Catholicism and View on Gender

[sandro chronicler]

So, i made some research about medieval royalty, and noticed curious thing - not only there was quite a lot of female rulers in medieval Europe (in fact, more then in modern one...

), there was couple of women elected as queens/kings (some realm call monarch "king" even if she women) in elective monarchies, there was some cases when female claim was pressed against (not incapable) men, however rare. And, more importantly, i didn't notice any difference in attitude to female rulers... Somebody on this forum mentioned that attitude for women changed drastically in late middle ages after high profile adultery scandal.
So, all this make me wonder, while obviously succession law had male preference, was religion really male dominated (in CK3 terms i mean)?

 

[Scrambles]

Aside from women not being able to be ordained priests or bishops (though medieval abbesses were extremely powerful and influential in their realms) , and inheritance being passed along the male line, nah there really shouldn’t be any sort of opinion penalties from vassals against a female ruler, save for maybe dynastic loyalists.

Dynasties obviously preferred not to have a female heir because it would mean the kingdom would almost invariably pass on from their dynasty to another one, so dynastic vassals or ones that are very loyal to their lieges would probably have a problem, but everyone else, probably not.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

*Part* of Matilda's problem during the Anarchy was that there were those English nobles who did not want a woman on the throne, even if it meant turning to a relatively distant cousin to be King instead (Stephen of Blois), so in that case there were some problems - but it's unclear how much of that would have been just her being a woman, and how much was the fact that English kings at the time were *terrible* at having clean successions, and it took a while to get to anything resembling regular father/son succession to happen reliably... and then we get one branch of the royal family depose another, which leads to the war of the roses, which is another entire shitshow in and of itself.

And of course there's the age old problem that dynasties weren't entirely a fixed thing - Henry II (Matilda's son) was primarily known in England at the time for his relation to his mother, rather than his father, being more referenced as "Fitz Empress" rather than "Fitz Geoffrey", or "Anjou".


Specifically with religion, "Male only" clergy doesn't quite work, because as Scrambles mentioned there were powerful abbesses who would, in game terms, be effectively county theocract rulers, and who could have heavy court influence, especially when they answered to a bishop both temporally and spiritually. However, it's needed to ensure that *actual* priest titles and the realm priest (and pope!) remain male only. Male only/Male preference succession varies by country which is fairly accurate, and some areas even seem to have dipped into equal succession at times.

 

[sandro chronicler]

Aside from women not being able to be ordained priests or bishops

On the other hand, at least for first half of middle ages there was deaconeses, so there's that.

though medieval abbesses were extremely powerful and influential in their realms

Specifically with religion, "Male only" clergy doesn't quite work, because as Scrambles mentioned there were powerful abbesses who would, in game terms, be effectively county theocract rulers, and who could have heavy court influence, especially when they answered to a bishop both temporally and spiritually

Yea. Quite a while ago i made proposal for intermediate levels for this doctrines. Shieldmaiden/ShieldSwain kinda did for Martial Custom.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Female rulers were definitely the unfavored gender. The nobles hated the idea of having to take orders from a woman. And once she got married, her husband, likely a foreigner, would take a lot of power in the running of the realm. A female heir was a valuable catch for any dynasty looking to expand their power. Louis VI of France jumped at the opportunity to marry his heir Louis VII to Eleanor of Aquitaine because it would mean expanding the French monarchy's power. Since the marriage didn't produce a son, the pope agreed to annul the marriage. The subsequent marriage of Eleanor to Henry II of England proved a major thorn in the French monarchy's side since, by right of his wife, Henry II controlled the powerful duchy of Aquitaine. Thus, though technically a vassal to the French king due to his continental holdings, Henry II had more power in France than the French king.

 

[sandro chronicler]

The nobles hated the idea of having to take orders from a woman

That was the point i made. You see, I have found no examples of this. Typically female rulers was followed just as loyally as male ones. Even if woman in question was unpopular/controversial. There was even examples of women leading armies.
As i mentioned, there was examples of female rulers elected in elective monarchies, often over male candidate. In fact, there was several cases of women successfully launching military coup, with wide support of nobility.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

That was the point i made. You see, I have found no examples of this. Typically female rulers was followed just as loyally as male ones. Even if woman in question was unpopular/controversial. There was even examples of women leading armies.
As i mentioned, there was examples of female rulers elected in elective monarchies, often over male candidate. In fact, there was several cases of women successfully launching military coup, with wide support of nobility.

