Search Results

1443-1509 TW: Suicide, difficult birth, death and grief The badass single mum who ended 30 years of battles and started a royal empire Margaret Beaufort's extended family tree Glossary Lord- A nobleman with a high-ranking position in society with political power Lady- A noblewoman who is high ranking and has political power or is married to a Lord Duke- A nobleman ranking higher than Lord but below the monarch Duchess- A woman who holds the title of Duke in her own right or is married to a Duke Earl- A nobleman of high rank above Lord Consummated- to solidify a marriage through sexual intercourse Dukedom- the given title to a Duke/Duchess but usually inherited by the eldest son of the duke Wardship- the legal guardianship of a minor and their estate by a court-appointed guardian (a bit like a godparent) Royal Charter- a grant by the King/Queen of independent legal personality on an organisation and defines its privilege and purpose Margaret Beaufort Margaret Beaufort was born in Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, on the 31st of May 1443 (sometimes disputed as 1441). Her parents were Margaret Beauchamp, a widow, and the 3rd Earl and 1st Duke of Somerset, John Beaufort. Let’s just be grateful that young Margaret had a (slightly) different last name to her mother; otherwise, this would have been a very confusing start to her biography. Margaret Beauchamp and John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset Margaret’s Mother and Father Margaret has been described as the walking, talking concept of medieval adversity throughout her life. She was nearly a year old when her father passed away under suspected, but not confirmed, suicide after causing the failure of a serious expedition. John’s death meant that Margaret Senior would be a widow; this brought about some unusual laws regarding the custody of Maggie Junior. Usually, the law did not allow women guardianship due to the rules of holding land. The child (in this case, Margaret) and the feudal lands are returned to the King, which, at the time, was Henry VI. Margaret could be given custody of Maggie Junior if granted by the King. This seems to have happened before John went on the expedition, as he had negotiated with Henry VI that Margaret Senior would have the rights to their daughter’s wardship and marriage upon his death. Due to the issues caused by her father in life, the King went back on the negotiation and the wardship of Margaret’s extensive lands was granted to William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk. Margaret did remain in her mother’s custody, as set out in John’s will/negotiations with the King. Henry VI of England Being with her mother appeared to be a blessing as she became well-educated; evidence proves this. For example, her French was excellent, and she translated many books from French to English. She practised her religion (Catholicism) in French, too. Her Latin wasn’t as strong, but this didn’t matter as women didn’t usually have an education like Margaret. Even knowing French was incredibly unique and impressive. It is also evident that this was part of the impression she had formed during the time, creating a legacy leading up to this day. As the only child of her father, she was the heir to his fortune, another unusual occurrence due to the same laws outlined above. Feudal lands could be held, in virtue, by an heiress on the death of the patriarch if there were no male heirs. Whilst John’s younger brother, Edmund, inherited the dukedom and some estates, Margaret inherited the riches. This made her susceptible to people wanting her wardship and hand in marriage. This leads us to discuss Margaret’s very brief first marriage. At just six years old, Margaret was desirable for marriage because she was financially stable. This, and her weak link to the throne of England caught the eye of William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk. He was given, by Henry VI, both the wardship and the right to pick Margaret’s marriage. Naturally, he chose his son, John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk, who was seven. Their marriage was through Papal Dispensation, meaning the pope had the right to exempt the union from the Catholic canon law article 1083, which states, “ A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage .” The idea behind William’s unusual and, frankly, impatient plan was that he could secure the throne for his son through Margaret by claiming her to be the next inheritor of the crown. This claim became a part of his impeachment later on. The marriage was annulled when William was charged; his wardship over Margaret was removed. She was a free child again…for a moment. Margaret was 12 years old when she married her second husband, Edmund Tudor, in 1455. This was a marriage that Henry VI seemingly encouraged after he passed the wardship on to his half-brothers Jasper and Edmund. Whilst this marriage was legal, her age was considered to be too young for sex and pregnancy, most indivuals married at this age would not have a full marriage until they were sixteen. Edmund, more concerned about politics and the legitimacy of the marriage, decided not to wait for Margaret to mature to consummate. Margaret became pregnant for the first (and only) time. The birth of this child would be a crucial development towards the so-called ‘Wars of the Roses’. Edmund was the 1st Earl of Richmond, born in Hertfordshire in 1430 and a Lancastrian supporter. This means he supported the House of Lancaster, a male-line branch of the Plantagenets, which started when Henry III created the Earldom of Lancaster. Edmund was the half-brother of Henry VI through Catherine of Valois. Fighting for the Lancastrians and his brother, he was eventually captured by the Yorkists. The Yorkists belong to the House of York, another male-line branch of the Plantagenets but started by Edmund of Langley, the 1st Duke of York. During Edmund's capture at Carmarthen Castle, Wales, he contracted the Plague and passed away. Margaret was seven months pregnant. She was terrified of dying from the plague and how the ongoing issues between the Yorkists and Lancastrians could affect her and her child. She travelled to Pembroke Castle to seek protection from Jasper Tudor, Edmund and Henry VI’s brother, to ensure her and her unborn child's safety. Because of how young and small she was, the birth was considered highly traumatising to her physical health. She never had another child despite a further two marriages after Edmund. She and her son, who (spoiler alert) would become Henry VII, survived the traumatic birth, a testament to their strength. Despite the trauma of the delivery, she looked back on the day as nothing but a blessing. She referred to Henry in letters as her “ only desired joy ” and “ my good and