Thanks to Sarah Gristwood for taking some time out to talk to us about her new book, Game of Queens. It looks at Europe’s ruling women in the 16th century – there are a surprising amount!
Learn more about Sarah at her website.
Purchase some of Sarah’s books here. They are all so well researched, and so interesting.
Game of Queens: The Women Who Made Sixteenth-Century Europe
UK version, click here.
Elizabeth and Leicester: The Truth about the Virgin Queen and the Man She Loved
UK version, click here.
Blood Sisters: The Women Behind the Wars of the Roses
UK version, click here.
Other Resources:
The Monstrous Regiment of Women: Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe (Queenship and Power) by Sharon Jansen
The Rise of Female Kings in Europe by William Monter
Warrior Queens from Antonia Fraser
Here’s Sarah Gristwood talking about Amy Dudley and Leicester:
Transcript for Sarah Gristwood on Game of Queens
Heather:
Hello and welcome to the Renaissance English History Podcast. I’m your host, Heather Teysko. I’m a storyteller who makes history accessible because I believe it’s a pathway to understanding who we are, our place in the universe, and our own humanity.
Today. I’m talking with Sarah Gristwood, a notable Tudor and royal author about her new book Game of Queens, which is a fascinating look at the women who ruled 16th century Europe.
Just a couple of quick notes before we get started: Have you bought your 2017 diary or planner yet? If not, I’ve got a Tudor-refic deal for you. Yes, I seriously just said “Tudor-refic”. I said it. Oh my goodness. So go to tudorplanner.com and check out the planner that I’ve designed.
It’s got monthly and weekly pages and it’s full of Tudor history -this week’s Tudor history, this month’s quotes from Tudors that we love, and musical listening suggestions with a special playlist that you can go to. So you can get it in hardcover paperback. They’re going to be shipped in December in time for Christmas, if you order early. There’s also a PDF printable. So you can go to tudorplanner.com and check it out.
Also, the Renaissance English History Podcast is a proud member of the Agora Podcast Network. The Agora Podcast of the Month is the History of Islam. It’s a really interesting look at Muslim history and Islamic history. You can find it at historyofIslampodcast.blogspot.com or all of the normal usual podcasting places.
Finally, I’ve got links going up on the England cast.com site for all of Sarah’s information links to her books, everything like that. Go to Englandcast.com for that.
Let me introduce you to Sarah Gristwood. She’s a bestselling Tudor biographer, former film journalist, and commentator on royal affairs. After leaving Oxford, Sarah Gristwood began work as a journalist, writing at first about the theater, as well as general features on everything from gun control to Giorgio Armani.
But increasingly she found herself specializing in film interviews, Johnny Depp, and Robert de Niro, Martin Scorsese, and Paul McCartney. She has appeared in most of the UK’s leading newspapers – The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Daily, and Sunday, and magazines from Cosmopolitan to Country Living and Sight and Sound to the New Statesman.
Turning to history, she wrote two bestselling Tudor biographies – Arbella: England’s Lost Queen and Elizabeth and Leicester. In September 2012, she brought out a new nonfiction book – Blood Sisters: The Women Behind the Wars of the Roses, which is also quite fabulous I have to say, and Game of Queens has just come out.
She’s a regular media commentator on royal and historical affairs. She was one of the teams providing Radio 4’s live coverage of the royal wedding and has since spoken on the Queen’s Jubilee and the royal baby and other royal stories for Sky News, Women’s Hour, Radio 5 Live, and the CBC. Shortlisted for both the Marsh Biography Award and the Ben Pimlott Prize for Political Writing.
She is a fellow of the RSA and an honorary patron of Historic Royal Palaces. She and her husband the film critic, Derek Malcolm live in London and Kent.
Sarah, thank you so much for being on the Renaissance English History Podcast. I’m so excited to talk with you about your new book, Game of Queens.
I would like to start with, if you could give us kind of a basic introduction to the book. Why you wrote it? And sort of some of the changes and developments in the role of Queens in this time period.
Sarah:
Well, the 16th century or the long 16th century, if you like, from the 1480’s through to the death of Elizabeth I in 1603 was a real age of queens. Large chunks of Europe were under the hand of either a queen regnant or a female regent. That bit about “in Europe” is important because that’s what really struck me.
