20
Medieval and Tudor England had many queens, whose numbers far exceeded that of kings. The fact that there were over fifty in all makes it unsurprising that many are remembered in stereotypical ways. Some are remembered as good queens, some remain in obscurity and others are notorious. As the stories of their lives show, the bad queens were numerous and diverse but they all failed to live up to the requirements of what a good queen should be which damned them to failure. As these examples demonstrate, higher standards were often expected of queens simply because they were women and many were censured for acts that would not even have been criticised in kings. As women, they were also often seen as a threat to the male elite. Male chroniclers and churchmen recorded events but often drew negative conclusions. Women were simply not expected to lead political lives during the medieval period and, even today, political queens, such as Margaret of Anjou or Emma of Normandy, are remembered unfavourably compared to their political male contemporaries. In the medieval period, a man could carry out damning acts and still not be damned for it. However for a woman even insignificant acts could be seen as blameworthy. Once a medieval queen lost her reputation, it was gone forever.
Although the women described here all fall into one category of notorious queens, the actual facts behind their notoriety were very varied and, throughout the period, a number of patterns can be seen. This demonstrates clearly the stereotypical way in which many of the women are remembered; the idea of a notorious queen, for all its apparent diversity, is as stereotyped as that of a good queen.
Eadburh’s life is remembered as a cautionary tale about just what made a truly bad queen. According to the stories, Eadburh acted politically for her own benefit and was also unfaithful and greedy. Worst of all, she is remembered as a woman who murdered her husband. Few queens in the medieval period even came close to Eadburh’s alleged wickedness, although Aelfthryth and Isabella of France are arguably as notorious. These three women represent the very worst category of medieval queens and few chronicles have a good word to say about them. According to the sources, all three were apparently happy to resort to murder for their own political benefit and are still remembered as She-Wolves today. Each woman is reputed to have murdered her husband, a major sin in anyone’s eyes. Whether they were guilty of these crimes or not (and the evidence is particularly dubious in the case of Eadburh) all three women are recorded as murderers and adulterers. This record survived to make them notorious to the present day. It is not taken into account that none of these women had a voice to tell their own story and that all that survives is the judgement of men plainly hostile to them. Once criticised in this way it was nearly impossible for the women to redeem themselves.
The next category of notorious queens that can be identified are the women who took on a man’s role and who can be said to have been politically active for their own benefit. This category includes Emma of Normandy, Aelfgifu of Northampton, Empress Matilda, Margaret of Anjou and Mary I. Some of these women nominally acted for their sons and other male kinsmen and queens such as Emma of Normandy and Aelfgifu of Northampton upheld the pretence of acting on behalf of their sons. Not all of these women had a male kinsman behind which to hide their actions. The Empress Matilda and Mary I both encountered difficulties in ruling as a queen regnant in medieval England. All the political queens mentioned above are remembered in a negative light. Their actions are seen as unwomanly and very far from what a good queen should be. However most of them had little choice. Once again, this is an example of the negative way that female political power was perceived, even when, in actual fact, the women’s actions were entirely justified.
The next category of notorious queens must be those who committed adultery. Queens were expected to be fertile and provide their husbands with an heir. Consequently faithlessness in a queen was heavily punished, in spite of the double standard which allowed kings to openly keep mistresses. Queens accused of this crime include the highly notorious queens, Eadburh, Aelfthryth, Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou. However others such as Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of Angouleme, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard are more specifically remembered as adulteresses and it is this act of betrayal (or, in the case of some, supposed betrayal) which has seen the queens remembered, over the centuries, as notorious. Not all of these women were guilty of adultery – Anne Boleyn and Margaret of Anjou certainly were not. However, infidelity was a much more serious crime for a woman than a man and the suggestion of it could destroy a reputation. Even Catherine Howard, who was certainly guilty of cuckoldry does not appear entirely blameworthy but rather as a woman entirely unsuited for the position in which she found herself. To accuse a queen of adultery was to ruin her and the case of Anne Boleyn shows just how clearly the enemies of particular queens realised this.
Incest in queens was seen in a similar way, being taken as a manifestation of the sexual immorality of many of England’s wicked queens. Judith of France, Aelfgifu of the House of Wessex, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Anne Boleyn were all accused of this crime. Their actions were also strongly associated with ambition and greed, major sins for queens to commit – Edith Godwine, Eleanor of Provence, Eleanor of Castile, Joan of Navarre and Lady Jane Grey all experienced misfortune as a result of allegations of avariciousness. Again, however, ambition was something that was entirely acceptable in a man. In a woman however it was a vice and something to be criticised. This was particularly the case when the queen so accused also had the misfortune to be of foreign birth. Foreign queens received extra criticism, in spite of the fact that their marriages were generally arranged for them.
By breaking down the notorious queens into categories, it is possible to demonstrate some of the vices which were taken to denote a delinquent queen and then used as a means of attack. A bad queen was a woman willing to commit murder or was at least associated with rumours of murder. A bad queen was also one who acted politically for her own benefit, often at the cost of the best interests of her own husband or son. A bad queen might also be an adulteress, or commit incest to further her ambitions and a bad queen was also greedy and ambitious. These vices make up the definition of just what was considered an unpricipled queen and can be opposed to ideas of a good queen. A good queen was chaste, passive and devoted to her family, with no political will save that of her husband. These ideals had developed even by the reign of Eadburh in the late eighth century.
The queens discussed here were all, for a variety of reasons, portrayed as She-Wolves. It would be naïve to assert that all the queens were innocent of the crimes of which they are accused. There is no doubt that some were, indeed, guilty as charged. Judith of France, for example, did marry her stepson. Aelfthryth murdered her stepson. The Empress Matilda was the leader of a faction in a civil war and sought power in her own right. Eleanor of Aquitane rebelled against her husband. Isabella of France deposed and murdered her husband. Catherine Howard committed adultery and Mary I burned heretics at the stake. That all of these women carried out these actions is not in doubt. However, when the facts of their lives are discussed it is difficult to see how they can always be considered entirely blameworthy. Empress Matilda, for example, was the leader of a civil war faction because her crown was usurped. The action she took would be expected of a king but, as she found, it was a very different position for a queen. Eleanor of Aquitaine’s husband was repeatedly unfaithful and a king would certainly be expected to imprison, or even kill an unfaithful wife, as Henry VIII did to Catherine Howard. Again, why should it be so different for a woman? Finally, Isabella of France endured years of harsh treatment from her indifferent and, ultimately, cruel husband. Again she cannot be blamed for wanting to improve her life.
Until very recently, history has almost exclusively been written by men with their own male point of view. Generally the women described here were not passive or retiring and, as a result of this, they were seen as a threat to the established male order and targets ripe for attack. Women were simply not expected to have political power and, as a result, many queens found an inherent contradiction in their role which was, after all, a political and public one. Some queens managed to negotiate this successfully and others less so, however for women under the constant scrutiny of chroniclers it was easy to be considered a failure. The role of queen was developing throughout the medieval period and the women described here were often the most proactive agents in this process. Their circumstances and actions pushed them into the public eye and this was considered unacceptable to their more conservative contemporaries. To many people in the medieval period, the role of queen was really only that of king’s wife and for women who sought to be queens there was often a tightrope to walk to secure the preservation of their reputations. The women described here failed to walk the tightrope for one reason or another and as a result they were attacked. To be a She-Wolf is to be remembered as notorious, whatever the facts of the individual queen’s life and, once the chronicles had been written, the true facts of the lives were often forgotten.