What are DSDs?
Good Morning Sunday 12th July 2026
Charity Shops Making Donations Uncomfortable
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Elizabeth I may have been non-binary, claims Shakespeare’s Globe
(386 Posts)“I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman,” Elizabeth I once said to rally her troops to face the Spanish Armada, “but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.
And was a non-binary person too, according to academics working for Shakespeare’s Globe, who have cast doubt on the gender identity of one of England’s greatest queens.
Elizabeth I has been presented as possibly non-binary in an essay published by the theatre, which refers to the female monarch with the gender-neutral “they/them” pronouns.
The essay was written by a “transgender awareness trainer” in defence of the Globe’s decision to stage a new play featuring a non-binary Joan of Arc, but both the play and the essay have raised concerns that famous females are being written out of history.
The essay claims: “Elizabeth I… described themself regularly in speeches as ‘king’, ‘queen’ and ‘prince’, choosing strategically to emphasise their female identity or their male monarchical role at different points.”
This appears to reference the most famous speech attributed to Elizabeth, her 1588 address at Tilbury in which she braced the nation for battle with the Spanish, saying she had the “heart and stomach of king” and “a king of England too”.
‘Historical women adopted a male identity’
The essay on the Shakespeare’s Globe website, written by Dr Kit Heyam, suggests that historical women were not only rebels for performing what were considered typically male tasks, but also in some sense adopted a male identity.
Dr Hayem writes in regard to Elizabeth I as an armour-wearing military leader: “Inhabiting that social role and dressing in the clothes associated with it, while living and working among men, may not just have felt like gendered defiance: it may have had a profound impact on their sense of self.”
The essay defends Shakespeare’s Globe announcing a new play titled I, Joan, in which Joan of Arc is represented as non-binary. The teenage warrior, famed for leading the French against the English in the 100 Years War despite being a woman in a patriarchal society, has been given the pronouns “they/them” in Globe promotional material for the production.
Dr Hayem’s essay for the theatre argues that while historians have stated that Joan wore male armour out of “practicality” during her campings, “they” may have had “deeper motivations” related to “their” identity.
Author JK Rowling signalled her bemusement that Shakespeare’s Globe would be portraying Joan of Arc as non-binary by liking a Twitter post which read: “Coming next: Napoleon was a woman because he was defeated at Waterloo.”
‘Famous females will be written out of history’
Feminist thinkers have raised concerns that casting doubts on the womanhood of prominent women because they defied gender norms, and did supposedly “manly” things, will effectively write many famous females out of history.
Philosopher Dr Jane Clare Jones said: “This is a really great example of the inherent gender conservatism in gender identity ideology. Traditional gender conservatism says that men must do ‘manly’ things, and women must do ‘womanly’ things.
“Gender identity ideology reverses that and then we end up with the idea that anyone who does ‘manly’ things must be a man, and anyone who does ‘womanly’ things must be a woman.
“This is how we end up in a situation in which historical women who have performed traditionally ‘masculine’ roles end up being re-categorised as ‘trans men’ or ‘non-binary’ or ‘not-women’ in some way.
“This is a really regressive message to be sending out, especially to young women.”
‘A regressive ideology’
Joan Smith, author of the feminist volume Misogynies, said: “Women and girls are entitled to reject stereotypes without losing our sex.
“We didn’t have enough female role models to start with, we have spent decades rediscovering women artists, authors, leaders. And now a regressive ideology is trying to take them away.”
Born in 1533, Elizabeth I became England’s longest-serving female monarch until Queen Victoria, and was famed for overseeing the emergence of the country as an international power during her 44-year reign.
Named the Virgin Queen, she never married or had children despite this being the expectations of her contemporaries.
uk.news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-may-non-binary-claims-171338852.html
Genitals are a bit of a red herring I'm not sure why Lathyrus but that really made me laugh 
.
DSD = difference of sexual development
The whole thing sounds a bit fishy to me. ?
I always thought the combination of never marrying and her insistence that her body should not be embalmed raised interesting questions. She was obviously considered female at birth (any reasonable doubt would surely have seen her raised a boy), but who knows how she developed? There is no actual evidence of her ever having had a sexual relationship, merely rumour.
Glorianny
Mollygo
So if someone decided that women who are seriously underweight can't be women, because their periods have stopped (that's a physical fact) would that be OK?
Has anyone actually said that tr
No it's simply an example of what could be used once someone decides anyone has the right to decide how others are designated. You may think someone is a woman that person may so. You have no right to insist they are a woman.
The difference seems to be that I wouldn’t feel the need to insist someone is a woman unless for some obscure reason they asked me and my first question in response would be “Are you female?” But you evidently feel you could use it since you say in your post could be used.
I have seen so many worse examples of the italicised part of your rather convoluted speech used by TRA et al telling people what they are or are not.
Germanshepherdsmum
I always thought the combination of never marrying and her insistence that her body should not be embalmed raised interesting questions. She was obviously considered female at birth (any reasonable doubt would surely have seen her raised a boy), but who knows how she developed? There is no actual evidence of her ever having had a sexual relationship, merely rumour.
Yes, that is an interesting question but I think there would have been rumours about any abnormalities, there was very little privacy for a queen. Ladies in waiting would have gossiped and word would have spread, surely in a hotbed of gossip like a court.