We, all in England and the English-speaking countries, we know about the Tudors. We know about the Stuarts. But we don’t know so much about what’s happening in the non-English-speaking countries, basically. Yet those women in continental Europe had a huge influence, not only on their own lands, but also on our queens. That’s rather got forgotten today.
When I began looking at this, this subject, I was really struck also about the connections between the women. About how lessons in power and how to use it, must’ve passed from mother to daughter, a mentor to protege, and this really quite surprising links there.
Heather:
It seems like a lot of the changes with queenship were sort of wrapped up in the religious changes as well. That’s another huge theme of the century. I’m just thinking, when you talked about mentor and mentee, protege, and mothers and daughters about, Anne Boleyn being cast as a Protestant and being raised perhaps in a more humanist way, and then Catherine with her mother bringing in the inquisition in Spain, I just kind of wonder how religious tensions kind of tie in with some of these changes.
Sarah:
Yeah, I think there’s a huge link there. I mean, I really do see the religious differences as having brought an end to that age of queens. Because earlier in the 16th century, women really could have huge links across nations.
Margaret of Austria for example, she was herself brought up by Anne de Beaujeu the regent of France. Her mother-in-law was Isabella of Castile in Spain, then sister-in-law to Catherine of Aragon and would later help Catherine of Aragon get legal advice for her troubles with Henry.
But at the same time, Margaret of Austria helped raise Anne Boleyn. Anne Boleyn was at her court for a very important year or so. So early in the century, you’ve got all these links. Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon had huge links to the continent. But by the latter part of the century, think about the Tudor daughters, that had really gone and the reason is I think religion.
Religion is what separated, not only Mary Tudor but Elizabeth Tudor, her half-sister, Elizabeth Tudor from most of the rulers, the powerful women on the continent. Of course, it was what made it impossible for her to live with Mary Queen of Scots. I really do see the religious divisions of the century as ripping apart the bonds between women.
Heather:
Something you mentioned there with these bonds. I was really interested in “The Ladies Peace” that you talked about early on. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
Sarah:
Absolutely. Yeah, no, I agree, it’s fascinating. In fact, that was one of the real first sort of keys for the book coming across this thing of which I’d never heard. The Ladies Peace of Cambrai in 1529, because it was celebrated between Margaret of Austria, the one about whom I’ve just been speaking about and Louise of Savoy.
So Margaret of Austria was Regent of the Netherlands on behalf of her nephew, Charles V. Louise of Savoy was the mother of the French King, François I, who’d also acted as his regent when he was away. Those two obviously the Habsburgs and France were perpetually at enmity, that was the other big theme of the 16th century.
But at this point, the end of the 1520’s, the two women got together. There are actually letters from Margaret of Austria to Louise of Savoy, talking about how difficult it would be for the men, because they had their own sense of honor to consider. Which is a polite way of saying, they were going to be posturing young bucks basically, but how easy it were for ladies to come forth in such an undertaking.
Essentially that if they kept their young men out of the way, they, (two women, actually three women, because Louise brought her daughter, Margaret of Navarre) could settle down and get the business sorted as indeed they did.
Heather:
Yeah, and can you tell me a little bit about that? What they were able to solve?
Sarah:
Well, Margaret of Austria and Louise of Savoy had known each other in youth because they had both been brought up partly in the care of that powerful French regent Anne de Beaujeu, a woman who actually wrote a manual of instruction – Lessons for my Daughter, a manual instruction for powerful women. So they’d known each other in childhood.
Then one of Margaret’s three marriages had made her Louise’s sister-in-law. So while on the one hand, one was Habsburg, one was French, they were on opposite sides of a political divide. On the other, they had all these old, it must’ve been shared memories, shared alliances. I think that’s really important.
You see that time and time again, and you do see the women quite consciously calling those ties into play. I mean, the battle of, sorry, we’re skipping a nation, but the Battle of Flodden between England and Scotland, where Catherine of Aragon acting as regent in the absence of her husband, Henry VIII, sent the English army North to massacre the Scottish army at Flodden. Margaret Tudor, Catherine’s sister-in-law Henry VIII’s sister said that if only she and Catherine of Aragon could have met before the battle, perhaps it could have been avoided.
