historicwomendaily

[historicwomendaily]

"Female swordsmiths were among the rarest female artisans to be found in feudal Japan because of the religious connotations that came with being a swordsmith. Japan is renowned for the strength of its samurai warriors who relied primarily on their swords in battle. If a sword stood the test of battle, it was said that Kanayago-kami, the deity of metal, was on one's side. This leads back to the forging process, because the deity must not be angered during the creation of a sword to ensure the sword will be strong and effective. It was believed that Kanayago-kami was an envious woman who didn't like other women—so much that women were either forbidden in the furnace room during the forging process or, if they entered the room, they could not wear make up.

A woman who chose to become a swordsmith despite the Kanayago-Kami possible disapproval did not inscribe her name on her handiwork, as male swordsmith did, because the sword was less likely to sell if the buyer knew it was created by a woman. There is only one woman who is known for her sword forging because she did inscribe her name on a blade: Onna Kunishige (1733-1808). Kunishige became an apprentice swordsmith after her father and uncle died when she was just sixteen years old."

Cranor Lawrence, "Artisans in Feudal Japan", in: Boyett Colleen, Tarver H. Micheal, Gleason Mildred Diane (eds.), Daily Life of Women An Encyclopedia from Ancient Times to the Present 

[historicwomendaily]

"Eurydice, the daughter of Sirras (c. 410–c. 340s BCE), the wife of Amyntas III, king of Macedonia, and the mother of Philip II and grandmother of Alexander the Great, played a notable role in the public life of ancient Macedonia. She is the first royal Macedonian woman known to have done so, although she would hardly be the last. Her career marked a turning point in the role of royal women in Macedonian monarchy, one that coincided with the emergence of Macedonia as a great power in the Hellenic world."

— Elizabeth D. Carney, Eurydice and the Birth of Macedonian Power / Ibid, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia

"Not only did Eurydice intervene in a public and aggressive way on behalf of her sons, playing dynastic politics with some skill, but her dedications around Vergina also speak to a new public role for Argead women. It is also noteworthy that her role and prominence seem to have been greatest not in the reign of her husband but in those of her sons and in their minorities. The remarkably hostile tradition preserved in Justin is testimony to how unusual and threatening her actions were. Nonetheless, Eurydice succeeded in her goals. All the remaining rulers of the Argead dynasty were her descendants."

[historicwomendaily]

"Alexander I of Macedon may have promoted his own image as a royal schemer. Many of his descendants fit his Odyssean prototype. These qualities enabled survival for some, like Perdiccas II, while others, most notably Philip II, were employed these same traits with much greater success. Was there a female version of this prototype? This question is unanswerable about any royal woman before Eurydice, but […] she could indeed be understood as somewhat Penelopean.

The circumstances of Eurydice and Penelope were hardly identical. Eurydice was an actual widow, whereas Penelope feared that she had been widowed; Alexander II actually became king, though only on the threshold of maturity, whereas Telemachus, though of roughly the same age, had not yet become king; Eurydice’s sexual fidelity was brought into question, as we have seen, whereas Penelope’s was not, ultimately, jeopardized. Eurydice and Penelope are, however, similar enough to be illuminating. Penelope moves between the world of women and the male court; she dares to confront her male enemies publicly (16.409– 434) but is impressed when her son tells her to return to her quarters, thus asserting his male adulthood (1.356–364). Her dealings with her son are complicated exactly because Telemachus is not quite a man yet no longer a boy and Penelope had promised Odysseus that she would not remarry until her son had reached some sort of adulthood (18.269– 270). Penelope does and does not want to remarry (e.g., 19.524–534) and her sexuality is often the focus of the narrative (18.158–168), yet her faithfulness to her husband and to her son’s future helped to preserve Telemachus’ inheritance and Odysseus’ household, despite the serious depredations of the suitors. She improvised her way, often by trickery and with some ambiguity, through a prolonged period of instability. Thinking about Penelope helps us to understand Eurydice’s role in the events of her day: she was both a public and a private figure, powerful and yet passive, manipulative and manipulated, her reputation called into question and yet ultimately celebrated."

