However, although traditionalist historians such as Neale agree that Elizabeth did not want to have a power struggle between herself and a foreign power, they believe that this refusal may have stemmed from the inability to have children, rather than anything to do with escaping ideals of womanhood. She may have been barren due to syphilis – and therefore she would not only be losing her power, but unable to carry out her duty as a queen: to bear an heir. This would suggest that she was not divinely chosen by God, fuelling the beliefs of those who already thought she was illegitimate due to her father’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and therefore could lead to her being thrown off the throne.
Nevertheless, the notion that Elizabeth chose not to marry because she wanted to escape from the 16th century gender stereotypes may be true to some extent because of the psychological impact through her childhood, as revisionist historians assert – she was taught that “male” characteristics such as dominance, aggression and fearlessness mattered, and were necessary in order to become a strong queen. She also knew that there was a correlation in her family between sexual intercourse and violent death. Thus in order for her to stay healthy and strong to command her country and protect it from potential foreign Catholic attacks, she needed to avoid the strains of childbirth and adopt the more male characteristics. Therefore it may be true that Elizabeth chose not to marry to escape the 16th century ideals of womanhood.
However, Doran, supporting the post-revisionist view, argues that such speculations are suspect, as they are based on unproved models of human behaviour, with no real factual evidence. Randell, supporting the same view also asserts that the reasons for upper-class women to marry, namely to show obedience to their parents’ wishes and for financial security, did not apply to Elizabeth. Therefore it may be that she didn’t feel the need to marry. Consequently, it may be that Elizabeth decided not to marry due to other, more pressing reasons rather than trying to escape from stereotypical gender roles.
One of the main reasons could be the political situation. England was in a vulnerable position at the beginning of her reign – it was divided by religious turmoil caused by her predecessors and she had the dilemma of which way to steer the country – towards Protestantism or Catholicism. The Catholic Mary Queen of Scots was a threat, as although there were few extreme Catholics in England, she could have potentially influenced and gained many supporters (especially since many regarded her as the legitimate heir to the throne). In addition, Mary was married to the Dauphin of France, a Catholic country, and Spain was nearby too - bringing about a potential three Catholic fronts against England if it were to be involved in a religious war, which it had neither the army nor finances to fight. Elton, a revisionist historian, asserts that Elizabeth’s reasons not to marry was to keep diplomacy between the other countries – she was keeping their alliance and not offending any other suitors, that could anger them and bring about war, by not accepting any marriage proposals.
In addition to this, the fact that England was in such a vulnerable position, religiously and financially, made her all the more determined to build up an iconic picture of the Virgin Queen in order to gather supporters within the country, as revisionist historians believe. Therefore she could have been avoiding marriage in order to appease foreign powers and keep the peace in her own country too – a much more important issue than merely wanting to break gender stereotypes, as a war could potentially ruin England.
However, Randell, a post-revisionist historian, argues that she at no point made an actual conscious decision to never marry. He asserts that surviving evidence is contradictory, and that although Elizabeth had much to say on the subject, inspired guesswork is required to distinguish the views that were expressed for mere effect and propaganda from those that were genuinely held, therefore her opinions seemed changeable and lacking in coherence. He believes that there was never a suitable partner who would have been acceptable to a majority of the English political classes. As the revisionist view supports, Dudley was her favourite, yet after the scandals surrounded the relationship as a result of the sudden death of his wife, she wouldn’t have wanted to be surrounded by the conspiracy. Randell also asserts that she never refused to consider a prospective husband who was in the country’s interests – twice she refrained from marriage for the sake of the country when her strong personal inclination was to proceed. For example, if she had married Dudley, it may have caused factionalism in the Privy Council; many would see this as favouritism as Dudley was a man of little sense. Factionlism would tear up the Privy Council and so the whole country would be unstable. Also, it was impossible for her, a Protestant, to marry Catholic suitors from Spain or France, therefore her failure to never take a husband and produce and heir resulted from there never being a situation in which to do so would not lead to a loss for the country.
In conclusion, it is true to a certain extent that Elizabeth did not marry in order to escape 16th century ideals of womanhood as she was haunted psychologically by childhood experiences and wanted to stay in control of the English throne. However, I think that keeping the peace at home and abroad was the main factor. If she had agreed to a foreign marriage it could have provoked a war that England was not ready to fight, spelling complete invasion, whereas internal problems in the country, such as factionalism, were easier to resolve. Also, if she had married a foreign power then it would have meant complete loss of power for Elizabeth. It may have been true that she never made a conscious decision not to marry – but if so, she wouldn’t have avoided marriage proposals from Philip of Spain for so long, and the evidence for this is unclear. Therefore I only believe that the statement is true to a certain extent.
