Caroline Jones

The Virgin Queen: An Examination of Elizabeth I’s Maidenhood as a Means to Power

Caroline Jones

Queen Elizabeth I’s reign lasted from 1558 to her death in 1603 and was largely considered to be one of the greatest in English history. She led England into prosperity despite contentions over her claim to power and ability to rule as a queen without a king. Her expertise in writing, oration, and maintaining her public image allowed her to use the parts of her reign that were most criticised to her advantage, especially in relation to her decision never to marry. She manipulated her self-presentation to allow herself to keep all of her sovereignty as a monarch and present herself as a dichotomy of the characteristically feminine devotion to her subjects and the masculine-coded capability to rule them, both of which strengthened the power she already held. Had Queen Elizabeth I married, whether an English noble or a foreign one, she would have inevitably lost much of her power and become the subservient party in the marriage. In her book, The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power, Carole Levin cites one of Elizabeth’s reasons for not marrying to be that, “she...did not want to give up her control as monarch, as she surely would if she was married.”1 Levin references Elizabeth’s elder half-sister and predecessor, Mary Tudor, and her marriage to Philip II of Spain. Although Philip was Spanish and rarely in England, he, being male, possessed far greater power than Mary, despite her English birth and bloodline. Mary

Babel Volume XXI 69 was a monarch with little actual control over the kingdom she ruled. Elizabeth, understandably, did not want to end up like Mary. She did not want to be “perceived as the inferior partner,”2 and, especially if she had married an Englishman, she would not only be inferior to him, but also made a subject to one of her own subjects. To marry a foreigner would be to become—and force England to become—a subject to another country. Either way, not only would her political power be diminished, but her social standing in the world would become that of a subject rather than a ruler. By refusing to marry, she kept both political power over England, and the power she held as second only to God Himself. Elizabeth was a shrewd and masterful architect of her own reputation, and because of her unusual decision never to marry, she had to be careful to remain a trustworthy ruler in the eyes of her people by building the image of herself as a ruler who was willing to do what was right even if it was not the most obvious or traditional choice, a ruler willing to sacrifice personal pleasure for the sake of her people. Being a woman, it was expected that her natural inclination would be towards marriage, raising children, and other customarily feminine goals. Spanish Ambassador Guzman de Silva spoke on many people’s behalf when he said, “the hatred that this Queen has of marriage is most strange.”3 It was seen as unnatural for a woman not to desire marriage, but whether or not she was sacrificing personal desire and pleasure for the sake of her people, she used the idea of sacrificing her own joy for the sake of England to her advantage. Elizabeth held tight control over all portraits made of her, saying that the only portraits made of her must be those which were “by her allowed”4 or imitations of said portraits. She bedecked each image of herself with imagery and symbolism that would carefully cultivate exactly the image she wanted to present to her people. On multiple occasions, she used images of self-sacrifice to present herself as a monarch willing to do anything for her people. Her

70 Babel Volume XXI

Pelican Portrait shows her displaying a miniature pelican over her chest, a common symbol of self-sacrifice, since pelicans were often thought to pierce themselves to feed their young with their own blood.5 Her Darnley portrait emphasises a wound in her side, exactly where Jesus was thought to have been pierced while on the cross.6 By associating herself with a self-sacrificing bird and the ultimate self-sacrifice in Christian doctrine, Elizabeth paints a clear, striking image of herself as a monarch willing to do anything for the sake of her country, including sacrificing what was thought to be a woman’s greatest goal and joy in life. Her expert grip over her portrayal also allowed her to tailor how her femininity related to the usually-masculine role she held as monarch of England, as well as to her decision never to marry.

Through her meticulous propagandization, she was able to enhance her public image and thus the power she held over her people. As a woman, it was taken for granted that she would one day marry and that “a king could relieve Elizabeth of the difficulties of rule.”7 Her insistence on not marrying put her in a precarious situation. Pressure to marry was strong for all women, but as a monarch, she was expected to marry well to protect her country and produce an heir to protect her bloodline, so the pressure was even greater. In order to twist England’s expectations to her favour, she crafted a careful image of herself as being “already bound unto an husband, which is the kingdom of England”8 and that her children numbered “as many as are English.”9 The English people expected her to marry and devote herself to a husband, so she did. She wed the kingdom of England and devoted her life to caring for it. They expected her to bear a child and nurture it, and though she bore no children, she nurtured every English subject and saw them as her children. Toward the end of her

Golden Speech, Elizabeth emphasises that although the English

“have had and may have many princes more mighty and wise sitting in this seat, yet you never had or shall have any that will be more careful and loving.”10 Might and wisdom are attributes tra-