— Elizabeth D. Carney, Eurydice and the Birth of Macedonian Power

[historicwomendaily]

"Although Siwan’s role in Anglo-Welsh history has received recognition by historians, she has been still largely relegated to the sidelines; an indication that her role was not entirely critical to the stability and growth of Welsh polity, or peace with England overall. On the flip side, it is sometimes difficult not to naturally overplay our hand and emphatically conclude that Joan was, indeed, a heroine and that if it were not for her, the very fabric native Wales would have been fundamentally altered by the time Llywelyn died in 1240. On balance, however, it is vitally important to understand that the aggregate of Joan’s interventions in the early-thirteenth century ensured that she really was a crucial player in the political wranglings between the ruler of Gwynedd and the rulers of England. The famous early-twentieth-century Welsh historian J.E. Lloyd concluded that Llywelyn ap Iorwerth ‘had one emissary whose diplomatic services far outran those of the seneschal and who helped him in this capacity for the greater part of his reign. To the assistance of his wife Joan, both as advocate and counsellor, there can be no doubt he was much indebted.’ To the assistance of Joan, Lady of Wales, there can be no doubt that the history of native medieval Wales is also much indebted."

— Danna R. Messer, Joan, Lady of Wales: Power and Politics of King John's Daughter

[historicwomendaily]

Empress Alexandra Feodorovna looking off into the distance.

[historicwomendaily]

❝ On Thursday 12 January 1559, Elizabeth left the Palace of Whitehall and set out on a ravishing ship. The destination was the Tower of London. This time, Elizabeth was preparing for her own coronation. She was neither a prisoner, nor under a threat of being one: instead, she was the rightful heir to the throne of England. The daughter of the unfortunate Queen Anne Boleyn had come quite some distance.Blood, Fire and Gold: The Story of Elizabeth I and Catherine de Medici, Estelle Paranque

[historicwomendaily]

Queen Insu (1437–1504), also known as Queen Sohye, was a shrewd political figure of the Joseon dynasty and Korea’s first female author.

A scholarly lady

Born and raised in the capital, Insu was likely taught Confucian moral principles from an early age. Coming from a family with a strong scholarly tradition and ties to the royal court, she was immersed in an environment of learning. Fluent in Chinese, Korean, and Sanskrit, and well-versed in literary classics, her education was exceptional for a woman of her time. She likely learned alongside her brothers.

At around 15, she married Crown Prince Uigyeong, and her father-in-law, King Sejo, praised her as a filial daughter.

Widowhood and regency

Insu’s life took a dramatic turn when she became a widow at just 19. Her husband, who had never ascended the throne, left her with three young children. After King Sejo’s death, his son Yejong briefly ruled but also passed away. In 1469, Insu’s second son, Seongjong, was chosen as king by her mother-in-law, Queen Jeonghui. The following year, her late husband was posthumously enshrined as king, and Insu received the title of Queen Insu.

Initially, Queen Jeonghui, was offered the regency but hesitated, suggesting Insu take the role instead. Though Jeonghui ultimately accepted, she lacked Insu's knowledge of classical Chinese. Insu, with her exceptional education and powerful family connections, became a key figure at court, wielding significant influence. While she didn’t hold an official position, she likely co-ruled with Jeonghui, assisting in crucial state decisions.

The Naehun

It was during this period that Insu authored the Naehun (Instructions for Women), establishing herself as Korea’s first female writer. This conduct manual outlined how women should behave according to Confucian ideals, emphasizing chastity, discretion, gentle speech, and etiquette.

Insu advocated for female education, arguing that it reinforced moral integrity and prepared women for their roles as wives and mothers. She criticized the trend of teaching daughters only poetry and music. However, she maintained that women’s roles should remain advisory and supportive.

The Naehun may also have served a political purpose, legitimating her mother-in-law's regency by citing examples of capable Chinese empresses. It reinforced the idea that women could govern wisely. Insu was thus also able to empower herself and present herself as a matriarch.

Queen mother

When Jeonghui’s regency ended in 1477, Insu continued to hold an honored position as the king’s mother. A devoted supporter of Buddhism, she argued against suppressing the religion, fearing it would lead to public unrest. In 1492, she spoke out against excluding commoners from monastic life and taught her five grandsons Buddhist and Confucian texts, which she recited from memory.

