The Virgin Queen

The new film Anonymous seems to have scholastic knickers in a wad. I cannot say that I blame them, considering it proposes the much-disputed notion that William Shakespeare did not write his plays. I’m actually rather keen to see the movie, merely as a cinematic experience and Tudor costume drama (what can I say, I have one love and that time period is certainly it), but I’m a bit annoyed by another aspect of it, rather than the primary thing which has critics and historians alike crying foul in the streets. The source of my frustration is not its premise that Shakespeare the man was an illiterate play actor, oh, no… rather its stance on Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen… who isn’t such a virgin in this story. In film, she never is, and I’m rather tired of it.

Granted, I was willing to somewhat overlook it in the Elizabeth film series with Cate Blanchett in them because she’s so magnificent. I was already a fan of hers before I ever saw those films, but her depicting my favorite queen pretty much cemented her in my “book of awesomeness.” Granted, Helen Mirren gave her a darn good run for the money a few years ago in her miniseries with HBO, but Cate reigns supreme – and certainly dominates Judi Dench, who won an Oscar for… what, exactly? Six minutes of delivering lines in her usual deadpan manner? Blow me over, what a performance. (Sorry, I think I am the one person on the planet who thinks Judi Dench is overrated and wishes she would retire, simply because I’m sick of her. There, I said it. Cast your mud in my direction now. Let her retire and give Maggie Smith all her roles.)

Even so, though, the movies (and a great many books as well) seem to be incapable of presenting Elizabeth onscreen without some implication that she wasn’t quite the virgin everyone thought she was. This opinion, as well as our modern view that my goodness me, no woman could go her entire life never having had sex, has tainted modern opinion so much that if you shouted out “Was Elizabeth I a virgin?” in a crowded room, you’d have an array of different responses, most of them starting with “No, because…”

Well, call me old-fashioned, but I think she lived and died a virgin, and I think the evidence supports this view. This is the woman who ruled England single-handed against all odds and transformed a divided country into a great nation of prosperity and respect once more. Every mistake her father made, she avoided. Every mistake her sister made, she avoided. (Well, except for executing her cousin, who happens to have been an ancestor of mine, but I’m not bitter.) Elizabeth chose not to marry because she had seen what marriage (and sex) had done to her family. She lost her mother at a young age; she was old enough to know what was happening when Katherine Howard went to the scaffold; she came very near to losing Catherine Parr as well. She saw what marriage to Philip did to her sister and how deeply unpopular it made Mary. Every association with “marriage” that transpired in her life from a very young age up until her monarchy was negative, with a result of blood and death. If knowing your father hacked your mother’s head off isn’t enough to put anyone off marriage, the idea of being “owned” or “controlled” would have been.

Elizabeth was adamant that she was supreme ruler and would submit to no one. (This is one of my favorite moments in the Blanchett film, actually – “I will have one mistress here, and no master!”) Elizabeth knew that a husband would have a certain amount of influence, also that she could not find anyone that would suit all of her subjects. She came very close to marriage on one occasion but did not pursue it to its natural end. One could argue that she loved Robert Dudley and I think she did in her own way, but I also think that if she had given herself to him, she would have lost her allure to him in time. Elizabeth inherited her mother’s natural flirtations, and tormented men much as Anne Boleyn had – by withholding what they wanted most.

Not only did she defy convention and refuse to marry, I find it very difficult to believe that she would risk scandal – or an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. There are also no reports of anything inappropriate from her ladies in waiting, and considering Elizabeth was never alone as a monarch, they would have known. Court secrets were hardly secret in those days. Her only opportunity for lovemaking would have been on the occasional long rides into the country she took with Sir Robert Dudley, but would a cautious and intelligent queen really resort to that? I rather doubt it, considering she was not a milkmaid.

Then there was the matter of Thomas Seymour. History tells us that he molested Elizabeth while she was in the household of his wife, Catherine Parr, after Henry’s death. He seemed to have more interest than was prudent in the princess and would enter into her room early in the morning and “tickle her,” often when she was “in a state of undress.” There is also the infamous incident in which Catherine Parr held her down, while he cut Elizabeth’s dress “to ribbons.” Elizabeth did not enjoy his attentions and at times would rise and dress early so that he could not catch her. The film Young Bess tried to transform this sick relationship into a forbidden romance, but in reality it was a form of sexual abuse.