Heather:
Yeah, it’s interesting because you brought up Anne de Beaujeu, I was really interested in that manual she wrote and how she talked about how widows should try to keep their power and not be pushed into marriage as easily, or just be really aware of the power that they had.
As I was reading, it seemed like the women of France and the women of the continent were kind of listening to that a bit more. Of course, the women in England didn’t have that experience during Henry’s time. But Scotland, it seemed like such a different kind of experience both with Margaret Tudor and then later on. So can you tell me a little bit about the differences there?
Sarah:
Yeah, no, I agree that Scotland is an odd one. The irony is it did have two women who tried to, and to some degree did take control of the country. Margaret Tudor, after the death of her husband, James IV, it looked for a while as if she would at least be able to head the regency council.
But then she effectively threw it all away by making a disastrous second (very unpopular in the country) second, and then third marriage. In other words, she made exactly the mistakes that her granddaughter, Mary Queen of Scots made. Now in between those two, there came Marie de Guise who did rule the country as regent during part of the minority of her daughter, Mary Queen of Scots were in France. Perhaps she made a much better job of it, but nonetheless, she too had great difficulties.
So maybe it does say something about the Scottish situation. Because I agree that Scotland is a bit of a sort of standout here. But that may be down to the sort of turbulent nature of the country and the very different relationship that the Nobles felt they had with the crown. But it is striking.
I agree with you about the widows thing particularly. Anne de Beaujeu’s manual it’s great, Isn’t it? I love some of the things like where she says that no need to wear too much finery because past 40, no finery in your dresses can make the wrinkles disappear. Never heard of Botox, has she? But she really is writing a lot for widows.
I think it’s important for us now to remember that that in many ways was the time of a woman’s power because before she married, she was effectively considered a child in the custody of the care of a male parent or guardian. While she was married she was subordinate to her husband.
But as the widow, it might be another story. Very many of these women did actually achieve their power in widowhood. Many of them, I may say, were fought tooth and nail against the eagerness of their male relations to marry them off again.
I mean, Margaret of Austria’s relations were pushing her to make a fourth marriage possibly with Henry VII of England. But she very sensibly was having none of it. Instead she became not only Regent of the Netherlands, but at the very heart of European diplomacy. She clearly preferred her independent life that way.
Heather:
I thought it was interesting, you talked about widows and their power, when women were girls and how little power they had, and I suppose that’s for women of all classes. But you see it specifically with royalty. I thought it was interesting, there was the line that Marguerite of Navarre wrote about how a good daughter has no right to a will of her own.
So I was wondering just about the relationship, you touched on it a little bit – these networks of women and how they were all related, but between mother and daughter, there’s this story of how Margaret Beaufort tried to protect Margaret Tudor from having to go to Scotland too early. And so I just wonder, how could young girls be protected by their mothers and grandmothers and what was that relationship like?
Sarah:
Yeah. Well, I think there’s several things there, actually. One is yes, as you say, you do see things like Margaret Beaufort who had herself been married off terribly early and become pregnant at 12. You do see her trying to protect her own granddaughter from a similar fate. In fact, James of Scotland may well have been a bit more humane and weighted unlike Margaret Beaufort’s husband.
But the amount the women could do was limited. Of course, often these women didn’t have the chance to bring up their children themselves, not in a very hands-on way. That really brings onto the other point that, yes, I agree, these young girls, perhaps these princesses, perhaps even more than ordinary young girls really were pawns.
That’s the name of my book Game of Queens. The chess game pawns to be moved around the board for the advantage of their family and the trouble with that is that very, very often that meant they’d be married off to cement a fallen alliance with someone who had a country, which had been, and would be again, an enemy of the country where they were born.
So actually Margaret Tudor in Scotland is the absolutely prime example. She was married off by her father, Henry VII to the Scottish King, just to cement an alliance with Scotland. But Scotland and England were perpetually at enmity. When the battle broke out, Flodden, you had the armies of Margaret’s brother and her natal country killing her husband.
The only person to whom she could appeal for help in ruling Scotland was that same brother who just massacred so many Scotsman whose armies had. So they really were caught in this impossible tag between loyalty to their natal family, whose ambassador in a way they was supposed to be, loyalty to the country and to which they’d married. Really an agonizing position to be in.
