On the one hand, she was expected to bear an heir; on the other she was better off as a Virgin Queen. As a political ruler, Elizabeth played what was typically a man's role: just as male actors would play female roles on stage, Elizabeth played a man. Levin points out the "serious" problem with Elizabeth's dual male/female role: "she herself was both ruler and potential producer of the heir," (p. 89). Moreover, as s female Elizabeth lacked the legitimacy automatically afforded to a King. "Elizabeth was queen to a people unused to female rule," and Elizabeth could have emasculated the throne had she not so adroitly assumed the image and persona of a man (p. 90). The monarchy was more than just a political position; the monarch was, in Elizabethan times, a divine symbol and role model. Levin argues also that Elizabeth I capitalized on her gender, incorporating symbolic religious ceremonies into the royal pomp. Knowing that the people of England needed a spiritual figurehead as much as a decisive ruler, Levin shows how Elizabeth crafted the emblems of her reign carefully. By not having a child, Levin argues, Elizabeth could maintain herself as a masculine monarch while at the same time alluding to her virginal femininity. Like all rulers, Elizabeth suffered from blows to her reputation, mainly rumors about her promiscuity and her having borne illegitimate children. Levin uses gossip and rumor not necessarily to for biographical purposes but to describe public opinion. One of the themes of the Heart and Stomach of King is the ambiguous, conflicted public perception of females in power in England as well as throughout the world. The scandals that haunted Elizabeth were by no means unique or even specific to a female ruler but they do illustrate how the public related to their primary figurehead and how they reconciled the double standards of virgin/whore; masculine/feminine. Levin suggests through her analysis that England,...

The "anxieties and fears" Elizabeth brought out in the public were in general tempered by respect and genuine admiration (p. 171).
Stopping short of suggesting that Elizabeth I totally altered gender roles, norms, and stereotypes, Levin nevertheless shows how the Queen "blurred the definitions of gender and role expectation," (p. 148). By treading a tightrope between masculinity and femininity, virgin and whore, Elizabeth I emerges as a quintessential politician wise in the art of public relations and image creation. Levin does not try to paint Elizabeth as a feminist champion who challenged the notion that women could not be effective rulers. Rather, Levin shows through Elizabeth's own words that the Queen subscribed to a negative perception of the female gender. The Queen alluded to the "weak and feeble" nature of women, which she claimed would not impede her ability to rule like a king. The fact that Elizabeth apologized for her gender and defended herself by saying that she had the "heart and stomach of a king" proves that she did little to change the public perception of women as a whole. However, proving Elizabeth I's impact on British gender roles or on feminism in general is not Levin's purpose in writing the Heart and Stomach of a King. Rather, Levin accomplishes the following goals. First, she provides a scholarly biography of Queen Elizabeth I. Second, Levin places Elizabeth I in historical perspective, focusing specifically on the prevailing gender roles, norms, and expectations of sixteenth-century England. Third, Levin shows how Elizabeth crafted her public image in light of those prevailing gender norms and thus emerges as a deft ruler and politician.

Reference

Levin, Carole. The Heart and Stomach of a King. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994.