Ladies-in-waiting's political engagement was in no sense a part of their office, but was how Elizabeth managed the business of her court.

What exactly were gender expectations in the 16th century? An unmarried woman ruled for 45 years - this was a violation of gender norms.

So is history a game we play with the past? Have we imagined a past that suits rising nationalism?

If a woman wrote the works attributed to Shakespeare, would we view them differently? This is the question in a NYTimes theatre review

Robert Carey claimed he married his cousin Elizabeth more for her worth than her wealth. The queen was furious.

Anne Russell Dudley, Countess of Warwick's gender did not bar her from participating in military, domestic, foreign or church affairs. 

Monarchs who let their hearts rule their heads tend to court disaster, be they male or female; and there have been plenty of both examples.

At 16 and married for almost 5 months, she convinced her father, the Lord Admiral, to make her new husband the Vice-Admiral of Ireland . .

This one is boring but important. Nerd out. Word choice and language have conspired to exclude women from the political narrative.

Between 1500 and 1599 there were 165 years of formal female rule - more than 1.5 as many as calendar years.

In a 'Century of Queens', how could there not be political women? Surely a queen wasn't the only woman in her kingdom interested in politics

How Hilary Clinton and Mary of Guise sent me to the archives.

I am a bit aghast that I agreed to impersonate a political analyst for a lecture on Elizabeth I.