Gransnet forums

News & politics

Elizabeth I may have been non-binary, claims Shakespeare’s Globe

(386 Posts)
GagaJo Sat 13-Aug-22 12:52:13

“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

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 17:39:47

Not really, just being open minded.

This is really interesting by the way

spectrumoutfitters.co.uk/blogs/spectrum-spotlight/7-famous-trans-people

Lathyrus Sat 13-Aug-22 17:36:43

Ducking the question ?

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 17:33:10

People were not given any other option at the time so I couldn't possibly say how they would identify themselves

Lathyrus Sat 13-Aug-22 17:27:44

But given that both Joan of Arc and Elizabeth identified themselves as female and woman, don’t you think it’s wrong fro someone to misgender them?

Surely they have the right to be remembered as the sex and gender that they identified with.

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 17:24:29

It's just an essay, no one is rewriting history or taking anything from anyone. It's just one person's opinion piece, as is every comment here which is why I don't take the Internet seriously

Lathyrus Sat 13-Aug-22 17:17:04

But there’s still no evidence for his opinion. It’s just an opinion.

I think Sooty was non binary.

There’s some evidence for that.

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 17:16:49

Being open minded doodledog I except anyone can be who they want to be

I certainly don't feel threatened by an essay about a possibility

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 17:15:14

Lathyrus

Well anybody in the past may have been non-binary but generally historians base their opinions on evidence.

The evidence is that Elizabeth had several male lovers, the first recorded one Thomas Seymour, her step-mothers husband. There is no evidence that she ever took a female lover.

So vaccines dally the “expert” has just decided it makes sense that she was non-binary because she was a strong ruler.
That’s the sum of his reasoning.

Poor scholarship.

Sexuality and gender are separate

Just thought you should know that

Lathyrus Sat 13-Aug-22 17:14:13

Where did vaccines daily come from??? Gotta read before I post

Basically ?

Doodledog Sat 13-Aug-22 17:13:36

VioletSky

Are people so opposed to the existence of trans and nonbinary people that they cannot stand an expert opinion that a historical figure may have been nonbinary?

Are people so insecure in their own gender that they cannot allow that others are happier as the opposite gender, to not identify with any gender or to feel fluid between the two?

History has already shown us evidence that trans people have been around for a long time.

How limiting it must be to have such a closed mind to the possibilities that others might not happily exist within your on ideals and find happiness in themselves a different way.

It's less about being closed to the idea of historical transpeople (although this was about non-binary, which is rather different) than about being open to the idea that women can be and always could be strong characters with lives that don't (and didn't) conform to externally imposed gender stereotypes without losing their femaleness.

I think it must be very limiting to feel that women have to sacrifice their femaleness in order to be strong, and not to accept that many do and have lived lives that are not bound by rigid 'gendered' norms and values. Particularly if one is a woman oneself.

Lathyrus Sat 13-Aug-22 17:13:03

Well anybody in the past may have been non-binary but generally historians base their opinions on evidence.

The evidence is that Elizabeth had several male lovers, the first recorded one Thomas Seymour, her step-mothers husband. There is no evidence that she ever took a female lover.

So vaccines dally the “expert” has just decided it makes sense that she was non-binary because she was a strong ruler.
That’s the sum of his reasoning.

Poor scholarship.

Smileless2012 Sat 13-Aug-22 17:07:07

I agree Doodledog and there are several theories as to why she changed her image including ridding herself of her 'femininity' to be seen as a ruler/Queen first and as a woman second as well as to 'put off' any suitors.

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 16:57:09

Are people so opposed to the existence of trans and nonbinary people that they cannot stand an expert opinion that a historical figure may have been nonbinary?

Are people so insecure in their own gender that they cannot allow that others are happier as the opposite gender, to not identify with any gender or to feel fluid between the two?

History has already shown us evidence that trans people have been around for a long time.

How limiting it must be to have such a closed mind to the possibilities that others might not happily exist within your on ideals and find happiness in themselves a different way.

Doodledog Sat 13-Aug-22 16:41:36

That was to Fleurpepper.

Doodledog Sat 13-Aug-22 16:40:47

I think that writing a play portraying Joan of Arc as transgender is no different from casting Hamlet as female or Anne Boleyn as black - it's playing with the truth, which is what plays do - hence the name. It allows the playwright to foreground different events in the protagonists' lives, or the director to take an existing play and explore different aspects of their characters.

There is a huge difference between that and suggesting that historical figures actually were trans. Regardless of MH issues or neurodiversity, 'non-binariness' has to be a state of mind, doesn't it? We could just as easily say that someone was scared of spiders or liked the smell of roses - we just don't know anything other than what was written down (and even then it has to be read critically), and whether someone felt that they were neither male nor female isn't something we could know now.

It was rare for Queens to rule in their own right when Elizabeth was on the throne, and there were other claimants to her throne, so it was in her interests to project an androgynous image that showed strength and what some would see as 'manliness'.

AreWeThereYet Sat 13-Aug-22 16:30:04

MaizieD

^Well Jesus was a very kind and gentle soul who went about in robes^

Aaah, but he lost his rag and chucked the money lenders out of the Temple, thus proving that he was a Real Man after all...

Yes but we all know women get uppity and irrational when PMS strikes where as a Real Man is cool, calm and collected at all times...

Galaxy Sat 13-Aug-22 16:27:07

Oh Lucca you know I am rubbish at linksgrin. Go to his Twitter feed, go on tweets and replies, its below the ones to titania Mcgrath.

Fleurpepper Sat 13-Aug-22 16:26:28

Esspee

I love the way gransnetters unequivocally state it is complete bollocks. Hear hear!

'bollocks' hmmmm are you sure, in this context? LOL

Fleurpepper Sat 13-Aug-22 16:25:30

Wheniwasyourage

Give me strength! How much more ridiculous can this get? confused

Why is this ridiculous? Why do you find this discussion 'threatening'? What's the issue here?

Doodledog Sat 13-Aug-22 16:19:14

Esspee

I love the way gransnetters unequivocally state it is complete bollocks. Hear hear!

I think you mean 'complete gender-neutral sex organs', don't you?

Oh.

nanasam Sat 13-Aug-22 16:17:39

What a load of old tosh angry

GrannySomerset Sat 13-Aug-22 16:08:59

I seriously worry about the mental well being of some of these academics!

Lucca Sat 13-Aug-22 16:05:59

MerylStreep

Galaxy

I like Ricky Gervais tweet on this but I cant repeat it here grin

I’ve seen/ heard it. Brilliant ?

Can’t find it. Can you send a link please?

LauraNorderr Sat 13-Aug-22 16:01:18

Good one Chewbacca

LauraNorderr Sat 13-Aug-22 16:00:35

MaizieD

^Well Jesus was a very kind and gentle soul who went about in robes^

Aaah, but he lost his rag and chucked the money lenders out of the Temple, thus proving that he was a Real Man after all...

But then they did feed the five thousand with a few loaves and fishes.