THE HAND THAT WIELDS THE DISTAFF…

Historians (invariably male) have set the story of our nation as one entirely fashioned by men; however recent historical analysis is more inclusive. Many women are now held up as statespersons in their own right, for example, Matilda or Eleanor of Aquitaine. Matilda challenged Stephen and patriarchy, while Eleanor opposed her own husband, Henry II, over his policies. There has been a corrective re-writing that acknowledges women to have been active and critical players in history, not simply passive observers with the traditional roles as mere wives and mothers of men. Not that those roles were ever easy or without hazard!

Take Margaret Beaufort, granddaughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was father to Henry IV, for instance. At the age of twelve and newly married, her husband of twice her age could not wait for an heir. Outwardly a child, she was mature enough to be duly delivered of a son, though it nearly cost her and her son’s lives, and causing her to be henceforth barren. This remarkable woman, almost immediately widowed and on the losing side of family strife which we know as the ‘Wars of the Roses’, went on to marry twice more, choosing husbands that might advance the cause of her only child. Her political astuteness, tenacity and courage secured the throne for her precious son who became become Henry VII, the dynast of the Tudors.

Moreover following the death of Henry, Margaret Beaufort took control of the crown, more Queen than steward, in order to steer his son, Henry VIII to his coronation when he reached majority.

So what of the Anglo-Saxons of the settlement period, some one thousand years previous to this? Did women also play such roles? Can there be any similarities with the Plantagenet period? The struggles between the Houses of York and Lancaster,’The Cousin’s War’ as it was known at the time, was the last conflict in Britain when kings and challengers went to battle at the head of their army. In this, armoured men with hand held weapons fought toe-to-toe until those with blood unspilled stood victorious. So much so similar.

The historical record of the Anglo-Saxons is slight yet, like the late medieval, the names that resound are invariably male; however, some female names stand out. King Alfred’s daughter, Æthelflæd , took the fight to the Danes when her husband, Æthelred, Ealdorman of Mercia was killed. She was given the title, the ‘Lady of Mercia’ and it was not simply honorific. The pagan period is dark to history but women could rulers of their people. Their leadership and authority was recognised and, more importantly, legitimised. Perhaps in the period there were more women that were gúðcwén , warrior-queens than is recorded in history.

And away from matters temporal women had a large role in establishing Christianity. Certainly while exceptional, Hild of Whitby was not unique as many women could lead on matters spiritual, as ‘saints’ or prioresses.

Certainly there would be many powerful women. Although the Anglo-Saxon culture was a warrior culture, and while this upheld men, women would also show their mettle, if only in ambition – just like Margaret Beaufort would in a later era. Sons were prized, but daughters were important, too. They had a role in making dynastic marriages. Just as Elizabeth of York was earmarked by Margaret Beaufort to strengthen her son’s tenuous claim to the English crown, and in marriage to Henry Tudor united the Houses of Lancaster and York.

Such women were given a name in Anglo-Saxon and were called fríÞwebbewhich means peace-weavers.

It would be over-stating the case to say women had power in Anglo-Saxon society, there would be many that would be reduced to manipulation and expediency just as Margaret Beaufort; however, there is evidence to support that women could and did rise above these roles. It was possible for a woman to be an acknowledged leader, to overtly exercise power and be acknowledged in their own right with all the qualities customarily attributed to men.