Babel Volume XXI 71 ditionally applied to historical men, while women are stereotyped to be inherently more careful and loving. She acknowledges that she is not the paragon of masculine superiority, she brings to the throne feminine attributes that no male ruler can bring to the same degree. By drawing attention to her uniquely feminine qualities and how they lend themselves to her devotion to the wellbeing of the country, she enhances the power she holds. Although her lack of a physical husband and children might have been a hindrance to her reputation, she used the idea of familial devotion as a tool of propaganda to build a reputation of utter devotion to England and its people. In order to characterise herself as solely a woman fulfilling her wifely duties to husband and children was not enough to legitimise her right and capability to rule England; she had to present herself as possessing masculine-coded power in order to convince the world that she was strong and capable enough to rule. She frequently referred to herself as a King, or as possessing kingly traits. Levin references the difficulty Elizabeth faced by refusing to marry, a difficulty that sprang from simultaneously refusing “the most obvious function of being a queen, that of bearing a son.”11 The role of a queen in early modern England was typically to bear children and further the royal bloodline, rather than to rule as a political authority. By refusing to further her own bloodline, she was effectively refusing to be seen as a true queen, in the aforementioned sense of that word. Instead, she built up an image of herself that revolved around her masculine capabilities and presented her as socio-politically a king, even if she was referred to as a queen for biological reasons. In her 1558 speech to her secretary and other lords, Elizabeth acknowledged that she was “but one body naturally considered” but placed emphasis on the fact that despite this, she was also “a body politic to govern.”12 She distances herself from her sex to put emphasis on her skill as a ruler and leader of the people. Later, in her Golden Speech, she claims that England would never have a queen who

72 Babel Volume XXI

“will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety.”13 In a world where fighting was a man’s task, she took it upon herself to take up that task with zeal and immense skill. For forty-five years she reigned beloved and supreme over England, and her emphasis on her governing skills lent itself to a successful and long reign because she held tight to her power and did not let anyone reduce her to her sex. By highlighting her skill and passion for ruling, she presented a masculine image concurrent to the previously established feminine one. The dichotomous balance between presenting herself as both the paragon of femininity and masculinity seems to be contradictory, but when the line is as well walked as it was by Elizabeth, the apparent contradiction only lent itself to the power she possessed as a queen. In one of her most well-known speeches, her Armada speech to the troops at Tilbury, Elizabeth claimed that although she had “the body but of a weak and feeble woman,” she also had “the heart and stomach of a king and of a king of England too.”14 The distinction between her body natural— her physical form—and her body politic—the collective of England with her at the head—allowed her to rule despite her female form. Her sex had no bearing on her ability to rule because they were two separate and distinct entities. She delivered the speech while dressed in armour and referred to herself as having masculine core attributes, rather than feminine ones. She had traits any good, male king would also possess, such as the heart to be close to battle, and the stomach to do what was necessary for the sake of England, but she also used her sex to build an image of herself as wife and mother and to emphasise her ability to care for and love her people as only a mother truly could. Queen Elizabeth I was a master at manipulating circumstances to her liking. Her decision not to marry may have come from any number of places, but no matter why she made that choice, she was able to masterfully bend it to her favour. Not only did it allow her to keep the political power she held, but it gave

Babel Volume XXI 73 her the opportunity to present herself both as being already married to England, and as being a ruler who did not need to conform to societal expectations because, although she was a biological woman, she made it abundantly clear that her sex had no effect on her ability to wield power and wield it well for the sake of her country. She enhanced her military political power by emphasising her masculine attributes, and enhanced her social political power through the emphasis on her feminine attributes. By garnering such a careful image around herself as an unmarried queen, she was able to enhance her political power far beyond what any male ruler could imagine.

Notes 1 Carole Levin, “The Official Courtships of the Queen,” in The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power, 2nd ed, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 46. 2 Levin 65. 3 Levin 39. 4 Elizabeth I Tudor, “Collected Works,” in Foundation Year Program Handbook, Section III, 97-115 (Halifax: University of King’s College, 2021), 115. 5 Nicholas Hilliard, Pelican Portrait, ca. 1573-75, oil on panel, 78.7 cm x 61 cm, Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. 6 Darnley Portrait, ca. 1575, oil on panel, 1130 mm x 787 mm, National Portrait Gallery, London. 7 Levin 43. 8 Elizabeth I 105. 9 Elizabeth I 105. 10 Elizabeth I 114. 11 Levin 64. 12 Elizabeth I 104. 13 Elizabeth I 113. 14 Elizabeth I 110.

Bibliography Darnley Portrait. ca. 1575. Oil on panel, 1130 mm x 787 mm. National Portrait Gallery, London. Accessed 23 November 2021. https:// www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02075/QueenElizabeth-I. Hilliard, Nicholas. Pelican Portrait. ca. 1573-75. Oil on panel, 78.7 cm x 61 cm. Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. Accessed 22 May 2020. https:// www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/portrait-of-queen-elizabeth-i. Levin, Carole. “The Official Courtships of the Queen.” In The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power, 2nd ed, 39-65.

74 Babel Volume XXI Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.

Elizabeth I Tudor. “Collected Works.” In Foundation Year Program Handbook, Section III, 97-115. Halifax: University of King’s College, 2021.