| ▲ | ViktorRay a day ago |
| Is is true that they believed women couldn’t rule? England was not the first European country to have a female monarch. By the time all this was going on there had been a female monarch elsewhere in Europe a few decades earlier. Would be interesting if there were any texts at the time discussing this. I’m asking out of genuine curiosity not to start an argument. |
|
| ▲ | pndy a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Jadwiga of Poland - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadwiga_of_Poland crowned as king Anna Jagiellon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Jagiellon |
| |
| ▲ | scott_w a day ago | parent [-] | | I do think it’s fair to point out that both of these postage Matilda by a few hundred years. I’m actually struggling to think of many Christian European kingdoms that would have at this point. France only had kings at that point (in fact, Matilda’s son Henry II’s marriage to Eleanor of Acquitaine comes about because she didn’t give the king of France a son!) Germany (HRE) selected their emperor so didn’t have succession problems in that sense. Italy was a collection of city states, Naples was yet to form a kingdom. Maybe Poland had an earlier queen? But then I don’t know if English nobles paid much attention to Poland, to be honest! | | |
|
|
| ▲ | scott_w a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| So there were some texts later discussing the problems of Elizabeth I being Queen Regnant when all laws and customs referred to a “King.” We also see a lot of her father’s behaviour (Henry VIII) being driven by his need for a male heir. It’s why he tries to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. |
| |
| ▲ | gilleain a day ago | parent [-] | | Further, there were specific reasons why Elizabeth I was treated differently to her father. For example, Henry VIII used to meet with counsellors when he woke up in the morning, still in bed. For obvious reasons, this was not done when his daughter reigned. | | |
| ▲ | scott_w a day ago | parent [-] | | Not to mention the Privy Council, so named because they were trusted to speak to the King while he was on the toilet! I don’t think the modern day Privy Council ever met with Elizabeth II in such a way! | | |
| ▲ | tialaramex 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think that's why it's called a "Privy Council". Just because the only meaning for privy that you know, today, is a toilet, does not mean that the word in another context means toilet, any more than the fact you know the verb "do" in English can be slang for sexual intercourse means that when Marlo says "Do it or don't" in The Wire he means for his soldiers to have sex. He's indicating that he doesn't care whether they murder Bubbles. "Privy" more generally means private or personal, which explains its use for a group which advises specifically the monarch alone. | | |
| ▲ | scott_w 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | I just checked and you’re right! I’m mixing it up with Groom of the Stool, which was a separate but also honourable position. |
| |
| ▲ | throw0101a 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > According to the Oxford dictionary the definition of the word "privy" in Privy Council is an obsolete one meaning "Of or pertaining exclusively to a particular person or persons; one's own",[3] insofar as the council is personal to the sovereign. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_England#Name | | |
|
|
|
