A purely factual question, although I suspect it may create some debate (though I think GQ is still the best place for it).
Did Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) really die a virgin?
She was called the Virgin Queen. In fact, the US state of Virginia is even named this, after her. And she certainly never got married. Better a beggar woman single, than a queen married, she once said.
But was she a virgin (when she died)?
And just to throw a couple of things out there, to start the discussion, I do recall reading somewhere that she was sexually molested as a young girl. I forget where I read this, but if I find it, I will certainly share it. Of course, that could mean a number things then, as it does today.
Also, she did have many fine suitors. And she presumably took part in some heavy petting (as we would call it today). But did it cross the line to sex, ever?
Letters from the Duke of Anjouimply there was a physical relationship at some point, but members of her court who might have witnessed something stoutly protected her reputation.
You can’t be serious; If my Daughter experienced ‘Oral, anal and non-orgasmic vaginal sex’ I would not consider her a ‘Virgin’. She’s old enough to make even Bad Decisions, but ‘Virgin’? C’mon.
“Virgin” is one of these concepts that people push to the limits in order to persuade themselves that, despite quite extensive sexual experience, they (or their girlfriends) are still “virgins”, because for some atavistic reason they attach importance to the label.
In Elizabeth’s time, I don’t think there would have been such flexibility. Any woman who had experienced penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse was not a virgin, regardless of whether either party had reached orgasm. This was the standard test applied then and later in the ecclesiastical courts (and, later still, in the family courts) to determine whether a marriage had been consummated.
Taboos against oral and anal sex were extremely strong, since they were considered acts against the order of nature, on a par with homosexual acts or bestiality, so it’s unlikely that a woman concerned to protect her, um, reputation for purity/modesty/chastity, would engage in these acts so as to preserve her virginity. It it became known that she had done anything like this, that would be a greater dishonour to her than simply not being a virgin.
So, when people said Elizabeth was a virgin, they would have been understood to mean that she had never been vaginally sexually penetrated by a penis. It wouldn’t have been taken as a denial that she had ever had oral or anal sex; since there was no suggestion that she had ever done such things there would have been no need for a denial.
The accusation of sexual molestation was made against the official Lord Protector, Thomas Seymour (brother of Henry VIII’s later wife); it made useful ammunition, along with allegations of enriching himself and generally getting above himself, for his rivals around the court to get rid of him and instal John Dudley instead. I doubt if it would be possible to get any reliable idea of exactly what did happen.
As for Elizabeth’s later life, you could well understand how important is was for her politically to avoid the risk of being embroiled in a husband’s political and personal ambitions and resentments. The family history, from her mother on, her sister Mary’s joint rule with Philip of Spain, the disaster of offering her cousin Mary Queen of Scots a marriage with Darnley - all of that would put anyone off, surely? The potential scandal of any goings-on outside marriage would be even more unthinkable, especially after the rumours about Robert Dudley’s expectations and the death of his wife.
Plus, of course, the idea of a “Virgin Queen” could serve as a useful piece of image management to sublimate any residual feelings of Mariolatry and Catholic sympathies among the wider population.
Oh yes, “virgin” definitely used to mean no male/female vaginal penetration. Nothing else counted. It could make the difference between being someone who could hold her (and I do mean “her” only) head up in public and someone who got treated like trash. I’m not sure where the “virgin” line is crossed now but it would be nice to just drop the whole misogynist concept, really.
You don’t need the Internet to have conspiracy theorists.
The Tudor royal court was full of people; I doubt you could walk down a corridor anywhere without being seen by maids, guards or flunkies of one description or another. Even the Queen’s bedroom had an open door and people would have been coming in and out; it wasn’t only for draughts that they had curtains round their beds. She never travelled anywhere without a whole retinue of servants, guards and ladies in waiting.
Elizabeth liked being Queen and she was politically astute enough to know that by marrying anyone she would lose a lot of her power. All the great families were jockeying for power and having a family member marry the Queen would have been the ultimate prize. There were plenty of people about who would dearly love to get rid of her so they would have gone around “briefing” against her and doing their best to dig up any dirt, real or imaginary, that they could find.
In those circles, virginity was important (for a girl). A man expected that his wife would be a virgin when he married her and any girl with ambitions for a good marriage would, as my mother used to say, keep her hand on her halfpenny. Men understood the rules and there were any number of serving girls readily available to relieve his urges.
