.

.

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL
-------------- --------------- -------------- --------


"O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful." [Noble Quran 9:119]

"If you obeyed most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah's way." [Noble Quran 6:116]

Return to the QURAN only - the complete and final STAND-ALONE Divine Message which also contains the authentic sunnah of the beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)

-----------------

I bear witness that NONE is worthy of worship except ALLAH, He has NO partner nor partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave and Final Messenger of Allah.

--------


Zainabs Lounge blog tracker

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Female monarchs in the male-dominated House of Tudor

A wannabe intellect on the study of medieval European monarchy came up with a very mind-boggling stupid question at Quora which I quote: "Why did Europeans have female monarchs so long before ordinary women could enter professions?"

For your information in case you don't know, Elizabeth (the first) was the second female monarch of England, crowned in the mid 1500s .... 1559 to be exact.  She was the daughter of King Henry VIII, a domineering debauch and womanizer who got his own wife murdered because she couldn't bear him a son.

Reading such a question, one might think that despite calling them autocratic, how much the tudors respected the rights of female members of their families compared to the commoners.  But let's not fool ourselves with such misleading queries.

To begin with, in a monarchy as despotic as the ones of Britain and Europe, every decision required the consent of one person or a small group of like minded people linked to the same family.  In a constitutional system which followed in medieval Europe and survives until the present, a political figure becomes eligible for leadership depending on their monetary resources and ability to campaign which consequently determines their ability to reach out to the masses to promote their popularity.  Not to mention their mandatory approval by the Zionist lobbies in the New World Order.  Thus, it's far more complicated, involves more hard work, greater competition and plenty of crafty diplomacy - a completely different process from allowing female monarchs. Both systems are evil but in two very different ways.

As far as "ordinary" women entering professions is concerned, how can anyone be naive enough to compare the selection of a female monarch with the selection of female employees in the regular work force regardless of the era?   Throughout the annals of history to date, who selects a female monarch in a non-constitutional monarchy -  her family and caretakers, the parliament or the private sector??  What I know for sure is that "ordinary" women aren't selected by their families for private nor government sector professions, not today nor ever in the past.

Let's dig a bit into history and the family wrangling of medieval "royals" to get a clearer picture of how Elizabeth I became the queen.  Soon after her birth, did anyone know that as a female she would ever become queen?

We know that England was ruled by kings until the second half of the 16th century.  The succession of Elizabeth I to the throne was because of the unavailability of a male heir rather than encouraging the culture of female heirs.  Henry VIII had 3 children (or perhaps 3 surviving children), Edward, Mary and Elizabeth.   Edward (whose mother was Jane Seymour) succeeded his father (even though he had two older sisters) as king but died of an incurable illness while only in his mid teens.  There were no more male heirs and despite the hatred of the tudors for female heirs, they had no choice but to accept females as monarchs.  Mary was the daughter of Catherine of Aragon who was older than Elizabeth.  But she wasn't chosen immediately to succeed Edward because her mother was Catholic. Edward was succeeded by Jane Dudley or the "9 days queen" (the great granddaughter of Henry 7th) who was kicked out within a few days by Catherine of Aragon's gang in favor of Mary.  Mary ruled for some years and then died of a natural illness.  It was then Elizabeth's turn.  Not to forget, Elizabeth's mother, Ann Boleyn, was put to death (beheaded) on the order of her husband, the king, simply because she had given birth to a daughter, Elizabeth.  Elizabeth was only 3-years-old when her father ordered the execution of her mother.  That's how much the male dominated tudor England respected women !!  This also brings to light the naivety of the question why female monarchs were "readily" admitted long before women entered into professions.

Not to mention, Ann Boleyn was executed on false charges of treason and incest.  Everyone knew the charges were outright untrue but none could intervene and save her life because the King wanted her to be eliminated so he could marry Jane Seymour with the hope that she would give him a son.  It can also be stated here that Ann Boleyn did give birth to a son after Elizabeth, but he was still born.  By then, Henry had started getting tired of Anne and had already begun to orchestrate her downfall.  AGAIN, that's how much the tudor England respected women and how vastly sympathetic they were to the cause of 'justice!'

Stories by modern European historians that Elizabeth was mentioned in Henry VIII's will as an heir to the throne have little or no bearing on the actual events of history.  The same historians have never explained that if Elizabeth was mentioned as one of the heirs in her father's will, why was Henry VIII in such a rush to eliminate Elizabeth's mother and marry another woman primarily to have a male heir?  If later at any point Henry decided to change his conventional ideas and accept a daughter as his successor,  it only makes the murder of Anne Boleyn still more unjust and despicable!


However, the females of the House of Tudor were no different than its despotic men.  Being one of early female Tudor monarchs barely compliments Elizabeth.  She needs to be better known for her ruthless use of power rather than the "woman who changed the world."   Even more significant than her notoriously poor looks was her tyranny.  It's said that behind every great man is a great woman. Similarly, behind every evil man is an evil woman.   But there are plenty of exceptions .. those men and women who make it to evil on their own.  Elizabeth was one of those, known in history as one of ten cruelest women.  Elizabeth was as cruel as any nasty ruler one could be.  She ruled at a time when there was tremendous sectarian strife in England between Catholics and Protestants.  Elizabeth's predecessor and half-sister, Queen Mary, tried to bring back Roman Catholicism in England. Elizabeth tried to suppress it in the harshest way possible.  She had thousands of Catholics in England and Ireland murdered.  She was very involved in the slave trade activities and had sponsored many slavers to capture Africans and bring them over as slaves.  Elizabeth's betrayal and ill-treatment of her  cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, was another shocker.  She imprisoned the queen of Scotland for 20 years before having her executed. 

 



No comments:

Post a Comment

For all general Q&A visit the following link @ Zainab's Lounge.
http://zainabslounge.blogspot.ca/2016/09/muslim-villa-guests-introduction-prior.html (Copy & paste link on browser)