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 Sun 14-Aug-22 09:36:58

When she said ‘I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman’ Elizabeth was dispelling the fears of her subjects by addressing those fears at the beginning of the speech, to stop them from getting in the way of people listening or believing the rest. It is a common technique, still used by politicians today.

As people were used to men being rulers, and as Elizabeth was a woman (regularly and routinely inspected by physicians) she could get them onside by comparing herself to what they were used to. People like familiarity and routine, and are better able to be persuaded to do things with which they are familiar, so assuring them that she had ‘the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too!’ was telling them that she was as good as the men who usually ruled, not that she literally had male body parts. Appealing to familiarity is another persuasive technique which is still used today.

It was a good speech, often analysed in English and Social Science classes, but was not meant to be taken literally. Yes, there is no way of knowing whether this was the body that Elizabeth wanted, but that speculation is entirely separate from the speech itself, and AFAIK there is no evidence at all that she thought she really was a man.

Mollygo Sun 14-Aug-22 10:31:42

Well put Doodledog.
I know I’m cynical, but it’s possible that the Globe is also saying this to attract more custom by using this controversial and unproven statement.
The media was full of “It’s the End for the Globe” during lockdown.

Lathyrus Sun 14-Aug-22 10:38:00

In private, away from her titles and responsibilities she chose to be called “Lady”.

We also know from poets of the time that she found “mistress” ( not in the modern sense) an acceptable form of address by those less intimate.

When settlements overseas were named after her she chose feminine names - Virginia being one.

The evidence of history shows us her personal as well as her public choice was to be regarded as a woman.

I’ll ask again. Given that evidence, isn’t it wrong to misgender her. Why are those so determined to have their chosen gender recognised so disrespectful of others?

eazybee Sun 14-Aug-22 10:49:11

Whenever I hear this speech I am reminded of an extract from Mrs. Dale's Bedside Book 1951, which I gave to my grandmother, aged five. Mrs Dale's mother, an imposing lady, was chosen to deliver this famous speech in a local pageant. She rode up on a white horse, and overcome by the sight of her assembled army delivered the opening lines in ringing tones:
' I know I have the body of a feak and weeble woman.....'

I always read it as that, even now.

Doodledog Sun 14-Aug-22 10:55:20

I’ll ask again. Given that evidence, isn’t it wrong to misgender her. Why are those so determined to have their chosen gender recognised so disrespectful of others?

The longer you stay on these threads (wink) the more you will realise that questions like this never get answered. They are ignored, and answers are replaced with picky 'Gotcha!'s based on perceived 'mistakes' in your posts. An attempt at shutting down the conversation? You Decide.

maddyone Sun 14-Aug-22 10:56:13

SueDonim

The same is happening with Joan of Arc. It’s a great way to deny women exist and erase us from public life.

Indeed it is.

Since no one was alive at time that Elizabeth 1 was alive no one knows. Sounds like fanciful, wishful thinking. No one knows!

maddyone Sun 14-Aug-22 10:57:40

Witzend

To me it’s almost comically ludicrous that anyone should hitch their trans/gender bandwagon to the body of Elizabeth the First, who knew perfectly well that marriage would inevitably mean a loss of her power and influence.

This as well.

maddyone Sun 14-Aug-22 10:59:03

Doodledog

When she said ‘I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman’ Elizabeth was dispelling the fears of her subjects by addressing those fears at the beginning of the speech, to stop them from getting in the way of people listening or believing the rest. It is a common technique, still used by politicians today.

As people were used to men being rulers, and as Elizabeth was a woman (regularly and routinely inspected by physicians) she could get them onside by comparing herself to what they were used to. People like familiarity and routine, and are better able to be persuaded to do things with which they are familiar, so assuring them that she had ‘the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too!’ was telling them that she was as good as the men who usually ruled, not that she literally had male body parts. Appealing to familiarity is another persuasive technique which is still used today.

It was a good speech, often analysed in English and Social Science classes, but was not meant to be taken literally. Yes, there is no way of knowing whether this was the body that Elizabeth wanted, but that speculation is entirely separate from the speech itself, and AFAIK there is no evidence at all that she thought she really was a man.

And this, well said Doodledog.

ExDancer Sun 14-Aug-22 11:11:01

How do we know that Q Elizabeth 1st used those actual words at Tilbury? Is there a written copy somewhere?
All we really know is that she made a rousing speech to the troops.
Any suggestion of her having claimed to have masculine tendencies could have been incorporated later (probably by a man)

Doodledog Sun 14-Aug-22 11:25:01

ExDancer

How do we know that Q Elizabeth 1st used those actual words at Tilbury? Is there a written copy somewhere?
All we really know is that she made a rousing speech to the troops.
Any suggestion of her having claimed to have masculine tendencies could have been incorporated later (probably by a man)

Yes, it's in the British Library.