Heather:
Can you give me any examples of a woman or a queen who handled it really well and was successful?
Sarah:
Who handled that particular type of loyalty?
Heather:
Yeah, who was able to kind of navigate it and was successful with that?
Sarah:
Oh, do you know, I have to pause for a minute to think about this one. Catherine of Aragon of course managed it for a long time. But then in the end, as we all know too well, her marriage with Henry broke down. Then she was trying to appeal to her continental family and their connections in a sense to protect her against her husband. I mean, I think a lot of these women managed it, managed it to a greater or lesser degree. But of course, it depends, to just how directly the two countries were at war.
Heather:
I see, interesting. Yeah, it also seems like some of them were really devoted to their brothers. I was thinking about Marguerite of Navarre and also Margaret Tudor to a certain extent. It just seemed like a really interesting relationship.
I wonder, especially because they wouldn’t think that they would have grown up together because the boys would have been kept separate, although with Henry and Margaret, I suppose they grew up together. So can you talk a little bit about that?
Sarah:
Well, yeah, absolutely. I’m not sure that I’d see Henry and Margaret as being devoted, actually if anything, that was a rather fractious relationship. I mean, Henry VIII, this is a little rich coming from him, blamed Margaret for not sticking her second marriage. Said divorce was an outrageous thing, marriage was sacred. Talk about pots.
But Marguerite of Navarre and her brother, I absolutely agree. That’s a very weird relationship. Marguerite, her mother Louise, François, Louise’s son, Margaret’s brother was so close, they were known as the trinity. I mean, there’s all sorts of letters from Marguerite.
When, for example, she finally became pregnant, writing about how much she resented the baby in her womb, because it might distract her from attention to her brother. Writing time and gain, about how the interest of her child and her husband was nothing compared to those of her brother.
Well, you have to make some allowance, of course, for the rhetoric of court writing of the 16th century. But even so, you can see why historians of the 19th century certainly suggested that the relationship between Marguerite and François was as incestuously close physically as it certainly was emotionally. That’s probably going too far, but all the same, it was a weird one.
But it may not just be sisters and brothers because Louise’s, their mother’s devotion to François was also extreme. Perhaps one has to say that for some of these women, not all, their male relations were a kind of surrogate. In France which subscribed to the Salic Law, which said that a woman could never hold the throne. The closest that women could get to power was through a male relative. So perhaps there’s something of that going on there. And perhaps that’s why you don’t see it quite so much in England.
Heather:
Yeah. Interesting. So that was all kind of early 16th century. Then in England, of course, there’s the whole story with Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots that has been lots of books written about that.
But what do you think, with Elizabeth, how was all of this growing up seeing all of this happening? What do you think she took from that? How did that influence her later with never getting married and everything else?
Sarah:
Yeah. Well, it’s an interesting one, isn’t it? Because of course, Elizabeth’s mother, Anne Boleyn died in her early childhood. And apart from her last stepmother, Katherine Parr, she didn’t really have the experience I’m talking about of watching a woman handle power. Katherine Parr, of course, was briefly left as regent of England. But nonetheless, it is interesting, isn’t it?
Because one has to feel that someone as well-educated as Elizabeth would have learned something, would have been aware of the continental experience, would have read some of the books written by these women even. But one of the questions I asked myself was whether the relationship between Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart could ever have gone differently. Could Elizabeth effectively have mentored Mary? But I think the answer is no.
I think really it was the religious question that did it there. Because the trouble was that the Catholics. Elizabeth Tudor was a bastard and a usurper. The throne of England belonged to Mary Queen of Scots. You couldn’t really ever get past that. There was no way that if Elizabeth had–
They talked about that. They fantasize about it. That if only they two could get married. They joked about it. They wrote of themselves as mother and daughter. Elizabeth at one point suggested that Mary Queen of Scots should marry her own Robert Dudley – favorite, and many said, lover, Leicester. That then they should all live in some sort of weird château at Elizabeth court. I know, but it was never going to happen. Really there was no way it could do.
The other question of course is why. Why when Elizabeth Tudor did, by and large, managed triumphantly to rule England. I mean, even if the last years of her reign were not as successful as what came before, we do look back on her reign as a real triumph of monarchy.
