Nelson, Janet L. Medieval Queenship. Women in Medieval Western European Culture, Garland Publishing Inc.New York, 1999 – Article. pp. 179-206. 

            In the Middle Ages, subjects considered the role of their queen to be the glue that held together “the king’s two bodies… his role as her husband and his position as head of state” (204). Extending this metaphor, author Janet L. Nelson suggests that the medieval queen, too, has two bodies. In her article, “Medieval Queenship,” Nelson makes one important assertion: that by the nature of their position, medieval queens filled two roles- that of the king’s wife and that of power wielding figurehead.

            If a queen wanted to stay in power, than she would be wise to fulfill her first position as the wife of the king. In this position, she had a lot of expectations to live up to. In the medieval period, “so important was the choice of marriage” that male heirs to the throne would often reject their parents’ choice of an ideal bride (187). Usually, the bride an heir would select was foreign born, and brought an immense dowry of wealth with her. According to Nelson, “foreign marriage brought a useful alliance, prestige, and an infusion of movable wealth” so it proved to be a successful and lucrative match for prospective kings (187). Since royal brides came from foreign lands to be married, they often had a difficult time adapting to a new culture. Therefore, in the later middle ages, girls were trained early as prospective brides by “learning the language and customs of the prospective husband’s land” (188). Another part of the queen’s position that was determined by her husband was when her consecration was. In the early middle ages, the king’s wife was not always consecrated as a queen. When the king decided to take this step, it “signaled dynastic intent” and prepared for his succession after death (183). Later on, when queenly consecration was the norm, it contained these old parallels of a hint at dynasty: “the prayers for the queen’s consecration emphatically stated her role… as mother of future kings” (186). This ritual leads right in to the queen’s next role in her position as the king’s husband: producer and mother of heirs. This was consistently considered “the queen’s prime function” and having a son always “secured her position… and offered hope of long term power within and through the family” (193-194). The upbringing of the children was a responsibility “that belong partly or primarily to the queen” and their future lay in her hands (194). Finally, a queen could use her position as the royal wife to influence the king. Medieval female writer Christine de Pizan advised the queen to act as “advocate and mediator between the prince her husband… and her people” (200-201). Historical evidence points out that “intercession was always a possible form of action for medieval queens” when it came to their husbands’ political doings (201).
Queens could “exploit their sexuality” or their use their “dower lands” in order to sway their husband the king’s decisions (192, 202). Of course, above all, the most effective way for queens to have political influence in their husband’s lives was to give birth to a son. In summary, the queen’s position and dowry, consecration, production of an heir, and influence over the king were the four positions she fulfilled in the role of the king’s wife.

            The second position that a medieval queen held was that of a power wielding figurehead. The first of these powers came from the nature of her position as a queen. Images of queens (such as Mary, queen of heaven, Esther, and Jezebel) are found frequently in the Bible, and therefore “strongly influenced medieval writers (including female ones)” (181). The idea of queens appeared prominently in “art and liturgy, revealing of an enhanced symbolic role” (180). People got their idea of what a queen should be from the Bible and other literature, and this increased the queen’s role and standing among her subjects. Second was the queen’s power of diplomacy. Because the queen was usually a foreign born princess of another country’s royal family, and because of the queen’s “dual identity as both king’s daughter and king’s wife,” she was “uniquely qualified” to act as a go-between for the two kingdoms. Both kings were in a position to listen to her advice since she was accustomed to situations in both countries. As mentioned before in Christine de Pizan’s advice, the queen was also obliged to act as a diplomat between the king and his people. Third, the queen had “power to secure the succession of her favored candidate to the throne, usually her own son” (195). Lineage consciousness was constantly on the mind of a medieval queen, and a wise queen would take pains to make her “personal preferences… very public ones” so that the whole kingdom would realize the consequences that would result from her pick not making it to the throne (195). Finally, the queen was also involved in almsgiving and could choose who to be generous to in order to determine who would rise in power. In the medieval palace, “material display and gift-giving were the means of government” (199). Therefore, a queen “would create patron-client relationships with the young nobles at the palace who would in time become the great men of the kingdom” (199). Becoming a queen’s favorite was an effective way for a nobleman to secure his rise to power.
Queens could have a similar relationship with churchmen, “acting on their behalf but also seeking their support” (200). In fact, “the tradition of papal correspondence with queens, soliciting their benign influence on their husbands… spanned the entire medieval period” (200). The fact that gaining the queen’s support was such a sure way for subjects to gain power reveals just how much power and influence the queen had as a power wielding figurehead.

            As shown in Janet L. Nelson’s article, “Medieval Queenship,” a successful queen in the middle ages would have had to wear two hats, that of the king’s wife and that of the royal figurehead. In both of these positions, queens managed to have great influence over both their husband and their subjects. In conclusion, due to the obvious division between the two positions, I agree with Nelson’s assertion that the queen had two different roles to fulfill in order to remain in power.

Lauren Orsini, University of Mary Washington