Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Being a woman in the 17th century..

Cherry has made me think of the things I find most horrifying after reading about Charles Ist's Queen. The most horrifying was her first birth which was so bad it was a case of save her or the baby and the shock of the Doctor and courtiers that the King begged them to save her. That he expressed no desire to have a son first was pretty amazing too. But no member of Parliament was a woman so when they decided she should be deprived of the right to see The Prince of Wales men had decided that . When she was declared a traitor , men had decided that too. Her love of the King could not be understood by such people or her love of her children.She was not just a breeding machine. She seems lucky to have had a husband who allowed her to act because woman who did were labelled as whores. In fact when she needed help the Catholic Church dominated by men abandoned her , her sons don't seem the greatest help either.That is the life of the most " important"woman in England so we are now looking for a book about the life of the average woman...dying in childbirth seems quite a good option except for the child's sake.

3 comments:

Kath said...

Thank goodness we're alive now rather than then. Reading that helps you realise how far womens rights and equality has come!

Cherry Rolfe said...

Made me think to that we have a way to go - the Catholic Church, still a male bastion, controls a high percentage of the worlds contraception attitudes, and the Monarchy - if we must have it - and male succession.
I shudder whenever I see a gathering of men in suits, men in robes, men in uniform.

angie cox said...

Yes Cherry it is hard to believe there is a major religion or two that allows no female priests .I believe the most liberal Jews have female rabbis . "What if God is a woman ?"I say using R.F.K's question in South Africa "What if God is black"