However, family tensions escalated when Queen Yun, King Seongjong’s consort, physically attacked him, leaving scars on his face. Insu took decisive action, first sending Queen Yun back to her family, then ordering her execution by poison.

The ascension of Insu’s grandson, Yeonsangun, in 1494 marked a dark chapter in her life. Yeonsangun, a violent and tyrannical ruler, was Queen Yun’s son. Upon discovering the truth about his mother’s death, he directed his fury at Insu. In 1504, Yeonsangun attacked his grandmother, leading to her death on May 11 at the palace. She was buried in a tomb that symbolically outranked her husband’s.

Enjoyed this post? You can support me on Ko-fi!

Further reading

Duncan John, “The Naehun and the politics of Gender”, in: Kim-Renaud Young-Key, Creative Women of Korea The Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Centuries

Kang Jae-un,  The Land of Scholars Two Thousand Years of Korean Confucianism

Park Si Nae, “Re-reading Queen Sohye's Naehun”

Pae Yong-Yi, Women in Korean History

[historicwomendaily]

The first female regent of the Joseon dynasty, Queen Jeonghui (1418-1483) governed skillfully, maintaining stability and harmony during her tenure.

Strengthening her family’s position

Jeonghui’s father served as the first state councilor under King Sejong, and her family had a long history of producing influential courtiers. From a young age, Jeonghui displayed a bold and assertive personality. In 1428, she married Prince Suyang, the second son of King Sejong, and was granted the title of Her Royal Highness of Nangnang. The couple had three children.

Prince Suyang eventually plotted to overthrow his young nephew, King Danjong. Although he hesitated at first due to his advisors' warnings, Jeonghui encouraged him to proceed and helped him don his armor. The coup succeeded, and Prince Suyang ascended the throne as King Sejo, with Jeonghui becoming queen consort.

Jeonghui first became involved in state affairs during her husband's illness. Recognizing her intelligence and sharp judgment, King Sejo expressed confidence that she could manage the kingdom after his death.

Following King Sejo’s passing in 1468, their son, King Yejong, ascended the throne. However, his reign was brief, and Jeonghui had to appoint a new heir. She chose the second son of her deceased eldest son, who became King Seongjong.

Ruling behind the bamboo screen

Since the young King Seongjong was still a child, Jeonghui assumed the regency, "ruling from behind the bamboo screen" from 1469. This practice adhered to Confucian principles of gender segregation, which prohibited face-to-face interactions between the queen and male courtiers. Initially, Jeonghui declined the role, as she wasn't literate in classical Chinese, and suggested her daughter-in-law, Queen Insu, instead. However, the courtiers insisted, and she ultimately accepted.

Jeonghui had the final say all matters of state, including land ownership, personnel appointments, border defense, and construction projects. She was likely assisted by Queen Insu in making major decisions.

During her regency, the Grand Code for State Administration was enacted. Her policies, such as decreasing government surveillance and abolishing identification tags (hopae), appeased the public. Demonstrating frugality, she downsized the Office of Royal Estate.

Jeonghui had a strong attachment to Buddhism—contrary to the prevailing Confucian policies of the time—she persistently tried to import Buddhist scriptures despite opposition from the court.

Jeonghui was renowned for her political acumen and ability to navigate complex power dynamics. By collaborating with senior ministers, she effectively implemented her policies, stabilizing both the throne and the dynasty. Her flexibility ensured a prosperous and harmonious regency, and she protected the young monarch from the influence of powerful courtiers.

In 1476, a text criticizing her regency was displayed on the streets of the capital. Jeonghui stepped down a year later.

Queen Jeonghui died during the 14th year of King Seongjong’s reign, at the age of 66.

Enjoyed this post? You can support me on Ko-fi!

Further reading

Duncan John, “The Naehun and the politics of Gender”, in: Kim-Renaud Young-Key, Creative Women of Korea The Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Centuries

Pae Yong-Yi, Women in Korean History

Park Si Nae, “Re-reading Queen Sohye's Naehun”

[historicwomendaily]

Princess Alix of Hesse (Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia) dressed for costume dress ball, 1892.

