Personal note: I do not claim any particular insight or knowledge of the female nature or soul. However, somebody's got to write this stuff - Gaffer
For simplicity's sake, I'll split the subject into 3 areas: Women on the border, Women around the military, Women's roles in our group.
In the sources available to me, there are only a few references, mostly anecdotal or by way of authors' opinions. Generally, the consensus opinion is of strong women, accustomed to living in isolation, often separated from their men by the circumstances of the time and place. I asked a few women in our group for an opinion on the subject; boiling the responses down, the most common word is "strong", among others such as "crafty" and "self-sufficient". Border women had to deal with not only the normal activities of a household or farm; crops, stock, children, sewing, brewing, cooking and so forth, but also the constant threat of reivers coming in the night, raiding, stealing and burning, or, even worse: finding her home in the path of one of the invading armies crossing from one country to the other.
A few quotes from authors familiar with the region and period: "Women were reported as being fair and comely and were generally well treated. There are numerous references to strong-minded 'lasses' making their presence felt, such as the Charlton matriarchs who served 'the dish of spurs' to the 'heidman' , indicating that the larder was empty and it was time to be riding! Children, even those born out of wedlock, were cared for and raised in the strong traditions of their clan." KEITH DURHAM, "REIVERS""Women do not figure largely in the annals of border reiving, and when they do, they tend to be either aristocrats or formidable - like the kidnapped Countess of Northumberland, or old Lady Forster shooting the bolt in the nick of time as assasins stormed up the door to her husband's bedchamber, or the goodwife who bargained for her husband's life in a frontier skirmish, or the anonymous Amazon in the old ballad "The Fray of Suport", rallying her riders to hot trod after she had been raided ("Fie, lads, my gear's a' gane!"). GEORGE MacDONALD FRASER, Historical Postscript to "THE CANDLEMASS ROAD" Fraser also quotes, in "THE STEEL BONNETS", two eye-witness reports by travelers; "while the women, 'fair in complexion, comely and pleasing' were 'not distinguished for their chastity, giving their kisses more readily than Italian women their hands'. -Aenas Sylvius Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II. Pedro de Ayala, a Spaniard, found the women "courteous in the extreme really honest, though very bold". "There is no doubt that if the men's existence was stern and dangerous, it was their women who had the hardest cross to bear for, like that of Lorraine, it was a double one. In the first place, when her menfolk set out on a foray or hot trod, a woman would not only be concerned lest they failed to replenish the larder, but might well be racked with fear for their safety, despite the assurance that if anything went wrong, the surname would see that she did not starve. Such suspense must have been very hard to bear, and it is not surprising that it bred a kind of callousness, or at any rate resignation. GODFREY WATSON, "THE BORDER REIVERS"
These are my opinions, people - they're not meant to be gospel & I don't expect you all to agree this is how I see it. Gaffer This is not meant to be a treatise of the roles or experiences of women in the 16th Century military environment. Women have been around armies since the beginnings of history, both as wives accompanying their men on campaign, and, also for those "other purposes" we're all aware of. So aware are we of these other purposes, in fact, that we can't seem to stop going on about them! A little thought here: given the nature of soldiers in general, however gentle as individuals, and given the disturbance that can be caused by romantic (read: lustful) jealousies in such a company, especially with a limited number of women for company, it is natural to assume that the army must have some regulation and control. While there were different standards of behavior in the armies of other countries, (not for nothing was the baggage train of a Landsknecht army known as the "whores and knaves"), the English were, at least officially, forward in trying to exert that control. Since this control is officially issued, the soldiers would most likely try to keep things under cover. excerpt from Leicester's Disciplinary Code: (article 5)"And for that it often happeneth, that by permitting of may vagrant idle women in an armie, sundry disorders and horrible abuses are committed: Therefore it is ordeined that no man shall carrie into the fielde, or deteine with him in the place of his garrison, any woman whatsoeuer, other than such as be knowen to be his lawful wife, or such other women to tende the sicke and to serue for launders, as shall be thought meete by the Marshall, upon pain of whipping and banishment."
OK, what is says is: "Women are trouble in the army, unless they are working. Nobody is to bring any women along except wives or nurses or laundresses". Perhaps that should read "Nurses(wink,wink) & laundresses(nudge,nudge)" for of course the soldier would answer with those purposes for the woman's presence. Likely, the woman would answer the same, whippings no fun for anybody! This gives us a narrow foothold upon which to perform, but this is not new information and much of it has been done to death. Anybody who has anything new on these issues in an English military context, please help us out here!
At the risk of starting this out negatively, most of the comments and questions I and other officers or long-time members have heard, have been by way of complaints. Before throwing that thing, note I said "most", not all. We have a large number of women members of intelligence and ability. Yes, these members have some duties that are seen as "type-casting women in women's roles", such as food prep, and water carrying, as examples. These and some others will likely remain duties of women members. These activities may take up a third of the day for most involved.
So, what's to be done the rest of the day? If women members are unhappy with the usual stereotyping as harlots or cooks, then we would suggest you take the initiative to get involved in bits, to get into the streets or to practice some craft or art, typical for the time. In the past we have had members who churned butter or work at spinning. Other possibilities full of acting potential, that could be simulated, are brewing or baking. If domestic chores don't appeal, then there are other roles that could be acted both in our site area and in the street, the first I imagine is the dragging husband or paramour away from the gambling table or from drinking in the inn. These are suggestions. We are at this time searching for any suggestions for expanding women's roles.
I asked for input from any interested women members of the group. Attached are some comments by Stepanie McKibben, and Laura Cupernell's costume guide for women, several years old and as good as when it was new.