Elizabeth I - a hermaphrodite

[SerendipityJane]

it seems.

Or so someone posting in a discussion has just claimed.

There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married. One
theory is that she had a developmental sexual disorder (aka intersex)
which rendered her infertile and incapable of normal sexual intercourse.
That's the sort of thing which would, once, have been colloquially
referred to as being a hermaphrodite. Another theory is that she was a
lesbian. Neither of these has any significant support by historians.
Although, if she was a lesbian, that would actually explain some of the
rumours which circulated in her lifetime that she had a physical
deformity, as in the culture of the day the idea that a woman would
actually prefer physical intimacy with her own sex was considered
unthinkable.

Am I a little behind the times here ? My recollection was remaining unmarried was much more to prevent herself becoming eclipsed by her husband or (more likely) any male heir she delivered.

I am quite prepared to be enlightened. However somehow I can't see it.

I find this a much more credible explanation than the idea that she could have been a powerful woman. Yes indeedy. I now await similar claims about Victoria, the 17 kids were clearly camouflage and smuggled in late at night by a loyal maid.

And equally extraordinary that those so keen to historically assign medical problems or special gender identity status (eg Joan of Arc = non binary) don't stop and wonder whether women claiming special identity today might also be subject to misogyny and homophobia. And we could possibly do something about it?

Exactly . The same arguments have been made for Joan of Arc. It is just not possible for a strong leader to have been female -there has to be an another explanation. People will come up with anything other than women can make good leaders.

Victoria was extremely astute and built her power with care. Albert felt sidelined. This was the 19th c so let us not bring in modern preconceptions.

V had 'outbursts' detailed in her diaries where she threw tea over him and so on when he tried to carve out a role for himself - which happened in the end.

Her prolonged and pathological mourning after he died in 1861 was partly a result of guilt and maybe more complex issues.

Until Sir Thomas More pointed out that a boy without a winky is a boy!

It just goes to show the utter sexism and gender conformity of this ideology: a strong independent Queen can’t possibly be a woman or she would have got married, had babies, and let alone man decide what was best!

It also shows a very male attitude to sex - how could she possible have chosen to give it up?! Of course not only would this have meant her handing over power, sex at the time was also the leading cause of death of women - through pregnancy and childbirth.

I have a vague memory that she was required to provide proof she was capable of bearing children when the Angouleme marriage was mooted - so she did not have a recognisable DSD.
She probably didn't marry for the political reason that a husband would have/could have claimed the crown matrimonial and ousted her from power - Darnley did this with Mary Queen of Scots, as did Mary's third husband (and rapist?) Bothwell.
A second reason was that childbirth was risky (her paternal grandmother had died in childbirth, for example) and to risk this when she was head of state and a bulwark against Catholic Europe, might have seemed irresponsible.
There is also the problem that a monarch's most potent rival is their child - and the Elizabethan establishment (like the Scottish one) might have preferred business as usual had Elizabeth had a son.
Of course, it might have been to spite her father - who had killed her mother.
The old chestnut that Elizabeth was male (or male identified these days) is just plain misogyny wanting to make a powerful woman less of a woman.

I understood that she had lovers, or favourites at least, but that she chose to never marry because the laws of succession meant that she would be usurped by her husband. I don’t think, after seeing the way her mother and subsequent step mothers were treated by her father, that she would trust a man to love her more than the crown she would have brought with her… nor was she willing to ever give up the crown and the power (and independence) it gave her.

"It just goes to show the utter sexism and gender conformity of this ideology: a strong independent Queen can’t possibly be a woman or she would have got married, had babies, and let alone man decide what was best!

It also shows a very male attitude to sex - how could she possible have chosen to give it up?! Of course not only would this have meant her handing over power, sex at the time was also the leading cause of death of women - through pregnancy and childbirth."

Well of course. This was the 16 th century.