gracious prince ”. Edmund Tudor and Jasper Tudor As a Catholic, Margaret was welcomed back into society with a ceremony called Churching. This took place around six to eight weeks after the child's birth. In this ceremony, the new mother is blessed, and God is thanked for the safe delivery of the child. Once this was done, Jasper Tudor, as the carer of both her and his nephew, arranged Margaret’s subsequent marriage to Sir Henry Stafford. She was 14. Margaret’s third marriage was to Henry Stafford, the first cousin of Edward IV and Richard III, the aforementioned Yorkist Kings. His grandmother was also Margaret’s great-aunt. Stafford and Edward fought on the same battlefield at Townton but on opposing sides. Stafford’s side, the Lancastrians, had been defeated in 1461, and Henry VI was deposed. Edward IV took Pembroke Castle, where Jasper had managed to escape, but Henry (Margaret’s son and the future king) was captured and stripped of his land at age five. Why? Because land was power in the Middle Ages, and Henry and Margaret were on the wrong side to keep it. Over the course of five years, Stafford secured their pardon by swearing allegiance to Edward VI and the Yorkist faction, whilst Margaret worked hard to show she was an ally. Eventually, some land was restored to herself and her son. Playing favourites of the King was a dangerous but essential game, and Margaret was very successful at it (she may have even invented it!) In 1470, Henry VI was restored to the throne. Edward IV was in hiding after the imminent threat from Richard Neville, the “Kingmaker”. Margaret wanted all her son’s lands back, so she mustered the courage to visit Henry VI at Westminster. With Edward VI gone, she was reunited with Henry after nine years and took him to meet his uncle. What made this meeting so unique was the prediction Henry VI had bestowed upon Margaret’s son; he would be king someday. He wasn’t wrong. Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, aka “The Kingmaker” The restoration of Henry VI’s reign didn’t last, and Edward IV was back in 1471. Stafford reluctantly returned to fighting alongside Edward after dodging the invitation to fight alongside the Lancastrians. The Battle of Barnet was short and violent. Stafford was severely injured. Edward IV retook full power of the throne after the Battle of Tewkesbury in May, a month after Barnet. Henry VI was taken to the Tower of London, never to be seen alive again. With allies of Henry VI being killed left, right, and centre, Margaret had no choice but to send her Henry off to his Uncle Jasper, where they fled into exile to France. In October, Stafford succumbed to his injuries and died. Margaret was widowed and without her son once again. Her subsequent marriage, seven months after the death of Stafford in 1472, was the first marriage of her adulthood, and the first time she made the choice to marry. This marriage was tactical, it was for her own protection. Her superpower was her ability to make the best decisions for herself and her son. She chose Thomas, Lord Stanley: forty, widowed and ready to mingle. The Lancastrians and Yorkists highly desired his support throughout the ‘Wars of the Roses’ (the War of the Cousins as it was known during this period) due to the large amount of land he owned in Lancashire. He never dabbled in such frivolous things as war. Well, not yet, anyway. Thomas Stanley (Lord Stanley), 1st Earl of Derby In 1482, Margaret’s mother and only parent died, which was devastating. She pushed on and, throughout the resumed reign of Edward IV, Margaret used her husband to cosy back up to him to make it safe enough for Henry to return from exile. He was in Brittany after a storm had thrown himself and Jasper off course to France. In particular throughout this period, Margaret fostered a good relationship with Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s wife and queen, and talks of a marriage between the eldest child of Edward and Elizabeth, Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor came to fruition. Eventually, Edward IV agreed with Margaret that it would benefit Henry to return to England. A pardon was drafted, but in the series of unfortunate events that was Margaret’s life, Edward died in 1483, leaving the pardon incomplete. After his death, the legitimacy of Edward IV’s marriage to Woodville was questioned, suggesting Edward V (their son) was not a legitimate heir. Margaret, along with many others, believed Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage was legitimate and that these talks were… well, all talk. Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Edward IV’s younger brother, kept both Edward’s sons, Edward V, aged twelve and Richard of Shrewsbury and 1st Duke of York, aged ten, in the Tower of London. He did this under the guise of protecting them after demanding them both from their mother. After 1483, they were never seen again. To this day, their demise is a mystery. Edward IV of England and Richard III of England Margaret, who had maintained constant contact with her son, conversed on the matters of England and continued to plan his return. Yet again, she played up to his desire to be king and was prominent in the coronation of Richard III and Anne Neville. Many believe this was all part of Margaret’s brilliant master plan. She was, after all, suspected of being part of the plot to set the Princes in the Tower free. Unlike the past few kings, Richard III was most suspicious of Margaret and her husband, despite Stanley’s bid for loyalty. She used her shared physician with Elizabeth Woodville to continue the marriage negotiations between Henry and Elizabeth of York. Margaret could never go to Woodville personally; Richard’s men heavily watched the sanctuary at Westminster as Richard was very suspicious of everyone. In secret, they plotted the downfall of Richard. Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, also began Buckingham’s rebellion against Richard, and the two plots of Margaret and Buckingham overlapped. Buckingham was unlucky with timing and weather, leading to him being caught and killed in Salisbury town. Amongst all this, Stanley remained loyal to Richard and, if he knew of anything Margaret was plotting, kept incredibly quiet about it. With Buckingham dead and everyone else in the conspiracy in exile or sanctuary (here’s looking at you, Woodville), Margaret was in danger, and all the king’s wrath was heading her way. Elizabeth Woodville, Queen Consort of England (Edward IV’s Wife) Margaret's final marriage choice proved only more intelligent when it saved her from the charge of high treason. Richard favoured the support of Stanley more than the fact that Margaret was on the verge of taking him down. She was in trouble, also, for sending money to her son to aid in the rebellion against Richard, another treasonous act. She was sentenced to life in prison, and all her land and money were removed from her and given…to her husband (she essentially lost nothing). What’s more, she was imprisoned in her own house. Stanley was extremely lenient and allowed continued contact between her and her son. If there was any doubt of affection in their marriage, his actions regarding Margaret were sure to squash it. He proved even more loyal to her when he overheard Richard’s efforts to capture Henry (still in Brittany) and alerted Margaret, who ultimately warned Henry. He fled with only an hour to spare. In 1485, Margaret gained support from Elizabeth of York (Woodville and Edward’s daughter) and raised money for Henry, whilst Henry had the help of the French King Charles VIII and his men. Stanley remained a mere fly on the wall whilst his wife and stepson worked to take Richard down whilst Richard held Stanley’s son hostage to control Stanley’s support. Eventually, the two sides came to blows in the Battle of Bosworth. Until the very last minute, Stanley watched from afar as Richard, on foot, headed straight for Henry. At this moment, Stanley moved in…to support Henry. The crown, fallen from the beheaded Richard, was placed upon Henry by Stanley as he proclaimed the young Tudor, Henry VII, King of England. Margaret had done it. What was next for our Lady Kingmaker? After weeping joyfully at her son’s coronation and subsequent marriage, she took part in many political activities. After the Battle of Bosworth, her first role was to keep custody of Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick (Richard III and Edward IV’s nephew). He was a potential threat to Henry’s already weak claimant on the thrown, so keeping a close eye on him was important. Eventually, he was placed in the Tower of London, but this brief custody showed Henry's trust in his mother. Of course, her title also became ‘The King’s Mother’. She had the power to appoint the officers of lordship in Ware. She was given the wardships of her great nephews, Edward and Henry Stafford, who came with some excellent revenues for Margaret. At this point, Margaret also outranked her husband and essentially was allowed to act independently without her husband's approval- she was a widow without death. This fell under the attainder called ‘femme sole’, meaning alone woman, which was usually granted to women wanting to do business alone. This made sense if Margaret was of such high power. She also took a vow of chastity, continuing throughout and after her marriage to Stanley. It is believed there was affection between Margaret and Stanley during their marriage. To be seen as legally widowed and vowing to refrain from sex showed that despite historians’ beliefs that the two were affectionate, Margaret’s decision to marry Stanley was most likely primarily political. It worked. However, my interpretation is that her marriage probably was intimate and loving; otherwise, she would have taken the vow of chastity sooner. Consequent actions would not have taken place, either. In 1485 Margaret's signature changed from M. Richmond to Margaret R. Now, you could argue she was shortening Richmond to R, but I think we all know that the more likely case was to establish her ‘royalty’, so R in this case most likely stands for Regina (or ‘Queen’). (Interestingly, this refashioning of her name strongly resembles Cecily, Duke of York’s change to be known only as ‘The King’s Mother’ upon Edward IV’s earlier victory in The Cousin’s War, perhaps there is more to be considered about women's names and dynastic legitimacy?) Margaret was adamant about establishing her position and power. At her son’s wedding, her outfit was the same quality as that of the bride, Elizabeth of York. She also walked only half a pace behind her new daughter-in-law, which was usually custom at medieaval weddings. Still, it speaks volumes. Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, Queen Consort (Henry VII’s wife) The dynamic between Margaret and Elizabeth is incredibly typical of in-laws. Elizabeth showed her authority in simple ways, she had been raised the daughter of a king, afterall, a significant thing Elizabeth controlled was shopping for her children. Also, although one of Margaret’s granddaughters was named after her, which led to Margaret showing some favouritism towards her, Elizabeth proved her authority through little Margaret’s marriage to James IV, King of Scots, at Richmond Palace in 1502 in Elizabeth’s chamber. She even gave her away. Margaret was never in actual competition with her daughter-in-law. She grieved with her son when Elizabeth of York died, soon after giving birth to her last child, on her birthday, 11th of February 1503. She organised all the grieving and mourning procedures which helped keep her busy. She also saw Margaret off when she went to marry James IV in June of the same year. Death did not stay away for long, as Margaret’s spouse died in July 1504. Still, she remained busy and focused, keeping her mind off the grief for her husband of thirty-plus years. Her involvement in the Universities started in 1502 when she developed ‘The Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity’, which she initially established as a readership. Readerships are a position between senior lecturer and professor, acknowledging those with outstanding international recognition research. In 1505, Margaret also sponsored the re-establishment of Christ’s College, Cambridge (originally named God’s House), with a Royal Charter supplied by Henry. Earlier than this, in 1496, Margaret founded the lectureship in theology at Oxford College first but then at Cambridge soon after. Her money went into funding both universities throughout the later years of the 15th century and the early years of the 16th century. She had much influence at both universities and whilst Oxford was her first passion, she soon began to show favouritism to Cambridge. Her final project was her most gut-wrenching. Henry was sick by March of 1509 and did not have long left; he knew it, and so did everyone else. Margaret, his most humble supporter, was the only person he felt would uphold his wishes upon his death. She was responsible for organising the mourning procedures and was named chief executor of his Will. His death in April 1509 was the cruellest thing to have happened to Margaret during the trials and tribulations of her life. Whilst Margaret prepared for Henry VII to be buried with Elizabeth of York in his newly built Lady’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, she had to help her grandson, Henry VIII, to the throne. He was seventeen and classed still as a minor. Margaret was to act as regent and take to being the head of government until the younger Henry was of age. Her motherly instincts had kicked in once