Early Modern Women of Europe and Marriage

Women could only successfully navigate the Early Modern World if they were married?

Many women could navigate the Early Modern World either within a marriage or without one, it just depended on the year and how much power they were given when born, if they came from a wealthy background it is more likely that they would be able to have some political influence, where as a woman who had been born into a poor family might struggle to find footing, as women who were single and had little wealth would be treated differently to that of a widow or married woman. This can be seen through examples in Southampton, which Amy Froide[1] and the examples of monarchs who were able to rule despite not being married, Elizabeth I and those who did marry, Mary Queen of Scots[2]. There were also women who were able to have influence over the King despite not being married, such as lady Margaret Beaufort and Anne Boleyn (before she married Henry VIII). It indicates that whilst being married had its advantages, it also conveys how women were able to have influence without being married, however, this may only be a select few.

Women did not always need to be married to have political influence, there are many famous examples of women who were widows or had never been married before who were able to influence powerful men. Anne Boleyn is an example of woman who had great influence over King henry VIII, especially over the fall of Cardinal Wolsey and Henry’s divorce from Catherine. This is written about by James Gairdner who states, “for years the old nobility of England resented his monopoly of the King’s confidence. Several if them were related to Anne Boleyn”[3] indicating that whilst Anne was not married, she was aware that her family despised the man and that Wolsey was what was standing between her and the throne, Gairdner conveys that Anne was aware of her status and that to get what she desired she would have to convince the king. This is also seen through the ‘King’s great matter’ and it is clear, despite not being married, Anne had control of Henry because “what made Henry’s passion unusual was that instead of simply luring Anne into his bed, Henry wanted to make her his wife and queen.”[4] Indicating that her influence was great as she convinced Henry to ger his divorce. However, it must be said that Gairdner’s work is from 1899, making it one of the older pieces on the time period, yet it still makes a valid point about Anne Boleyn. Another example would be Lady Anne Clifford who was in a legal battle for much of her life to gain back her family lands, “To have given up the lands that went with her family would have amounted to confessing herself not the true heir.”[5] And whilst some of this legal battle was fought within her first marriage, this conveys that it did not matter if she were wed or not as she would be fighting the battle within or out of her marriage bonds, as she had claim to the lands “an entail, dating from the thirteenth century, under which the Clifford estates went to the heirs of the body of the current Lord Cumberland, whether they were male or female.”[6] This further indicates that women did have influence whether they were married or not as Hodgkin conveys how lady Clifford would argue for her lands as she had the rightful claim.

Female monarchs also indicate how women could be powerful within their marriage. Also powerful without them. Power meaning, they had the capability to have influence over certain domains and how no one else had a similar capability other than maybe a husband. Marriage could have benefits for a woman, but it also had limitations to their power. An example would be Mary I, who married Philip II of Spain who was disliked. Despite this Mary still had a lot of control within her country “England never having crowned a queen regnant”[7] which conveys that whilst her husband was not supported, the people of England viewed Mary as their rightful queen and Richards indicates that this was the case as the country had never had a true Queen regnant before Mary. Elizabeth did not marry and this proved to be problematic in some ways for her, “It posed an actual political and theological problem for Elizabeth…violated Pauline Injunctions against women in positions of authority within the church”[8] which Constance Jordan demonstrates as being an issue since Elizabeth had no husband, which meant no heir to the throne of England, where Mary Queen of Scots married three times and had an heir, creating a bigger threat to Elizbeth’s throne which Jordan explores to convey how Elizabeth not marrying was a concern of her advisers. However, despite the issues within her reign, Elizabeth was also supported for not marrying too, “Legitimising and resisting the authority of her regime”[9], which is emphasising how the ‘cult of Gloriana’ was legitimised and that the Virgin Queen was supported which is something that would not have existed if Elizabeth had married and that she points out in many of her letters[10]