Matilda of England who had a *vast* number of the nobles who had been sworn to her service by her father (Henry I) before his death then switch sides to join Stephen would be an example of female rulers being rejected for a male one. And these are nobles who had sworn to support her to the throne doing this. I do not see that this would have been likely to happen the other way around, with a female cousin being supported over Henry I's son, had he not died.

It pretty much split the country in two, despite her being the legitimate heir of her father, and having a son who could follow her to the throne, and Stephen being a cousin through the female line.

And then there are the various female rulers who effectively lost their titles on marriage, with their husband assuming the title of Count or Duke, and exercising his wife's powers and titles in her place, and sometimes retaining them after her death rather than the titles passing to her children from her first marriage, or back to her family if she had no children.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

That was the point i made. You see, I have found no examples of this. Typically female rulers was followed just as loyally as male ones. Even if woman in question was unpopular/controversial. There was even examples of women leading armies.
As i mentioned, there was examples of female rulers elected in elective monarchies, often over male candidate. In fact, there was several cases of women successfully launching military coup, with wide support of nobility.

If the female ruler was accepted, they would be allowed to rule in their own right. The Jezebel archetype didn't help matters in acceptance. Alfred's daughter Aethelfed was married to his vassal ruler in western Mercia Aethelred. After Aethelred's death, she was accepted by the Mercians as their ruler. But when she died, either her daughter was not accepted by the Mercians, or her uncle Edward the Elder just decided to put Mercia under his direct rule.

One reason Matilda of Tuscany is a fan favorite character is because she was an exception rather than the rule. There were very few females that ruled in their own right.

Typically, in Catholic Europe, a woman would only have power either through a regency or as the power behind the throne.

In justifying his crowning of Charles, King of the Franks, as Roman Emperor, the Papacy declared that since woman were inherently unfit to rule and the Eastern Roman Empire was run by Irene, a woman no longer hiding her rule behind a regency, the title of Roman Emperor was vacant. Thus, he could crown his champion Charles.

 

[guiskj]

I would suggest that the Byzantine empress being the impetus of crowing Charles was more a easy excuse.

The papacy was seriously threated and during Irene's reign could not depend on the ERE to protect them. Therefore the excuse was used not because of its veracity but because it was the best escape goat they had to give legitimacy to someone that could protect them.

 

[Darumaka]

Well, Abbesses could be quite powerful on their own, however once monasteries and nunneries began to separated by gender their prominence was greatly reduced, especially as Viking bands began making themselves known throughout the continent. There were no warrior abbesses for example, while warrior-bishops were all over. England alone had a long history of bishops having their own personal armies and even using them to put pressure on Anglo-Saxon kings, as well as to defend against Viking raids.

The role of women in medieval society did change depending on the culture though, so this perhaps should be represented granularly by cultural traditions rather than through the religion. West Saxons for example didn't even have queens, with the wives of kings being merely known as consorts, while Mercia had a long storied history of queens wielding much power, with Alfred's daughter Aethelfled being the epitome of the powerful Mercian female leader, even commanding troops in battle.

 

[sandro chronicler]

England alone had a long history of bishops having their own personal armies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoman - "Although Wilton Abbey was a Benedictine nunnery, it held its lands from the king by knight service. The Abbess' knights were her tenants, who in turn held land from the Abbey by knight service" So, it happened too.

In justifying his crowning of Charles, King of the Franks, as Roman Emperor, the Papacy declared that since woman were inherently unfit to rule and the Eastern Roman Empire was run by Irene, a woman no longer hiding her rule behind a regency, the title of Roman Emperor was vacant. Thus, he could crown his champion Charles.

There important to remember that Irene had a reputation of cruelty and brutality, and this was one of the main reason she was considered unfit. Such "personal" things should be considered to have proper context.

Typically, in Catholic Europe, a woman would only have power either through a regency or as the power behind the throne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_monarchs evidently not always. (most interesting here are examples from crusader states)

And then there are the various female rulers who effectively lost their titles on marriage, with their husband assuming the title of Count or Duke, and exercising his wife's powers and titles in her place, and sometimes retaining them after her death rather than the titles passing to her children from her first marriage, or back to her family if she had no children.

There is also multiple examples of opposed, with wife effectively ruling from behind her husband.

 

[Darumaka]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoman - "Although Wilton Abbey was a Benedictine nunnery, it held its lands from the king by knight service. The Abbess' knights were her tenants, who in turn held land from the Abbey by knight service" So, it happened too.

