The Historiography of Women
The phrase ‘winners write history’ helpfully encapsulates how men have treated women throughout history. How is a ‘winner’ defined other than the one with control over both the pen and the sword? The idea that men have always been the main characters on the world’s stage has been upheld by one persistent system; patriarchy. This system has attempted to sideline women’s stories in all realms, be it medicine, war, poetry or art. One quotation that summarises this atavistic but sustained belief comes from Steve Biddulph’s Raising Boys;
‘In an anti-male era, it’s important to remember that men built the planes, fought the wars, laid the railroad tracks, invented the cars, built the hospitals, invented the medicines and sailed the ships that made it all happen.’
If this is to be believed, Pankhurst herself would hang her head in shame.
With the fourth wave of feminism advancing through society there has been an increasing volume of historiography surrounding women’s histories and contributions to politics, culture and science. This series ‘Winners Write History: Or is it just Men?’ aims to explore this historiography and the evolving discussion on the true nature of women’s history and how it is represented. History itself arguably cannot be rewritten, but it can be better represented and better understood. In fourth wave feminism we are battling with the infinitesimal intricacies of sociopolitical equalities. It is important to remember, however, that all movements are started by and propelled by continuous questioning, even of the movement itself. How have women been treated in their lifetimes, in spite of or because of their achievements? How has this treatment impacted ongoing perceptions of these individuals and of women’s contributions to society in general? Ultimately, how have men used their control over historical narratives to shape our idea of gender in society?
Alice Perrers
Perrers is a lesser-known royal mistress from the mediaeval period of British history, living alongside the court of Edward III in the 14th century. Perrers is a classic example of the vilification of women in history by men who sought the power she wielded. This process was aided by her sexuality, supposed promiscuity and the enforcement of gendered expectations. A more famous example of this is the life and memory of Anne Boleyn, the ‘great whore’ whose extraordinary rise to power angered courtiers and countries alike and whose memory has been sullied continuously by misinformation spread during her lifetime. As mistress to Edward III (r.1327-77) Perrers possessed an extraordinary amount of independence in an age where women were still considered property and had little to no legal protection or rights. Perrers’ life defied these constraints on mediaeval women even in the highest of circles. This did not sit well with her contemporaries. Alice differs in an important way to the story of Anne Boleyn; her rise defies the stereotype of sexualised women elevated by men around her and simultaneously defies the image purported by her contemporaries of an evil manipulative shrew that has lasted the centuries.
Historiography generally agrees that many of Alice’s contemporaries have given an inaccurate account of her character and events in her lifetime. However, the overall narrative of a manipulative woman still influences her image today. These sources, namely Thomas Walsingham and Jean Froissart, are pivotal to the depiction of mediaeval warfare, royalty and politics including the Hundred Years War, Edward III’s kingship and that of his counterpart Philip VI of France. Their understanding and depictions of women’s roles, however, is severely lacking in accuracy, let alone empathy. Alice has been depicted as a manipulative gold digger, using an ageing Edward III for her own financial gain, offending his pious queen, Phillipa of Hainault as well as the Christian sensibilities of the court. Phillipa’s queenship has also been used against Alice as evidence of her inferiority and immorality. The mere connotations of ‘mistress’ already have inbuilt ammunition against women like Alice who worked for their livelihoods. Alice became one of the wealthiest people during her lifetime through various means that have been erased by antagonistic contemporaries and biased historiographical works. This wealth was all but lost by her death as Edward III died before her, leaving her undefended against the Good Parliament. With modern understanding of the reality women faced in these years, Alice’s life deserves a sympathetic reassessment to better understand the complexities of mediaeval life.
A Woman Born and a Woman Made
Mediaeval historiography is subject to a paucity of sources remaining today to tell us about life in this period. This has made the invisibility of women in society ever more present. Little is known about Alice’s origins, even the time and place of her birth is contested with most estimating around 1348 in the south of England, possibly London. Her parentage is also unknown, but it is generally agreed (Given-Wilson, Ormrod, Tompkins) that her father was a jeweller of the Salisbury family making her suitable for a traditional education of French, basic literacy and numeracy as well as the economic abilities necessary in her family’s industry. Alice was also born in a time of economic prosperity for the mercantile class of London, so prosperous in fact that the first sumptuary laws were implemented dictating what the lower ranks of society could eat and wear so as to not compete with nobility. Alice therefore received a comparatively privileged upbringing and benefited greatly from her family’s business, making her relatively well suited for court life.
