Throughout history it has been common place to have three related male monarchs ruling their respective nations, perhaps making the closely linked rules of Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Stuart and Catherine de Medici an unsurprising topic of focus. However, the gender of the monarchs appears to sway the focus of analysis, rather than anaylising the political and military successes of these three monarchs there seems to be a greater focus on the social and cultural aspects of their rule. Although this is clearly as a result of a gendered approach to history, it is certainly worth exploring the extent to which these monarchs shared the culture of their subjects while bearing in mind the limitations of such an approach. The extent to which these monarchs shared in the culture of their subjects appears to depend on whether the element of culture transcended all classes; marriage, for example, was an integral part of culture in England leaving only 25% of those under the age of fifty unmarried. Contrastingly, Peter Burke argues that culture was unofficially ratified although this does not mean that every class shared the same culture. Furthermore, some areas of culture appear to be limited such as gilds which were restricted by marital status or gender which excluded the majority of society. This therefore demonstrates that cultural events and festivals were limited to a particular section of society. Thus showing that no monarch could wholly share the culture of their subjects.
The culture of family was largely shared by the three queens, both Mary and Catherine married in order to maintain or improve their prospects. This could suggest that as queens they still conformed to the expectations of women, this might also include Elizabeth as, while being unmarried, she was careful to avoid violating the normalities of being a woman. Remaining unmarried did not violate the normalities of womanhood, in England up to 25% of the population remained unmarried, in Paris 16% of the population remained unmarried, while those who married often entered into negotiated marriages similar to those arranged by the queens. Therefore it could be concluded that in the arrangement of marriages, and in the abstention from marriage, the three queens conformed to the culture of their societies. Thus, the three queens shared in the familial culture of their subjects.
Contrastingly the political nature of royal marriages could suggest that the queens did not share in the culture of their subjects, instead the queens had a separate royal culture as England and France prevented Mary’s marriage to the Spanish Don Carlos in order to preserve the political relations at the time. The idea of a shared royal culture is enforced by the marriage of Mary to Catherine’s son Francis showing that the queens shared a culture that was different to that of their subjects. Both Mary and Elizabeth arranged marriages in order to strengthen the immediate position of their country on the world stage, as Elizabeth’s marriage negotiations with Henry, Duke of Anjou demonstrated. Mary’s marriage to Francis immediately strengthened Scotland’s position but could have made it an appendage of France thus serving the goals of her husband. It could be argued that, as a result of such marriage negotiations, the queens did not experience the culture of their subjects but dictated it; the marriage negotiations of nobility were often made in a similar fashion to maintain the position of both families. It could be argued that Mary was the only queen to experience the culture of her subjects, she was the only queen to remarry, often essential for widows during the period. It could be concluded that the three queens had a limited experience of the marital culture of their subjects due to the nature of queenship.
The culture that the queens experienced was not only affected by the separate class of the monarch but the divisions of gender and between the classes of the public, this affected the extent to which the queens interacted with the popular culture of their subjects. However, there are instances where it appears that the queens were able to share in the culture of their subjects. While common folk could not participate in Great Tradition, introduced by grammar schools, Burke argues that common traditions were experienced by the elites. Elizabeth appreciated clowning in her court, a common tradition which many of her subjects would have appreciated, thus reinforcing the idea that the elites shared common traditions with ordinary people. Furthermore, both Mary and Elizabeth made needlework pieces which was a key part of culture for female subjects. Susan Frye argues that needlework created a female subculture which enabled them to articulate their experiences in an expressive manner. The articulation of needlework allowed a young Elizabeth to depict images of a family she aspired to have, while allowing Mary, as a captive, to create politically charged images alluding to the relationship between Elizabeth and herself, such as A Catte. Therefore it could be concluded that Elizabeth and Mary did participate in the culture of their subjects when it benefited them, for example the use of needlework when they needed an outlet of expression.
The independence of queenship in England and Scotland allowed both Mary and Elizabeth to rule independently but opened them to accusations of being a tyrant, as kings were, by their own governments and international critics. However, by implication, the queens did not share a political culture with their subjects as the queen had power over the men of their government whereas ordinary women would not. In contrast Catherine was unable to rule as queen alone and while she had influence over men like other queens, she could only maintain this influence while she was supported by the court. Therefore while the queens shared a similar culture to their subjects, there were several considerable differences in the cultures that the classes experienced that might suggest the queens could not experience culture in the same way. However, the queens did take part in particular aspects of culture that were associated with femininity in a very similar way to their subjects, such as needlework. This is contrasted by the masculine elements of culture which was associated with queenship which divided the queens from their subjects and left them in a class of their own.
In regards to the extent to which the queens could share a culture with their subjects there were considerable elements of culture which were restricted by gender and social standing. Broadly speaking cultural activities were linked to religion, whether it was religious festivals, such as Christmas and Lent, or the behaviours upheld by religion. Festivals such as Shrove Tide were linked with frivolity such as the apprentices attacking brothels in order to demonstrate their good behaviour and purity. However, while some aspects of festivals, such as Shrove were limited to certain groups, the religious nature of the festival might mean that a broad portion of society, perhaps even including the monarch would have celebrated in their own fashion. However, there were more day to day elements of culture which the queens would not have been able to share with their subjects, not only due to their status as a monarch, but also due to their gender. For example, gilds in which members were able to help themselves and to help their local communities were restricted to particular groups such as married men. Gilds such as the Gild of Our Lady provided facilities for local causes as well as providing services for their members such cows which could be loaned to members.Therefore it could be suggested that while these gilds were valuable in local communities, the local nature of the facilities they provided meant that the queens would not have experienced this culture due to the vast nature of their political role and interest.