more, and she did this of her own volition rather than the official position. Despite her failing health, her influence and abilities were recognised by others. Their faith in her allowed her to be the uncrowned queen she was. And it was very much deserved. Effigies of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York seen in Lady Chapel , Westminster Abbey Her own declining health had been known even before her son's death, and a Will of her own existed. She worked hard to set things up before she died and ensured that men surrounded Henry VIII, which was trustworthy and would benefit England and the King. Margaret never missed an opportunity for petty revenge. After causing a failed deal over a property with Margaret and becoming one of the most hated tax collectors in England, Edmund Dudley (along with Richard Empson) was arrested and executed under the encouragement of Margaret. Smells like some sweet justice. Henry VIII was officially crowned king and married his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon. Margaret watched this all unfold from afar. Eventually, she decided her final days must be at Westminster Abbey. She stayed at the abbot’s house (the house of the head of Westminster Abbey). She was physically closer to her son and safe in a place that played a large part in her life. Ironically, her predictions in her dying state were that her grandson would shy away from God, a fear that caused her to weep. And he does just this by defying the laws of the Catholic Church and creating his own! A scary coincidence or an astute observation? Who knows. It is said that Margaret passed on as the bishop lifted the host (the bread representing the body of Christ). This final representation of her enthusiasm for her faith was a fitting end for her. She was now with her beloved and only child and was buried alongside him in the Lady’s Chapel. Did death cease her power and title? Absolutely not. For one, in her Will, she referred to herself as Princess. She also left a large sum of £133, 6 shillings and 8 pence to the poor. This would be worth £88,800 today. She also wished many of her belongings to be separated between Christ’s College and College of St John for the foundations she had established in Cambridge. She was generous, and her self-proclaimed title as Princess or Regina was warranted. The ultimate Kingmaker and Mother. Effigy of Margaret Beaufort in Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey Sources and Further Reading: Brain, Jessica. (2021). Lady Margaret Beaufort. [Online]. Historic UK. Available at: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Lady-Margaret-Beaufort/ Britain’s Bloody Crown. (2016). Episode 4. Channel 5, 28th January. Cooper, Charles. H. (1874). Memoir of Margaret (Beaufort), countess of Richmond and Derby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dean and Chapter of Westminster. (2023). History: Lady Chapel. [Online]. Westminster Abbey. Available at: https://www.westminster-abbey.org/about-the-abbey/history/lady-chapel Johnson, Ben. (2011). The Life of King Edward IV. [Online]. Historic UK. Available at: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/King-Edward-IV/ License, Amy. (2013). Elizabeth of York, the Forthcoming Biography: Interview with Amy Licence. [Online]. His Story, Her Story Blogspot. Available at: http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.com/2013/02/elizabeth-of-york-forthcoming-biography.html Norton, Elizabeth. (2010). Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty. Stroud: Amberley Publishing. Seward, Desmond (1995). The Wars of the Roses: And the Lives of Five Men and Women in the Fifteenth Century. London: Constable and Company Limited. Tallis, Nicola. (2019). Uncrowned Queen: The Fateful Life of Margaret Beaufort, Tudor Matriarch. London: Michael O'Mara.

Chopin in 1895 Kate Chopin is often seen as one of the earliest feminist voices in American literature, frequently credited with bringing modern feminist ideas into fiction. Yet her place in feminism is anything but settled. Some critics, like Christina R. Williams (2017), read Chopin as a clear early feminist, pointing to her daring portrayals of women who push against social boundaries. Others, including Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, argue that her writing resists easy labels, reaching beyond feminism to explore bigger questions about human desire, freedom, and society itself. The debate about Chopin’s connection to feminism comes down to how feminism is understood today versus in her time. Modern radical feminism often focuses on gender issues but can sometimes ignore the larger social and institutional forces behind women’s oppression. This limited view may not fully capture Chopin’s stories, which explore how family structures and societal expectations control women’s lives. Her work isn’t just about male dominance - it examines the complex traditions and pressures that limit women. As Fox-Genovese points out, “Kate was nonetheless a woman who took women extremely seriously,” which is at the core of her writing. In this context, we will take a closer look at Chopin’s famous short story The Story of an Hour , which deals with the nature of the male–female marital relationship. Chopin clearly believes that the existing form of this relationship effectively suppresses female identity and selfhood. The death of Mr. Mallard signifies the end of her silenced state as Mrs. Mallard, and the sudden realization of this causes in her an immensely powerful feeling of freedom from the shackles of such a relationship, as she sees “beyond that bitter moment a long possession of years to come that would belong to her absolutely.” The idea that the “joy” she feels could be monstrous is dismissed as “trivial” by a “dear and exalted perception.” Through this “perception,” Chopin reveals the mechanism at work in the institution of marriage within a conventional setting, which suppresses individuality and a sense of personal identity. “There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination.” Couple this exposition of marital relationship with the symbolism in the story which equates her freedom with the blossoming of nature, and we have the point Chopin is trying to make clear before us; that the institution of marriage is unnatural and is based on the domination of one individual by another, no matter how subtle a form this domination takes in the expression of love, which is an euphemism for an exercise of power. It is interesting to note that these observations support the views of both Christina R. Williams and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. Any text written by a female author and centred on a female character inevitably engages with feminist concerns. At the same time, because of Chopin’s complex themes and