My patience with the Whovian feminism analysis dissolved just about here:Elizabeth I was sexually abused as a young girl by her guardians, Thomas Seymour and Catherine Parr, and quite likely raped by Thomas Seymour.
Anyone who makes categorical statements on a matter about which there is for a whole load of absolutely obvious reasons one hell of a lot of doubt and conflicting opinions and then bases their argument on them is building on sand. Especially if one starts dragging Catherine Parr into them, together with a whole lot of cod-psychology which doesn't seem to be borne out by later history eg Elizabeth's relationship with the Earl of Leicester (which was just as potentially dangerous and considered just as shocking in history as anything which in the Who timeline she was getting up to with the Doctor).
So far as one can tell about the relationship with Thomas Seymour, Elizabeth was a passionate teenage girl with one heck of a crush and he was an ambitious, charismatic, unscrupulous bloke who wasn't nearly as bright as he thought he was. Since the bulk of Elizabeth's career consisted of her getting involved with ambitious, charismatic, unscrupulous blokes who weren't nearly as bright as they thought they were, and wriggling out with charm and grace at the last possible moment of advantage to her it's at least as possible to see him as "useful early practice run" as "something terrible in the woodshed".
ETA Also, she was physically examined before at least one of her later proposed marriages and was physically a virgin then, fwiw, so while I agree Thomas Seymour could have raped her by some means not involving direct penetration it does knock the "likely" out of it.
ETFA Also, anyone who characterises Elizabeth I's line "I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a King of England too" as "internalised misogyny" needs to be sent off on a course of formal rhetoric. The technique of getting the obvious weak point which everyone in the audience is uncomfortably aware of out in the open first, before getting onto the meet of the speech is absolutely sodding classic:
"If we are mark’d to die, we are enow To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour." (aka "Any idiot can see we are outnumbered ten to one, the question is how to make those odds look heroic not doomed")
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering." (aka "Everyone's going around saying 'we're all doomed' - might as well make the most of it)
"Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and awake your senses, that you may the better judge. 1550 If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: -Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved 1555 Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I 1560 slew him." (Aka Yes, I do have blood on my hands, literally, but here's why there was no other choice.)
ETEFA Oh, and big-style way to miss the point, here (about Kate Stewart) "Someone will have to explain to me sometime how you’re supposed to negotiate if you don’t know whose interests you’re negotiating for."
Even-handedly. Because you don't know which deal you'll end up with.
You'll note that the only part I said I agreed with was that Moffat does like to get famous women in history laid by the Doctor, which I had missed and he does. The history part, on the other hand... And the Doctor outright says that the reason he's doing it is to make sure the deal is both done and fair.
Anyone who makes categorical statements on a matter about which there is for a whole load of absolutely obvious reasons one hell of a lot of doubt and conflicting opinions and then bases their argument on them is building on sand. Especially if one starts dragging Catherine Parr into them, together with a whole lot of cod-psychology which doesn't seem to be borne out by later history eg Elizabeth's relationship with the Earl of Leicester (which was just as potentially dangerous and considered just as shocking in history as anything which in the Who timeline she was getting up to with the Doctor).
So far as one can tell about the relationship with Thomas Seymour, Elizabeth was a passionate teenage girl with one heck of a crush and he was an ambitious, charismatic, unscrupulous bloke who wasn't nearly as bright as he thought he was. Since the bulk of Elizabeth's career consisted of her getting involved with ambitious, charismatic, unscrupulous blokes who weren't nearly as bright as they thought they were, and wriggling out with charm and grace at the last possible moment of advantage to her it's at least as possible to see him as "useful early practice run" as "something terrible in the woodshed".
ETA Also, she was physically examined before at least one of her later proposed marriages and was physically a virgin then, fwiw, so while I agree Thomas Seymour could have raped her by some means not involving direct penetration it does knock the "likely" out of it.
ETFA Also, anyone who characterises Elizabeth I's line "I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a King of England too" as "internalised misogyny" needs to be sent off on a course of formal rhetoric. The technique of getting the obvious weak point which everyone in the audience is uncomfortably aware of out in the open first, before getting onto the meet of the speech is absolutely sodding classic:
"If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour." (aka "Any idiot can see we are outnumbered ten to one, the question is how to make those odds look heroic not doomed")
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering." (aka "Everyone's going around saying 'we're all doomed' - might as well make the most of it)
"Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge. 1550
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
-Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved 1555
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I 1560
slew him." (Aka Yes, I do have blood on my hands, literally, but here's why there was no other choice.)
ETEFA Oh, and big-style way to miss the point, here (about Kate Stewart) "Someone will have to explain to me sometime how you’re supposed to negotiate if you don’t know whose interests you’re negotiating for."
Even-handedly. Because you don't know which deal you'll end up with.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment