Queen Victoria was once the most powerful woman in the world. In all of history, there has been no single woman more powerful than the little queen. Given her position, Victoria must have believed women were capable of ruling. She must have believed they should  be in power.

Then why did the Queen say this in 1870?

“I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights’, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection.”

It is sometimes said, or implied, that women who are anti-feminist are jealous of the successes of others or are lacking in ambition or are just plain stupid. But, what of the Queen? Here’s what a feminist would probably say. The Queen could not possibly understand the plight of ordinary women because of her extraordinary prerogatives.  There’s no way an anti-feminist can come out ahead. She’s either elitist or a dolt.

Rose writes:

It was my understanding that Queen of Britain was largely a symbolic and ceremonial title by the 19th century. When thinking of powerful women, my mind turns to Hapshetsut the Pharoahess and in the modern world, Queen Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great.

Laura writes:

Given the size of the British Empire under Victoria, covering nearly a quarter of the land mass of the planet and 25 percent of its population, and given that the Queen was important in setting the tone of this vigorous empire and even was considered quasi-divine by some of her people, it seems she was at least as powerful as Elizabeth and Catherine. The British migrated to distant parts of the globe, motivated not just by commercial interests and power, but by an emotional bond to Mother Country, Crown and the Queen herself. When she attended her Jubilee service at St. Paul’s, the Daily Mail reported she was paying her respects to the one entity “more majestic than she.”  

Here’s one small example of the Queen’s influence. When the draft proclamation establishing Crown rule in India was written, the Queen added this in her own hand: “Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alike the rights and the desire to impose our convictions on any of our subjects.” (This and the news item above comes from James Morris’ Pax Britannica.)

Natalie writes:

I’m very much enjoying your site. I particularly liked your analysis of the marriage of Winston and Clementine Churchill.
 
However, I just thought you should know that the British have not seen their monarchy as quasi diety since the Civil War and the Interregnum. Victoria was an influential figurehead, which is of course incredibly important to an imperialist culture on the move, but no monarch has had any kind of political power since the Charles I. She was important because of the very fact that, like all good Victorians, she knew place. She knew that she was an example, the cultural leader, the Empire’s “mother” and she lived up to that. She had a strong sense of duty. She was a great queen because she understood the place of the modern monarchy, and she was shown due deference because of it, her state powers were only symbolic, she was there to support and uplift her nation only. Victoria was very much the archetype of Victorian womanhood.
 
Elisabeth I was a great monarch because she sacrificed all that was pleasurable about womanhood (home, husband, children) to save her country from ruin and invasion, she was both symbolic figure and political decision maker and towards the end of her life she was adored for this as Britain’s Gloriana.

Laura writes:

Thank you very much.
 
When I referred to those who viewed the Queen as semi-divine, I was not thinking of her British subjects, but those throughout the Empire, particularly in Africa and Asia, for whom the British Crown was imbued with mystique and who sometimes brought their own traditions of quasi-divine rulers or exalted chieftaincy to their view of the Queen. Yes, you are right. The British did not view her as divine. They just adored her as their ruler. The Empire did not depend for its existence on her decisions or political leadership, but her leadership set the tone. She was attuned to imperialism, intervening in political affairs to establish the proper relations for British rule and bringing the pageantry of and exoticism of distant lands to the throne with her Kashmir shawls; Her Majesty’s Blend tea; and her much-adored Indian clerk, the Munshi. According to Morris, “On her favorite walking stick, said to be made from a branch of Charles II’s oak, was fixed a little Indian idol, part of the loot of Seringapatum when that Myosore fortress was taken by Cornwallis in 1792.”

Please follow and like us: