dsjoerg
5 hours ago
The podcast "The Rest is History" did a series in the past year on Elizabeth I. Highly recommended, and their take is highly compatible with this research take -- Elizabeth seems to have been quite masterful and deliberate both in her choice of what she would communicate, and in composing and marshalling her team.
sherr
4 hours ago
Yes, that podcast series is excellent. Elizabeth was lucky in having an excellent team of people working for her. Their lives depended on keeping her alive of course. They were also lucky that she didn't inherit her father's habit of decapitating the most able ministers.
roughly
4 hours ago
Any time you see a female monarch who's in power for half a century, it's worth looking into, because you're gonna see a beautiful story about how to wield power. When you can't rely on being able to physically overpower your opponents directly - when "I'm the biggest guy in the room, so fuck you" isn't in your toolkit - anyone who gets and keeps power does so by some really, really sharp tactics.
(and yeah, napoleon, et al, but those are in the same vein - short guy runs the world, probably an interesting story there too.)
hnfong
4 hours ago
At the level of monarchs, personal physical strength rarely matters regardless of gender anyway. Occasionally it is useful to be able to overpower an adversary in a fight, but that's only either when you risk being assassinated, or you want to assassinate somebody else. Other than those situations, it's just political games all the way. (And like another commenter says, it's usually not "beautiful")
roughly
2 hours ago
Sure, but who does the physical violence, and why isn't that guy in charge? That's the question - all power comes from the barrel of a gun, so why's the person in charge walking around unarmed?
Elizabeth ruled England for 50 years and is remembered fondly for building a global empire (by the English, don't get me wrong), and she was a woman. Yes, it's all relationships, that's the point.
malfist
an hour ago
Thats absurd. Physical prowess may help influce others to follow you but outside small tribe level interpersonal relationships simply being the strongest person or best swordsman is hardly the required quality of a leader.
The strongest guy isn't in charge of the kingdom because the queen has an army.
Danox
3 hours ago
Napoleon was hardly short for his time, that was just English propaganda. Most of the human world today, 5’6-5’8 still represents most of the male population I’m only 6’-4 and most of the male population, even at that relatively tall height, don’t come close, and when I meet someone that is close in height or even taller it’s still a shock.
techjamie
4 hours ago
Napoleon was actually average height for the time period and locality. Claims he was especially short were English propaganda that got accepted and survived to the modern day. He was actually 5'6 (168cm).
xp84
3 hours ago
That’s funny, because the increase in stature for males in the modern day has resulted in 5’6” being “short king” territory today (no pun intended)
So it’s simultaneously true that he was “only 5’6”” and false that he was short for his time.
dboreham
3 hours ago
This is all covered quite well in the documentary "Blackadder II".
sherr
4 hours ago
Her half-sister's story wasn't so beautiful ...
kitd
4 hours ago
She wasn't in power very long though.
mrwh
3 hours ago
And then Elizabeth had the example of Bloody Mary to avoid (not least of which: to not marry is better than to marry badly). "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls" is one of the wiser things any English monarch has ever said.