Tea at Trianon: Stepmothers as Villains

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Monday, April 22, 2013

Stepmothers as Villains

The dark side of medieval motherhood.To quote:

Although there are examples of ‘good’ stepmothers from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, (St Margaret of Scotland and Adeliza of Louvain just to name a few), this paper will focus on those of evil repute, the women who provoked vehement disapproval from medieval chroniclers. I will primarily concentrate on William of Malmesbury’s portrayal of the Anglo-Saxon queen Ælfthryth. I have chosen to focus solely on the writings of Anglo-Norman chroniclers in this period, asI am curious to discover what viewpoints they held about these women and what this can tell us about the broader themes of female lordship, social stereotypes, and the family dynamic.

While some women received praise and accolades for wielding manly (virilis) power and authority by medieval chroniclers, others were marginalized for the same actions. It is important to examine this dichotomy to pinpoint distinguishing characteristics and determine why some women were successful in exercising female lordship while others were seen as unnatural and even monstrous.

Anglo-Norman writers seem to assign women to one of two extremes within the chronicles: on one side there are women who are presented as visions of perfection. With almost super-human ease, these women excel at marriage, motherhood, and religious devotion all of which are reflected in their physical beauty. These women do not seek power, but act admirably if they are required to wield it in the name of a husband, son or father. At the other extreme lie women who represent the very worst qualities of the female sex. These women may also be physically beautiful, but this beauty does not reflect nobility of character. Rather, these women are temptresses, adulteresses who may even be accused of witchcraft and murder. These are women who crave power for personal gain rather than for familial glorification or the public good and who pursue it all cost. Both extremes are exaggerated examples and I would posit that the majority of Anglo-Norman noblewomen existed in a midway state between the two. (Read entire article.)