[historicwomendaily]

Marie of Blois and Louis II of Anjou, building on a foundation laid by Louis I and Clement VII, refashioned [Johanna I of Naples] as the founder of their new dynasty. They deliberately obscured their distant kinship to her, Marie and Louis I both depicting themselves as her loyal children. In her efforts to secure Provence for her son, Marie elaborated on this kinship, obscuring what was merely a legal relationship beneath her self-identification as Johanna’s “natural” daughter. In so doing, she played on the representation of Charles of Durazzo as a matricide: His behavior was unnatural, making him an unnatural son, while her devotion transformed her into a natural daughter. The word “natural” was thus polysemous, employed to mean both that Marie was Johanna’s biological daughter and that her behavior was appropriate while Charles’s was inhuman, unnatural. She deployed the emotional language of kinship to depict herself as a fitting successor to the murdered queen, whose virtue she enhanced and whose history she ignored. Charles, through his faithlessness, had forfeited any rights he might have had to Johanna’s throne, while Marie—the representative of Johanna’s designated heir and her faithful daughter—earned the right to it through her love and outraged grief. At the same time, she asserted her right to be Provence’s regent, representing the relationship between her family and Johanna as transcending legal nicety, binding them together in a spiritual kinship that obliterated any doubt as to the second Angevin line’s legitimacy.

— Elizabeth Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr: The Reign and Disputed Reputation of Johanna I of Naples

[historicwomendaily]

Happy birthday, Sylvia Rivera! (July 2, 1951)

A pioneering figure in the gay and trans liberation movement, Sylvia Rivera was born in New York City and became an orphan early in life after her mother died and her father abandoned the family. Rejected by her biological family, Rivera lived on the streets as a homeless youth and underage sex worker before being taken in by New York's drag queen community. She became active within that community and organized with the Gay Liberation Front in the wake of the Stonewall riot. A close friend of Marsha P. Johnson, Rivera worked with Johnson on a number of initiatives, such as helping to found Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries and pushing for passage of the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act in New York State. She fought for inclusion of drag queens and trans people in the LGBT movement, despairing at the movement's assimilationist orientation at the turn of the century. She died in 2002 of complications from liver cancer.

"I am Sylvia Rivera. Ray Rivera left home at the age of 10 to become Sylvia. And that's who I am."

[historicwomendaily]

"It is astonishing that only one woman in any of the native Welsh sources originating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is awarded the title of brenhines [queen], that is Angharad ferch Owain ab Edwin (d. 1162), wife of Gruffudd ap Cynan, king of early twelfth-century Gwynedd. […] The biography of Gruffudd ap Cynan tells us that Queen Angharad was noteworthy for being generous to the poor and mildtempered, compared to the occasional ferocity of her husband. She was honoured for being wise and prudent, but above all, a woman of good counsel – a counsel-woman, an advisor. She also held and managed a significant portion of lands in widowhood, including the crucial harbour and commote of Porthaethwy on Anglesey. The fact that it is recorded that Gruffudd left her half of all his possessions on his death is testament to the potential power she wielded as consort. Perhaps it was even Angharad herself who commissioned the biography in honour of her husband’s memory and was concerned with the dual portrayal of her person as one who prescribed to Welsh socio-cultural gender expectations and stereotypes (literally being the opposite of Gruffudd in every characteristic), but also honouring her own independent influence and authority as a queen in the twelfth century."

— Danna R. Messer, Joan, Lady of Wales: Power & Politics of King John’s Daughter

[historicwomendaily]

Ageltrude’s widowhood did not start too badly. Her son Lambert, who had already been crowned co-emperor in 891, succeeded his father, and Ageltrude remained at his side. This was not without difficulties. Arnulf of Carinthia decided to come back to Italy with the aim of getting to Rome and being crowned emperor. In reporting Arnulf of Carinthia’s descent into Italy, the Annals of Fulda mention the empress’ efforts to defend the city of Rome: “Ageltrude had all the gates around the wall shut and barred”. Arnulf’s army managed to conquer the city and Arnulf was granted the support of the Roman nobility; Ageltrude had to leave and took refuge in Spoleto. This account is partly confirmed by Regino of Prüm’s continuator, according to whom, after Arnulf took the city of Rome with the consent of the pope, Ageltrude had to flee the city “with her men”. Liudprand reports that Arnulf then followed the empress and besieged the castle of Fermo, in which she had barricaded herself. At this point Ageltrude, “vipperina calliditate”, poisoned him, almost provoking his death. This last episode is probably false; first because Liudprand commits a chronological mistake by placing Arnulf’s arrival (896) before the death of Guy (894). Secondly, the Annals of Fulda do not report this episode, but only state that Arnulf had to abandon Italy because of illness. Neither of these authors, both quite hostile to Ageltrude – the Annals of Fulda were produced in the East-Frankish court environment – condemns the fact that she was left in charge of directing military operations. Although the responsibility of Ageltrude in Arnulf’s illness is very questionable, sources agree that he was forced to abandon Italy and returned north.

Ageltrude and Lambert then returned to Rome, where at the beginning of 897 they may have taken part in the so-called “cadaver synod”. This was a post-mortem trial of Formosus, the pope who had died in 896, who had crowned Arnulf as emperor. Formosus was judged culpable and stripped of his title of pope. It is possible that Ageltrude and Lambert were involved in planning the trial: the condemnation of Formosus clearly represented a political advantage for them. However, there is little evidence that this was the case, and Girolamo Arnaldi has convincingly argued that the trial of Formosus was the result of internal dynamics related to Roman politics.

We do not know anything else about Ageltrude until the end of 898. In October, her son had suddenly died in a hunting accident, which may have been organized by his political enemies. Ageltrude’s situation became suddenly very precarious. In 898 Berengar confirmed some of her properties. The charter states that Berengar’s confirmation concerns all the properties she had acquired both through adquisitiones and royal donations. However, the charter only specifically mentions two monasteries in central Italy: Rambona (in the area of Camerino) and the monastery of Fiume in the pagus of Assisi. We know that Ageltrude was the founder of Rambona, as a surviving ivory inscription found in the church reading “Ageltrude construxit” proves. This document has been read as a declaration of friendship between Ageltrude and Berengar. I would argue that, on the contrary, it can be read as the formal renunciation by Ageltrude of her queenly role. The document focuses on properties in central Italy, which were part of Widonid “private” wealth, and far from fiscal concentrations in the north. Although the diploma also mentions properties that Ageltrude would have acquired through royal donations, we can infer that the agreement between Berengar and Ageltrude represented a “defeat” and a substantial exclusion of the empress from northern Italy. Berengar claimed back the properties and monasteries that Ageltrude had received on the day of the coronation, a transaction with a strong ideological nature. For her part, Ageltrude may not have wanted to fight for the royal monasteries in Pavia, because she was not interested in them. The resources she was more worried about, and which affected the relations between her, Berengar and local elites in the following years, lay in the areas of Parma and Piacenza.

A small parchment attached to the main foil of the 898 diploma reads: “Promitte ego Berengarius rex tibi Ageltrude relicta quondam Vuidoni imperatoris, quia ab hac ora et deinceps amicus tibi concessa a Vuidone seu filio eius Lamberto imperatoribus nec tollo nec ulli aliquid aliquando tollere dimitto iniuste”. This promissio focuses on the friendship and collaboration between the two parties: Berengar promised not to take away anything that Ageltrude had acquired and presents himself as her protector. However, things turned out quite differently. In 904 the curtis Murgola, which Ageltrude had been given by Guy in 894, was granted by Berengar to the church of Sant’Alessandro in Bergamo.The diploma defines it “iuris regni nostri”. This example suggests that, despite promising to protect Ageltrude and her properties, Berengar aimed at depriving her of her resources. The properties and monasteries she had in the north of Italy had been originally given to her with the aim of underlining her royal status and Guy’s authority over the royal fisc. Depriving the former empress of those highly significant properties was a political claim in its own right. Berengar’s ultimate aim could also have been to exclude Ageltrude from northern Italy: as her remaining resources were concentrated in central Italy, she may have been forced to head south.

