@volver
Here is the actual essay
www.shakespearesglobe.com/discover/blogs-and-features/2022/08/08/it-was-necessary-taking-joan-of-arc-on-their-own-terms/
I am not sure that the famous speech, which is a beautifully crafted piece, is a faithful record of what she actually said. I'm sure I have seen it questioned in the past. The copy in the British Library which Dd posted has no detail of its date or provenance. I'd like to know more about the actual document. Is it an absolutely contemporary text or is it a later production? We could well be arguing about words that she never actually uttered... I can't find much about it on the web from an historian's point of view (though my search skills aren't great)
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
I’m not sure if I’ve been called a bully or not.
Don't give it any more head space Lathyrus; don't agree = you're a bully. Always happens.
When did disagreement with a premise became paranoia?
VS for instance has suggested that it was possible that Elizabeth was trans ( or non-binary - I can’t remember) and that her body might not have been the one that she wanted, based on the first lines of her Tilsbury speech. Thinking that this is nonsense and saying so is not paranoia - it is disagreement, which is necessary in a debate.
I don’t think many people would be influenced to transition because of watching a play for a couple of hours, or even believe that Joan was male or non-binary.
Not if that was the only input they had, on the idea, but as just one part of a huge amount of emphasis on gender ideology it could have an influence.
A number of years ago, a theme such as this would have been interesting as no-one would have thought of Joan or Elizabeth as not being female.
Now, tho, it seems there is no scope for insights based on gendered expectations, other than 'this person is something other than a woman'.
FarNorth
volver here's the link given by GagaJo and quoted in full in her OP.
uk.news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-may-non-binary-claims-171338852.html
That's yahoo, not the Globe. Unless I'm missing something?
I think Lathyrus's comment helps more; thanks Lathyrus.
I think the whole thing is an interesting exploration of how women felt they had to behave to be accepted as war leaders. So I'm afraid I have no time for the shouts of misogyny and so on. Unless we examine historical attitudes to women and especially women in power, we will atrophy in our thinking. People will be afraid to advance academic theories in case they are ostracised. Both sides of the debate.
And I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't expect that the article suggests anything about rulers not really being women, or any of the rest of the paranoia that I'm seeing on here.
I'm offski.
volver here's the link given by GagaJo and quoted in full in her OP.
uk.news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-may-non-binary-claims-171338852.html
I think you have to have an account with The Globe, volver. So that you can access the members section.
It wasn’t just about Elizabeth but about other historical female leaders being non-binary based on their ability to lead. Æthelflæd being another
Speaking for myself I am responding to posts on this thread as well as to the OP. I assume (but could be wrong) that others are doing likewise.
Doodledog
Maisie, if you had said ‘real’ you would have been accused of being offensive. It’s more gaslighting, so don’t take it to heart.
I know. That's why I didn't use 'real' 
Yes but theatre has always (should always?) push boundaries, and audiences are far smaller than for a mainstream cinema release or a tv show or soap opera. I don’t think many people would be influenced to transition because of watching a play for a couple of hours, or even believe that Joan was male or non-binary. People got upset when Anne Boleyn was played by a black woman, and I didn’t understand their objections. Would it make anyone believe that the real Anne was black? I think this is similar when it comes to a play, but suggesting that the play is based on reality is a different matter, just as it would have been foolish to suggest that Anne was black.
Well I'd like to read the essay/article before deciding what the writer meant, wouldn't you MaizieD? Do you have the link?
Now I'm commenting again. Sorry! ?
MaizieD
^Policing the language of people you don't agree with like "cis" but allowing it from people you do agree with^
Actually, I used the word 'cis' (is it technically a word or is it an acronym?) because I thought it would be less offensive in the context of this debate than 'real'. Which was what I was initially going to write...
I'm sorry this has contributed to your perception that you are being bullied.
It was clear that you used 'cis' in an attempt to communicate clearly with those who follow gender ideology.
