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

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 17:14:13

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

Basically ?

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

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

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 17:24:29

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 17:27:44

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 17:33:10

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 17:36:43

Ducking the question ?

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

Chewbacca Sat 13-Aug-22 17:45:08

I think Sooty was non binary
Howling with laughter at that! grin

Doodledog Sat 13-Aug-22 17:53:31

VioletSky

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

But we don't know what anyone wanted to be, do we? So 'we' are superimposing sexist gender norms onto historical characters and concluding that because they don't fit the ones for their sex they must (or may) have been really of the other.

I don't see anyone looking 'threatened' either. Amused, maybe, irritated, perhaps, but I think 'threatened' is in your head.

eazybee Sat 13-Aug-22 17:55:54

What real evidence is there, apart from hearsay, that Elizabeth had male lovers, apart from malicious rumours circulated to blacken her name? Thomas Seymour, her stepfather because of his marriage to her fourth stepmother, behaved with gross impropriety towards her when she was in his care, aged thirteen. She was interrogated about their relationship and defended herself brilliantly, and it was clearly evident that no sexual activity had taken place. Seymour's brother, Protector Somerset, used this behaviour plus the attempt to gain control over Elizabeth's brother Edward V1 to have Thomas Seymour executed.

The fate of Elizabeth's mother and of the subsequent four wives of Henry V111 was quite sufficient to give Elizabeth a deep-rooted fear of marriage and childbirth.

Academic essays are supposed to be accurate and theories should be supported by evidence, not just opinions. It is simply an attempt to garner publicity for a forthcoming play. I don't think the author would remain in possession of his hands, tongue and ears for long were Elizabeth1 reigning now.
.

Boz Sat 13-Aug-22 18:02:35

Bram Stoker wrote a chapter about E.1 in his book "Famous Imposters". He reckoned she died of small pox and was substituted with a male cousin to uphold the Protestant cause.
So of course she never married.
Imo rubbish ,but a good read.

Doodledog Sat 13-Aug-22 18:04:21

The Earl of Essex was reputedly a lover of Elizabeth, and there is no reason to suppose that she was really a virgin. It would be no more or less usual then than now for someone to remain celibate for life.

Like the majority of historical knowledge, what we know is a mixture of hearsay, letters, diaries and official documents, which would not, of course, record illicit sexual liaisons. Whether she did or did not have lovers of either sex is not evidence of her transsexuality, transgenderism or non-binaryness in any case.

MadeInYorkshire Sat 13-Aug-22 18:08:27

Just don't understand nor can I be bothered with all this stuff - can't people just be what they want to be?

As far as I am concerned Elizabeth 1 says it herself "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman,” She has identified herself as FEMALE!

Grrrrr!

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 18:08:58

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion doodledog given some of the comments.

But if Queen Elizabeth referred to themself as "Prince" and "King" and ,"Queen" at times then those were chosen pronouns.

I just don't feel threatened by a strong historical figure being a woman or a man or nonbinary. What I actually care about is who they are and what they did for society.

Nothing actually changes.

Many men and women have historically and continue to achieve amazing things and I think there is room for trans people and nonbinary people there too.

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 18:12:12

Queen Elizabeth said

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a KING and of a KING of England too

Doodledog Sat 13-Aug-22 18:14:12

Prince was a term used for rulers of both sexes and none of those words are pronouns grin. Elizabeth was a Queen, but 'King' was sometimes used to mean someone ruling in their own right, as opposed to the wife of a monarch.

I repeat - nobody appears to be threatened, so you are not alone in that. Nobody is saying that there is not room for anyone - just that to superimpose sexist gender norms on historical characters and conclude that they were non-binary is fanciful at best.

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 18:16:39

OK doodledog

Lathyrus Sat 13-Aug-22 18:30:43

The use of the male noun to denote both male and female was common in Middle/Late English.

Hence Wycliffe Bible commentary refers to “Two men in Paradise” and many carols from that period also use “men” to refer to the whole human race.

Plucking phrases without understanding the historical entomology is always a sign of ignorance.

Lathyrus Sat 13-Aug-22 18:32:17

Entomology Duh!

What is my spell check about today?

VioletSky Sat 13-Aug-22 18:38:29

They and them have always been used historically but I get told that isnt true so I'm not sure my ignorance is an issue here.

What is an issue is lack of logic.

That anyone who says they accept trans or non binary people as valid...

Also

Can't accept that a historical figure could possibly be either of those things.

I am not arguing that the essay is correct.

I'm arguing that it is closed minded to be absolutely sure that it is not a possibility.

If you want to be absolutely sure it is not a possibility that is fine by me.

We are all different aren't we

SueDonim Sat 13-Aug-22 18:40:19

I think Sooty was non binary.

Along with their friend, a boy named Soo?

Rosie51 Sat 13-Aug-22 18:41:35

But if Queen Elizabeth referred to themself as "Prince" and "King" and ,"Queen" at times then those were chosen pronouns.
I don't think there is one scrap of evidence that Elizabeth ever referred to herself as they, them, or themself. Do you not think you are imposing your own preference on her, something I thought was an abomination when done to people under the trans umbrella?

I just don't feel threatened by a strong historical figure being a woman or a man or nonbinary. What I actually care about is who they are and what they did for society.

Nothing actually changes.

No I don't feel threatened either, and I see no evidence of anyone on this thread feeling threatened. So why the need to try and 'non binary' historical figures who certainly didn't self identify this way?