English chronicler Thomas Walsingham wrote that Alice was born to a thatcher. Whilst a jeweller was not a noble profession, it did rank higher than a thatcher and this debasement of Alice’ birth has evident intentions. We don’t have to dig deep to decipher Walsingham’s bias as he calls Alice a ‘shameless, impudent harlot’ and rallies against her role at the king’s side. Criticism of royal favourites, be they mistresses, advisors or soldiers, is an age-old tactic of indirectly criticising a king himself without facing the consequences of doing so (see the fate of Henry VIII’s courtiers). Edward III has been described as the ‘perfect king’ (Mortimer) however he has also been subject to heavy criticism for his later kingship. In the years before his death Edward is criticised for his personal conduct and his military record, the time when Walsingham was writing his chronicles again furthering his bias against Edwardian rule. Walsingham was also a monk of St Albans Abbey, which became a rival of Alice Perrers in her rise to prosperity, furthering his bias against the royal favourite. Although a prominent English chronicler, Walsingham’s account of Alice’s life has largely been dismissed as unreliable. Contextual clues can also be used against this chronicler’s description of Alice, as a low-born, ill-educated woman would not be elevated to the position of lady-in-waiting to a queen. It can be concluded that Walsingham exploited societal expectations of mediaeval English women, being the categorisation of obedient, quiet and subservient Christians vs disruptive, promiscuous and disobedient ‘harlots’ against Alice in her rise to prominence.
Perrers is the name by which Alice is generally known as her maiden name cannot be certified; she is also sometimes referred to as Alice de Windsor following her second marriage, however both unions left little evidence of their occurrences. Alice’s first husband was ostensibly of French descent so it is fair to say that her understanding of the language would have made her suitable for life at court, where French was the primary language until the Statute of Pleading issued by her lover Edward III in 1362. As with most royal mistresses, Alice’s husband was known to the king through his work, in this case as a jeweller offering Alice the opportunity to meet the king herself. It was common in these times for women of the peasant and mercantile classes to marry a man of the same profession as their father. Alice had begun to exercise her knowledge of her family’s trade, carrying out business herself following her first husband’s death in 1364.
Alice’s official entrance into court was as a lady-in-waiting to Queen Phillipa, to whom Edward was reportedly devoted to throughout their 41-year marriage. This role opened the door for Alice’s most rewarding career move. As a royal favourite, Alice received many gifts and, through a diversity of means, became one of the richest people in the realm. This wealth was only protected, however, by the presence of the king and after his death Alice was exiled by the Good Parliament and her lands stripped. Although this has been referred to as her fall from grace (Moorhouse), Alice went down fighting.
A Career Woman
The primary issue contemporaries and historians have taken with Alice is the vast wealth she amassed in her lifetime, ostensibly at the expense of Edward’s purse and pride. Some of the most infamous royal mistresses throughout history have amassed great wealth through their influence like Madame de Pompadour, Barbara Palmer, and Diane de Poitiers. In many ways Alice’s treatment in history has not been so different from her counterparts as the work of women not of the blood at royal courts is often degraded or dismissed. This is habitually achieved through the hyperfocus on the sexual life of a mistress and, although this is often a key part of such a career, it is not the backbone of its success. Palmer maintained her influence in the Caroline court through patronage, Poitiers allied herself with Henry II’s closest courtiers and Alice secured her wealth with the knowledge and skill learned through her time spent in her family’s industry.