I didn't know that about her wishes about not being embalmed, that is interesting.
As you say Ilovecheese there was little, if any privacy and one of the things that would have been checked was her monthly cycle in the hope that if she had conceded to marry, she'd have been able to produce an heir.
Given that in those days a linen shift was worn in the (occasional!) bath, it may have been possible for Elizabeth to avoid being seen completely naked by her ‘ladies’. A physician examining her would have had a duty of confidence. We know she had periods as one suitor enquired as to ‘her courses’ and the inventories of her clothes included the then equivalent of sanitary belts. In the absence of some undiscovered manuscript we can never know the real truth, can we?
I suppose in a way it is a pity that there was no ambiguity about her sex at birth, it might have saved her mother's life. As you say Germanshepherdsmum we will never know the truth.
Well I think we can safely say that as she had her courses she was definitely female at birth GSM, and the course of history would have been completely different if there'd been any doubt and the slightest possibility she was a boy.
Her mother would have kept her head and her father would have had had his long awaited for, and much desired heir.
Smileless2012
Well I think we can safely say that as she had her courses she was definitely female at birth GSM, and the course of history would have been completely different if there'd been any doubt and the slightest possibility she was a boy.
Her mother would have kept her head and her father would have had had his long awaited for, and much desired heir.
Surely that would depend on how she proved she had her courses? I should imagine there are ways that you could use subterfuge there.
That said, I think it is highly unlikely that she was anything other than a natural/biological female. The truth would have outed if she had been biological male at puberty because it is unlikely castration could have been kept quiet.
And there's absolutely no reason why anyone would have said she was a girl if she was a boy. The King and country were desperate for a male heir.
As soon as she was born it would have been evident she was a girl, much to the bitter disappointment of the poor girls father and to the distress of her mother, for not producing the male heir she'd promised.
If there had been a chance of considering her male at birth then she would have been raised a boy - vital to the succession. However whilst having female reproductive organs, hence the periods, it is possible that as she developed there were also signs of male genitalia - insufficient for her to be considered a man, but enough to prevent her wanting to engage in a sexual relationship or have her body exposed to anyone’s gaze after death. Her being male would only have saved her mother’s life if the charges brought against Anne had an element of truth rather than being trumped up by Cromwell for convenience - something that has long been debated.
I don't think the charges against her mother would never have been brought if she'd given Henry a son. She'd have been untouchable.
I agree Smileless2012 I think she would at least have kept her position as Queen (and her head!), but that he would have continued having affairs as long as he was able. (which wasn't, I don't think, for many more years)
I don’t think anything would have made her untouchable if there was any truth in the charges against her, even if she’d served her purpose by providing an heir. Henry’s ego would never condone his being made a cuckold.
Its very much disputed that there was any truth in any of the charges made against her. He wanted to believe all that was said was true because she was unable to give him a living son.
She had 3 miscarriages after Elizabeth was born. He wanted rid of her.
None of this speculation has anything to do with Elizabeth supposedly being 'non-binary'.
People with a DSD are nevertheless either female or male.
As Elizabeth was observed to be female, there's no need to re-designate her as something else.
As far as I'm aware, being female doesn't preclude a person from being non-binary. Except among those with an axe to grind, clearly.
It's all speculation and can't be proved one way or another 500 years later.
RIP Elizabeth I
The speculation, while off topic I agree, was interesting though, and even tempered.
Ilovecheese
The speculation, while off topic I agree, was interesting though, and even tempered.
Elizabeth I has been presented as possibly non-binary in an essay published by the theatre, which refers to the female monarch with the gender-neutral “they/them” pronouns.
The essay was written by a “transgender awareness trainer” in defence of the Globe’s decision to stage a new play featuring a non-binary Joan of Arc, but both the play and the essay have raised concerns that famous females are being written out of history.
Germanshepherdsmum
I always thought the combination of never marrying and her insistence that her body should not be embalmed raised interesting questions. She was obviously considered female at birth (any reasonable doubt would surely have seen her raised a boy), but who knows how she developed? There is no actual evidence of her ever having had a sexual relationship, merely rumour.
I don't think her 'never marrying' raises 'interesting questions. She was profoundly aware of the power of a husband; her father had her mother and a stepmother executed on the flimsiest of excuses. There was also the possibility of dying as a result of childbirth, as happened to two more of her stepmothers, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr. Not a good psychological preparation for marriage.
She was also limited in her choice of husband, and aware of the dangers of a poor choice; her sister's marriage to Philip of Spain was not particularly popular, and it constrained England's foreign policy. Her cousin Mary of Scotland was deposed after an unwise marriage (or was it just a liaison? I can't remember) to a subject. Elizabeth couldn't marry a subject and a foreign alliance would tie her hands when it came to foreign policy.
Additionally, there was the injunction in the marriage ceremony to obey the husband and the wife's property became his... How would that square with being an absolute monarch? As a monarch she was at the very top of the hierarchy, marriage would set someone above her.
I don't think we need any identification of her as 'bi', or trans to explain her choice.
As for the embalming request; she would have been prepared for burial in the usual way, surely? Had there been anything unusual about her genitals I think that word would have got out...
Sorry, for 'bi' I meant 'non binary'.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »