The article which I reviewed entitled 'Women's Rule in Sixteenth Century Political Thought' by Constance Jordan was a very intriguing and informative article into the views and mind-sets of womanly rule in sixteenth century Britain. As the title suggests, the article delves into the thoughts and literate actions taken by many in sixteenth century Britain and questions the rule of women in British society. The aim of the article is to bring forth an argument suggesting that there was not only a religious divide during this period but also, in some cases, a much larger debate regarding the rule of women in British society and looks at reasons and events to why this common view may have been politically adopted. The article mainly focuses on events undertaken in Mary I (1553-1558) and Elizabeth I's (1559-1603) reign during the sixteenth century and how these events may have shaped the way in which the political elite of British society thought and how this was reflected in their writings.
In the article, Jordan attempts to question whether many contemporaries at the time of the Tudor monarchs in the sixteenth century were cautious of womanly rule such as the protestant John Knox, Christopher Goodman or John of Sailsbury, or whether some embraced the idea such as the protestant John Aylmer and David Chambers. Jordan identifies during the article that womanly rule was not questioned until the death of Edward VI in 1553 and with the accession of his half-sister Mary; the divine right of God was beginning to be questioned1. The category 'woman' was also the subject of endless discourse in the early modern period and more so under the late Tudor monarchs2 and Jordan expresses this point throughout the article. Jordan continuously presses the point that it is difficult to determine precisely what effect the reigns of both Mary I and Elizabeth I had on the thoughts of womanly rule3, however as quoted by Judith M.