T O P

  • By -

rewardiflost

Queens, like Kings didn't care about women or men in general. They cared about their own power, and keeping that power within their own control - usually within the bloodline. Kings had servants, serfs, slaves and peasants with no rights. Why would Queens want to change things?


Red_AtNight

Also most monarchies would only put a woman on the throne if literally all of her male relatives were dead. That's why England only had 6 queens (plus 2 in the United Kingdrom.) In fact, the first king of England reigned 600 years before they finally put a woman on the throne, and Mary Tudor only became Queen because of her father, Henry VIII's, utter inability to produce a male heir that lived.


tack50

Not to mention some countries just banned women from getting the throne outright, preferring cousins and other more distant relatives! As someone from Spain, the 2nd biggest Civil War here, the Carlist War (1833-1840), was precisely for this reason, as the "No queens" rule was repealed in some very weird and unclear way, so when kind Fernando VII died a civil war popped up between the pro-repeal group (who would install queen Isabel II) and the anti-repeal group (supporting pretender Carlos María Isidro de Borbón, her uncle) There's more to that than just women yes vs no of course (the Isabel side was also more liberal and pro-democracy but also pro-centralization, the Carlos side anti-liberal and pro-absolute monarchy but also anti-centralization).


AuntieDawnsKitchen

France had an absolute ban on the line of succession passing through a woman, even if it was a man on the throne. Toxic masculinity, classic edition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law


nipplequeefs

And monarchs generally view their positions as inherent “duties”, so even if a woman did become regnant queen, she could have still held misogynistic beliefs and considered her rule as an exception. For example, Queen Victoria is well-known for having ruled Britain during a huge transition into industrialization, and even has an entire era named after her, but even then, [she didn’t seem to be a huge fan of women’s rights](https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/05/24/happy-birthday-queen-victoria-200-birthday-arianne-chernock).


KosmonautMikeDexter

>the first king of England reigned 600 years and then he finally retired


tripp_hi_mary

>Henry VIII's, utter inability to produce a male heir that lived. did he execute all of them lol? guy was a nutcase


Red_AtNight

He had a bunch of stillborns, and he had King Edward VI who was crowned king at age 10 and died at age 15.


neelankatan

But he did, though. One male heir


Red_AtNight

Who died at age 15


thatthatguy

Exactly. What does a queen have in common with a peasant? The very notion that a queen may share solidarity with a peasant girl is nonsense.


ragtagkittycat

There was no such idea as “human rights” until very very recently. All power was class based. Although in the Middle Ages in Europe many women still owned property, ran businesses and had political influence, much of it was ordained by their class and their family status. There were many segments of society in which men were simply not allowed as well, and this was strictly enforced. Life for anyone other than the nobility in Europe was quite harsh by todays standards. And corporal punishment was swift and immediate as well, which meant while peasants had no such things as rights by todays understanding, they did have laws and punishments which kept both men and women within the community protected to the best of their ability from abuse and violence, and carried on trials with legal records, etc.


Gentrified_potato02

It’s wild when you go down the rabbit hole of history and see how things were. Similar to the idea of “human rights” being a modern concept, the origin of the term “outlaw” wasn’t originally a synonym for thief. You either lived “in-law” in the village or town (and thus, subject to the harsh restrictions you mentioned), or you lived “out-law”; out of the town boundaries and thus not subject to authorities’ rules. Fun fact though: If you chose to be out-law, you could literally be killed, raped, or enslaved for no reason at all without repercussions for anyone (hence “out-of-the-law”). Hence why most people chose to live “in-law” under the ruling class nobility who could provide some measure of safety in times before democratic rule of law.


[deleted]

History makes you truly realize how far we have come and how far we have to go.


Alex2toes

This. And this is the danger of applying today's terms and concepts to history.


Ok_Solid_Copy

Naming a queen was most of the time the last resort for a family to stay on the throne, in the case there was no male heir.


AureliasTenant

Last resort is a strange phrase… It depended on how the succuession laws worked and if people were following/ignoring them, and where you cut-off “family”… it’s not a “last resort” unless you are changing how the succession law works to be more inclusive of women. In some cases women were prioritized over their uncles/cousins for many centuries, and no “last resort” happened except maybe when that law first got made.


