What if, the real reason Elizabeth I, 'The Virgin Queen' never married was actually because she was a lesbian? How would it have impacted her reign and future attitudes (perhaps even the church of England?) if this was a 'known secret', and she had a number of female lovers throughout her life?
WI: Queen Elizabeth 1st was a lesbian?
- Thread starter WorstOfHumanity
- Start date
probably not much. Since most jurisdictions didn't regard "lesbianism" as a crime in the same way it did male homosexuality and sodomy. Not like Elizabeth's going to be pushing for women to be allowed to marry women or anything
Catholic Propagandists had little issue painting Elizabeth as a harlot: there were all sorts of rumors of her love affairs (of which the Earl of Leicester was most prominent) and iirc, there were even stories about her having illegitimate children / even having abortions. If she's a lesbian, I have no doubt it would probably be an open secret (she'll probably have female favorites much like the OTL Elizabeth had her various favorites). The big issue is if she had a favorite that began to wield too much influence, similar to the Earl of Essex. Given that women would be more limited in the political roles they could play in this period, influence would probably be limited to court roles, getting positions for male relatives, ect. Similar to the role Sarah Churchill played with Queen Anne.
I have no doubt that once this Elizabeth has a full break with Spain in the 1570s, pro-Catholic propaganda will probably bandy about all sorts of possible rumors about her lesbianism. It'll just be another notch for this heretic queen who is bastard born and more proof of her Boleyn blood. I don't think it will have any real effect on her policies: as Kellan said, it's not as if she's going to try and allow women to marry or make any massive changes for gay rights; most laws as mentioned were pointed at males and male homosexuality. There weren't any laws against lesbianism because it was believed that women couldn't act in such a way in the period. She will probably continue to use her hand in marriage as IOTL, as an effective way to build alliances and play France and Spain off of each other. Her councilors will be as flummoxed as they were IOTL, before eventually accepting that she will not marry.
England has had plenty of gay kings; the issue was not that they were gay, but typically that they allowed their favorites to wield too much influence and authority. I don't see Elizabeth being a lesbian making any real impact on attitudes.
There will probably be a lot of talking and gossiping about Elizabeth's "close friends" but it will probably be much like OTL where there will be no proof either way to prove if she actually consummated these relationships or if they were just emotional connections. Elizabeth did have quite a few female courtiers that she was very close too, and iirc the death of one of her dearest friends shortly before her own death perhaps contributed to Elizabeth's decline in 1603.
I have no doubt that once this Elizabeth has a full break with Spain in the 1570s, pro-Catholic propaganda will probably bandy about all sorts of possible rumors about her lesbianism. It'll just be another notch for this heretic queen who is bastard born and more proof of her Boleyn blood. I don't think it will have any real effect on her policies: as Kellan said, it's not as if she's going to try and allow women to marry or make any massive changes for gay rights; most laws as mentioned were pointed at males and male homosexuality. There weren't any laws against lesbianism because it was believed that women couldn't act in such a way in the period. She will probably continue to use her hand in marriage as IOTL, as an effective way to build alliances and play France and Spain off of each other. Her councilors will be as flummoxed as they were IOTL, before eventually accepting that she will not marry.
England has had plenty of gay kings; the issue was not that they were gay, but typically that they allowed their favorites to wield too much influence and authority. I don't see Elizabeth being a lesbian making any real impact on attitudes.
There will probably be a lot of talking and gossiping about Elizabeth's "close friends" but it will probably be much like OTL where there will be no proof either way to prove if she actually consummated these relationships or if they were just emotional connections. Elizabeth did have quite a few female courtiers that she was very close too, and iirc the death of one of her dearest friends shortly before her own death perhaps contributed to Elizabeth's decline in 1603.
Ramontxo
Donor
Philippe I, Duke of Orléans - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Given human biology that happened a lot of times. In the case of Philippe Son of France and Duke of Orleans it was widely known that he had an masculine lover everybody knew and tolerated his whole life. Everybody was happy that the problems his uncle has given his father weren't repeated. And that happened in an France where sodomites were burn at the stake. If an Queen of England is Lesbian (not an crime at the time) AND she conforms to apparences (Philippe married twice) nobody is going to care
Last edited:
To be fair, Anne of Austria and Cardinal Mazarin also played a role in Philippe's upbringing, not wanting to rear up another Gaston d'Orléans. He was given no true income outside of his appanage, and Anne of Austria also enjoyed dressing him up in dresses (granted, most 17th century boys would wear dresses and feminine clothing until they were 'breeched' but iirc this continued after this period). Mazarin also arranged for the Duc de Nevers to deflower the Duc d'Orléans when he was teenager. Now of course, we know today that homosexuality isn't a choice (I certainly had no choice in the matter!) but one has to wonder if Anne and Mazarin encouraged Philippe's natural flamboyance and effeminacy precisely because it would ruin his ability to be a locus of political opposition to his brother.Philippe I, Duke of Orléans - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
simple.wikipedia.org
Given human biology that happened a lot of times. In the case of Philippe Son of Francex and Duke of Orleans it was widely known with an masculine lover everybody knew and tolerated his whole life. Everybody was happy that the problems his uncle has given his father wasn't repeated. And that happened in an France where sodomites were burn at the stake. If an Queen of England is Lesbian (not an crime at the time) AND se conforms to apparences (Pholippe married twice) nobody is going to care
As for Philippe and the acceptance of his homosexuality, it was primarily because of his position as the king's brother. Louis XIV was a notorious homophobe (he was scandalized when he discovered his illegitimate son had been inducted into the vice; he had the Comte de Vermandois whipped in his presence) but he was fairly lenient with Philippe, as he was his brother and they had a close relationship. Philippe was saved precisely because of his position as a scion of the royal house and the king's brother. Those not in court circles didn't fare so well.
