Literature Review The outline of my research topic will encompass Anne of Denmark’s role as queen consort in Scotland and England, from 1589 to 1619, in order to investigate her political influence. To fully understand Anna’s political role, recent historiography surrounding influential women in early modern England and, in particular, the role of the queen consort will be evaluated in depth. My research will contribute to these two growing fields and fill a gap by re-examining Anna, who historians once considered frivolous and vain. Accompanied by re-definitions of high politics at one end of the spectrum and court masques at the other, a re-assessment of her character throughout her reign as queen consort of Scotland and England is accordingly needed. The value of analysing Anna in a political light will be demonstrated in this essay through an examination of the historiography surrounding influential women in early modern England, queen consorts in general and then Anna herself. Previous study has excluded women from high politics because it was considered part of the public sphere, rather than the private sphere that they belonged to. In her article ‘Women and Politics in Early Tudor England’, Harris challenges the traditional view of high politics by emphasising its redefinition to include the influence of women.1 Sara Mendelson and Patricia Crawford’s book, Women in Early Modern England, echoes this view. Although women exercised some influence in high politics, this is not 1 B. Harris., ‘Women and Politics in Early Tudor England’, The Historical Journal, 33:2 (1990), pp.259-281, p.259. to say that they played the same role as men, which Harris is quick to point out.2 Women’s role in high politics was centred round their influence in the household, patronage and the court. Recent literature about women in early modern England has led to a re-assessment of some women involved in high politics, but accounts of Anne of Denmark have remained largely unchanged. Therefore, this dissertation will contribute to the growing field of literature surrounding women in high politics in early modern England by re-examining the political influence of Anna of Denmark. Before beginning to assess the extent of Anna’s political influence, it is important to evaluate the limits associated with the role of queen consort in early modern England. There is not much literature about the role of queen consort in this period. Any literature that does refer to it tends to ridicule it, which is not helpful or accurate. Mendelson and Crawford’s book proves informative once again as it clearly states that the queen consort played an important political role.3 However, they also emphasise the fact that their influence fluctuated in matters relating to the king, such as where his sexual interest rested, his mistresses and if the queen consort was pregnant with his child.4 The most illuminating source on this topic seems to be ‘Henrietta Maria in the 1630s: perspectives on the role of consort queens in Ancien Regime courts’ by Caroline Hibbard. Whilst the article focuses specifically on Henrietta Maria, it discusses some general aspects of the queen consort during the early modern period. Hibbard states that the queen consort 2 Ibid. p.260. 3 S. Mendelson and P. Crawford, Women in Early Modern England 1550-1720 (New York, 2003), pp.367. 4 Ibid. p.369. was the most prominent position, second only to the king.5 She also emphasises that the queen consort brought a different element to the court with the creation of new positions, particularly for women.6 Hibbard’s article is a starting point for looking at the role of the queen consort but it is obviously limited because of the focus on Henrietta Maria. McManus engages in some discussion about the queen consort by examining the role of the court in her book Women and Culture at the Courts of the Early Stuart Queens. She explains that the court of the queen consort was the main aspect of the role because it became the centre of cultural activity and was where influential women at court gathered. She also makes the point that the queen’s court was created in relation to the king’s court, even if this was in opposition, which is certainly true of Anne of Denmark.7 McManus provides some insight in to the role and her ideas will be useful to expand on. I intend to investigate this role further in my dissertation to ensure a true assessment of Anna’s political influence. Anna has been subject to criticisms in previous scholarship, which is partly down to the fact that she was of a gender that has received a poor assessment in historical scholarship. In 1959, Maurice Lee commented that, ‘she was not an interesting woman. She had no particular distinction of mind or spirit. She showed occasional neurotic tendencies, she enjoyed intrigue, she was stupid, and she bore grudges’.8 Following up from this in 1986, Roy Strong said, ‘on the whole, Anne lived for pleasure… she 5 C.M. Hibbard, ‘Henrietta Maria in the 1630s: perspectives on the role of consort queens in Ancien Regime courts’ in I. Atherton and J. Sanders (eds.), The 1630s: interdisciplinary essays on culture and politics in the Caroline Modern Britain (Manchester, 2006), pp.92-110, p.92. 