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 14:05:58

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.

MaizieD Sun 14-Aug-22 14:07:18

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' grin

Doodledog Sun 14-Aug-22 14:08:16

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.

Lathyrus Sun 14-Aug-22 14:09:17

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

FarNorth Sun 14-Aug-22 14:09:20

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

volver Sun 14-Aug-22 14:16:32

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.

FarNorth Sun 14-Aug-22 14:21:43

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'.

Doodledog Sun 14-Aug-22 14:23:47

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.

Chewbacca Sun 14-Aug-22 14:24:05

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.

MaizieD Sun 14-Aug-22 14:39:59

@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)

volver Sun 14-Aug-22 14:49:28

Thank you MaizieD.

So the one sentence which refers to Elizabeth is Elizabeth I, similarly, 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. And the Daily Express is frothing.

Seriously?

I should really go and do something else, I keep promising to but I fail. smile

Doodledog Sun 14-Aug-22 14:54:47

You have missed the point quite spectacularly. The irritation is not with Elizabeth, not about what she actually said or who wrote it, but about the fact that the idea of a strong woman is still questionable in 2022, and people (on this thread or off) are suggesting that they may really have been men.

volver Sun 14-Aug-22 15:00:52

Course I have. ?

volver Sun 14-Aug-22 15:01:33

Who has suggested that they may really be men, please?

icanhandthemback Sun 14-Aug-22 15:26:29

volver

Who has suggested that they may really be men, please?

There was talk of Elizabeth dying as a child and being replaced by a boy down thread!

Fleurpepper Sun 14-Aug-22 15:29:36

volver

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.

Agreed. It is an interesting subject- and many of us who are open-minded and interested are not lbgt activists, or have any insecurities about our sexuality.

Why is it always about extremes here?

FarNorth Sun 14-Aug-22 15:38:14

Some women behaved outwith the stereotypes associated with the female sex in the times they were living.
That didn't alter the reality of their being women and female.

What is extreme about that?

Lathyrus Sun 14-Aug-22 15:41:18

Hmm, well it was interesting I suppose, but rather poorly argued. When a scholar plucks the odd quote to justify their stance and negates anything that might challenge it, that’s very disappointing.

Still, I hold to my observation that the strong women the learned Dr names all referred to themselves by feminine nouns and pronouns of their day,

So why do they ignore other people’s designated gender choice and misgender them. I’m sure they would object if I said she/he instead of they. I wish they would explain why this is acceptable.

As I said when academic thinking gives way to fashion and individual prejudice it becomes worthless.

Madgran77 Sun 14-Aug-22 15:42:52

I am very late to this discussion.

My overall comment would be that I am "open to any possibilities" where there is clear evidence for that possibility. As far as I can see the only "evidence" available re either Elizabeth 1st or Joan of Arc is that they were very strong personalities, strong leadership qualities and that they did what they had to and said what they had to to get the job done within the expectations/social mores of their time.

To me none of that is evidence to suggest the "possibility" that they were trans.

volver Sun 14-Aug-22 15:46:26

What is extreme about that?

All these quotes from the first page, that's as far as I got. I've not included names as I don't want to be getting at anyone, but this is the kind of extreme response that the paranoia induces:

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

It’s a great way to deny women exist and erase us from public life.

It makes you wonder if this lunacy will ever end

As clear a case of wishful-thinking bollocks as I’ve seen in ages.

What a load of rubbish.

I don't understand the mentality of those who support these trans & non-binary ideas, or those who consider the whole subject boring, unless it is outright misogyny or / and stupidity.

God forbid we should actually read what the article says and consider it a bit.

Galaxy Sun 14-Aug-22 16:01:59

Well on any thread on any subject there are a range of views some sensible, some not, its finesmile. There are also lots of thoughtful posts on this thread analysing the impact that the historical period will have had on how women would behave.

volver Sun 14-Aug-22 16:12:35

30% of the posts on the first page are decrying something that was never said or jumping to the conclusions that an article must say something bad, even though it doesn't.

I don't have any axes to grind about LGTBQ+. What concerns me is that there is an propensity to think that academics or whatever are saying one thing, when they aren't saying that thing at all. Today its LGBTQ+, tomorrow its Remainers, day after that it's Grans.

It concerns me that people see the things they want to in press articles written by papers like the Express or the Mail. Not the things that are actually said. Does that not concern people?

Fleurpepper Sun 14-Aug-22 17:06:59

Yes, it does.

Mollygo Sun 14-Aug-22 17:23:54

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

FarNorth Sun 14-Aug-22 17:50:23

I hadn't heard of Aethelflaed until recently when I came across this BBC Radio programme www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00045lg

I see no reason for her to be called 'they', as in the Globe article.
That obscures (erases, some might say) the reality of her female sex and how it would have affected her life.

What possible good reason is there, to do that in relation to Aethelflaed or any other historical woman ?