This grant represented a provisional defeat for Ageltrude; however it was only the first stage of a complex patrimonial and political struggle that would go on for several years. On the first occasion, Ageltrude turned to Berengar’s antagonist, Louis III, who granted the empress Cortemaggiore in October 900. The same property had been owned by Angelberga, who had received it from Louis the German in 876 through Ermengarda’s intercession. This area, belonging to the jurisdiction known as fines Aucienses, had a vital significance for the control of the Piacenza area and concentration of fiscal properties. The act was issued in Pavia: there was no intercessor and Ageltrude seems to have requested the grant in person. Ageltrude’s presence there, on the occasion of Louis’ coronation, suggests that she was an active supporter of the new king. This is an important grant: it shows Louis III performing the role of king, bestowing property on the widow of a former enemy of the Carolingians. It shows, more importantly, that Ageltrude made an active claim against her “friend” Berengar, taking advantage of the peculiar situation of multiple kings competing for authority.

Unfortunately there is no further evidence on Ageltrude’s movements between 900 and 907 and we do not know what became of her after the defeat of Louis III. However, in907 she reappears issuing a charter in Camerino, from a monastery called Natabene. She introduces herself as “femina religiosa induta”: it seems that ultimately Berengar had managed to expel her from the north of Italy, as Ageltrude was living secluded in a monastery in central Italy. The charter states that Ageltrude left the tertia pars of her properties, consisting of a curtis in Robelliano (Iesi), to the monastery of Sant’Eutizio in Campli. Paola Guglielmotti has argued that the abbot of Sant’Eutizio, called Majo, could have been Ageltrude’s brother. Although there is not enough evidence to support this case, this would imply that Ageltrude was supported by her family network. In the charter Ageltrude presented herself as a woman excluded from politics, but in fact she was still active. The charter specifies that she has received Robelliano from a woman called Damelgarda through a written document (“per cartula [sic]”). In other words, even if she had been “exiled” from the north of Italy, she continued to carry out economic activities. This strategy recalls that employed by Cunegunda, a century before: Ageltrude wanted to underline that her present possessions were not related to her husband. Furthermore, Ageltrude presents herself as a woman of limited means. If Robelliano – the extent of which, however, is impossible to establish– represented a third of her properties, we should assume that she was not left with much.

However, this may not have been the case. The Chronicon Vulturnense reports that in 899 Ageltrude exchanged properties with Majo, abbot of San Vincenzo al Volturno: thanks to this exchange she obtained the cella of San Michele in Piacenza and ceded to San Vincenzo a curtis in Capua, which, owing to its location, is likely to have been part of her dowry. Ageltrude’s relationship with the monastery seems to date back to her marriage. The Chronicon Vulturnense contains a praeceptum that commemorates a visit of Guy and Ageltrude to the monastery in 876: on that occasion Ageltrude gave birth to Lambert. Furthermore, evidence shows that she had preserved properties in the north of Italy which she was not keen on giving up. In a placitum of 912, Berengar settled a dispute between the former empress and Guy of Piacenza. The dispute concerned Ageltrude’s properties in the area of Parma and Piacenza, which, according to the placitum, in 900 she had granted to the church of Santa Croce and San Bartolomeo in Monticelli (near Parma). Ageltrude agreed with the bishop that the document was fake and that she had never founded a monastery in that place; Berengar approved the bishop’s claims. The document is poorly preserved and it is impossible to read the whole text. Nevertheless, the placitum suggests that in 900 Ageltrude still owned a significant amount of property. The landholdings mentioned in the placitum are Linariglo, Roveritulo, Caurili, Rivulo, Caput Taro, an island “iuxta Padum” (along the River Po), Saluciola and Cortemaggiore – which she had received from Louis III – and a curtis in San Nicomede. Saluciola had formerly been a property of the monastery of Santa Cristina in Corteolona: it had been granted to Wibod of Parma by Charles the Bald and then confirmed by Arnulf in 894. In 899 Berengar granted it, together with the curtis of Evoriano, to the church of San Nicomede in Fontana Broccola. Ageltrude had controlled fiscal properties that had been assigned to San Nicomede, a monastery which at the time was controlled by the church of Parma, in the person of Wibod. In addition to being part of the royal fisc, these lands were strategically located. Saluciola was situated along the River Stirone, east of Parma. This property, together with San Nicomede, and its dependence Evorianum, lay at the border between the dioceses of Parma and Piacenza, the object of a long dispute between the two churches.