motives, it is difficult to confine her work within a rigid “feminist dogma” in the modern sense. Feminism itself is a layered and evolving discourse and cannot be reduced to a single fixed position. In Chopin’s writing, however, we can clearly see an early, emerging feminist voice. The action of the story is simple. Mrs. Mallard, who has heart trouble, is informed of her husband’s death in an accident. She is grieved at first but then locks herself up in her room where she experiences an enthralling sense of freedom. When she leaves her room and comes down the stairs, she sees her husband alive at the front door. She is shocked, then utters a piercing shriek and dies. Chopin economized on words as well as action in the story. The basic exposition given in the first two paragraphs says little about Mr. Mallard and more around her. Her sensitive condition is mentioned in the very first paragraph, and it is her sister who takes great care in breaking the news of her husband’s death to her. Nothing is mentioned about the husband in the beginning except that his friend has brought the news of his death. The focus is entirely on her, and the whole plot revolves around her..  This deliberate choice hints at the deeper mystery of their marriage. The absence of Mr. Mallard places their relationship squarely within the conventional framework of power dynamics. Their union does not appear to be a love marriage that transcends societal expectations; instead, it seems like a typical marriage of convenience, sustained and shaped by social conventions designed to suppress womanhood. The story is told in a third-person limited point of view. The only person whose thoughts are accessible is Mrs. Mallard, or Louise. We find her incapable of reflecting on her own state, but later, as she becomes aware of her situation and emotions and embraces them with “wild abandonment,” we gain access to her thinking, and her character is revealed to us with all its complexities. However, as she goes back downstairs, we are at once cut off from her thoughts. Thus, her point of view is skilfully manipulated to striking effect. Though there is not much conflict in the story, there is a brief moment of tension  when Mrs. Mallard tries to resist the "something" that, after a short struggle, overtakes her. What she experiences is not an inner conflict but rather a commotion,  tumult that fills her with the joy of being free. “There was something coming to her and she was waiting for it, fearfully. What was it? She did not know; it was too subtle and elusive to name. But she felt it, creeping out of the sky, reaching toward her through the sounds, the scents, the colour that filled the air.” In fact, it is the irony in the story that is most captivating and is a strong element of the whole narrative of the story, and not just in the ending of it when it is only too obvious. Chopin’s take on the institution of marriage itself is extremely ironic. Marital relationship, which is supposed to be cemented with love, is actually a game of power in which “men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature.” The cement of love is actually synonymous with suppression of the woman’s identity and self-hood.  From this basic irony arises the whole ironic situation of Mrs. Mallard, feeling free and exalted at the death of her husband who had shown nothing but love to her in this relationship. The ironic nature of the “heart trouble” she suffers from  becomes clear as well as we gradually discover that it refers more to her spiritual condition than a physical   ailment. It is  from this point of the situation that  we have the ultimate irony of all . When her death, at the discovery of her husband being alive, is interpreted as “the joy that kills.” Here, we see one irony beautifully hidden in another, for “ joy ”  not only refers to the perception of those trying to explain her death but may also be an  ironic reference to her joyful state, the sudden end of which - and its ultimate futility - actually causes her death. The story abounds in symbolism from nature, in words and expression that Chopin makes use of and in the immediate settings that she employs. Mrs Mallard’s “comfortable, roomy arm chair” facing the “open window” may be suggestive of her longing and desire to leave the comfort of a life and go through the open window that opens to the world in which “the tops of trees are all aquiver with the new spring life.” “She could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air. In the street below a peddler was crying his wares. The notes of a distant song which someone was singing reached her faintly, and countless sparrows were twittering in the eaves.” The contrast between the world outside which is full of motion and her life in which she “sat with her head thrown back upon the cushion of the chair, quite motionless” is very indicative. She finds the breath of rain quite “delicious,” and she too has been crying. The whole picture symbolically represents what she feels about her situation. She is cut off from the natural, real moving world that exists outside the bounds of her life which is tied down to the norms of the relationship she is or was in. She smells the delicious air of freedom, but is left only to shed tears near the window which seems to offer an opportunity to not just see free life from a distance and envy it but to go out and enjoy it. This sheds light on the fundamental structure of their marriage, revealing it as an institution grounded in tradition rather than the genuine reciprocity of love and the shared freedom that is characteristic of true comradeship. While Mr. Mallard appears unburdened, free to travel the world, Mrs. Mallard remains constrained, her emotions stifled and her voice silenced. Her estrangement from herself is so intense that it seems as though she is, at long last, rediscovering her own being after years of inner suppression. Her shackles, though imperceptible, lie beneath the surface of a relationship that outwardly offers care and affection, yet systematically denies her freedom. In this sense, Mrs. Mallard exemplifies what Simone de Beauvoir critiques in The Second Sex  when she writes, “Genuine marriage would presuppose liberty and equality, both of which have been denied to women in patriarchal societies.” Bevious points out that real love is built on freedom, not restriction, no matter how disguised it may be. A genuine relationship allows individuals to grow, breathe, and become more fully themselves. Marriage, however, especially as it has been shaped by patriarchy, rarely offers that space. Instead of encouraging emotional connection, it often ends up protecting long-standing norms, rituals, and hierarchies. What should be a personal choice slowly turns into a social obligation.She further comments, “It is not the