Another point that is emphasised is that many Kings had come to the throne due to the female line of a family, meaning that a woman held power due to her family name. This is shown through, “Henry VII, whose claim descended from John of Gaunt, through his mother Margaret”[11] And whilst some may say this makes his claim invalid, Jordan further indicates that this does not lessen his claim to the throne and also gives Margaret more power as it is because of her that her son sits on the throne of England. Another example of a woman with power would be Catherine De medici, who was able to have power as queen, as well as being married. Though much of her power came after her husband’s death due to her husband’s mistress being more in favour than she was. “her political actions made her the most controversial woman of this period.”[12] Wellman is indicating that despite having a difficult start in life, the woman was able to become one of the most famous because of her power within her marriage and then as a widow after. Wellman also states that, “there was no doubt that, throughout much of her sons’ reigns, Catherine was unquestionably the most important political actor in France.”[13] Which indicates how much power Catherine obtained because of her children and that she was the one who was ruling France, despite not having the title.

However, whilst rich woman who did not marry could still gain influence, it was much harder for those who were not wealthy. There were more single women than expected between 1500-1700 in England. “In terms to access to poor-relief and permission to run their own commercial enterprises”[14] indicates how without a husband or a family name. Women struggled to be able to open a shop and make money of their own. Whilst Froide focuses on Southampton, it would not have been uncommon in other areas either for women not to be able to open a shop on their own if they were unmarried. Many women at the time had to rely on cousins and sisters or would act as housekeepers for unmarried brothers. Family ties were considerably relied upon for single women as they had nowhere else to turn to.[15] Though times did change towards the end of the period as women were more welcomed to begin working on their own and opening up shop, but it was still not seemly, and marriage would be looked at as a better alternative. However, it should be stated that whilst women could be single for some time, they may also have eventually married but lived so much of their life without a husband that they would have be a ‘singlewoman’ for half of their life.[16] Froide conveys that many would have struggled before finding a husband, whether that be as orphans, widows or other. It indicates that despite some single women prospering, you needed to be from a wealthy family for this to make any difference and have any influence.

There is also the claim that women would not have been able to support themselves and that it was the man’s ‘duty to protect and earn’. Whilst marriage at the time has been proposed as being a trap for women and that they had no power, not many families conformed to this idea and it was in fact that women did have influence of their own within marriage and that the idea that we have been presented is not always the case. “Male duties are characterised as active and acquisitive”[17] which can be compared to “Principles outlined by Dod and Cleaver were severely overdrawn”[18] indicating how a man’s role could be over stated and that whilst it was certainly a world for men at the time, Women were not forced to stay inside and on most occasions had their own ‘spheres’ to work and socialise in. This shows how women were not forced to live shut up inside and were able to have influence within their own social spheres. It can also be said that this was not the case in all European countries, such as Germany for example, “the legal status of women carried so much from one early modern German territory, or town, to the next”[19] this is demonstrating how the status of a woman all depended on where she lived, as some would have had more freedom than others would have. However, it has to be said that the view of women in the Early Modern period was not the same as it is now, they were viewed as weaker than men, hence why any small form of freedom or influence would be seen as great as it was the beginning of change.

To conclude, whilst a woman could navigate the early modern world if she were not married, she would need to have wealth to be able to do so. Without wealth it would mean she stood very little chance of being able to gain influence or power, which is what Froide indicates.[20] It can be said that women were able to gain influence through their marriages and despite being married being seen as a hindrance for some, such as Anne Boleyn as she lost her influence after marriage, it could be a platform to others, Catherine de Medici being the example of that.[21] The argument indicates that whilst many women could navigate the world through marriage, others successfully did so outside of marriage, but this was a select few rather than a majority. Many women had to be married or widowed and with a wealthy background to stand a chance of being able to influence the world they lived in.

-Queen of Historical Queens

[1] Amy,M,Froide, “Never married: Singlewomen in Early modern England”, The English Historical Review, Volume CXXI, issue 492, June 2006, Pages 935-936, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhbvn.12.

[2] Constance, Jordan, “Woman’s Rule in Sixteenth-Century British political thought”, University of Chicago press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America, 1987, Vol. 40.No.3, pp 421-451, doi:10.2307/2862518.

