I've been a big fan of Susan Bordo ever since I read The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at Englands Most Notorious Queen .

Here's an interesting article that gives you a taste of her thought provoking style. I'll also post a few snippets to get you started

Elizabeth Is Challenge to the Masculinity of the Royal Body by Susan Bordo

Lacey Baldwin Smith has written that Tudor portraits bear about as much resemblance to their subjects as elephants to prunes. A slight exaggeration, maybe. But it is true that the historical accuracy of the depictions in Tudor portraits, particularly of royalty, was often at war with symbolic iconizingthe use of imagery to represent the persons character, position or role.

The symbolism could include inscriptions, emblems, mottos, relationships with other people, animals, or objects, and it could also be written into the body itself. A famous example is Hans Holbeins sketch of Henry VIIIthe painting itself was destroyed in a firewith the king posed to emphasize his power, authority, and resoluteness: legs spread and firmly planted, broad shoulders, one hand on his dagger, and a very visible codpiece (larger, art historians have noted, than portraits of other men at the time.) His stance, as Suzannah Lipscomb points out, mimics the stance of a man standing in full armoursparking associations with martial glory. Lipscomb also points out an interesting detail: in the draft sketch, Henrys face is turned to a angle. But in the final painting, as we know from 16th century copies done within Henrys lifetime, Holbein has Henry looking straight ahead, confronting the spectator with an unblinking stare that is still symbolic of masculinity today.

[[snip]

When the monarch is female, however, the situation is very different. The female body, being famously associated with inferior intelligence, emotional instability, and indeed, as French philosopher Beauvoir wrote, with the body itself, weighed down by everything peculiar to it is virtually defined by its imperfections. And when reproduction fails, of course, it is the Queen who is to blame. So, Katherine of Aragons, and then Anne Boleyns failure to produce a male heir was taken by Henry as a sign from God that he was married to the wrong woman. It was unthinkable that it should be Henrys fault, for as we have seen, when the monarchs body is male, the biological body and the second, more mystical body of kingly authority operate in tandem, a supportive pair. The biological body of the queen, in contrast, like all female bodies an undependable quagmire of female stuff, only becomes mystically aligned with God when chosen by the King, and that mystique only lasts so long as she produces heirs.

So its no wonder that Annes daughter, Elizabeth I, felt the need to dissociate herself from that female body, as in her famous speech at Tilsbury, to the troops about to fight the Spanish Armada.

Enjoy!!

--
Proprietress of Tatiana's Tea Room ~ Owner of the Provence Coeur Estate ~ Webmistress of this site

updated by @tatiana-dokuchic: 06 Oct 2016 06:36:20AM

Interesting! It's shocking that not too long ago this line of thinking was so strong, and unfortunately still is present in our society. Still, we've come a long way!

Yes, probably the fact that we now find it shocking goes towards how much attitudes have changed. Though, you're right, there's still a ways to go.

It's fascinating to see how female rulers adapted (or not) in an attempt to control their situations. I love following the female networks: Elizabeth I learned from Katherine Parr and followed some of the same "rules of conduct" set up by the first queen regnant of England, her sister Mary I (daughter of Katherine of Aragon, granddaughter of Isabella of Castile). Then there were the examples of Marguerite de Navarre, Margaret of Austria etc. (I could go on & on).

All those women making a mark in the world during exceedingly difficult times.

--
Proprietress of Tatiana's Tea Room ~ Owner of the Provence Coeur Estate ~ Webmistress of this site

I don't know, the author compares monarch Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon. However, the latter two were no monarchs, but Queen consorts. They were part of the monarchy, but not monarchs themselves. (And even the the legitimacy of Anne Boleyn and the four others as Queen consorts was questioned). They exercised no (official) political power, so they have no need to appear 'masculine' in their paintings or in life. Their roles are not comparable, so we should not be surprised at the way they are presented differently. Their primary function, as for all royal wives, was to produce heirs. This as opposed to Elizabeth I, who was a monarch in her own right. I think Elizabeth I's body was considered aligned with God as well (or with Mary Stuart..), as Elizabeth I herself claimed, and I think people believed it, particularly as she booked many successes, and because people believed their rulers to be appointed by God, man or woman.

I agreeBordo used the term "monarch" rather loosely when she spoke of Anne Boleyn & Katherine of Aragon as they were each aQueen Consort rather than a Queen Regnant. As an interesting note, both Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr were granted temporary powers to rule the country while Henry was off fighting in France.

I didn't get the sense thatBordo thought they should be portrayed in a more masculine manner but rather that their primary function (in Henry's eyes at least) was to produce a male heir. This failure meant (again to Henry) they were not mystically aligned with God and therefore had to go. Anne's image was later rehabilitated as the "mother ofa new age" by the Protestant faction.

I quite enjoyed this assessment of Elizabeth:

The more plausible idea, and as suggested by the historical evidence, is that Elizabeth was both a smart politician and a woman who genuinely enjoyed and did not merely simulate courtly banter, flirtatious teasing, and the admiration of the men around her. She didnt have to fake either side of her personality; if her father and mother are any evidence, she came by both quite naturally".

From what I understand Elizabeth believed that rulers were chosen by God and it was one of the reasons that she "allowed" her successor to be James I who had the best claim with regard to primogeniture but whose line had been skipped over entirely by Henry VIII.

--
Proprietress of Tatiana's Tea Room ~ Owner of the Provence Coeur Estate ~ Webmistress of this site