Another who hates ahistorical thinking. This nonsense seems to turn up like a bad penny. Admittedly some historiography seems to deliberately not notice significant factors in personal lives (i remember reading some accounts of James I's life that record he seemed very different in the 2nd half of his reign, without noting that his eldest son died halfway through). But funnily enough that's not the case for women. We know Elizabeth menstruated, we know she was stepping her way through a complex web of European monarchs, alliances, and nascent religious wars, plus nonstop flattery and plays from ambitious and gorgeous courtiers representing domestic interests. Fundamentally the benefits of marrying a specific individual never outweighed the very considerable downside of picking one over another.

I always assumed she'd remained unmarried because she - well - didn't want to get married!
I know that's very unlikely, I mean that a woman wouldn't want the joys of being overshadowed by a man, or being forced to give birth to and raise several children while her husband ran the country, or of having a worm forced into her regularly.
But, as strange as it may seem, some women don't want that.

She was a biological woman. Thomas Seymour sexually abused her as a teenager and was rumoured to have made her pregnant.

Sexist internet drivel

It is probable that she had love affairs and that she was infertile.

A common view is that she like her father and sister had syphillis.

Due to her father’s promiscuity.

She was from all accounts, once her sister died, ruthless in securing her power and out manoeuvring her courtiers.

She was an early recorded example of a woman who benefited from, education, money and power. And who in that respect, was as powerful intellectually than any man in her sphere.

It makes me wonder about the quality and rigour of what is taught in schools or universities these days.

Wave a flag and it is so easy for the lazy insecure badly taught thinker to nail their colours to the mast.

This extremism and poverty of thought is having serious repercussions beyond academia.

Complete nonsense trying as usual to undermine a strong and independent woman.

She was highly intelligent and had witnessed how women (including her own mother) were treated by their husbands in a most horrific way, and how women lost their power once married. She lived her early life living on her wit and in constant fear of being executed, which is enough of an excuse I think for having trust issues and wanting to stay in control. Also even today, children who witness their own parent’s toxic marriages shy away from marriage themselves, it’s not uncommon. Obviously Elizabeth’s parent’s marriage was well beyond toxic to say the least.

Dammit, you beat me to it, I was going to say
well they have a point, she did say at Tilbury that she had a body that was partly male and partly female..😆

She was 25! 😳

..and then there's the famous 'Rainbow Portrait', where she is holding a rainbow in her hand, <winks and taps side of nose> though it has faded a bit.

I think the evidence is stacking up...😏

Actually I think what she has in her hand in this portrait is a steering wheel, but they airbrushed out the softtop Mercedes Kompressor that she was driving

She may never have married, but she is famed for having dalliances with the Earl of Leicester and the Earl of Essex.

When her father died, she was left in the care of her step mother and her new husband. There is some evidence to suggest he was sexually abusive towards her. I always assumed that this, coupled with her mother being murdered by her father when she was a toddler, somewhat put her off the idea of marriage.

Elizabeth 1 was a man! It’s obvious! Although an effeminate one at that …https://www.historyextra.com/period/elizabethan/bisley-boy-was-elizabeth-i-a-man/

@MarieDeGournay the rainbow was a symbol of peace and her magnanimity

the best bit was the embroidered eyes and ears all over her dress.

not a publicly available portrait but copy displayed at Hampton Court

This is understanding too. I was taught that Elizabeth I didn't marry because it would have prevented her from ruling effectively. She would have seen what happened to her half-sister Mary: Philip of Spain considered himself to have at least equal ruling rights. Instead, Elizabeth put herself above all the men, making herself an object of veneration, ie, through what was called the Gloriana cult. She knew her choice was to be subservient or worshipped.

I also think there's a real lack of understanding these days that 400+ years ago, not marrying and not having sex, ever, was quite normal, for very very good reasons. Projecting present values onto the past is the oldest mistake in history.

God forbid that a woman with power and independence should actually choose, for whatever personal and / or political reason not to marry a man.

But she must be pathologised, claimed for an ideology, etc.

People really can’t leave women be and respect their decisions, can they?