall be to light upon, I trust that he shall be
as careful for the realm and you- I will not say as myself, because I cannot
so certainly determine of any other- but at the leastways, by my goodwill and
desire, he shall be such as shall be as careful for the preservation of the realm
and you as myself. (Marcus, 57-8)
The man that Elizabeth married would have to be chosen in the best interest of the country, not necessarily herself and she understood that. She could not afford to marry for love. Susan Doran writes “It is clear to me that she did want to marry on two occasions: once on the death of Lord Robert Dudley’s wife in September 1560 ... and again in 1579 when she demonstrated a strong desire to wed Francis duke of Anjou.”(Doran, 11) Lord Robert Dudley was the acknowledged favorite of the Queen for many years, and she seems to have been in love with him to some degree. Marrying him, however, would have been quite controversial. The british aristocrat who married a queen would have extensive power over the rest of the political movers and shakers, and they certainly did not want that to happen. He could have been a politically disastrous choice. There were also strong protests against Francis, Duke of Anjou. He was French and catholic, and in the event that their marriage did not produce an heir England may have come under French control. The two men she had most personal interest in would not have been good for the country, and she recognized this, giving both of them up in turn.
By abandoning the perusal of both of these potential marriages Elizabeth avoided the immediate political controversy of either one of her choices. It did, however, leave the country without hope of an heir from Elizabeth’s body, bringing her choice of heir to the forefront of political conversations. Elizabeth resisted naming an heir to the throne until she was on her death bed. The issue of succession made politicians and ordinary citizens alike nervous. England had had much trouble with contested succession in the past. Upon the Death of Henry I a great civil war had broken out between Henry’s daughter the Empress Matilda and her cousin Stephen that ravaged the country. More recently the War of the Roses had again devastated the country. The succession had only been resolved with Henry VII’s conquest. He was Elizabeth’s grandfather, and had only succeeded to the throne seventy three years before Elizabeth, and the country had yet to fully recover. In parliament's petitions that Elizabeth marry, the concern over her heir was at the forefront of their arguments. In 1562 Elizabeth had come down with smallpox and had been near death. In January 1563 parliament used her illness to emphasize the need to sort out succession.
That forasmuch as your majesty’s person should come to most undoubted and
best heirs of your crown... it may please your most excellent majesty for our sakes,
for our preservation and comforts, and at our most humble suit, to take yourself
some honorable husband whom it shall please you to join in marriage. (Marcus, 76)
Parliament felt the need for assurance that the country would not be torn asunder again by a contested succession, and they felt the best solution to this potential problem would be an heir that was a direct descendant of Elizabeth herself. Mary had understood the importance of an heir, especially as she wanted the throne to go to another Catholic instead of her Protestant sister. In fact, she was so intent on producing an heir her body created symptoms of a false pregnancy. While Mary was eager to marry Philip with the intent to fulfil her role as a wife and bear a child, Elizabeth was less zealous in her pursuit of this goal. She fully understood that one day she may marry and produce an heir, but she was loath to do so unless the union benefited her country in other ways as well. In her response to the 1563 petition, she acknowledged that she had been close to death, but reminded parliament that she had always had their best interests at heart, and that she would never knowingly endanger her country. She also reminded them that, while a weak woman, she fully understood the intent of the long winded petition which used language intended to flatter and disguise the self interest of the document. “...I mean to charge you as further to let you understand that I neither mistake any of your requests herein, nor the great care that you seem to have of the surety and safety of yourselves in this matter.”(Marcus, 72.)
What is the takeaway from all of this? There are many, complex aspects to consider when discussing Elizabeth’s choice not to marry- namely her position of power over her kingdom; her gender within this role, and the way she chose to present herself as “male” in that power dynamic; whether she really had a choice about this presentation. There was the issue of the “inferiority” of women, and whether they could effectively rule a country as well. Also at issue were her potential role as a wife and a mother within a marriage, and the question of whether that role could be reconciled with her role as a Queen regnant. She had to judge whether the man she was to marry was really useful politically, or if he would have too much political control over her through their marriage bond. There was always the issue of succession and her heir to the throne lurking in the background of all these considerations. Looking at the success of her reign, it would seem that Elizabeth made the right decision not to marry. She avoided alienating a faction of her government and her subjects by not choosing a husband they didn’t approve of. She ended up appointing a Protestant heir in James I of England and VI of Scotland, who had a legitimate claim to the throne through his mother, Mary of Scotland, who was Elizabeth’s cousin. She didn’t have to give up any of her power as a queen to defer to a husband, and she didn’t have to try and reconcile two power dynamics that seem impossible to balance separately. It seems that Elizabeth I was indeed very wise not to marry.
Sources:
Airlie, Stuart. 1998. Private Bodies and the Body Politic in the Divorce Case of Lothar II. Past & Present 161/1: 3-38
Doran, Susan. 1995. Monarchy and Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth I. London: Routledge.
Marcus, Leah S., Mueller,Janel, and Rose, Mary Beth. eds. 2000. Elizabeth I: Collected Works. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment