Susan Doran

Did Elizabeth’s Gender Really Matter?

The historiographical issues surrounding Elizabeth I’s gender are revisited in this essay. It puts forwards three main arguments. First, it contends that the gynaecocracy debate initiated by John Knox had little traction during the reign and that the more general anxieties about queenship were successfully addressed. Second, it maintains that Elizabeth’s queenship differed little in practice from kingship, since the Queen retained the monarchical prerogatives of her predecessors and assumed traditional kingly roles. Finally, it concludes that historians have in the past overstated the rhetorical and political strategies that Elizabeth and her subjects employed to negotiate her gender.

Monarchy and Masculinity in Early Modern England

In this essay, I examine how hegemonic concepts of manhood applied to monarchs in early-modern-England. I first discuss what manly qualities were associated with the ideal prince, how far they were the norms applied to other men of similar rank, and some of the ways that early-modern monarchs tried to live the part. I then move on to explore the strategies taken when the sitting monarch did not fit the bill. Here I conclude that underage and female rulers were perceived as less threatening to the political and social order than an adult king libelled as effeminate.

Queen Elizabeth I of England: Monarchical Leadership in Action

And as I am but one body naturally considered, though by His permission a body politic to govern, so I shall desire you all, my lords (chiefly you of the nobility, everyone in his degree and power) to be assistant to me, that I with my ruling and you with your service may make a good account to almighty God and leave some comfort to our posterity in earth. I mean to direct all my actions by good advice and counsel.1 In this—her first speech as Queen on November 20, 1558—Elizabeth I set out her stall as a political leader. In case questions were asked about her right to govern (on grounds of her gender or bastard status in law), the new Queen declared unequivocally that she was God’s chosen ruler; and since her legitimacy was based firmly on divine right (and not on election or statute), her authority could not be questioned or her power challenged. At the same time, using the metaphor of the body politic, Elizabeth saw herself as the chosen head of a hierarchically organized state; and, of course, if the limbs did not follow the head, chaos would follow. But, as the speech also made clear, Elizabeth declared her readiness to listen to advice. She would share the responsibilities of government with her foremost men by heeding counsel and directing her actions accordingly.