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've been reading and hearing about this for decades - she was a successful monarch - she must have been a man! She was a woman who never married - she must have been defective in some way!
Same old, same old.
History, not Herstory.

An annoying and ridiculous proposition, but a lovely thread to read, so much knowledge on mumsnet and I thoroughly enjoy Tudor history.

Dear Mrs B, my A level history teacher failed us when she didn’t teach us the hermaphrodite theory. Never mind, we got through without it somehow.

Do you remember the essay on the Shakespeare's Globe website a few years ago about Joan of Arc? It mentions Elizabeth I. It's quite disingenuous/ mendacious; while it does say that she described herself in speeches as ‘king’ and ‘prince’ as well as ‘queen’ for political strategy reasons, it also refers to her as 'themself', so suggesting that she may have seen herself as' gender-fluid' and applying anachronistic modern terms. It's very weak scholarship as well; Elizabeth would have read her Machiavelli and have been using male terms knowingly in reference to The Prince.

I think the polish way of handeling it was better .

Jadwiga ruled Poland in 1384 to 1399 she was crowned Rex - king not not krolowa meaning queen.

English is using Queen for both Queen regnant and queen consort - different things.

My IL not into history or very keen on RF were getting very upset about Camilla being called Queen - pointing out it just what we call the spouse of the King got well Victoria husband was never King Philip wasn't King - well no that's becuase King title always assumed to be regnant and more important than Queen so no such thing as King Regnant or King Consort.

If we'd just gone with female Kings like Poland did they'd be no confusion.

If we'd just gone with female Kings like Poland did they'd be no confusion.
Or Ancient Egypt.

Unlikely theory. She was a powerful woman who realised marriage came with far too many risks to her and the realm.

Or Ancient Egypt.

I don't think even 21st century Britain is ready for an Egyptian style dynasty. People may want to refresh their knowledge of that Cleopatra

Marriage and child baring were very different in Tudor times. A Queen would start 'confinement' when they believed they were 6 weeks from giving birth.

Only female attendants would be allowed so a Queen could not meet with her ministers or husband.

When Edward died there were a number of people happy to proclaim Lady Jane Grey as queen. A similar plot could easily occur if she was pregnant and Mary Queen of Scots was seen as the rightful heir by many Catholics.

She certainly wasn't a stupid woman.

She knew how tenuous her hand was on the levers of state. She didn’t even proclaim her heir as she knew, that the focus would immediately turn to the man coming next.
A woman even Queen regnant, in a man’s world, had to walk a careful path and a marriage would send her back to her ladies, sewing in her chambers, rather than ruling.

Except if the Queen was the ruler then she would not name her spouse King.
She would name him Prince, for example.

I think it would be a shame that women should be expected to change their title when men don’t.

Although if she was pregnant and the Queen she could do what she liked.
As she often did

If we'd used King as gender neutral poisition in English for job at the top - clearly King wouldn't then be used for male consorts either just one top spot.

We'd have female Kings - so title of King would already be in use.

You'd have avoided confusion between Queen Regnant and Queen consorts roles.

Queens Regnant in England later Britain did not make their spouse King - they name them Prince Consorts or other titles.

Mary Queen of Scots, made her second husband, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, King Consort of Scotland - which caused issues and many thought that was a job for the Socttish parliament and when she kept power from him cause further problems and weakened her position and led to her path of losing power altogether.

I think the Polish Queen married a fellow monarch and united the country with another - like Queen Isabella I of Castile and King Ferdinand II of Aragon first monarchs of a unified Spain - though that left Ferdinand with problems after Isabella death till he declared his daughter insane and ceased back power.

Although if she was pregnant and the Queen she could do what she liked.

An unmarried pregant Queen in tudors times would not have kept the crown - any child would be a bastard and would not be considered a legitimate heir. Any quick marriage would bring all the afore mentioned problems round power sharing.

You ruled becuase the powerful Lords and later - after Stewards- parliment accept you'd in the position.

Mary and Elizabeth being declare bastards by Henry VIII is why there was 9 day Queen - Lady Jane Grey as some lords tried to use the doubt about their legitimacy to gain power. Mary Queen of Scot at time Queen of France declared herself Queen of England when Mary 1 died on basis Elizabthe was a bastard.