The lens through which Alice’s wealth has been assessed has been a misogynistically motivated and cynical one. Edward’s wife Philipa was ailing by the beginning of his relationship with Alice and died before they became public. Edward himself was ageing and Alice has been accused of manipulating the weakened, mourning king to her own financial gain at his expense. I argue, however, those without official power, in the feudal world, cannot manipulate those with ultimate power - the king. Undoubtedly, Alice took advantage of the situation, utilised her skills and exploited the system to her benefit but this does not warrant the image of a ‘manipulative shrew’ to which she has been subject throughout the centuries. It could even be argued that her actions in her time when an unmarried woman could not own property, stand in court, or, (God forbid) vote, is admirable. However the connotations of the profession ‘mistress’ perforates today’s understanding of women’s lives in royal and noble history. Oversexualisation of women both vilifies and victimises these women as it reduces their achievements to a sexual conquest, disenfranchising their independence or contributions to the world of politics, art, literature or economics. Alice, in addition to a romantic and sexual partner of the king, was also a skilled businesswoman and property investor using her skills and good fortune to increase her net worth and secure her independence and protection when society offered her none.
The evidence that Alice formed alliances at court to protect her economic interests following the uncertainty of her early widowhood has been used to represent alternating portrayals of her life and personality. As always in historical analysis, context is key. Alice undeniably used her sex to her advantage, utilising her close relationship with the king to line her coffers. Yet she had already amassed a considerable fortune relative to her birth and made her family proud with her position in the queen’s court as a lady-in-waiting. Men born into similarly modest backgrounds throughout history have faced starkly different treatment from society and historians alike. To quote Reese Witherspoon, ‘ambition is not a dirty word’, but when it comes to women in the royal court, their successes have not been treated kindly. Instead, they are often debased and slandered in an attack on women outside of biblically archaic expectations of a meek and modest woman;
‘That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands’ - Titus 2:4-5
Drawing from Fiona Tolhurst's insights, royally associated women have faced unjust criticism and condemnation for exhibiting traditionally masculine traits like ambition, financial autonomy, and intellectual prowess—qualities that are often commended in men. Where Edward VI’s 1st Duke of Northumberland had a ‘determined ambition’ as he worked to control the young king and implement the soon-to-be Nine Day Queen, Jane Grey. Meanwhile, Tolhurst helpfully encapsulates the plight of women’s characterisations in history through the lens of Empress Matilda, who for modern historians is ‘both too feminine in her weaknesses and too masculine in her aggressive exercise of power.’ Witherspoon’s speech at the Glamour Women of the Year awards is obviously from a wildly different context than the life of Alice Perrers, yet serves to illustrate the way in which she has been remembered. Her ambition was her cause for success but also her adverse memorialisation. Hollman’s biography of Phillipa and Alice illustrates the sympathetic approach to women’s history we should be taking today with our understanding of the realities these women faced without an icon like Witherspoon to inspire them. Without looking at Alice through rose-tinted glasses, we can remove the ‘caricature’ recognised by Hollman and assess the mediaeval figure through a less biassed criteria.
It can be argued that mistresses throughout history have partaken in one of the most controversial jobs in society. They exchanged sexual relationships for wealth and protection and used the position this work gave them to further their interests and those of their friends, families and allies. The narrative of a rapacious, manipulative, vindictive woman is based on the shame associated with sex work. Even the word ‘mistress’ pertains certain connotations around femininity and promiscuity despite the many successful careers shared by women in countries across the world (Hürrem Sultan, Madame de Montespan). Looking at the context of her time, Alice had very limited pathways to bettering herself. Alice’s supposed promiscuity has made it all too easy to dismiss her meteoric rise as a misuse of her feminine virtues and thus she has been treated harshly throughout history. Alice was involved in the business of her family, her husband and later for herself when she became a widow in 1364. The beginnings of Alice’s extensive property portfolio began in Kent with a deal exchanged between herself and John de Mereworth, a knight at Edward’s court. A major part of economic and social success in these courts was to be seen to be successful and owning property such as this would have significantly aided Alice onto her path of wealth and fortune. Behind the scenes, this land deal was even more impressive and is highly indicative of Alice’s hidden potential as a financial investor and property manager. This deal was the beginning of Alice’s independent income and has no relevance to her relationship with Edward; the introduction was made through her role at Phillipa’s court attained through her own means. This business attitude was sustained throughout her time at Edward’s side as she only became richer and richer until his death. Bothwell has described the role of ‘mistress’ as a passive one whose ‘position, her wealth, and even her fate were dependent upon the will of the king’. If this is to be proven true, should Alice not be heralded as the ultimate ‘girlboss’ who navigated these constraints and surpassed all expectations?
