ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Female monarchs(30 Posts)
Hi this is my first thread in this section. I confess to not being as knowledgeable as most of you here but I read the threads with interest and they have certainly opened my eyes to a few things.
Anyway onto my thread...
I am watching the Young Victoria film tonight about Queen Victoria. It has got me thinking that in the last 200 years Britain has been ruled by a female for well over half of that time. Both Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth seem (to my knowledge) to be well respected and thought to be capable monarchs. In the case of Queen Elizabeth, well liked by the populace also. I don't get the feeling that the nation is 'bored' with a queen and champing at the bit to have a king back or that she is seen as a second rate monarch because she is female.
So my question is this; why has this not had more of an impact on how women are placed in British society?
Interesting question- maybe it HAS had more of an impact than we give them both credit for?
Given the patriarchal societies both Queens were born into-especially Victoria-it's amazing they have had as much impact as they have.
Nowhere near enough obviously but maybe things would be even worse had we had a purely male line of Monarchs?
1. Because they are constitutional monarchs with fairly limited powers
2. Because the monarchy stands for privilege and conserving power with elites.
Thanks Bossy - I was really nervous about posting. Feel out of my depth.
slhilly - be that as it may, they were/are still seen as the head of the country with the ability to influence people's mindset. It seems odd that a woman could rule the country but women were so downtrodden in all other walks of life. But maybe that's the answer... Are the queens the cosmetic facade with the Prime Minister doing all the 'men's' work? Although we survived QEII and Margaret Thatcher... just!
Victoria was a nightmare for the suffrage. She termed it a ''mad, wicked folly''.
There is a very interesting series called She Wolves about the early Queens of England; Matilda, Eleanor, Isabella, Margaret, Jane, Mary and Elizabeth. Fascinating. And I think that the first four - and probably the last - of those had more impact, though it might not have been instantly recognised.
Sorry, * for the suffrage movement * that should say.
Interesting question. I've always had an interest in historical kings & queens of England - the stories are soooo ruthless. Richard III in car park story got me thinking too. Richard was defeated by Henry VII, whose son was Henry VIII who went to the most amazing lengths to have a male heir. Including disassociating himself from Rome & the Catholic Church.
Despite this, his longed-for son had a short-lived reign, whereas his daughter Elizabeth reigned for a total of 45 years - the Elizabethan Golden Age and all that.
Got me thinking about the whole succession business, and how, bearing in mind just how misogynistic society was then, women were allowed to succeed the throne at all. Obviously royal blood, even female royal blood, was better that non-royal male blood?
I mean, women then were basically chattels of first their fathers then their husbands - yet they could (barring any brothers) succeed the throne.
So, does this mean that the 'class' system (with the hereditary claim to the throne) is stronger than the patriarchy?
Victoria was awful to the suffragettes though - but did a lot for pain-relief during childbirth. So she wasn't all bad.
Yet, despite all his efforts to have a male heir, Henry VIII appointed Katherine of Aragon as Queen Regent whilst he was away at war, and it was she who was key in leading the English to military victory at the battle of Flodden.
It's not just what women did: it's how they were later written about (or not).
Katherine of A wasn't just any woman though; her parents were Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon. She probably had more experience of war, and of a country surviving in war, than Henry did. Isabella was an outstanding woman, and even the privy council would have seen that Katherine was an ideal Regent.
HVIII altered the law so that his daughters could rule, though this was a 'worst case scenario'. HVIII's obsession with having a male heir came from the trauma of the Wars Of The Roses, that the country was still recovering from when he became king. He was desperate to avoid it, and terrified of the control of England, which his family had fought for, being in jeopardy. So it was a case of Mary and Elizabeth were better than the return to civil war, really.
Who has been writing history? <taps nose>
When reading histories, I have detected a sense of women monarchs being there 'because there wasn't a man' or 'instead of a man.'
If you go back to Roman Britain, the same applies to Boudicca.
But the 'Queen' Cartimandua seems different. Yet so little is known apart from that scrap of Roman text.
