Well, rufus he raises an interesting point. The counter argument was that Rome was not built in a day. During Queen Victoria’s reign, married women won the right to keep their own property and earnings, women won the right to vote in local elections, men could be imprisoned for beating up their wives (they seldom were, mind you); women began to access higher education and the professions, as well as state funded primary education.
So, if you look at the great mass of historical time, some of the most important foundations for women’s equal education, professional and political participation were laid in Victoria’s time.
Plus, it was a parliamentary democracy; by nature, this means that Parliament makes the laws, and MPs were men elected by men. Victoria could only have made laws by dismissing parliament! So she could have said women should have the vote, but that would have had no constitutional power whatsoever. As the constitutional power was held by men.
Cannot speak for Elizabeth I, but it is the case that women could vote prior to the 1832 Reform Act, they seldom did as they were expected to vote with their husbands. The 1832 Act limited it to ‘male’ franchise.
Okay, Queen Elizabeth 1 - I shall say that prior to the industrial revolution, men and women worked more closely together, women owned businesses too, and the greater separation of the sexes came after the 18th century. So Elizabeth I did not see equality like we do today.
Sorted.