As everyone knew in the nineteenth century, women are pretty little things incapable of intelligent thought, prone to hysteria - and golly, don’t they faint at the tiniest provocation!
How was that attitude reconciled by the ruling classes with the obvious fact they were governed (at least theoretically) by a queen? I see nothing in history to indicate that she was thought of as inferior and incapable.
Same question for Liz the first.
Same question for reigning queens in general in super sexist (by modern western standards) cultures.
Elizabeth I touched on the subject in her famous speech to the troops at Tilbury, saying
“I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king”
Queen Victoria herself had very traditional beliefs regarding the role of women, their place in the home, and relations between husband & wife. She even refused to omit the promise to obey from her wedding vows. On the other hand she belived herself to an exception, and initially was very reluctant to give Prince Albert any role in the running of the royal household.
Weren’t John Knox’s blasts directed against various Catholic queens? Of course, he did go all out in expressing his disgust at the unnatural concept of any female monarch. Which did him no good when England got its next staunchly Protestant ruler. Who happened to be Elizabeth I…
This is a good point. History and literature especially up until the mid-19th century was primarily written by and about the upper class. Classical historians simply did not put a lot of effort in writing about ordinary day-to-day life and the large underclass (and in pre-modern societies the farming class usually made up 80-90% of the total population.) Even in the “Victorian age” in Western societies, which were the most advanced of the time, a majority of the population was engaged in the business of agriculture.
No farmer in the 19th century would have thought his wife was a “pretty little thing that would faint at the tiniest provocation.” Those women worked very hard, probably physically harder than most blue collar men do today (19th century farm labor is probably harsher than modern day factory work, and often took up the entire daylight hours of six days of the week if not a little more.) Now, the farming families were still paternalistic, the father was still “in charge” and would make key decisions about the family without his wife’s consent, but even though that is the “standard view” in reality 19th century wives weren’t slaves and did have ways to influence their husbands–some to the point that the man was little more than a figurehead of the family.