individuals responsible for the failure of marriage: it is the institution,” she makes an important shift. The problem, she argues, is not flawed people but a flawed system that prioritises one gender over another. The basic problem lies in the structure itself. This structure runs on unequal power, fixed roles, and expectations that leave little room for freedom or equality and pave the way for suppression. We are told that Mrs Mallard is “young, with a fair, calm face whose lines bespoke repression and even a certain strength.” Repression and strength! With what force this repression of the desire to be free -“body and soul”- explodes within this woman of “strength”! We see the tension building within her as something creeps out of the sky, coming to overtake her with force. It moves through “the sounds, the scents, the colour that filled the air,” causing a tumult within her. She struggles to recognize what this “something” is, trying to beat it back in vain. She becomes completely possessed. The sensuous and sensational nature of the whole process renders it as erotic as it is spiritual. And we feel that the “repression” that was earlier detected in her is sexual too. That “something” which has overtaken her is her own natural desire to be free - “body and soul free”. Throughout the whole description of her tumultuous state, the stress on the connection of body and soul is significant. But then why does this force arise externally and then overtakes? Why doesn’t it arise from within her? The symbolism here is that the force arises from nature and the sky. Chopin wants to establish a connection between the force of natural desire and nature. The woman being overtaken is, in fact, embarrassing her nature, which has been forcefully repressed for far too long and now demands its territory back. It does so like an act of nature and is extremely powerful, because the stronger the repression, the more forceful its consequences.  During Mrs Mallard’s tumultuous experience, we first see the “suspension of intelligent thought”, and thus a “clear and exalted perception” which cannot happen without intelligent thought. The suspension happens during a brief amount of conflict when her own nature, her sense of freedom, is overwhelming her. This is so because “nature” brooks no intelligent thought and no intelligent thought could eliminate it. “The clear and exalted perception” comes when nature had been allowed its course and is now unrestricted. The point Chopin seems to be making is that of a social structure that doesn’t negate or deny nature, but goes with it. The exalted thought challenges the very idea of the institution of marriage as it exists. It dismisses the notion that the joy that is enthralling her is “monstrous” ,  monstrous because such joy, such a notion of freedom, is seen as unnatural or unacceptable.  This brings us again back to Elizabeth Fox, whose introduction this article started with, who sees Chopin as a social critic. In most of her stories, Chopin isn’t focused on individual relationships or gender-centric views. Instead, Chopin examines the deeper conflict between human nature and the rigid institutions that try to control it. There’s no specific antagonist here. What we see is nature versus institution. Once Mrs. Mallard finds herself exalted, uplifted, and overwhelmed with this joy, she undergoes a rebirth and becomes “Louise,” and is no longer Mrs. Mallard. Her transformation imparts a new symbolic significance to nature’s springtime rebirth in the story, with the tops of its trees “aquiver” with new spring life. Chopin was deeply interested in the human connection with the surrounding world, especially the connection women share with nature. In The Story of an Hour , she presents nature as a powerful and living force, closely tied to a woman’s inner life and the suppression that life goes through. Louise’s awakening shows how this connection allows her to briefly experience freedom and selfhood. At the same time, Chopin exposes how patriarchy, as an institution, suppresses not only female identity but also the natural forces of growth, change, and renewal. Through this, Chopin quietly but powerfully critiques the systems that deny both women and nature their right to exist freely. Bibliography Chopin, Kate. "The Story of an Hour." Vogue , 6 Dec. 1894. Literature in Context , The University of Virginia, https://anthology.lib.virginia.edu/work/Chopin/chopin-hour . . PBS. "Interviews: Kate Chopin and Feminism." PBS , www.pbs.org/katechopin/interviews.html . Williams, Christina R. "Reading Beyond Feminism: Kate Chopin's The Awakening  and the New Woman." Scholar Commons , University of South Carolina, 2008, scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=tor . Accessed 24 Nov. 2024. Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex . Translated by H. M. Parshley, Vintage Books, 1989.

Figure 1: Eleanor of Aquitaine Queen Consort of Henry 2 nd  of England, Illustration by E Hargrave from a Contemporary Portrait. Accessed December 17, 2025. https://www.maryevans.com/contributors/mep/eleanor-aquitane-47198863.html Eleanor of Aquitaine is considered to be one of the most powerful and formidable women of the High Middle Ages (c.1100-1300); she was brave, outrageous, artistic, adventurous, and political. As the Duchess of Aquitaine, Eleanor’s holdings made her a highly influential figure and positioned her as an equal, in terms of power, to her two husbands, King Louis VII of France and King Henry II of England. Her power was both a threat and a desire to the men around her, making her a target for multiple kidnapping attempts. Additionally, jealousy from her counterparts made Eleanor the subject of a number of derogatory comments, which described Eleanor as an evil-doer and a demon-queen. Despite this, Eleanor remained a strong and independent leader with a renowned ‘Court of Love’ in Aquitaine. A true she-wolf, Eleanor’s influence spanned countries & lifetimes. Born in c.1124 to Duke William X of Aquitaine and Aenor de Chatellerault, Eleanor was the eldest of three children in a powerful, ruling family. Although little is known about Eleanor’s childhood, there is evidence to suggest that she was highly educated, and she was believed to be literate and fluent in her native tongue. Eleanor was encouraged to love literature and the arts, largely due to her grandfather, Duke William IX. The Duke had been a leading figure in the development of Provencal literature (bodies of texts written in Occitan, predominantly in the South of France). William IX was an active poet at the close of the Eleventh Century, and was noted as being one of the first Troubadours, who were renowned in courts for their romantic literary poems. Eleanor was, therefore, surrounded by people who encouraged her education, and this manifested in a great love for romantic literature later in her life. In fact, when Eleanor was an adult, she became a patroness to great Provencal poets, such as Bernard de Ventadour. Marie de France, Eleanor’s eldest daughter, continued this legacy and similarly inspired the works of poets like Chretien de Troyes. Chretien was one of the most influential poets of courtly love and the Arthurian legend, and he credits Marie with the idea for his work Lancelot: The Knight of the Cart.   