I image in ancient Egypt with out centuries of Christian doctorian about marraige and legitimacy the rules would be different - though they may likely also had constraints on them. Hatshepsut records have been chizeled out of monuments because a later pharaoh likely wasn't secure so needed to erase idea of female kingship.

An unmarried pregant Queen in tudors times would not have kept the crown - any child would be a bastard and would not be considered a legitimate heir. Any quick marriage would bring all the afore mentioned problems round power sharing.
I think this poster was imagining a married and pregnant Elizabeth I; she mentions the Queen's husband. All the points she makes about a queen in confinement not being able to meet with her ministers etc still stand.

It is an interesting question as to what might have happened had a reigning British queen of the time had a child outside of marriage, particularly a boy. In particular what power that might have given to the child's father.

Henry VIII's known, acknowledged and well cared for son Henry Fitzroy, was made Duke of Somerset and Wiltshire, and well known at court, as was his mother. At the time Fitzroy died, an act was going through court to disinherit Elizabeth as heir and permitted the king to designate a successor whether or not legitimate. Which is interesting that it was raised and thought of, perhaps because Mary and Elizabeth both switched regularly between being called legitimate/illegitimate, or perhaps because the thought was there of this boy or another like him, but Fitzroy died of consumption aged 17 and predeceased his father. Of the two other children thought to possibly be Henry VIIIth through his relationship with Anne Bolyn's sister, while the Bolyns at one time thought of using the boy by claiming him as Anne's instead of her sister's to provide both wife and heir, they don't seem to have ever been acknowledged.

The instability of the whole period has to play a part in all this too. Jane Grey's sisters for example who Elizabeth could not allow to marry as they were walking threats to her throne simply by being alive with their bloodline. Any man who married them could potentially use them to oust Elizabeth. Likewise in the reign of Henry VIIth dealing with the last fall out of the Wars of the Roses, the children of George of Clarence were also walking threats, both having some claim to the throne, and being at risk of being used or working politically against the throne. The boy was eventually executed, with rumour of the plot being somewhat fabricated to serve part of the agreement of Spain to marry Katherine of Aragon to Prince Arthur, without any risk of them losing the English throne. An illegitimate son of Richard IIIrd also died largely for being a walking threat, and the princes in the tower were equally possibly illegitimate, possibly not, and a threat to the throne.

She could have done. But confinement for an extended period each side of the birth was more than mere tradition - it was thought to be exceedingly medically dangerous to do otherwise.

Elizabeth felt free to ignore most advisors when it suited her, but she did tend to pay attention to doctors. The realm, and the safety of any heir, would have depended on her surviving a birth (and surviving healthy!) so she would have been unlikely to take that risk.

Well in those days yes a woman would have had to have had ‘something wrong with her’ as a reason for why she wasnt married.

I think it's as much recent attitudes, as those of the time, that lead to the 'must be something wrong' line.

In those days remaining unmarried was perfectly respectable - even admired - for those with a religious vocation. And the Tudor view of kingship, with the monarch as God's representative, was not unlike the church hierarchy with its respect for those taking monastic vows. She was simply married to the Realm rather than God. And although Catholicism may have been officially out of favour, I wouldn't be surprised if the Marian influence still held a certain amount of power.

My comment re if she was pregnant assumed when married and referred to the comment about her potentially being out of action for the majority of her pregnancy.

It had Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the pregnancy

Queen Mary also referred to herself as a Prince. At its root, it means first, prime.

They've done this with so many female historical figures.

No such thing as a human hermaphrodite so that's wrong for a start, but even if she did have a DSD condition, she would have been considerably taller and broader than the average woman. The portraits don't bear this theory out at all, she was a tiny, almost fragile-looking woman beneath all the farthingales and whatnots.

She was a strong-minded exceptional woman, these people need to get over it.

Tbh I think the social stigma makes perfect sense when you consider the risks. Like not having sex before marriage - that would be quite meaningful when there is a real chance your spouse could have an untreatable STI - that would quite possibly be passed on to your kids. Congenital syphilis used to be so common.

I have often thought that a raunchy historical drama that laid all that stuff bare might be really interesting and compelling.

There were a lot of unmarried women at that time. It wasn't weird at all.

@CatHairEveryWhereNow

But Mary I DID make her husband King.

I think that poster knows that; she says, 'First undisputed Queen regnant was her sister Mary and she immediately had issues when she married.' – ie because she married someone who was a king.