Victoria is recorded to have at least acknowledged the plight of women in her era, though her opinions are quite divided.

On one hand she wrote (of the feminist movement): " I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."

But on the other hand, she also wrote: "Being pregnant is an occupational hazard of being a wife."

"For a man to strike any women is most brutal, and I, as well as everyone else, think this far worse than any attempt to shoot, which, wicked as it is, is at least more comprehensible and more courageous."

"When I think of a merry, happy, free young girl - and look at the ailing, aching state a young wife generally is doomed to - which you can't deny is the penalty of marriage."

"A marriage is no amusement but a solemn act, and generally a sad one."

"I think people really marry far too much; it is such a lottery after all, and for a poor woman a very doubtful happiness."

So while she clearly acknowledges the plight of women in her position and in marriage, she did not do much in governance to improve their lot. However it must also be mentioned that she was a trailblazer in the use of painkillers (ie, chloroform) in childbirth. She made it popular and acceptable among many classes of women although the clergy was outraged by it since they felt that pain in childbirth was proper due to the sins of Eve.

I'll take Elizabeth as a case study. I might write another piece on Victoria if I find the time!

Speaking for Elizabeth I, there were a number of issues standing in the way of feminist reform. First and most important is the question of identity. In today's society gender is seen as one of if not the most important component of self-identity. "Woman first, Christian second, American third", etc. This was very, very different back in the 16th century. There, one's identity was often "Christian first, Family second, Woman third" - that is, when required to prioritise particular aspects of their life, women were indoctrinated to attend to the state of their soul as paramount, to the fortunes of their family a close second, to the interests of their class as a distant third, and only then consider other factors. Of those factors, the plight of their gender was way down the list. There simply wasn't the same sense of solidarity amongst women that people take almost for granted today.

Elizabeth was heavily conservative and pragmatic in her approach to rulership. Stability and the security of the realm were her paramount concerns, having just emerged from a period of massive religious infighting and iconoclasm. She understood the limits of the system and she approved of them. Furthermore, she often had to struggle and fight with her councillors over decisions of state, be they minor or major. She was practically blackmailed over the issue of succession, with Parliament outright refusing to vote in support of her raising necessary funds until she addressed the issue. While their tone was always obsequious, the wording of their (lengthy) addresses and comments to her made it clear that they did not think that she grasped the nuances of the situation. They made sure to point out things over and over again in case she missed them. Once abroad and away from her direct supervision, her generals would on occasion simply ignore royal commands and pursue their own agenda during the execution of their duties. On paper, she had the same absolute authority of her father, but on the ground she often lacked the support necessary to make that a reality. Wide-scale feminist reforms were simply not on the agenda.

The issue of personal power and support changed somewhat as her reign went on, but the way she went about it erected new barriers in the way of "helping her fellow woman", were she so inclined. Elizabeth solved the issue of having an unmarried woman on the throne by gradually transforming herself into a symbolic ruler, the "Virgin Queen". She was still constantly harangued over the issue of succession, but her elevation to an icon of almost religious reverence - an honourary man rather than a woman - at least gave her enough gravitas to do her job as monarch. And she was very very careful to do everything in her power to foster that image of herself in the public's perception. But in doing so, she further distanced herself from the concerns of her fellow women. She no longer particularly identified with them, if she ever had.

In her speeches she constantly sets herself apart from other women. She lambasts them and denigrates them for their weakness, their lack of wit, and their sinfulness. She repeats over and over again how she's different from the average women, how God has blessed her with the gifts of a man, even when it seems unnecessary to her main argument. Anything she did was because she was extraordinary; it in no way indicated that it was possible or desirable for other women to follow the same path. She made absolutely zero effort to encourage women to take up scholarship or follow her example in becoming literate, while simultaneously encouraging intellectualism amongst men through sponsorship of universities and colleges.

Her supporters went along with her attempts to neuter herself - one preacher who had railed against the evils of a female monarch during Mary's tenure suddenly turned around and said:

"I perceive we are not like to be governed by a lady shut up in a chamber from all her subjects and most of her servants, and seen seld but on holidays […] but by a man of spirit and learning, of able body, of understanding mind."

The same process can be seen to a lesser degree in other female monarchs. While none went as far as Elizabeth, they often "de-sexed" themselves to some degree and began trying to paint themselves as exceptions to the rule rather than attempt to overthrow that rule. After all, they were dependent upon the patriarchal system for their own power and legitimacy, it made little sense to upset the apple-cart. These rulers did not think "Ah, I am a woman and I'm doing fine, therefore all women are actually equal to men." They thought "Ah, I am doing well in spite of being a woman. I must be exceptional or blessed by God!". This view was thoroughly reinforced by their male peers. And so they did not seek to change the norms that affected the "average" woman, since the role of Everywoman had been chosen by God to suit her virtues and temperament.

Victoria's story is a little bit different owing to the changing role of women in Victorian society at large and the rise of feminist ideology amongst the educated classes. But that's a whole other post.

Further reading:

• Carole Levin, The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power covers a lot of this ground

• Almost anything by Roy Strong, who specialises in Elizabethan portraiture and the deliberate effort to cultivate the image of the "Virgin Queen". If I had to pick one, go for The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry.

Follow-up question, I've heard that Cleopatra did actively improve the situation of women, to what extent is that true?