Woman to Woman
The feudal system of Edward’s reign thrust high expectations of mediaeval kingship upon him. Chivalric values embodied by the Order of the Garter formed by Edward in 1348 demanded military prowess, achieved at the Battle of Crecy, and domestic domination, achieved through the obtainment of an obedient wife. In Edward’s case this was the pious and loyal Phillipa of Hainault, who herself deserves a historical re-analysis. Jean Froissart, a French chronicler of the Hundred Years War described Phillipa as the ‘most gentle Queen, most liberal, and most courteous that ever was Queen in her days’ and this has been the general consensus of Phillipa’s queenship since her death (Hollman). Our old friend Thomas Walsingham similarly described Phillipa as ‘the most noble woman’ from which we can infer an additional motivation behind his slander of Alice’s name.
If one meets the societal expectations of womanhood and femininity, one must fall short to perpetuate general masculine superiority. Phillipa’s maternal, beautiful, charitable queenship heightens the standard by which Alice is contrasted, painting an image of a white sheathed maiden angel on one shoulder and a red cloaked horned devil on the other. Comparing women in order to maintain power over them is an age-old strategy of the patriarchy that remains present in modern society; think Olivia vs Sabrina or Haley vs Selena. Evidently the standards to which Alice and Phillipa were, and continue to be, held vary greatly from today’s modern pop icons. Gentle femininity and obedience have been key characteristics of the ‘perfect woman’ for centuries in most cultures; the fact that Phillipa was able to publicly meet these requirements has served as fuel for the fire surrounding the continuous deformation of Alice’s character when compared to the pious queen. Alice has also been vilified through the victimisation of Phillipa in her final years as she watched her once faithful husband conduct his affair with the decades younger Perrers. To this, I refer to my earlier argument that those without official power in the feudal world, cannot manipulate those with ultimate power, such as the king. This means that Alice did not ‘steal’ her husband from her and should not be cast in the role of master manipulator.
By separating these women as individuals whilst simultaneously recognising their coexistence we can better assess their characters, faults and virtues. Gemma Hollman’s comparative work on Phillipa and Alice seamlessly highlights the two women’s characters including their respective flaws without using either to elevate or vitiate the other. The Queen and the Mistress exemplifies changing attitudes towards women in history and especially those who lived in a time with strongly enforced gender expectations with a more empathetic analytical approach.
The Rise and Fall of an Empire
The evidence of Alice’s shrewd cunning is apparent on multiple fronts, not least in the physical manifestations of her wealth. Her portfolio of 56 properties across 25 counties by the time of her lover’s death made her one of the richest people (not just women) in England, transcending all gender expectations. This manifestation of wealth has been used as evidence of her ‘greed’, rather than her immense success (Ormrod). Notably, 15 of her manors were gifted to her by Edward III while the remaining properties were acquired through Alice’s own financial acumen by Alice herself owing to intricate land deals, agreements and negotiations.
Alice's tale is a fascinating account of a woman’s ambition, fortune, and the prejudices that often accompany the elevation and memory of successful women. This success, however, inevitably stirred resentment, leading to a concerted effort from her adversaries to strip her of the wealth she had meticulously accumulated and fought to protect as she foresaw the vulnerability Edward’s death would expose her to. The Good Parliament was formed in 1376 in response to Alice’s excessive accumulation of landed wealth.
