If Europe really was so heavily patriarchal and not inclusive to the female sex, then why were so many powerful and impactful monarchs, era defining leaders of nations women?>Elisabeth I>Isabella I of Castile>Maria Theresa>Catherine the Great>Queen Elisabeth...The list just keeps piling up.The "divine right of kings (and queens)" is not enough of an excuse, it could have easily been circumvented by pointing out that King David was a King and never a Queen and another Monarch could be appointed.Is it Celtic influence?
Male monarchs earned their right to rule and be respected by fighting in war, and in many cases having to bestow privileges to their closest allies in nobility and the church. Female queens more often than not had a circle of ministers and advisors who took care of nasty stuff, like handling commercial and diplomatic relations with other countries and deciding which countries to invade or ally with.For example, Lord Burghley served as Lord High Treasurer, Lord Privy Seal, and Secretary of State throughout various points in Queen Elizabeth I's reign, and was actually the one who signed the order to execute Mary, Queen of Scots, after her implication in the Babbington Plot.Just as is the case of CEOs and presidents in our time, monarchs rarely ruled all by themselves and more often than not had the nasty work handled by aides and heads of various councils. There is no contradiction between being an absolute monarch and having a council of ministers surrounding the monarch, but whereas in many cases male monarchs tend to be strongmen in their own right, female monarchs are much more likely to have their trusted advisors and ministers play the role of strongmen for them.
>>18130686Sure, but you can't deny those female monarchs still swayed significant influence on courtly matters.
>>18130618Agnatic Primogeniture (first-born male son inheriting the kingdom) was always the preferred method. Absolute primogeniture (firstborn inheriting regardless of gender) only really became a thing out of necessityAnd I think the whole "patriarchy" bit really only implies to the common folk women who were disenfranchised, not royal women
>>18130618>Elisabeth IA complete joke. Name ten defining thing about this irrelevant bitch and her reign besides Shakespeare and "muh spic armada o algo (also plz don't nootice englishite armada)". Britshites just love bending over for bitches.>Isabella I of CastileAnother literal who. Same deal as above but replace englishite with spics.>Maria TheresaAGAIN! The most notable things about her are that other powers went to war over her succession for their own gains and losing Silesia to a Prussian homo.>Catherine the GreatLiteral horsefucker who was just getting fucked 24/7 by some gopnik who were the actual rulers of russhitistan and nothing of achievement or relevance have been made besides muh blobbing which is basic bitch tier.>Queen ElisabethYou mean the old cunt who thankfully kicked the bucket a few years ago?LOLLMAOKWAB EVEN
>>18130618>two (2) queen gooner threads on the catalogQueenbros we eatin good today
>>18130618Isabel got the castillian crown after a civil war against his half sister Juana. Talk about patriarchy.> Is it Celtic influence?yup
>>18130618>No Tamar of Georgiashit list
>>18130872>KWABShould have put in the beginning, then there'd be no need reading all that
>>18130872Epic post. I wish I could be as obtuse and contrarian as you
>>18130859I disagree that they were disenfranchised, voting usually coincided with bucket duty or military draft.
>>18130872I wanted to write Queen Victoria.
>>18130686female monarchs still swayed significant influence on courtly matters.
>>18131121We know, europe was matriarchal
>>18130618Thinking about it, all the famous female rulers were successful: Elizabeth I, Isabella of Castile, Catherine the Great, and Maria TheresaI can't remember any "bad" female monarch. Now moids... haha poor beings >>18130872Queen Isabel of Aragon: It was because she ended a civil war between father and son by positioning herself in the middle of the Alvalade battlefield, mounted on a donkey.
>>18131146It would be better if men were submissive to women my Ranking of female power:1. Isabella the Catholic2. Elizabeth I of England3. Maria Theresa4. Catherine the Great7. Thatcher8. Merkel9. Olga of Kyiv
>>18131121>still swayed significant influence saar
>>18131146>>18131151This is the splendor of the Europeans lmao
>>18131146There were a couple of Russian empresses before Catherine the Great that were pretty mediocre
>>18131067you cant mention any monarch of england post charles 1 as some kind of power broker. Especially not a woman, especially not during the whig domination
>>18131152Im ESL, not a poo though. Should have written "wielded significant sway".
>>18131146This women had more courage than most men of her time>>18130872>>18130618Isabel de Trastámara is the absolute totem of patriotic virtues, I consider her one of the best leaders in history."fanatic" for the vast majority. For better or worse, she was undoubtedly the architect of the "Castilianization" of Spain and its colonies. Unlike most, this steacy ensured that her mentality remained a prisoner of medieval ""''obscurantism"". to the seethe of the Illuminists. I notice that more women were pro-middle age than men.precisely the moment when the theocratic vision of the universe gave way to humanism and transoceanic discoveries expanded the limits of the known world. Even if you despise her, no one can deny her interest in arts and letters or her status of patron above her late medieval disposition. The truth is that the Catholic queen is an absolutely multifaceted character (on the positive side). Authoritative and firm in her convictions, she was an affectionate and tender mother; open to the incipient Renaissance culture, her extreme religiosity bordered on ""fanaticism"" to the point of blessing the creation of the Holy Office or tirelessly persecuting Jews and Muslims.>women are pro-immigrationIf they are, Isabel was not one of them.She was a loving wife who he later met as his daughter Juana. and finally, she did not hesitate to reserve the government of the kingdom that belonged to her. Sensitive but ruthless; Cultured and domestic at the same time, making feminists and masculinists seethe nothing in her life was as it seemed it would be my respects to the queen.
>>18131164>"wielded significant sway".saaaarrrrrrr
>>18131165T: Catholicuck
>>18131165That's great but where do I meet women like that to date. Only shallow social media abusing garbage around me and my local parish is just boomers.
>>18131165What did her "husband" do? We practically only hear about what she did. Her moidsband is practically useless, which proves two things: either Spain was somewhat matriarchal, or women in charge weren't so bad after all.
>>18131184>women in charge weren't so bad after allThat's the point
>>18131180Try /soc/
>>18131015>>18131146>>18131165Seething spics are such feminist retards, Jesus fucking Christ.
>>18131191It's full of philistines.
>>18131172>>18131233Super copium
>>18131286Spic.