Doing that leads to increasing confusion, tho, as words and pronouns are used incorrectly.
The word 'woman' is sufficient when you mean woman and 'transwoman' when you mean man claiming to be woman.
volver
OK I wasn't going to comment again but just this one...
What is it that makes people so angry about a suggestion that QE1 might have had to behave like a man 400 years ago to gain acceptance by the people? And that that may have influenced how she thought about herself? (Themself?? )
Nobody, as far as I can see, is angry about her 'behaving like a man'. They're angry that she is being perceived as acting outside the gender stereotype of a 'woman' which is commonly associated with that era and because of that, she couldn't possibly be just a 'woman'; she has to be something more nasculine... not 'pure woman'...
It's a very male orientated way of looking at 'women', isn't it?
I think she meant me.
She’d already posted a sort of “you don’t belong here post” addressed directly to me.
I thought I’d kept it at an academic discussion sort of level?
Well everybody seems to have very developed ideas about this article, so can somebody link to it please? The article on the Globe website that I can't find?
After all, if we are going to have an informed discussions without making assumptions about what was said and what the intention of the article was, I'd really like to have read it, as I'm sure you all have.
Thanks.
Doodledog
What is annoying is not that she compared herself to a man, or acted like one (if you go in for gendered expectations of behaviour) but that the only possible way that a woman could be as she was - a strong and competent ruler, a determinedly single person etc - would be if she’d really been male or at least not fully female.
And that this rubbish is being peddled to young women now - such as the writer and lead actor of the Joan of Arc play, both of whom identify as 'non-binary' female people.
Glorianny
It's purely an experiment in theatre. Did any of you object when Mark Rylance introduced Original Practices and played Cleopatra etc as part of an all male cast? He balanced it of course by having all female casts with women playing men's roles.
Well there’s a whole other topic.
Is it justifiable to portray a real person - alive or dead- inaccurately in the name of theatre, basing that on nothing more than an idea in your own head.
The living have some recourse to refute the fantasies of others. Are the dead just victims of time and ego?
Gosh, there’s all sorts of interesting avenues to explore on GN.
VioletSky
Ah just another GC bully then
Have fun
.
In all the posts up to this one from VioletSky, I don't see anything that could be called bullying towards VS.
VS says she's hidden the thread and, indeed, hasn't posted again so it seems that my polite question to her, re gender dysphoria after the removal of gender norms, will not be answered.
Maisie, if you had said ‘real’ you would have been accused of being offensive. It’s more gaslighting, so don’t take it to heart.
Policing the language of people you don't agree with like "cis" but allowing it from people you do agree with
Actually, I used the word 'cis' (is it technically a word or is it an acronym?) because I thought it would be less offensive in the context of this debate than 'real'. Which was what I was initially going to write...
I'm sorry this has contributed to your perception that you are being bullied.
Part of it is, as was discussed upthread. The theatrical side of it doesn’t bother me in the least. It’s the idea that this is a likelihood that is irksome- particularly when the ‘evidence’ is based on the Tilbury speech.
Come on people!
You're not being KIND.
What is it that makes people so angry about a suggestion that QE1 might have had to behave like a man 400 years ago to gain acceptance by the people? And that that may have influenced how she thought about herself? (Themself?)
Speaking only for myself volver, I have no problem whatsoever in accepting that QE1 would have recognised that, in order to rule in the 16th century, she would have to demonstrate that she could rule "like a man"; feminine "weaknesses" such as love and ambition had seen the death of many prominent women around her. What I struggle to accept is that this must be because she was non binary or trans. There is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. She may have been lesbian, but there's no evidence of that either; it's just conjecture!
What is annoying is not that she compared herself to a man, or acted like one (if you go in for gendered expectations of behaviour) but that the only possible way that a woman could be as she was - a strong and competent ruler, a determinedly single person etc - would be if she’d really been male or at least not fully female.
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 »