Mediaeval historiography faces the challenge of a great paucity of sources due to the obvious problem of time. Most material has decayed in centuries past and so few people were literate, written sources are also scarce. This has meant a heavy reliance on sources with ostensible biases, including court documents, chroniclers as aforementioned and religious material. In Alice’s case the primary sources on her life come from the former, namely documentation of the trials of the Good Parliament and her demise. These trials represented public sentiment towards the royal mistress who had achieved so much in her lifetime. Alice’s contemporaries resented her for the wealth she had amassed with the aid of Edward III, who for so long had been the figurehead of chivalric kingly values as Froissart wrote ‘his like had not been seen since the days of King Arthur’. There is little evidence that Alice had any real parliamentary or military influence and although she was better educated that most would give her credit for, she was not so politically inclined. The influence she is accused of wielding over Edward was primarily financial as she exploited her position to benefit her coffers, arguably conflicting with the chivalric dictum of domestic control i.e. control over one’s household, including its women. Edward has been recorded as the ‘perfect king’ and this deference to a woman, a low ranking one at that, did not suit this narrative of a great and noble king (Mortimer). This was unacceptable to a proud and patriotic community as the English. Alice represented a threat to traditional masculine and chivalric values, further transcending gendered expectations of strict feudal society.
Edward’s politicians and courtiers also blamed her for his later downfalls including ill health, military losses in France and costs to the royal coffers. The Good Parliament, so named after their desire to reform the corrupt royal house, exiled Alice from the realm and seized her worldly goods. By this time Alice had secretly married Sir William Windsor in order to protect herself from what she saw coming as her lover was dying and those in power despised her. This marriage was further ammunition to use against the royal mistress as a supposed betrayal of the king’s love. A targeted decree was made against Alice declaring;
some women have pursued various business and disputes in the king’s courts by way of maintenance, bribing and influencing the parties, which thing displeases the king; the king forbids any woman to do it, and especially Alice Perrers, on penalty of whatever the said Alice can forfeit and of being banished from the realm. Gesta abbatum Monasterii Sancti Alba
This declaration showcases Alice as a conniving gold digger defying the rules of femininity set out by the mediaeval patriarchy and feudal system that demanded a strict hierarchy in society that placed women in the lowest ranks. The ‘bribing and influencing’ found in the royal courts has been rife throughout all of history and is arguably what the nation is built on. The reason for the direct attack on Alice for these crimes which all courtiers and politicians were guilty of, is plain (misogyny, if you weren’t sure). It is a disappointment but not a shock, then, that this depiction has been the one to stand the test of time.
The seizure and exile were not so effective in reality as planned. Under Richard II parliament again rallied to condemn Alice for her manipulation of the ageing king and misuse of royal power. In this court Alice was tried as a femme sole as she was believed to be unmarried and as such was not granted the protection offered to married women (a wife could not be tried as an individual as she was the property of her husband, along with all her worldly goods). This fact was not unbeknownst to Alice. It is unclear when she married for a second time but following her conviction William Wyndsore petitioned the result of the court on the basis of an unfair trial (Ormrod). Perrers had secretly married Wyndsore, Lieutenant of Ireland. A risky move, as it ostensibly painted Alice as a disloyal mistress betraying the love and kindness of the late king. Then again, Alice anticipated the danger of being an unmarried woman at the court of her lover’s son, now king, surrounded by enemies and wannabes. After constant petitioning, Wyndsore secured a substantial portion of his wife’s lands. Without this marriage Alice would have been left with nothing. It is this alliance that prevented her from total ruin in the end, although she suffered great losses at the hands of a vengeful consortium of men masquerading as a parliament.
The image these courts aimed to paint of Alice as a universally hated seductress and gold digger, responsible for the depletion of royal treasury is contradicted by the circumstances of the bloody Peasant’s Revolt close by to Alice’s homestead. Alice’s properties were not attacked unlike many of those similarly convicted by the Good Parliament and Alice herself was never threatened with violence unlike her counterpart Richard Lyons who was killed in the street by leader Wat Tyler.
The artistic licence taken with Alice’s reputation by her contemporaries reached levels of absurdity when it was rumoured she thieved the rings off a dying Edward’s fingers when left alone with him on his deathbed. This can be easily disproved by the apparent fact that no king would be left alone on his deathbed, unguarded especially by such a loyal and loving family as Edward’s had proved to be. Walsingham has proven to be more of a dramatist than a chronicler as Alice supposedly; ‘artfully removed from the royal hands the rings, which the king wore on his fingers to display his royalty… so, in this way bidding the king farewell’
Yet, no such rings existed and no such action was taken. Alice was no thief in the night and had more foresight than to act on whim.