At the same time, Mary Stuart failed so spectacularly in Scotland. But I think again, I’m sure it’s partly temperament. It may even be the fact that Mary Queen of Scots came to the throne and indeed began actually to try and rule so young. While Elizabeth was a very experienced mid-twenties. But it is also, I think due to the situation of those two countries. The relationship of the parliaments and the nobles to the monarch.
Heather:
Yeah. Scotland was much more–
Sarah:
Yeah, yeah. And where the nobles basically expected to have even more of a say in the handling of the affairs.
Heather:
And plus Mary Queen of Scots wasn’t raised in Scotland, so.
Sarah:
No, that’s right. She was raised in France. She was raised to be Queen Consort of France, not ruler of Scotland. Of course, she was a Catholic returning to a largely Protestant country.
Heather:
Yeah. I noticed the part where you talked about the subjects that she excelled in, needle point and dancing, and how she used to come to the council meetings and do her needle point.
Sarah:
I know. I mean, I’m sure Elizabeth I was also a good needlewoman, but I don’t quite see her stitching through council meetings.
Heather:
Yeah. So, were there any surprises that you found that you didn’t expect as you were researching and writing this book?
Sarah:
Well, yes. I mean, in a sense the whole subject was a surprise to me when I first began just to discover just how regularly chunks of Europe were ruled by a woman. The Netherlands, for example, Margaret of Austria was succeeded by a niece. She’d raised Mary of Hungary who was succeeded by a niece she’d raised. So that’s an amazing line of female regents.
But in terms of individual personalities, yeah, I think the two surprises that I didn’t know more about Margaret of Austria. I mean, she seemed to me such a compelling figure and one with so many links to England. But it’s very odd that more of us don’t know about her because most of us really don’t.
The other surprise I have to say, and a less pleasant one was Marguerite of Navarre. Because I knew of her as someone who Anne Boleyn regarded as some sorts of mentor. I knew of her as a very prolific published author, as a thinker, as a leader of the group of noble leaders who were trying to reform the Catholic church from within.
So I kind of expected to really admire her. Of course, I do, but in some ways, I was a bit surprised to find her quite such of a(sorry, I can’t think of a lighter way of saying it) such an emotional mess. ‘Cause she was a deeply conflicted and contradictory figure. So that was a little bit of a shock, if I’m honest.
Heather:
Yeah. You u talked at length about her relationship with her daughter as well and her daughter’s marriage. It seems like she–
Sarah:
Yeah, that’s right. There was a very, very strange situation where she seemed to be simultaneously forcing her daughter into a marriage for the benefit of her brother King François. Then denying that she’s played any part in it. So the daughter was left saying no, that she wouldn’t marry this man. But her mother said that she’d have her whipped.
It’s a nasty and a fairly incomprehensible story. Of course, the daughter was Jeanne d’Albret who would herself play a huge part in the events of the latter part of the century. She inherited her father’s small but strategically very important Pyrenian kingdom of Navarre and converted to the reformed religion.
So it was she and Catherine de Medici trying to negotiate across the religious divides to make a marriage between Catherine’s daughter and Jeanne’s son, which provided the trigger for the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day.
Heather:
Do you have a favorite queen story?
Sarah:
A favorite single story? I don’t know. I’ve got a lot of sort of favorite moments if you like. I’ve got some favorite girly moments, actually. I rather love the fact that when Catherine de Medici and Jeanne d’Albret when negotiating this marriage that was supposed to help heal France’s religious divides, they took a day out to go shopping around the boutiques in Paris together, disguised as bourgeois housewives.
Heather:
Wow. That’s amazing.
Sarah:
I do love The Ladies Peace of 1529. Oh, I love something, I’m sorry, I’m quoting from memory, but something that Mary of Hungary wrote to her brother, Charles V after the execution of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII’s very speedy marriage to Jane Seymour.
She wrote that “It’s to be hoped, if one can hope anything from such a man, that if this Jane bores him, he’ll find another way of getting rid of her.” Because I think she said something like, “I think it wouldn’t be very much in most women’s, most women wouldn’t much like it, if cutting off your wife’s head became the normal proceedings.” And I thought that was a good one.