Good OP, though, OP.
Shit, I mean the authors implying that women were 'stand ins.'...
<does the gets coat thing>
Hatshepsut similarly. Though she said "Fuck you, I'm a Pharaoh, give me the beard" .
And you're right of course, as long as history is written by men, when talking of a female rule, it will be from the angle of 'because there was no man available'.
Good thread, OP. I don't have an answer to your question, but I do find this subject very interesting from a womens rights perspective. Like Scotland, England was not a Salic law jurisdiction, so women were not barred from inheriting the throne because of their sex. Mathilda (1141) was arguably the first queen regnant of England (post-Norman); her claim was recognized by many at the time, but because she was usurped by her cousin Stephen after a few months and before her coronation, she is sometimes left out of lists of English monarchs. Mary and Elizabeth Tudor were both recognized as heirs at their birth, but they were both later declared illegitimate and barred from succession on that account. (Mary was even referred to informally as Princess of Wales in her youth.) A law was later passed during Henry VIIIs reign to restore them to the succession. Interestingly, when Victoria came to the throne, the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover split because women were barred from succeeding in Hanover.
But of course, not one of these women would have succeeded to the throne if they had had a living brother.
Well, Victoria and Elizabeth II were/are not executive monarchs - Victoria's reign was actually the period when the fact the monarchy was constitutional rather than executive became cemented. So her reign is to some degree about erosion of the monarchy's power, or confirmation of that erosion. So you wouldn't expect that to bolster women's position.
It doesn't look as though QV or E were/are exactly personally all that interested in women's rights and conditions - about the only thing I can think of for Victoria is that she championed the use of anaesthetic for childbirth despite opposition from the medical establishment.
Also probably partly because certainly up to Victoria's reign at least, royalty were seen as being ontologically different from ordinary people - so even if you were a woman, the fact that you were royal trumped being female. And this seems to have been true further back - the disputes over Mary and Elizabeth I's claims to the throne stemmed primarily from the legitimacy of their father's marriages, not from the fact they were female. Certainly at least two of Henry VIII's wives (Catherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr) acted as regent for him, so it wasn't the case that royal women were seen as unable, although men were preferred as leaders.
Plus think of all the claims to the throne that have been pursued through the female line - James I/VI (through Margaret Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots), Henry Tudor (through Margaret Beaufort and his marriage to Elizabeth of York), Henry II (through Maud/Matilda) ...
And George I and the Hanoverians through Sophia of Hanover and her mother Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI and I.
Did Eliazbeth I have any formal female advisers? I suspect not. All the councillors, lords and dukes had a lot to do with how the country was run and changing the monarch didn't really filter through.
The documentary about "She Wolves" was very interesting. I'm sure there were plenty of Monarchs who were crueller than Mary but she is the one with the nickname "Bloody Mary".
And there were monarchs who were basically told to marry. One of them (can't remember who) told Parliament and her advisors to get lost - she'd marry if she wanted to.
Even the word "She wolves" is controversial in its origin.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I don't think Elizabeth I had any formal women advisors, but she is thought to have been very much influenced by the example of Katherine Parr, Henry's last wife, who acted as a regent for him and was instrumental in reconciling him with his daughters. She wasn't quite as formally well-educated as Elizabeth, but she filled her court with scholars and was a leading religious reformer, and provided a model of female leadership and strategy to Elizabeth.
I think for all the women monarchs, it's not enough to simply be the direct heir, if you are a woman - you also have to be in a politically strong enough position to consolidate your power. This is why Matilda failed to hold onto the throne, but Mary and Elizabeth managed the transition - they were both powerful English landowners with enough support among the nobles and people to force their way to the throne if they had to - Mary was able to raise an army to take on Jane Grey's supporters, and Elizabeth had a shadow government that was ready to go into action the minute Mary died.
And the foundation of Elizabeth's formidable education was laid by her governess Katherine Ashley who remained close to her in adulthood.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
How suitable to have a knowledgeable Queen on the thread!
Join the discussion
Please login first.