In some respects, the cultural connection between our three queens and their subjects was limited, however, there is evidence that the queens shared an ecclesiastical culture with many of their subjects. However, the religious turmoil of the period might imply that there were limitations to the culture shared between a queen and her religiously dissident subjects. In Scotland, the Reformed Church played an important role in politics during Mary’s reign as in 1566 she made concessions to the Reformed Church in order to maintain their support. This demonstrates the importance of religious dissidence as this occurred despite Mary trying to increase the importance of Catholicism in Scotland and must therefore demonstrate the limits of Mary’s links with her subjects. This may suggest that religious conflict prevented the monarch from sharing a culture with their subjects without religious neutrality. In France Catherine experienced similar problems as support for Protestantism was growing and threatened violence. H. M. Salman argues that both Elizabeth and Catherine were more focused on matters of state than religion, suggesting that if they did share in the culture of their subjects it was privately rather than publicly. Therefore it could be concluded that while the queens did share a culture with their subjects, Catherine and Elizabeth only publicly participated in elements which would help them maintain their power. Mary did not participate in the culture of her subjects as her desire to maintain Catholicism was clearly rejected by the public. Thus, it may be concluded that the political importance of culture affected the extent to which the queens participated in it.
Catherine may have been more focused on affairs of the state than on religion yet she followed an approach similar to Mary’s in appealing to the protestant churches which threatened violence. The willingness Catherine showed to work with a growing religious movement suggests that while a monarch was in their own class, they could understand the necessities of the culture their subjects experienced and could experience the common tradition of religion. It could be argued that all three queens experienced the religious culture of their subjects as in managing conflicts over religion both nationally and internationally, the queens would have seen the culture experienced by their subjects. Therefore it could be suggested that religious conflict transcended all classes, thus enabling the queens to experience the culture of their subjects. Burke adds to this as he maintains that festivals such as Carnival were experienced by all classes including royalty such as Henri III of France implying our queens may also have participated. Contrastingly, some aspects of festivals were restricted to certain groups, such as the frivolities of apprentices during Shrove. Due to the restrictions of these aspects, and the limited number of participants, it is unlikely that the queens would have participated in these aspects of culture. Therefore, it could be concluded that while our queens did not experience the same culture of all of their subjects, no two people would have experienced the same culture nor was it necessary for them to do so.
While cultural differences throughout the period appeared to be divisive, such as the conflicts over religion, the large majority of differences were caused as a result of differences in gender and position rather than differences of class. Therefore, it could be suggested that, as common traditions featured in the lives of most people each of the queens were able to experience the commonalities along with their subjects, such as religious festivals and the leisure activities of women. The ability of culture to transcend class divides allows, not only historians to compare the similarities of the queens and their subjects, but also would have allowed the queens to gain the support of their subjects by participating activities and behaviour they would approve of. Thus, it could be concluded that the queens shared in the culture of their subjects by nature as well as by political ideal; the extent to which each queen shared the culture depended on the individual queen and was not linked to the title.
This article is based on an essay I wrote during my first year of uni (2016-17) for ‘Three Queens and Their Subjects’ run by Dr Michael Roberts. Turning this into a blog article I hope makes this topic more accessible, but has also shown me the extent to which my writing has changed and grown since the beginning of my batchelors degree.
Bibliography:
Rafaella Sarti, Europe at Home: Family and Material Culture 1500-1800, (Italy, 2002)
Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe, (Aldershot, 1994)
Judy Anne Ford, ‘A View from a Village: Popular Political Culture in Sixteenth Century England’ Journal of Popular Text, Vol. 34, No. 2, (2000)
Anne Yarbrough, ‘Apprentices as Adolescents in Sixteenth Century Bristol’, Journal of Social History, Vol. 13, No. 1, (1979)
J. H. M. Salman, Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century, (London, 1979)
Betty Travitsky, The Paradise of Women, (New York and Oxford, 1989)
D. M. Palliser, The Age of Elizabeth: England under the Tudors 1547-1603, (New York, 1983)
Annik Pardainé-Galabrun, The Birth of Intimacy, (Oxford, 1991)
G. R. Elton, England under the Tudors, (London and Southampton, 1958)
Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish Reformation, (London, 1982)
Barry Reay, Popular Cultures in England 1550-1750, (New York, 1998)
Susan Frye ‘Sewing Connections: Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth Talbot and Seventeenth Century Anonymous Needleworkers’ in Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens, eds. Susan Frye and Karen Robertson, (Oxford, 1998)
Embroidered panel, of cruciform shape, depicting a ginger cat with a mouse on a chequered floor, bearing the cipher of Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Queen of Scots’ Outer Chamber, Palace of Holyroodhouse, Royal Collection Trust, https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/28224/a-catte, accessed 3rd March 2017
The Colourful Historian 