By 1130, both Eleanor’s mother and younger brother, William, had died. Unfortunately, as the eldest daughter, this tragedy put Eleanor in a position of significant danger. She was now a young heiress sitting on the lands and wealth of the powerful duchy of Aquitaine (modern-day Southwestern France). To put it simply, Eleanor was a target: her status became desirable to those who could inherit her power through marriage, making her one of the most eligible women in Europe. Figure 2: The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Prince Louis of France on July 25, 1137, from a 14 th  Century French manuscript. Accessed November 3, 2025. https://www.alamy.com/the-marriage-of-eleanor-of-aquitaine-c1122-1204-and-prince-louis-of-france-later-louis-vii-of-france-1120-1180-on-25th-july-1137-14th-century-french-illuminated-manuscript-before-1399-image623357340.html In 1137, Eleanor’s father, Duke William X passed away from dysentery while away on a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. Eleanor and her younger sister, Petronilla, both of whom were still just teenagers, were now orphans. However, while William X was ill, he knew he had to protect his daughters and, in turn, protect their family fortune. William wrote to King Louis VI of France, entrusting his daughters into his care. King Louis, seeing the vast lands that Eleanor owned, which were larger than his own kingdom, betrothed her to his son, Prince Louis, and the pair were married on 25 July 1137. Within a few months, King Louis VI was dead. Louis VII became King at just eighteen, and Eleanor became the Queen of France.  In this marriage, Eleanor proved to be the dominant partner, but this was largely due to Louis’ upbringing: he was never meant to be King. Louis was raised to be a part of the clergy and had spent most of his life in monasteries, but the death of his elder brother Philip changed this, leaving the inexperienced, untravelled, quiet Louis as King. On the other hand, Eleanor had travelled throughout Aquitaine as the heiress of the duchy, had a well-rounded education, and was surrounded by politics throughout her life. In 1147, Louis accepted the lead on the Second Crusade, and Eleanor insisted on going with him. This showed her determination to reject the restrictive gender norms of the era, as it was not common for women to engage in military matters. Eleanor brought with her three hundred ladies-in-waiting and a baggage train, and she also led her own knights, known as the ‘Amazons.’ In comparison, Louis proved to be an ineffectual and weak leader in the crusade, abandoning more than three thousand men near Antioch. Ultimately, the crusade was a disaster, and, after being defeated at Damascus, Louis and the reluctant Eleanor returned to Paris. Although Eleanor bore him their second child, another daughter, in 1150, the marriage was a failure. Louis agreed to an annulment on the grounds of consanguinity (they were third cousins), and also Eleanor’s inability to provide a male heir and secure the line of succession. In 1152, after fifteen-years, their marriage was dissolved. Their two daughters, Marie and Alix, were declared legitimate, and Louis was awarded custody as per the custom and law. Figure 3: Henry II, from the Topographia Hibernica c.1186-1188 Accessed December 17, 2025.  https://monarchies.fandom.com/wiki/Henry_II,_King_of_England/Gallery Eleanor was once again a single woman with powerful possessions, and was thus at risk of abduction and forced marriage. In March of 1152, while enroute to Poitiers, Eleanor evaded a kidnapping attempt from Theobald V of Blois by taking a boat to Tours. While at Tours, Eleanor was warned that Geoffrey of Anjou was waiting for her at Port-de-Piles, so her route was changed to evade capture once more. Geoffrey’s younger brother Henry, Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy, appeared to be a much better match for Eleanor, so she sent an envoy to Henry demanding that he marry her. Eleanor, who was experienced in war, politics, and was immensely powerful in her own right, was also a desirable match, and the pair were married on 18 May 1152. Just two years later, Henry became King Henry II of England, and Eleanor was his Queen. The couple inherited kingdom in crisis – there was lawlessness, civil war, and rebellions. This was a result of ‘The Anarchy’ which was a war of succession between Empress Matilda, Henry II’s mother, and her cousin Stephen of Blois who stole the throne from her. Henry II was both militarily and politically involved in his mother’s efforts to secure the English throne. In 1153, King Stephen agreed to the Treaty of Wallingford, which named Henry as his heir; Henry inherited the kingdom upon Stephen’s death a year later. Henry’s character suited the challenge of taking on a kingdom of unrest. He was noted for having a controlling temper and being impulsive, yet this caused clashes with Eleanor’s equally powerful personality. Despite this, the couple had eight children together, including two future kings of England – Richard I and John I. By 1167, however, Eleanor had returned to Aquitaine, leaving Henry behind. Historians have long speculated on the reasons why she left. For example, Eleanor may have been jealous of Henry’s unfaithful behaviour, which including having an affair with Rosamund Clifford. It could also have been due to his neglect of their children. Perhaps more simply, Eleanor had been pregnant for seventeen years consecutively, and it was likely that she was tired of having children and needed a break. The couples personality clashes likely gave Eleanor yet another reason to leave and return home to Aquitaine. In Aquitaine, now protected from outsiders and kidnappers by marriage, and knowing that her childbearing years were behind her, Eleanor was free to run her own lavish court in a way that many women could only dream of. However, Eleanor’s departure was not received well by her counterparts. In 1173, Peter of Blois wrote to the Queen at the request of his patron, the Archbishop of Rouen. Eleanor was told that “you will be the cause of widespread disaster” and will leave the “kingdom” in “ruin.” While Peter does compliment Eleanor as an “illustrious” Queen, he contrasts this by commenting on her “childish council” and “delinquent” nature. Yet Eleanor’s ruling of Aquitaine proved how