Vermandois is a grey area. Mostly because the "proofs" that he was gay date from after the period. No exact contemporary comments on it- when they certainly mention other gay figures (Monsieur, Le Grand Conti, the Prieur de Vendôme, the chevalier de Lorraine, the duc de Nevers, etc), no mention is made of Vermandois in that list. More than that, Liselotte- who was Vermandois' "guardian" -expresses a concern that he would be removed from her care because of what Lorraine did (i.e. "induct" Vermandois) in one of her letters. Lorraine was known to exploit Monsieur's feelings for him to get away with behaving "far beyond the pale" (both Minette and Liselotte were "victims" of this in that he treated them with absolute disdain). Louis XIV would usually respond by sending Lorraine from court and then Monsieur would whine/cry/huff until Louis allowed Lorraine to come back. Whereupon Minette/Liselotte would whine/cry/huff about it. One of the charges against Lorraine was that he was involved in poisoning Minette, and Liselotte certainly held him in contempt (not for his lifestyle but for his behaviour towards her). She tolerated Monsieur's relationship with him, but confessed that burning their "perfumed correspondence" (after Monsieur died) the smell was enough to make her vomit.
Now, to return to Vermandois, the age at which this "induction" would've incurred is excessively young. And given that there's no further mention of his behaviour (surely if he were gay, the soldiers he fought with in the Low Countries and Hungary IIRC, would've mentioned it. Even as a joke), I tend to think that it was either a once-off, perhaps of dubious consent at best. Or it was what would be defined as a rape of a minor (hence Liselotte's fears that she would be blamed)- as said, Lorraine was a known brute.
Vermandois died too young to know exactly how he would've turned out (pardon the bad pun), but I'm not convinced he fell into the same category. I think it was simply a thing that courtiers perhaps used as a "post facto" proof to justify why the king treated the able-bodied Vermandois with lower regard than his favourite, the handicapped Maine. Maine being treated better than his full brothers was no issue (see César de Vendôme vs his brother), but the favouring of a son born of double adultery over one who didn't have that stain on his cradle...was different. And given his sister's own potential lesbian affair with (think it was the princesse de Monaco- who'd also suggested one with Liselotte as "payback" for Monsieur), plus what had happened with Lorraine, it was pretty much baked into the cake they'd accuse Vermandois of this.
Sorry for the rant
I know that one of Liselotte's letters mentions the scandal, but in very hushed terms. Louis Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization talks about Vermandois being affiliated with with a club that's mentioned in a essay called La France Devenue Italienne and was incorporated into Bussy-Rabutin's Histoire Amoureuse de Gaules as an appendix. Bussy's book was a roman à clef of sorts that detailed Versailles various romantic entanglements and affairs. This group that Vermandois was inducted into was supposedly called the Holy Congregation of Glorious Pederasts and included men such as the Duc de Gramont, Marquis of Manicamp, the Chevalier de Tilladet, and the Marquis of Biran who all vied for the leadership. It was allegedly organized somewhat similar to the Order of Lazarus, and the novices were to be "inducted" into said group by the Grand Priors. The Prince of Conti was also associated with this group, and Louis XIV was pretty harsh in doling out exiles and punishments to those associated with it, and we know that this scandal broke out in 1682. It doesn't go into much more detail about said group or Vermandois' association, so his participation could have been youthful experimentation or something more.
Given how hush hush the scandal was treated and the reasoning that Vermandois was sent away, is it really any surprise that there's no talk of such behavior during his exile in Normandy and later on the battlefield? If he was sent away for homosexual activity, then it serves that perhaps he might shy away from activities and behaviors, especially since he seemed so hell-bent on regaining Louis XIV's favor. This was a kid who was desperate for paternal affection and kept soldiering on even when he became severely sick.
To me, it doesn't seem too surprising that he didn't favor Vermandois and favored his children from Montespan, and Maine above all others. I'm not sure if the court would really need to create proof to justify that. Parents sometimes have favorites, and illegitimate is illegitimate. Certainly there was more scandal given Montespan's marriage, but it's not as if she was the first married woman to be the mistress of a king.