Heather:
Exactly. So what other, obviously there’s your book, but if people are interested in learning more about this, they should read your book. But then if they want to go deeper, what other sorts of sources can you recommend to them?
Sarah:
Right. Well, there are biographies or academic writings certainly on the continental women, that there is a certain amount in English though. It’s not necessarily very new, but it is there. Although there are a couple of books I would definitely recommend. However, there are three books really that I’d say go to.
The first is Antonia Fraser‘s groundbreaking Boadicea’s Chariot The Warrior Queens. It’s not a new book now. I think it was published in 1988 though often re-issued and it covers the warrior queens as she sees them, right through from early history to her present day. That’s got some absolutely compelling patterns that she draws out.
The other two more recently that I noticed particularly, As again, drawing out the patterns, sort of looking at the queenship across Europe in a broader way. One is The Rise of the Female Kings in Europe, 1300 – 1800 by William Monter. That was from Yale a few years ago. The other is one by Sharon L. Jansen’s The Monstrous Regiment of Women Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe. All three of those I’d heartily recommend.
Heather:
Excellent. Well, you have been so gracious with your time. Is there anything else that you want to add that I haven’t asked that you think is important?
Sarah:
Well, I guess only the question of what happened to the Age of Queens and all that, any echoes for the present day? Now, you and I are speaking the week after a woman has just failed to win the world’s most powerful office. I wrote of course, at a time when that all looked hopeful.
Nonetheless, we do have women at the helm now in England and in Scotland – Angela Merkel, Christine Lagarde. So, although I’d see this 16th century Age of Queens as ending really with Elizabeth I, then one sees it again in the 18th century in Russia, the age of Catherine the Great.
I would like to think that an example of women holding power is as major as we saw in the 16th century doesn’t ever entirely go away. I mean, perhaps what’s just happened in the States shows that many of the challenges, these women still, these women face then are still relevant today.
Because I do believe they are. You can see the same sort of pattern. But nonetheless, I like to think that two steps forward, even if it’s there one step back, you get there in the end. I’d like to think put it this way “But in the Game of Queens, there are still some moves to play.”
Heather:
Yes. I would like to think that as well. So I’m American, so–
Sarah:
I know, yes.
Heather:
Well, we won’t go any further than that. On that note, so the new book is Game of Queens and you can get it where all books are sold. It’s a wonderful book. I really appreciate you being so generous with your time and talking to me and talking to–
Sarah:
No, thank you.
Heather:
Many thanks to Sarah Gristwood for taking the time to talk with us today. Remember to go to Englandcast.com to get links, to buy all of her books, and find out more about her. She’s been so generous with her time and it was really great to speak with her.
So Hannah, I’ve still got your Anne of Cleves episode coming, hopefully by the end of this week, if not early next week. In the meantime, go to Englandcast.com for show notes. Check out the tours and the Tudor planner. I will talk with you again very soon. Thanks a lot. Have a great week, everybody!
[advertisement insert here: if you like this show, and you want to support me and my work, the best thing you can do (and it’s free!) is to leave a rating or review on iTunes. It really helps others discover the podcast. Second best is to buy Tudor-themed gifts for all your loved ones at my shop, at TudorFair.com, like leggings with the Anne Boleyn portrait pattern on them, or boots with Elizabeth I portraits. Finally, you can also become a patron of this show for as little as $1/episode at Patreon.com/englandcast … And thank you!]
Heather Teysko is the creator, writer, and producer of The Renaissance English History Podcast, the original Tudor history podcast, started in 2009. She's been writing about history online for over 25 years, since her first site on Colonial American history became number one in history on Yahoo in 1998. In 2019 she created Tudorcon, which is now a yearly event, in addition to writing books, and running TudorFair.com - a whimsical Tudor Merch shop.
She has been passionate about Tudor England since she first read Alison Weir's The Six Wives of Henry VIII 30 years ago, and subsequently moved to London after college to spend her time immersed in Tudor history (how exciting when she got to interview Alison for the first time!). In addition to history, she is passionate about travel, and has lived in 3 countries and 4 states (not counting her perpetual state of confusion), and her family (who help her host her YouTube channel occasionally).