effectively she could rule a Kingdom without her husband and without disaster. She filled the courts with poets and artists, and also addressed administrative matters, proving that she was a powerful ruler in her own right. Under Eleanor’s guidance, Aquitaine gained a reputation as ‘The Court of Love,’ and the poets, songs, and artworks that flourished here continued to be passed down through generations, becoming a key part of European culture. The monk Richard of Devizes, one of Eleanor’s contemporaries, described her as an “incomparable woman” who was “influential yet moderate” and “humble and learned.” However, Eleanor’s triumph in Aquitaine would only last a few years as, unbeknownst to her, Henry II had mortgaged Aquitaine to pay for his military campaigns. Henry II was also unpopular with his children, and, in 1173, Henry the Young King, Richard, and Geoffrey rebelled against Henry in a coup that lasted eighteen months. After their defeat, the three sons were forgiven, but for support of her sons, Eleanor was imprisoned by Henry for what would be the remainder of his life – sixteen years. Figure 4: Richard I "the Lionheart", in an 1841 portrait by Merry-Joseph Blondel. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://monarchies.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_I,_King_of_England   When King Henry II died in 1189, Richard, now the heir apparent, became King Richard I, or ‘Richard the Lionheart’, and one of his first actions as King was to release Eleanor from imprisonment. When Richard left England for the Third Crusade, Eleanor was effectively left in charge of his kingdom, but this was no easy feat, as England had been left in disrepair after funding Henry II’s military campaigns. Richard spent only six months of his ten-year reign in the country, and Eleanor could therefore rule and instigate her policies without much restraint. However, much like his father, Richard’s military ventures also caused serious monetary issues as he essentially used England purely for revenue to fund his crusade. In 1192, Richard had made little progress in his quest, and was forced to arrange a truce. His whereabouts were unknown until January 1193, when Eleanor learned that he had been captured in Vienna by Duke Leopold and imprisoned in Dürnstein Castle. Richard was handed over to the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry VI, who demanded a colossal ransom of 150,000 marks. Raising this money was an extraordinary fiscal feat, and demonstrates the prosperity of England under Eleanor’s regency. Therefore, while Eleanor attempted to restore balance and peace to a kingdom in revolt, she had no choice but to implement high taxation and effectively bankrupt the country as a result of Richard’s endeavours. When King John took over the rule of a weakened England in 1199, Eleanor lost control as regent, but remained significantly influential. Eleanor escorted her granddaughter, Blanche, to the French Court to marry the Dauphin, which was a strategic match to secure peace between the bickering nations. This did not last long, however, due to her son’s unpopular reign in England, where strategic and diplomatic mistakes caused tensions to arise between the nations once more. Although Eleanor’s role in English rule had ceased, she remained intricately linked to the affairs of Aquitaine and continued her legacy there until her death at the impressive age of eighty-two in 1204. Overall, Eleanor of Aquitaine proved to be one of the most authoritative and charismatic figures of the Middle Ages. From a young age, Eleanor’s power and lands intimated those around her, and made her an equal match for her two husbands Louis VII of France and Henry II of England. As Louis’ Queen, Eleanor demonstrated her strong-willed personality and ability to reject the restrictive gender norms of the time. Marie and Alix, her two daughters from this marriage, both married into ruling families and continued her love affair with the literary arts. As Henry’s Queen, Eleanor helped bring stability to a Kingdom in ruin, and gave birth to a lineage of Europe’s future rulers. Two of her sons, Richard and John, became Kings of England, while her daughters, Matilda, Eleanor, and Joan, married into ruling families throughout Europe. As an independent leader, Eleanor’s court in Aquitaine was filled with poets and artists, and became renowned as the ‘Court of Love.’ Despite this, Eleanor was not loved by everyone, and was painted as a delinquent and evil Queen by her counterparts. However, her contemporaries reiterated that she was an influential and humble leader. Eleanor therefore proved to be a formidable she-wolf, and, with fifty-eight grandchildren including future Kings, Queens, Emperors, and Empresses, her legacy rocked Europe for centuries to come. Figure 5: 13th Century depiction of Henry II and his legitimate children. Accessed December 17, 2025. https://monarchies.fandom.com/wiki/Henry_II,_King_of_England#Legacy Bibliography Primary: Translation by M. Markowski of Peter of Blois' Letter 154 from the Latin text in Chartres Ms #208; Cf. Migne, P.L. 207:448-9.                                                                                    Secondary: “Eleanor of Aquitaine.” Women in History.  Accessed October 15, 2025. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/women-in-history/eleanor-aquitaine/ Brooks, Polly Schoyer. Queen Eleanor, Independent Spirit of the Medieval World: A Biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine.  United States: Houghton Mifflin, 1999 Carrasco, Isabel. “Eleanor of Aquitaine, the Forgotten Amazon Warrior That Fought in the Crusades and Was Then Vilified.” Cultura Colectiva , January 21, 2023. https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/eleanor-of-aquitaine-the-forgotten-queen-from-the-crusades/ Chapman, Robert L. "A Note on the Demon Queen Eleanor - Eleanor of Aquitaine."  Classical and Medieval Literature Criticism,  edited by Jelena O. Krstovic´, Vol. 39. Gale Cengage, 2000. https://www.enotes.com/topics/eleanor-aquitaine/criticism/criticism/robert-l-chapman-essay-date-1955 Mark, Joshua J. “Eleanor of Aquitaine.” World History Encyclopedia , March 29, 2019. https://www.worldhistory.org/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine/ Kelly, Amy. Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950 Meade, Marion. Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Biography. United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 1991 Galloway, Monique. “Eleanor of Aquitaine: The Queen Who Chose Her Kings.” The Collector , February 4, 2021. https://www.thecollector.com/eleanor-of-aquitaine/ Owen, D. D. R. Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen and Legend. Oxford: Wiley, 1996 Pernoud, Régine. Eleanor of Aquitaine.  United Kingdom: Collins, 1967