Undeterred by vicious hearsay, legal constraints and feudal expectations, Alice fought fiercely against the forces determined to dismantle the empire she had worked decades to build. She bore losses to the wealth and honour of her children by the king, her own capital and reputation but died having lived an astoundingly affluent life. The resulting legacy is one of tenacity, wisdom and cunning tragically tinged by misogynistic rumour, false accusation and outright attacks on her wealth and character both in her lifetime and years after.
Conclusion
The aim of this article has not been to perceive Alice Perrers through rose-tinted glasses or to resituate her as a heroine or tragic victim of her time or the androcentric narrative of mediaeval history. Feminist history does not seek to put women on a pedestal. Rather, by employing the facts and information available, we can evaluate women like Alice in a manner akin to the treatment men have traditionally received, with a degree of empathy, respect and even sympathy for the times in which they lived. Alice did not live as a victim and should not be remembered as one, although the men who envied her success threw everything they had at her to take it. While Phillipa led a life of piety and ‘womanly’ obedience, Alice defied these constraints of femininity yet neither better or worse than the other. Both experienced loss, affluence, and even a degree of power. Both have been subject to the gendered bias of their contemporaries and historiography that followed. There is one question left to ask in light of this. If Alice manipulated Edward III, used him for her own gain, rinsed him for all he was worth and lied and cheated to protect herself, in a time where women had so few rights or protection, would that be so bad?
Bibliography
Biddulph, Steve, 2015, Raising Boys, Thorsons.
Bothwell, James, 1998, ‘The management of position: Alice Perrers, Edward III, and the creation of a landed estates, 1362–1377’, Journal of Medieval History, Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 31-51.
Dawson, Ian, 1993, The Tudor Century 1485–1603, Nelson.
Given-Wilson, C., 2004, Perrers [other married name Windsor], Alice (d. 1401/02), ODNB.
Hollman, G., 2022, The Queen and the Mistress: The Women of Edward III, The History Press, Cheltenham.
Holmes, G., 1975, The Good Parliament, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lewis, Jone Johnson, 2020, Alice Perrers, ThoughtCo, <https://www.thoughtco.com/alice-perrers-facts-3529651> Accessed November 2023.
Lewis, K., 2013, Kingship and Masculinity in Late Medieval England, Routledge.
Moeslein, Anna, 2015, ‘Reese Witherspoon's Moving Speech at Glamour's 2015 Women of the Year Awards: 'Like Elle Woods, I Do Not Like to be Underestimated’, Glamour.
Moorhouse, D., The Hundred Years War: Alice Perrers, <https://thehundredyearswar.co.uk/alice-perrers/> Accessed November 2023.
Mortimer, Ian, 2006, The Perfect King. The life of King Edward III, Pimlico.
Ormrod, W.M., 2006, ‘Who was Alice Perrers?’, Chaucer Review 40, 219-229.
Ormrod, W.M., 2008, ‘Alice Perrers and John Salisbury’, EHR 123, 379-392.
Ormrod, W.M., 2008, ‘The Trials of Alice Perrers’, Speculum 83, 366-396.
Ormrod, W.M., 2004, Edward III, <https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-8519?rskey=14rXk7&result=1>Accessed November 2023.
The Royal Women, Alice Perrers: The Manipulative Mistress, <https://theroyalwomen.com/2022/03/22/alice-perrers/>Accessed November 2023.
Thompson, E.M., 1874, [T. Walsingham], Chronicon Angliae, ab anno Domini 1328 usque ad annum 1388, Rolls Series, 64.
Tompkins, L., 2015, ‘Alice Perrers and the Goldsmiths’ Mistery: New Evidence Concerning the identity of the Mistress of Edward III’, EHR 130, 1361-1391.
Westminster Abbey, Edward III and Philippa of Hainault, <https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/royals/edward-iii-and-philippa-of-hainault> Accessed November 2023.
So interesting! A lot to think on here!