:dubious:
You sure about that? That sounds like a very very good description of 19th Century Victorian mores, not mid to late Tudor ones.
Allegations of sexual impropriety were (and are) a common slur against politically powerful people and certainly occurred in droves against Elizabeth I; both before and during her reign regardless of their veracity. Her sexual habits were basically unknowable* or at least unverifiable unless she was open about them, which she had good reason not to be, since whoever she was currently sleeping with would see his family become very prominent; and would cause resentment and pushback by others.
Catherine De Medici at the same time; also had such rumours and there is at least some credence to the effect that she did have; “different” sexual tastes which she explored; did not harm her.
So, my own view on this matter always has been that Elizabeth I probably did enjoy sexual relations at as a Princess/Lady and then maybe early in her reign, but probably not later.
*Unlike her menses which foreign spies made efforts to find out were still occurring.
I don’t think she could have risked getting pregnant, so at least “technical virginity” seems pretty likely to me. I don’t think she needed to preserve her virginity in case she decided to get married someday: anyone marriage she might have contracted would have been about much higher stakes than personal expectations of physical purity.
IIRC, Betty’s concern was that any husband would assume the role of husband, and want to take over the reigns.
Has society really evolved so far that we’ve forgotten that the crucial act for loss of virginity was penetration (of the vagina)? I.e. once the seal was broken, the woman was considered “damaged goods”. (Henry VIII famously rejected Anne of Cleves with the complaint “her breasts were not those of a maid”) A woman was no longer a virgin once vaginal penetration (by penis) happened, no matter how few subsequent strokes or orgasms followed. Many rape trials revolved around the argument of whether penetration had actually happened, right up until the laws were changed generally in Western countries to make the crime “sexual assault”, so the details of what made it into where was no longer important.
Victorians no longer wanted to talk about sex, but the purity of a bride, chastity before marriage, and fidelity after, were critical issues for all women for millennia beforehand - especially upper class women, where the certainty of paternity was critical since titles and large estates were inherited.
yes, remember that everything required manual labour, there were servants everywhere; even some nobles got in on the act - the “privy council” started off as just what it seemed, the people important enough to attend to the monarch as he rose and prepared for the day; ladies of the bedchamber, confidants of the queen, were the most prized positions in the court for women (and precipitated a political crisis for Victoria). As far as shenanigans went, it was taken for granted the servants would see and that rumors would swirl. It’s just that the word of a servant did not count against the denial of a monarch, if it ever came to more than back-room whispers.
Also, at least by folksonomy, the virginals (a singular noun, like “scissors”), a harpsichord-like instrument greatly in vogue around her reign, of which it was asserted she was a particular devotee by some kind of Orphic correspondence.
Secondary effects appear in the first printed book of music in England for keyboard, Parthenia or the Maydenhead of the first musicke that ever was printed for the Virginalls, 1613, followed up by** Parthenia inviolata, or Mayden-Musicke for the Virginalls and Bass-Viol**. Both these books were dedicated, in fact to an Elizabeth, but not that Elizabeth.
We’re never going to know, but I suspect the answer is probably “yes,” given that Elizabeth 1) lived virtually her entire life under public scrutiny; 2) was potentially fertile for much of that life, in an era when there was no reliable birth control; and 3) was extremely smart, extremely politically savvy, and well aware of the potential consequences of salacious rumors about her sex life, let alone an unplanned pregnancy. (This is not to say that such rumors didn’t exist – they did – but I think it’s unlikely that she would have chosen to do anything that would confirm them.)
Considering the detail, Wikipedia is worth repeating
So we see - Elizabeth by age 14 was able to see all sorts of court intrigue and fatal consequences of any entanglements. Maybe she did love her stepmother’s husband, maybe it was exploitation, maybe Tom really just wanted to be king - but in the end, she denied everything. 14 years old was marriageable age in those days. “Embrace” is a catchall phrase, but presumably it meant nothing much happened, compared to possible other descriptions. If there was any much stronger suggestion that she was no longer a virgin, I doubt it would have taken so long (or been so public) for Thomas Seymour to be executed.
Maybe the realization that loving her could have fatal consequences for any man was an object lesson. She also came very close to being executed during Mary’s reign, the Catholics around Mary being concerned as the prospect of a protestant succession loomed larger.
After being a political football for so long, she probably wanted to be in charge of her own destiny.
perhaps she wasn’t the Virgin Queen after all