Elizabeth's speech at Tilbury is a culmination of everything she has learned in her life. It encompasses the elements which not only made her a successful ruler, but kept her on the throne in the first place. Elizabeth has a thorough understanding that statecraft IS stagecraft and this is most most apparent at Tilbury more than any other instance in her reign.
First of all, a prince (man or woman) is not usually found on the battle field in the midst of things. It would have been too risky for a monarch to place themselves in harm's way; merely her presence must have been awe inspiring. For her to come down from the throne and walk amongst her soldiers, making a connection with the men who would fight for her and talking to them plainly would have cemented their loyalty and respect like no other tactic. She must have realized the impact that this would make not only in this moment, but also to all her critics who argued she was a weak ruler. Surely, after this moment (if it is true) it would have been significantly more difficult to argue that she was not a capable, masculine ruler.
Secondly, the act of wearing armor and especially the line "I know I have the body of a weak and frail woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England too!" is staged in such a way that it reinforce the idea that she possess two bodies, that of a woman and that of a King. Elizabeth how important presentation is, that talk and reason can get you only so far; you must embody your thesis. This is evident in the elaborate dress that Elizabeth normally is featured which makes her seem etheral and otherworldly. But here in sharp contrast to the pomp  she usually adorns is also part of the production value.
IF this is a true event, it would have been beyond genius on Elizabeth's part.

Leslie vs Knox: apples and oranges

In the Aughterson excerpts, I most enjoyed Leslie's argument for both its creativity and its persuasive power. Like Knox, Leslie uses scripture as his guide. But whereas Knox cites the stories of the bible, such as Eve proving women's creational subordinance, Leslie gets technical and goes to the words themselves, providing tangible evidence--finally!--through Latin grammar rules in regards to the gender of words.This is especially interesting because of the OED search we did in class: gender was first and foremost a grammatical term, then it switched to describing sex. We can certainly see that here.

The arguments (between Knox, Aylmer, Leslie, Smith, etc) switch so seamlessly between lofty ideals and minute details, it's difficult to even view them as part of the same discussion. They're responding to one another, sure, but I feel like they're doing so with apples and oranges: Knox makes broad, sweeping, conceptual statements that women are naturally foolish, mad, frail, and subordinate to men. Then Alymer comes back and makes concrete, rational arguments that women are allowed to inherit, and inheritance is linked with empire, etc. I don't feel like either argument touches the other because their foundations are inherently different. Would Knox (or his followers) care about grammar/inheritance technicalities when he is functioning on a different knowledge base (philosophical, "natural") entirely? 

Welcome!

Hi everyone,
A quick message to test out our new blog. I hope I've done this correctly! I'll talk on Monday about getting started here. Have a good weekend!
Dr. Mc