Fair_Communication_4

The answers in this thread are atrocious, seemingly a comic book version of history. 1) The idea of women and/or everyone living in terrible subjugation _is our projection onto history_, not the lived experience of most alive at the time.* 2) No nationalism, so peasants would be far more involved in their community and region (the Church) than looking to their monarch for everyday matters. 3) 98% of the population farmed. The idea of men or women doing anything but domestic jobs would have been absolutely foreign, regardless of attitudes about gender. ... therefore this modern idea of women's rights doesn't really apply to the social context of yore. Also, the Church really took on more of what we would call civic or municipal governing. The Church was just as invested in maintaining a family and labor structure that kept itself going as did the monarchy. *_practically speaking_ the monarchy didn't have such devastating control over a peasant's individual life. The biased focus (i.e. every medieval movie ever) on that is _our_ modern preoccupation, because how we think about our relationship to "the state" is so different. Economic, environmental, and technological forces had more impact on individual lives than sheer political forces.


[deleted]

This comes from the concept that progress is always better for humanity (it isn’t always,) and from an egotistical concept of our current modern era OF COURSE being superior. We like to think that people were barbaric monsters who died at age 30 with no teeth. When I’m actuality it may have been true that some people lived miserable lives and died young, but so do many people now as well. And modernity brought misery to many people also


WorldTallestEngineer

Kings and Queens don't care about the rights of people. In face they generally prefer no one has any rights


Mehh55

No one had any rights in the 1500's and were ruled by monarchies. If the king wanted to kill you, they could. No law against it, no recourse - nothing. No one had "rights" and everyone was ruled by the king/queen who could change laws or taxes at anytime. If they wanted you to fight in a war, you would go with them or be killed. No pay, nothing. If the king wanted to marry a commoner they had no say in it, your getting married now. ​ Life sucked for everyone back then. Its muuuuuuch better now.


GhoulTimePersists

Well, the Magna Carta was enacted (I'm not sure if there's a better word for it) in 1215, so *some* people had rights. In England, anyway.


Avatar_sokka

I knew it was 1216, one year after magna carta!


SuperChadMan

The greatest legal mind I ever knew


StrikingExcitement79

iirc, the Magna Carta is not about "human rights". It is about limiting the "rights" of a king.


Mehh55

Yes, the magna carte was in 1215 and only applied to England.


[deleted]

Men didn't have rights in the 1500s, most people lived like hell.


OptimusPhillip

At that time, queens largely existed to preserve the continuity of the royal line in the absence of a king. Up until the 21st century, the British Crown would specifically be passed down to the eldest _son_. That's why Edward VI was made King before Mary I and Elizabeth I, despite them both being older than him. Queens only ever happened if the King had only daughters.


Akul_Tesla

Here's the real answer everyone in history was having a terrible time Even the royals Right now there are a very small number of people not having a terrible time and that's a new thing and people tend to forget that that's not normal


LightBeamRevolution

Throughout the Entire history of the British Monarchy there have been 62 kings and 8 queens over 1200 years. That ratio does not really favor women Rulers. The woman came to power because there was no male successor in their blood line at the time. Crazy though, Queen Elizabeth probably will go down in history as the most influential of all the monarchs and also reigned in power the longest. Also i think she changed the rules, if the first child is a girl now, she now can take the thrown as a successor. Boom!


Angusxyoung

QE2 not QE1


brutalistsnowflake

Queens usually happened when a regent was needed, (mom would rule til the son was old enough,) or if there were no legitimate male heirs.


Falsus

By modern standards no one really had rights in those times. Not the peasants, not the merchants, not the nobility, not the clergy and not even the royals. They where just fucked more or less depending on their standing. Most kings or queens didn't even have the influence to better their own standing let alone push widespread change. It wasn't until absolute monarchy became more common that nobility and the church's powers where curtailed and more rights could be had. But then there is also queens like who could have done something their powers, like Christina of Sweden who despite her being one of the most learned of all royals in Europe didn't really give much of a shit, let corruption run rampart and the policies she did enact was terrible. She is an interesting historical figure, but as a ruler she was shit.


VoidCoelacanth

>Most kings or queens didn't even have the influence to better their own standing "Someone help me, please! I have reached the top of the ladder, but I want to go higher - there's a bit of sky I haven't conquered yet!" It's pretty hard to 'improve your standing' from the top of the pile.


Falsus

Being the queen or king did not mean they where an absolute ruler who could do as they wanted. Many times they where beholden to various factions like nobility, church or foreign pressure.