Last but not least is the religious component, which most scholars would dismiss, since they have very little respect or understanding for the role religion plays in our lives. However controversial in her decisions, Elizabeth did profess a belief in God that would have influenced her views on morality, and since her court was not known for debauchery, we must assume that she held her ladies in waiting (as well as herself) to a certain moral standard.

Contrary to what secular modern society would have us believe, we are not governed by our sexual urges. We can restrain them, and psychology does have an impact on them. Choice also has an impact, since most urges can be controlled with a strong will, sometimes to the extent that they vanish completely. Elizabeth chose to remain unmarried except in a metaphorical sense to England. Her reasons for doing so are unknown – had they anything to do with her traumatic childhood? Or maybe her negative experiences with Seymour? Were they bound up in fear of what marriage might mean for her, or was it a decision formed of wisdom and determination not to repeat the mistakes of her sister and father?

We will never know the truth about Elizabeth, but I would rather err in giving her too much credit than not enough, and live in hope that one day the movies will do her justice.

8 Replies to “The Virgin Queen”

  1. *snort* It’s a good thing I wasn’t drinking anything while reading your comments on Judi Dench. I actually don’t mind her all that much, but she does seem to have one facial expression, LoL!

    As to Elizabeth, I never doubted her virginity. Hollywood loves to sexualize historic figures, much to my great annoyance, and I never believe a word of it. If she was called the “Virgin Queen” it had to have been a good reason. As you said, she would never have risked pregnancy and scandal so that is enough to convince me.

    As to “Anonymous” I’m torn, but that’s likely because I’m a fan of Shakespeare. I believe he did write all his plays but this is another instance of Hollywood deliberately messing with history. Now there will be doubts in everyone’s minds whenever they study Shakespeare and that’s just ridiculous. Still, I am curious and will probably want to see it, dragging myself all alone to the theater so I can sit and grit my teeth. *winks*

    1. I’d be more of a Judi Dench fan if I had ever been impressed with her acting — but she pretty much plays almost the same person in every single film I have ever seen her in, so… I’m a bit tired of her. Winning an Oscar for doing essentially NOTHING doesn’t help matters.

      The things Hollywood does to historical figures… they make them gay… they make them sexually promiscuous… they change aspects of their personality… they make them nastier than they actually were (or in some cases, nicer)… every time a movie or a miniseries tackles a historical figure, I groan, knowing they are likely to not do them justice. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe this tripe because they saw it in a movie. Lord, save us from stupidity.

      Maybe we should rent it on DVD, run it through ClearPlay, and watch it together — that way you can rant about Shakespeare not being Shakespeare, and I can rant about the Elizabeth’s illegitimate child plot line. =P

  2. Wow, well said, my friend! Very thought-provoking as usual. 🙂

    Speaking of Anonymous…honestly I don’t know if I’ll even rent it. I was interested in it when I first heard about the project, but as clips surfaced and reviews came out that interest has waned…and the portrayal of Elizabeth is probably one of many reasons.

    1. Thank you!

      I had somewhat high expectations for this film — but all the reviews talking about how confusing and poorly scripted it is have made my excitement for it plummet. It wasn’t a good sign when they yanked it from a wide release and threw it into a limited release! That generally screams “bad film.” I will eventually rent it, but my hopes won’t be all that high.

  3. The new movie about Shakespeare does sound/look interesting… however I’ll be likely to see it on DVD.

    Hollywood cannot “help” but make movies more “interesting” by throwing in some twisted notions – perhaps one of these days, the right filmmaker will get a hold of The Tudor family and do them “justice.”

    1. I’ll wait for the DVD too, unless it goes wide (right now it’s only in like 200 theaters nationally). That way I can run it through ClearPlay and avoid the smut. =P

      Hollywood does it… and writers do it. I like Susan Kay’s novels in general, but even her version of Elizabeth eventually got around to sleeping with Robert Dudley!

      I don’t know why “made up stuff” has to be added to the Tudors… they were interesting on their own!! How can you make Henry, Katharine, Elizabeth, Mary, or Anne any more interesting than they actually were?

Share Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s