6 Ibid. p.94. 7 C. McManus, Women and Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens (New York, 2003), pp.5. 8 http://www.oxforddnb.com deliberately avoided politics’.9 Negative images of Anne persist among other contemporary historians, such as Michael Lynch and Ethel Carleton Williams. However, it is my opinion that this negative image of Anne results from a lack of secondary literature on her altogether. In recent scholarship, scholars tend to cite the same quotes from the same historians and this suggests that Anne has simply been understudied, which had led to a negative consensus of her character. Fortunately, as Barroll makes reference to in his article ‘Theatre as Text: The Case of Queen Anna and the Jacobean Court Masque’, a change in the scholarship of women in early modern England has allowed Anna’s reputation to become more positive. There is little literature about Anna as queen consort of Scotland as historians tend to focus on her more apparent cultural influence in England and the subsequent activities of her court. However, it is Anna’s political activities in Scotland that led to her cultural influence in England. It appears that historians who criticise Anna have overlooked her political activities in Scotland and therefore, only see a woman who was involved in ‘frivolities’ such as court masquing. Clare McManus makes passing reference to Anna’s Scottish political influence in her book Women and Culture at the Courts of the Stuart Queens as she mentions events such as the disputed ownership of her dowry lands, struggle for the care of her children and her involvement in Scottish court factions.10 Barroll is most noted for his extensive biography Anna of Denmark, Queen of England: A Cultural Biography, but he also contributes to the study of Anna in Scotland with his 9 J.L. Barroll, ‘The Court of the First Stuart Queen’, in L. L. Peck (ed.), The Mental World of the Jacobean Court (Cambridge, 1991), pp.191-208, p.192. 10 McManus, Women and Culture, p.4. article ‘The Court of the First Stuart Queen’. His article looks at Anna from her origins in Denmark through to her arrival in Scotland and the role that she came to play and moves on to looking at her role at the English court. In concluding his article, he highlights Anna’s use of factionalism as a political tool and the importance this had in Scotland. Although this article looks at Anna’s influence in Scotland, the account is brief and hastily moves towards the more familiar English rule. Maureen Meikle has contributed the most to this field with her two articles: ‘A Meddlesome Princess: Anna of Denmark and Scottish Court Politics, 1589-1603’ and ’Holde her at the Oeconomicke rule of the House’: Anna of Denmark and Scottish Court Finances, 1589-1603’. In both articles, Meikle considers Anna’s influence at the Scottish court in detail, analysing her finances and involvement in factionalism. Meikle remains the most informative read on the subject, with her use of primary sources and extensive detail. Comparatively speaking, work on Anna’s role in England is much more extensive. Nonetheless, most of these accounts tend to focus entirely or mostly on her cultural activity. Whilst it is true that different circumstances in England meant that Anna’s political activity was not what it had been in Scotland, historians tend to overlook the political aspects of the cultural activity she engaged in. Clare McManus wrote an extensive text about Anna’s cultural activity, Women on the Renaissance Stage: Anna of Denmark and Female Masquing in the Stuart Court 1590-1619. The book looks at her ‘masque performances and cultural agency in terms of the political and cultural status of the elite female courtier and the nature of a queen’s court’.11 It is a solid account of Anna’s cultural legacy but it contributes little to my agenda. Barbara Lewalski also writes about Anna’s cultural undertakings in her article, ‘Anne of Denmark and the Subversions of Masquing’. She states that the early masque was a site for ‘contestation about gender, power, and status’.12 This quote suggests that the masque held more significance than just cultural. This article focuses on Anna’s cultural influence, as can be seen in the title, so it is not fair to criticise its lack of reference to politics.