Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How do?

Was just watching a documentary on the history of medieval Britain, and it struck me just how much civil strife came about due to the law of succession. In essence, men took priority over women. And when a King snuffed it without a male heir, things tended to go horribly wrong.

And it got me thinking....it was a very silly rule, with no real basis other than sexism and that. Yes, this is kind of a feminist thread in spirit - but it’s not intended to be bashing men, just the institution.

So where I want to go with this is to rely on those well read folk on the boards to hypothesise what might’ve been avoided has the crown simply passed to the eldest child or sibling, regardless of their gender.

One thing that does strike me is that Henry VIII may have been less notorious!

Henry VIII wouldn't have even existed. Henry VII's claim was pretty sketchy, his marriage to his wife was political as it ended the war of the roses (they both came from opposing sides) and her claim was stronger.

If it had gone direct line of succession the first queen would have been one of the many Matildas that were around at the time. Probably the eldest daughter of Henry II.

I do think the biggest historical shift would actually centre around Henry VIII. Following the Norman invasion, England's nobility was very much like the French, particularly in religion. Henry VIII was devout man, even being called the defender of the faith by the pope. It was only in rage at not being allowed to do whatever he wanted that he found himself challenging the orthodoxy and letting Protestantism in. After that (including a few wars and multiple executions) England departed from the romantic nations and became more Germanic.

It's likely that with direct line of succession we'd still be a majority Catholic nation instead of the mish-mash bodge job that is Anglicanism. The Scottish may have still embraced Protestantism, but there would have been no push for union so Great Britain would not exist. I'm no expert on the subjugation of Ireland, but I suppose without the English Puritans that country may have been looked after better and may have been united with England in some way and the Troubles would have never existed.

Also, without the Puritans existing, and thus never heading to America, the history and culture of the US could be different too.

 Henry wrote:
Henry VIII wouldn't have even existed. Henry VII's claim was pretty sketchy, his marriage to his wife was political as it ended the war of the roses (they both came from opposing sides) and her claim was stronger.

If it had gone direct line of succession the first queen would have been one of the many Matildas that were around at the time. Probably the eldest daughter of Henry II.

I do think the biggest historical shift would actually centre around Henry VIII. Following the Norman invasion, England's nobility was very much like the French, particularly in religion. Henry VIII was devout man, even being called the defender of the faith by the pope. It was only in rage at not being allowed to do whatever he wanted that he found himself challenging the orthodoxy and letting Protestantism in. After that (including a few wars and multiple executions) England departed from the romantic nations and became more Germanic.

It's likely that with direct line of succession we'd still be a majority Catholic nation instead of the mish-mash bodge job that is Anglicanism. The Scottish may have still embraced Protestantism, but there would have been no push for union so Great Britain would not exist. I'm no expert on the subjugation of Ireland, but I suppose without the English Puritans that country may have been looked after better and may have been united with England in some way and the Troubles would have never existed.

Also, without the Puritans existing, and thus never heading to America, the history and culture of the US could be different too.

Due to the make up and nature of being King then it was a very male advantageous nature.

The king was king.. Yet they had to leash there barons who regular rebelled or wanted to be king.

The level of conflicts, and others favoured a male line. Also child birth was so dangerous, Queen at Great risk of dieing.
And a queen, if married has a king. A king takes over so Queens not liking the marriages.

A crown Prince or so perhaps, maybe some other titles.

Thr nature of the era, a king would be stronger position than a Queen.

The middle ages of course were quite sexist, but it's worth noting that lots of successions were disputed because of ambition or other factors that were nothing to do with lack of a direct male heir.

There would be several problems with this

first off is marriage, unless you also change the way that works if a Queen marries her husband ends up in charge, not impossible to get around if a weak husband is chosen, but that brings it's own raft of problems

childbirth is really, really risky (more so since a monarch has access to the 'best' doctors), and a ruling queen in confinement while pregnant and after brith would weaken her country significantly

infertility would also be an issue, women were pretty much considered at fault if there were no children, and an infertile queen would generally be seen as weak and her country a target for aggression (again exceptions like Elizabeth I could exist, but they'd end up with wars of sucession afterwards as no clear heir would exist)

so unless you twisted the mindset of the time a fair amount i'd guess you'd end up with shorter dynasties as queens died in childbirth, or had their power wrenched away by husbands who wanted the country to go in a different direction

The Empress Matilda is probably the example Mad Doc Grotsnik was thinking of, as her accession to the throne sparked a civil war. She eventually won, though, and the next English king was descended from her.

Over the next few hundred years a number of English monarchs were succeeded in an irregular manner -- none of them for being women.

Once we reach the Tudors the accession of female monarchs gets pretty regularised. Queen Mary, Mary Queen of Scots, and Queen Elizabeth I all acceded in a pretty regular way. This is the tail end of the middle ages and the beginning of the Renaissance, of course.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Empress Matilda is probably the example Mad Doc Grotsnik was thinking of, as her accession to the throne sparked a civil war. She eventually won, though, and the next English king was descended from her.