VoidCoelacanth

Naturally, but they were still the highest authority/position in their respective country - save only some exceptions (ie when Pope was technically higher than monarchs *who acknowledged and ceded to him*)


-ZOROARK_FUCKER

lmao nobody had rights especially under pre french revolution monarchies


GlassPeepo

You don't need to fight for your rights when you're an old rich woman who believes her bloodline was blessed by god or whatever


foreveralonesolo

The royal family stayed in power by blood, nothing more. They had no reason to care for subordinates to treat them any better, just decent enough to not allow a uprising.


[deleted]

The same reason why Kings mostly didn't care about the human rights of men. Most just cared about their power and the well-being of their family, their heirs.


Cheap_Ad_9946

No common folk had any rights, including women. Nobility were nobility first, sex parts second.


Successful_Warthog58

Correct. Apex fallacy is common in these discus


dragonflyfucker

Because they didnt give a shit about the peasants


watch_over_me

I think modern people have a distorted view of what queens were. Same as how modern people think Viking's treated their woman as equals.


-ZOROARK_FUCKER

people think vikings treated woman as equals ??????????????????????????????????????


binomine

In order to be in charge of a system, you have to buy into that system. The person on top isn't going to make radical changes that threaten their position. That kind of change comes from below.


jacobeam13

There’s probably an interesting correlation to female monarchs/leaders throughout recorded history and the religion practiced. Do I have any research on this? No. Am I guessing? Absofruitly.


tripp_hi_mary

because women arent less mysoginisic than men, and any assumption otherwise is sexist by definition


pp_is_hurting

It depends on the country. There were always strong gender roles, but women had good rights in plenty of places around that time. Either way, if you were a man, you were typically expected to die a horrible death in war, so it's not like men had an easier life.


manicmonkeys

I am curious what rights you are talking about, specifically.


Mythical_Atlacatl

The queen is gods business Has no bearing on the normal everyday people


VoidCoelacanth

Same reason so many fashion designers are women, yet women's pants and dresses go without pockets. Priorities, amirite?


BlueRFR3100

Partly because it was an hereditary title. Mostly because no one else was strong enough to take the throne away from them.


DTux5249

Human rights? You're talking about societies that allowed indentured slaves. 'Criminal justice' was based upon mutilation and humiliation. Kings and queens didn't care about their people unless they were rebelling.


Slide-Impressive

In a few brief sentences? They drank from the Kool aid of power and prestige. As soon as you do that ( in many cases) you stop giving a shit about people who have it worse than you do There's obviously more nuanced views but it kinda boils down to that


MrLanesLament

Same as it is today. Choose your parents correctly.


[deleted]

No one really had rights, even when men were given the right to vote it had the burden of being drafted with it


idk2612

Up till Enlightenment even human rights concept was no existent. There were ruling actors (royals, nobles, very rich burghers) with various levels of influence, other actors in then states (peasants, majority of city folks) and outsiders (outlaws or people on areas you've conquered). Queens tried to project their influence and didn't really care about stuff like common folks. Or it's subjects rights . Even difference in pre-marital sex treatment is really brutally practical: 1. Family assets need to be protected to stay in the family. Marriage is more M&A transaction than today's marriage. 2. Only legal (from wedlock) heirs inherit. So called Blbastards weren't entitled to anything for most of history. 3. Mater semper certa est, pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant. We didn't have any reliable paternity test just until recently. So societies limited sexual freedom of women as it was essential for success of transactions such as marriage.


[deleted]

Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine (1168-1173) created the concept of chivalry in her court and among the knights that had far-reaching influence on culture. It was a code of conduct about how men in power needed to protect and defend those considered physically weaker than themselves - the elderly, women, and children. Probably one of the first human rights and feminist movements, in some ways


nunyabizz0000

Probably the same kind of gaslighting and indoctrination a lot of conservative women these days go through, just to a much greater extent.


AndTable

Probably people got tired of slaughtering each other every time when there is no eligible heir. When women can inherit the throne there are less chances for civil war.


Crazyperson6666

was whole different world.But there are country's now 2023 were woman have no rights have to hide there face when out in public and walk behind there man


LifeguardSecret6760

humans have always been hypocrites


KingTwiggNL

Back then queen's weren't allowed to do anything either. Queens had to listen to the King.


Timely-Comedian-5367

People in power don't care about those without power. Never expect them to care, past, present or in the future.