When we think of Tudor queens, whether regnant or consort, we think of them being attended by ladies-in-waiting and maids of honour. Several books about these attending women have ‘ladies-in-waiting’ in the title, and the term appears in hundreds of other books. It therefore may surprise you to learn that the term ‘ladies-in-waiting’ was not in common use in the sixteenth century. Indeed, it would be another two hundred years before the term became popular!
Because the term ‘ladies-in-waiting’ was not in common use in the Tudor period, there are problems in using it, especially when discussing the various roles of attendance for women at the Tudor court. For example, what exactly do we mean by a ‘lady-in-waiting’? Do we mean a noblewoman, as in a titled lady, who attends upon a queen in public or in private, or do we mean any aristocratic woman, whether titled or not, who attends upon a queen?
At the Tudor court there were three main roles for women: Ladies of Honour, Maids of Honour, and Ladies and Gentlewomen of the Privy Chamber. Ladies of Honour, sometimes called ‘ladies of estate’, were titled ladies who escorted a queen in public processions. Maids of Honour were unmarried young women who escorted a queen on a daily basis around her palaces. Ladies and Gentlewomen of the Privy Chamber were titled and untitled women who attended upon a queen in her private apartment known as the Privy Chamber. There were also laundresses, gentlewomen of the household, seamstresses, and nursery staff if there were royal children.
In addition to all these roles, there were sub-roles within the Privy Chamber. There were Chamberers, who looked after a queen’s clothes and helped to dress her; there was a Mother of the Maids, who supervised the Maids of Honour; there was a Keeper of the Jewels, who looked after a queen’s personal collection of jewellery; there was, at least unofficially, a female Groom of the Stool, who was responsible for a queen’s toileting needs; and there was a lady carver, a lady taster and possibly a lady cupbearer. When she became queen in 1558, Elizabeth created even more roles within the Privy Chamber by appointing four Ladies and Gentlewomen of the Bedchamber. She also gave her Hatfield maids the novel title of Maids of the Privy Chamber, rather than the conventional title of Gentlewomen of the Privy Chamber, and in time the position became an alternative debutante position to Maids of Honour for young aristocratic girls.
Because the term ‘ladies-in-waiting’ was not in common use in the Tudor era, it does not appear in my book Elizabeth I’s Ladies, Gentlewomen and Maids: The Women who Served the Tudor Queen (2025). In Tudor times, the words lady, gentlewoman and maid had specific meanings. A lady was a knight’s wife or a titled noblewoman i.e. Kathryn Carey, Lady Knollys, wife of Sir Francis Knollys; Lady Bridget Manners, daughter of an earl; Margaret Audley, Duchess of Norfolk/Lady Norfolk, wife of a duke. A gentlewoman was an untitled woman from the aristocracy who was known as ‘Mistress’ rather than ‘Lady’. A maid was an unmarried girl or young woman who could be a lady or a gentlewoman. Therefore referring to serving gentlewomen, like Kat Astley and Blanche Parry, as ‘ladies-in-waiting’ is problematic as they were not technically ‘ladies’ and were not known as such – although then, like now, a group of women could be politely referred to as ‘ladies’.
The term ‘ladies-in-waiting’ is also a clumsy one to capitalise. In my book I capitalise all official job titles for women at Elizabeth’s court because I believe the prestige and exclusivity of those positions merits it. When we use contemporary titles, like Lady of the Privy Chamber, Keeper of Her Majesty’s Jewels, Chief Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, Maids of Honour, Mother of the Maids, this works very well. Even the term ‘Ladies of Honour’, which was not as familiar to contemporaries as these titles, works very well capitalised. ‘Ladies-In-Waiting’, however, or ‘Ladies-in-Waiting’, does not work as well.
I believe it is better to use contemporary titles as much as possible. Not only does this allow for greater consistency in capitalising, at least for those who share my view on the matter, but it is more accurate. The more accurate we are, the greater our insight into the Tudor world, and the greater our insight, the greater our understanding and appreciation of a lost age.
Does this mean there is no place for the term ‘ladies-in-waiting’ in Tudor history? Absolutely not! As problematic as the term can be, there remains a use for it. Contemporary titles are numerous, some might even say complex, and not everyone would understand their meaning. For example, a general audience might not understand what is meant by Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, or Maid of the Privy Chamber, but would broadly understand what is meant by ‘lady-in-waiting’. So, even if the use is not historically accurate, the term is so well understood that it can be the best option if making a passing reference. It is also a convenient umbrella term because of its wide scope. For example, it can be used to describe a Lady of Honour as well as a Lady of the Privy Chamber. In fact, Ladies of the Privy Chamber often served as Ladies of Honour so, in their case, it could be argued that ‘ladies-in-waiting’ is an apt job description.
Therefore, even though the term ‘ladies-in-waiting’ is not historically accurate when it comes to the Tudor age, and does not appear in my book on Elizabeth I’s ladies, gentlewomen and maids, it is a term I have used in the past and will continue to use in the future. Sometimes there is, after all, a place for modern words in a Tudor world!
© Heather Shanette 2026
You can learn more about the women who served Queen Elizabeth I in my book Elizabeth I’s Ladies, Gentlewomen and Maids: The Women who Served the Tudor Queen (2025) available from amazon uk and other retailers.
amazon UK | amazon US
Image: Elizabethan Ladies (AI generated by Canva).