Charles Beem's study of queenship from Empress Matilda's brief hold on power in 1141 to Queen Elizabeth II's fifty-three-year reign (at time of writing) is the first to consider this increasingly popular theme over the longue durée. Exploring the difficulties that women faced as monarchs and the strategies they constructed to deal with them, he allies himself with a substantial body of work that has sought to understand the representation of queens regnant, both by themselves and by others, while providing new insights drawn from the continuities and changes over nearly nine centuries. He concludes that English queens were remarkably successful at enduring the handicap posed by their gender and developing ways to combat it. Indeed, if it were not for the (perhaps rather unfair) caveat that English queens have done nothing for modern feminist consciousness and goals, Beem argues “the historical evolution of British female kingship can be considered a resounding success” (172). By the accession of Elizabeth II, it was fully recognized that a woman could hold independent kingly sovereignty.

Beem approaches his broad chronological survey by exploring four case studies—Matilda (1141), Mary I (1553–58), Anne (1702–14), and Victoria (1837–1901)—and focusing specifically on each queen's attempt to establish power. The omission of Elizabeth I (1558–1603) may seem surprising, but Beem argues that we need to establish an analytical framework for explaining why she succeeded in overcoming the problems of her gender when others failed. Beem's starting point is the short-lived reign of Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I. He argues that Matilda's failure to maintain power was not because of her gender. She was able to construct a viable and successful claim to the English throne through her status as a consecrated imperatrix, as Henrici Regis filia (daughter of Henry I), as domina Anglorum (Lady of the English), as well as through oaths of allegiance, female-inclusive primogeniture, and divine blessing as manifested in military success (conducted by male relatives). Rather, her assumption of an authoritarian, “male” style of governance, her failure to press her claim to her father's throne immediately on his death, and the fact that primogeniture was not fully established as the law of succession all contributed to her downfall.

If Matilda sought to define her queenship in male terms, Beem argues that Mary sought to legitimate female authority without upsetting male-dominated political theory, styling the queen as a deferential woman. Indeed, this was her lasting legacy that bore ripest fruit under Anne, the “apotheosis” of queenship (102). By the Act of Settlement in 1701, Anne could be recognized as having a sole right to inherit and assume full regal power independently of her husband. This was in no small part due to the role and character of her husband, George of Denmark, who was ready to play the subservient role of helpmeet to his royal heiress wife. But it also owed much to the rise of contract theory that redefined the crown from a hereditary estate to an office subject to parliamentary limitations. Despite this achievement, however, Beem argues that queenship continued to pose questions about gendered roles of monarchs and their attendants and about precedent: whether regnant queens should follow the example of previous queens or more recent, male monarchs. This was exemplified in the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839, when Victoria refused to submit to Robert Peel's request to replace her Tory female bedchamber servants with Whig ones as a sign of support for his minority government. Although Victoria would later concede that she had been headstrong, Beem argues that the episode not only revealed the queen's conception of female monarchy but also highlighted the changing relationship between monarch and government, and the uneasy encroachment of the latter on the former, exacerbated by the concerns that such a young, inexperienced queen needed the support and advice of older statesmen.

Beem's study raises important issues, notably, on the status of the crown as an estate or office and, perhaps crucially, on the relationship between regnant queens and their husbands. Inevitably, there is a price for such a chronologically broad study. By focusing on the assumption of power, we learn little about how regnant queens exercised power on a daily basis across their reigns and hence, whether concerns about their ability to do so were truly realized. Complex political and politico-cultural developments between the reigns are glossed quickly. Beem also strikes some old-fashioned notes, notably, for this author, on his depiction of John Dudley, duke of Northumberland, and of Mary's relationship with her privy council, both of which have been subject to revision. Closer textual analysis and sharper contextualization of William Camden's Annals and William Fletewood's Itineratium ad Windsor would add greater clarity and provide further insights into contemporary perceptions of queenship. Nevertheless, this study helpfully puts the spotlight on queenship over the longue durée, providing welcome new avenues for research by transcending the boundaries of individual reigns.