Over the next few hundred years a number of English monarchs were succeeded in an irregular manner -- none of them for being women.

Once we reach the Tudors the accession of female monarchs gets pretty regularised. Queen Mary, Mary Queen of Scots, and Queen Elizabeth I all acceded in a pretty regular way. This is the tail end of the middle ages and the beginning of the Renaissance, of course.

Technically Matilda lost, Stephen retained the throne for the rest of his life, but Matilda's son (Henry II) would succeed him.

It wasn't because girls weren't preferred for the throne. The problem was a lack of agreed rules in general. With no no clearly written rules of succession then you get competing claims, and fairly often it gets resolved with a lot of slaughter. That's true whether girls are included in succession or not. But if there's a clear line of succession, lining up claims from first born son/child right down to the third uncle who never gets invited to Christmas, then the whole thing gets resolved without slaughter.

It took the sheer slaughter of the English Civil War to shift from the former to the latter. People realised they'd rather get shafted by a stupid rule written on a piece of paper, than go through another war like that, even winning wasn't worth that.

There’s also the fact that women were pretty much property, either of their father or their husband, during the early medieval period. It was only after the Black Death that their individual rights start to become more recognised (along with a lot of other groups; that disaster really ended up doing a lot for social development.)

I'll borrow this thread a bit. I'm not big one on king/emperor history in Europe so I don't know but how well set those bloodlines were or was it possible for somebody to literally come king/europe by usurping in rebellion?

Been reading Japan's history and something that struct me was how sacred Emperor's bloodline seems to have been. Even when generals took arms against him and took control(Bakufu) Emperor wasn't disposed of. Godaigo emperor tried to lead forces against Bakufu twice, lost both times and was exiled both times nominally still Emperor. Third time he overtook. Then one of generals that had fought for him, after trying to get him to change policy that were causing unrest. ended up raising arms and won causing Emperor to retreat to Nara and this general(ashikaga takauji) raised up another member of imperial bloodline as Emperor resulting in period of 2 emperors.

What I found curious about that was how defeated Emperor wasn't executed nor did any of the generals(here or elsewhere) ever took position of Emperor himself. Emperor was always there and more or less could follow same bloodline. He might not have had real power at times but still there. Never directly replaced by new Emperor.

Was in Europe more fight for crown between different bloodlines with possibility of say succesfull general of becoming king/emperor himself?

tneva82 wrote:
Was in Europe more fight for crown between different bloodlines with possibility of say succesfull general of becoming king/emperor himself?

Europe didn't have the idea of the figurehead king until much later. Instead in Europe the right to rule was a kind of blend of royal blood and military might, so you had to have a claim to the throne that people took seriously, and then you had to have the might to enforce it.

What's interesting is that neither system did anything to stop the carnage. Whether it was people fighting for the divine right to rule, or people fighting to control the country underneath a divine figurehead, either way there was carnage.

 sebster wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Was in Europe more fight for crown between different bloodlines with possibility of say succesfull general of becoming king/emperor himself?

Europe didn't have the idea of the figurehead king until much later. Instead in Europe the right to rule was a kind of blend of royal blood and military might, so you had to have a claim to the throne that people took seriously, and then you had to have the might to enforce it.

What's interesting is that neither system did anything to stop the carnage. Whether it was people fighting for the divine right to rule, or people fighting to control the country underneath a divine figurehead, either way there was carnage.

What's interesting to me is the amount of political strife that England avoided in their systems, that France did not.

To explain further, what I'm talking about is how in England, when a man was knighted (the absolute lowest rank of nobility) he swore to God, King and Country, and liege. In that order. In France, when a man was knighted, the order of swearing was God, Liege, King and country. . . in that order. As a result we can see a much greater degree of intrigue and strife generated, especially when a weak French monarch occupied the throne, they would often call for "the army" and much of the military might would simply not show up due to more powerful nobles realizing they had more effective power than the King.

The one history book I have that mentions this, does not mention how Spain or the HRE (the other 2 most dominant nations if medieval/early modern periods) handled knighting/knighthood, and so I'd be interested in that. I can guess however, from one of my books on the Thirty Years' War, that the HRE's system of knighting was overly complicated the same as every other political system.

Both men and women had the problem that even if you were declared as the heir and even if everyone there swore that they would serve you - it was often not enough.

Everyone swore to Matlida's father that they would serve her and we had civil war because there was an opportunity to take over.

If you were not strong enough, or had bad luck, or made bad decisions or were too young, chances were that someone would try for the throne. Often claiming that they were in fact acting on your behalf and getting rid of bad advisors leading you astray!

Edward II lasted a surprising amount of time and when Isabella took over from him in a coup people saw her as a better option - however with her lover she made quite a few bad/unpopular decisions and her son deposed her.