One must therefore assume that during Guy’s reign, exchanges of properties had been going on between the church of Parma and the royal couple, as a result of political collaboration. In 890 Guy issued a diploma for San Nicomede, through the intercession of Wibod, which mentioned some of the properties (Caput Taro and the island along the Po river) that Ageltrude was defending in 912. Once left without family support in the north of Italy, Ageltrude seems to have aimed to preserve those estates with the help of the bishop of Piacenza, Everard, who had been a member of her son’s entourage. The grant of Cortemaggiore on the part of Louis III should be read in the same light. The new bishop Guy, however, had a very different plan in terms of the control of the border, and therefore asked Berengar for support. Guy attempted to take advantage of Ageltrude’s political weakness and claimed the significant landholdings she held in the area. It is clear, however, that around 900 Ageltrude had tried to ensure the transmission of her northern possessions through a monastic foundation, and this suggests she had the local support to do it. Furthermore, she had obtained support from Louis III. This operation, however, was not approved by the Piacenza church – the bishop of Parma Elbuncus was probably too old to intervene - or possibly by Berengar, who decided to invalidate the donation

Thelast stage of Ageltrude’s attempt to preserve her properties is represented by a charter of 923, through which the empress, now residing in the monastery of Fontanabroccola, granted to the church of Parma her properties in the area. The document has some interesting features: first of all it presents Ageltrude as deo dicata and as living in another monastery, this time in northern Italy. It shows, moreover, that she had maintained properties around the area of Parma: these are two massariciae, one in Soragna and one in fundo et loco Teudensi (unidentified) in the area of Pariola, both nuclei of fiscal concentrations. Furthermore, it shows that her relationship with the church of Parma had remained strong. This relationship dated back to the ninth century, when she had worked together with Wibod and Elbuncus. Aiccard, the bishop of the city, and previously archchaplain at Berengar’s court, is mentioned in the donation. At the time Rudolf of Burgundy had arrived in Italy and claimed the royal title. He had also issued several grants for the elite of Parma: Aiccard appears in several of these charters, which shows that he had moved over to Rodulf’s side. Ageltrude’s donation must be read in the context of this political struggle: it is dated according to the years of Rudolf’s reign and issued in coincidence with a moment of political weakness for Berengar. Despite the struggles with Berengar and with some members of the local elite – especially Guy of Piacenza – Ageltrude had made several attempts to maintain her prerogatives in the north. In 907, after Berengar’s victory over Louis III, she was living in central Italy, using her monasteries there, and perhaps her connection with the abbot Majo, to preserve and administer her wealth. Every time she had the opportunity, Ageltrude tried to seek support from Berengar’s enemies in pursuit of her goals. She did so in 900, when she decided to bring together her properties in the area, taking advantage of the change in royal authority. This attempt, however, was not successful because Louis III did not remain in Italy for long. She had to face strong antagonistic powers – Guy of Piacenza – who had interests in the area. She attempted the same again in 923, taking advantage of Rudolf II’s arrival. We must presume, however, that her age was very advanced at that point, and that she died shortly after.

The widowhood of Ageltrude, in other words, shows that women had the chance to remain on the political scene even when there had not been a well structured plan of patrimonial concentration, as there had in the case of Angelberga.They could use political divisions and the struggle for the royal title to pursue their goals. In the case of Ageltrude, she did not have direct heirs, but still wanted to maintain control of her properties. She seems to have respected Berengar’s will – retiring to central Italy, giving up her monastic project in Monticelli d’Ongina – when she was forced to, but also to change strategy at every chance she got. She made the most of the opposition to Berengar and the arrival of other claimants to the throne – although the short duration of their reigns clearly affected her chances negatively. Dynastic discontinuity threatened royal widows, because they had to deal with their husband’s successors and often former enemies. At the same time it made them strong, because they could use the divisions to their own advantage.

Roberta Cimino, Italian Queens in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (PHD Thesis, University of St Andrews, 2014)

[historicwomendaily]

When she rose to lead the Tlokwa people in southern Africa, Mmanthatisi (c. 1784–1847) emerged as a remarkable strategist and politician, guiding her people through an era of turmoil.