Mollygo Sun 14-Aug-22 11:43:21

ExDancer

How do we know that Q Elizabeth 1st used those actual words at Tilbury? Is there a written copy somewhere?
All we really know is that she made a rousing speech to the troops.
Any suggestion of her having claimed to have masculine tendencies could have been incorporated later (probably by a man)

??? probably indeed.
Just as likely would be that Henry V at Agincourt was really Henrietta in a trans rôle or even Nelson with the “England expects . . .” speech, galvanising the crew with womanly wiles.

VioletSky Sun 14-Aug-22 11:56:05

Ah just another GC bully then

Have fun

Lathyrus Sun 14-Aug-22 12:09:12

Would you care to name and shame?

Or is your accusation of bullying deliberately vague so that you can’t be called out for it.

Rosie51 Sun 14-Aug-22 12:13:39

And once again Q.E.D.

Rosie51 Sun 14-Aug-22 12:14:44

That wasn't to you Lathyrus it was to VS and was meant to immediately follow her post.

VioletSky Sun 14-Aug-22 12:20:43

That's the context I was talking about.

Twisting words
Assumptions
Personal comments (at one point 2 pages worth deleted)
Assigning thinking
Assigning feelings
Policing the language of people you don't agree with like "cis" but allowing it from people you do agree with

It's dishonest and bullying and why I avoid these discussions

I'll hide this thread now, it never changes

Caleo Sun 14-Aug-22 12:22:03

Biologists believe sex is a spectrum.

Caleo Sun 14-Aug-22 12:24:21

The Tilbury speech was the Queen claiming the right to be an honorary man.

Lathyrus Sun 14-Aug-22 12:26:51

Where were the two deleted pages? Have I missed something?

I thought it was pretty much an academic discussion apart from one or two more personal posts.

Grantanow Sun 14-Aug-22 12:27:00

Just a trivial attempt at grabbing publicity for the Globe. The RSC never needed such ridiculous tripe.

Chewbacca Sun 14-Aug-22 12:34:49

Where were the two deleted pages? Have I missed something?

It would be interesting to know wouldn't it Lathyrus? The only pages of posts that I've seen deleted recently were indeed bullying and the OP was banned. Again. hmm

Lathyrus Sun 14-Aug-22 12:39:13

I’m not sure if I’ve been called a bully or not.

Rosie51 Sun 14-Aug-22 12:46:10

Caleo

Biologists believe sex is a spectrum.

Care to name any respected biologists who believe this? Lord Robert Winston, that most eminent biologist, has stated categorically that there are two distinct sexes and they are immutable.
What kind of gametes do all these people on a sex spectrum produce? Like all species that use sexual reproduction humans have one sex that produces large immotile gametes, and another sex that produces small motile gametes. You can call the two sexes anything you like but they remain two distinct sexes.

icanhandthemback Sun 14-Aug-22 12:46:59

I certainly don't pick a side on these discussions and find them useful in consolidating some of my thinking or thinking afresh. I also have several members of my family through the generations who are gay or trans so certainly am not close minded to new thinking. However, for somebody who thinks,

It's dishonest and bullying and why I avoid these discussions

it strikes me that you are heavily involved in most of them. That is not to say that you shouldn't be but either you are deluding yourself or you are being disingenuous. To be honest, you could do yourself more favours by standing by your convictions and giving straight answers to the questions put by people. I often look to see what you say, with interest, but find it quite frustrating when you don't.
This is not meant to be an unkind post, just a reflection on the posts I have seen.

icanhandthemback Sun 14-Aug-22 12:48:58

icanhandthemback

I certainly don't pick a side on these discussions and find them useful in consolidating some of my thinking or thinking afresh. I also have several members of my family through the generations who are gay or trans so certainly am not close minded to new thinking. However, for somebody who thinks,

It's dishonest and bullying and why I avoid these discussions

it strikes me that you are heavily involved in most of them. That is not to say that you shouldn't be but either you are deluding yourself or you are being disingenuous. To be honest, you could do yourself more favours by standing by your convictions and giving straight answers to the questions put by people. I often look to see what you say, with interest, but find it quite frustrating when you don't.
This is not meant to be an unkind post, just a reflection on the posts I have seen.

@Violetsky

Sorry, forgot to put a name to this.