[3] James Gairdner, “The fall of Cardinal Wolsey’, Cambridge university press on behalf of the royal historical society, Vol.13, 1899, pp 75-102 doi:10.2307/3678127.

[4] G.W.Bernard, “The King’s Great Matter”: henry’s Divorce and Anne.” In Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, 37-71, Yale University press, 2010. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npjv0.9.

[5] Katherine Hodgkin, “the Diary of Lady Anne Clifford: A Study of Class and Gender in the seventeenth Century.” History Workshop, no. 19 (1985): 148-61, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4288628.

[6] Katherine Hodgkin, “the Diary of Lady Anne Clifford: A Study of Class and Gender in the seventeenth Century.” Pg, 149

[7] Judith, M, Richards, “To promote a Woman to Beare rue”: talking of queens in Mid-Tudor England, published by Sixteenth Century Journal, 1997, Vol.28 no.1, pp 101-121

[8] Constance, Jordan, “Woman’s Rule in Sixteenth-Century British political thought”, University of Chicago press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America, 1987, Vol. 40.No.3, pp 421-451, doi:10.2307/2862518.

[9] Louis A.Montrose,” Idols of the queen: Policy, gender, and the picturing of Elizabeth I”, university of California Press, No.68, 1999, pp 108-161, doi:10.2307/2902957.

[10] Elizabeth I,“Response to parliamentary Delegation on her marriage,1559”, last updated in 1998, viewed on 24/11/2018, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/elizabeth1.asp#Response%20to%20a%20Delegation%20on%20her%20Marriage

[11] Constance, Jordan, “Woman’s Rule in Sixteenth-Century British political thought”, pp 421-451

[12] Kathleen Wellman, “Catherine De Medici: King in All But Name.” In queens and Mistresses of Renaissance France, 225-73, Yale University Press, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bmdq.10.

[13] Kathleen Wellman, “Catherine De Medici: King in All But Name.” In queens and Mistresses of Renaissance France, 225-73

[14] Amy,M,Froide, “Never married: Singlewomen in Early modern England”, The English Historical Review, Volume CXXI, issue 492, June 2006, Pages 935-936

[15] Amy,M,Froide,” Never married: Singlewomen in Early modern England”, Pages 935-936

[16] Amy M. Froide, “A Singular past” in Singlewomen in the European past, 1250-1800”, edited by Judith Bennett and Amy Froide, 1-37, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhbvn.4.

[17] Alexandra Shepard,” Manhood, Credit and Patriarchy in Early Modern England c.1580-1640”, Oxford university press on behalf of the past and present society, No. 167, 2000, pp 75-106, http://www.jstor.org/stable/651254.

[18] Alexandra Shepard, “Manhood, Credit and Patriarchy”, pp 75-106

[19] Sheliagh Oglivie, “married women, work and the law: Evidence from Early Modern Germany” In married Women and the Law in premodern Northwest Europe, edited by Cordelia Beattie and Frank.M. Stevens, 213-40, Boydell and Brewer, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt31ngvj.16

[20] Amy,M,Froide, “Never married: Singlewomen in Early modern England”, Pages 935-936

[21] Kathleen Wellman, “Catherine De Medici: King in All But Name.” In queens and Mistresses of Renaissance France, 225-73 picture references: unknown artist, "Lady Margaret Beaufort", Oil on panel, second half of 17th century, https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw00439/Lady-Margaret-Beaufort-Countess-of-Richmond-and-Derby?LinkID=mp00323&role=sit&rNo=1 unknown artist, "catherine de Medici", oil on canvas, 194 x 110, 1547-1559, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KatharinavonMedici.jpg

Unknown artist, "Anne Boleyn", oil on panel, late 16th Century, https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw00142/Anne-Boleyn

unknown continental artist, "Elizabeth I", 1575, oil on panel, https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02075/Queen-Elizabeth-I

William Larkin, "Anne, Countess of Pembroke, Lady Anne Clifford", 1618, oil on panel, https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw235435/Anne-Countess-of-Pembroke-Lady-Anne-Clifford?LinkID=mp03497&role=sit&rNo=0