Mother and chief

Born with the name Monylue, Mmanthatisi was the daughter of the chief of the Basia people, in what is now South Africa. She married her cousin Mokotjo, the chief of the Tlokwa people. Around 1800, she adopted the name Mmanthatisi because she had given birth to a daughter, Nthatisi.

In 1804, she gave birth to a son, Sekonyela. When Mokotjo died in 1813, Sekonyela was only nine years old and too young to rule. Mmanthatisi stepped in as leader of the Tlokwa people. Following a common practice of levirate marriage in many African societies, she also had a daughter with her late husband's brother.

The warrior queen

Mmanthatisi governed a population of 35,000 to 40,000 during a time of drought, warfare, and widespread displacement. As the expansionist Zulu kingdom threatened her territory, she chose to lead her people westward. Her leadership proved exceptional, securing significant victories against neighboring groups. She wielded full civil and military authority, forging alliances and resolving disputes among her people.

Although she did not personally fight in battles and raids, Mmanthatisi planned and directed military campaigns—a rare role for a woman in this patrilinear society. In 1817, her warriors triumphed over the Ndwandwe, capturing numerous cattle. While she enjoyed success in many battles, she also faced defeat.

During one notable episode, she cleverly outwitted an attack by the Hlubi people while her warriors were away. She mobilized women and children, positioning them on a hilltop to create the illusion of a large army, which deterred the attackers.

Her fame spread and roaming groups came to be called "mantatees," a distorted version of her name. Despite leading one of the smaller nations in the region, Mmanthatisi successfully prevented her people from being conquered.

Though her son Sekonyela assumed the role of chief in 1824, Mmanthatisi remained a formidable political figure.

Reverend Alfred T. Bryant once wrote: “Many nations have had their Boadiceas, but none greater than Mantatisi.”

Enjoyed this post? You can support me on Ko-fi!

Further reading

Momodu, S., “Mmanthatisi”

Sheldon Kathleen,  “Mmanthatisi”, in: Emmanuel Kwaku Akyeampong Henry Louis Gates (eds.). Dictionary of African Biography

Weir Jennifer, “Mmanthatisi”, in: Kefeli Agnes, Smith Bonnie G. (eds.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History

[historicwomendaily]

British caricature of Empress Elisabeth of Austria (12 March 1881)

[historicwomendaily]

Archduchess Sophie to her son Archduke Maximilian, February 5 of 1863: The ball was said to have been very beautiful, as always at Alphons Pallavicini’s, and Sisi looked delicious in a light white dress interwoven with stars in matte silver and the diamond stars in her hair that look so good on her... At the court ball, Sisi’s dress was pinned all round with diamonds and rubies. I say this later because you and your wives [Archuke Karl Ludwig and his wife Maria Annunziata were staying in Trieste with his brother and sister-in-law] might be interested in jewellery and toilets.

Praschl-Bichler, Gabriel (2008). Unsere liebe Sisi. Die Wahrheit über Erzherzogin Sophie und Kaiserin Elisabeth (Machine translation. Please keep in mind that a lot of nuance may/will be lost)

Sisi’s success was overwhelming. In 1864, for example, she went to Dresden for her brother Karl Theodor’s wedding. After the court ball. Archduke Ludwig Viktor reported to Vienna that Sisi was “stunningly beautiful, also the people here acted insane. I have never seen anyone having such an effect before.” Sisi wore a white dress embroidered with stars, her famous large diamond stars in her hair, on her breast a corsage of camellias. Her sister “Helene, a very pale copy of the Empress, in a star dress also,” wrote Ludwig Viktor. At the wedding, the main attraction was not the bride, but Elisabeth. This time she appeared in a lilac dress embroidered with silver clover leaves, with a cape of silver lace, a diamond tiara on her intricately dressed hair. Ludwig Viktor: “the people here are so flabbergasted at our lady sovereign!!! they’re right.”

Hamann, Brigitte (1986). The Reluctant Empress: A Biography of Empress Elisabeth of Austria (translation by Ruth Hein)

[historicwomendaily]

A rare intelligence, a passionate and domineering spirit, a powerful gaze, a notable cold-blooded courage, and most importantly the art of pleasing as essential part of her need to be adored.

Caroline Jaubert on Cristina di Belgioioso. From Souvenirs de Caroline Jaubert