Interesting, although not quite what I meant. Nunneries, like their male counterparts had many hides and families under their rule so they always provided fighting men from their lands. That's a bit different than say Heahmund the bishop from Sherborne who lead troops and fought the Vikings in multiple battles and even died in one, or Geoffrey de Montbray leading troops against two rebellions targetting William the Conqueror.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Irene's brutality existed before she decided to blind her son and take the reign of the ERE openly. The Pope didn't try to install an anti-Emperor while she ruled as "regent". And there were plenty of tyrannical emperors before Irene, and the Pope didn't try to install an anti-Emperor. According to the Greek Church, the Pope was "first among equals." Such a position could help lend support to a rebellion. But as far as I am aware of, the only secular meddling that the Pope did prior to crowning Charlemagne as anti-Emperor was giving Peppin the Hobbit the right to depose the Merovingians and become Shire King (LOTR in joke).

The title of monarch of Jerusalem is an interesting case because the monarch of Jerusalem rarely had sons to inherit the title, causing it to pass multiple times through a female line. And I did mention that it was not always the case women didn't rule.

Females being able to inherit titles over their brothers is a more modern example in Western Europe. And some titles have a rule even still that women can't inherit the title. I believe the title Duke of York will go dormant again once Prince Andrew dies. The Capetians had a good run in ensuring that a succession crisis didn't occur by having enough sons each generation. When their luck ran out and in order to avoid angering key people by declaring that the late King's daughter was not his because the mother was caught in an affair, Philip V and French nobles declare that women could not inherit the French throne, invoking Salic law. The Hundred Year's war started because Edward III of England was closer in relation to the previous 4 kings than Philip VI of France, even though that line passed through his mother. When Philip VI tried to take the last continental possessions of Edward III, he invoke his claim.

Unlike how CK3 does not allow the claims of women to be pressed by other character unless the title in question is held by a child or a woman, rulers in the Middle Ages would fight wars for the claims of their wife. Louis VIII of France was invited by the rebelling English barons to press his wife's claim to the throne in place of King John. John of Gaunt tried to press his claim to the throne of Castille by right of his wife, even initially succeeding in getting some nobles and Portugal to recognize him as the rightful king. There are definitely other example, but these are the only ones that I am familiar with.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I believe the title Duke of York will go dormant again once Prince Andrew dies.

Yes, because when it was created it had the standard "to heirs male" clause that almost all British titles have - I'm not certain of the clauses for Sussex and Cambridge though, as these *might* just have "heirs of the body" in there instead of "heirs male". Cambridge though will almost certainly merge into the Crown, so the remainder is *somewhat* irrelevant provided George survives William.
In the case of York going dormant, we can expect to see it granted to Louis or Charlotte in the fullness of time as it's traditionally the title given to the "spare" if available.

Unlike how CK3 does not allow the claims of women to be pressed by other character unless the title in question is held by a child or a woman, rulers in the Middle Ages would fight wars for the claims of their wife. Louis VIII of France was invited by the rebelling English barons to press his wife's claim to the throne in place of King John. John of Gaunt tried to press his claim to the throne of Castille by right of his wife, even initially succeeding in getting some nobles and Portugal to recognize him as the rightful king. There are definitely other example, but these are the only ones that I am familiar with.

Factions to install a woman can happen though in CK3 even if they'd be barred from pressing a claim. Louis being invited by the barons sounds more like a faction than Louis pressing a claim.
Although that said, the whole thing is a bit murky when we look at real life versions rather than the in game equivalent. Especially when John was probably also excommunicated at the time, raising that as a possible alternate CB.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Factions to install a woman can happen though in CK3 even if they'd be barred from pressing a claim. Louis being invited by the barons sounds more like a faction than Louis pressing a claim.
Although that said, the whole thing is a bit murky when we look at real life versions rather than the in game equivalent. Especially when John was probably also excommunicated at the time, raising that as a possible alternate CB.

I have use this as an example on why claimant factions should be changed. A foreigner that has a claim to a title should be aloud to join in on a faction trying to get that title for him. If the claimant is an unlanded character in marriage with a landed character, their landed spouse should be allowed to join in. This might mean some more balancing on the claimant faction though. Another example, pre 867, is when the nobles of Aquitaine invited Ludwig the German to take over from Charles the Bald.

The excommunication of John was recently lifted at the time. John acknowledged that he held England as a fief of the Papacy. In return, the pope lifted the excommunication of John. After the barons force John to sign the Magna Carta, John appealed to the pope, his technical liege, in order to annul the agreement. The pope agreed. The barons were not happy about this and thus started a civil war. They invited the son of the French king, the future Louis VIII, to take the throne by right of his wife, the granddaughter of Henry II. Louis gladly accepted the excuse to invade and take the English crown for himself. After John died, many barons were convinced to join the side of the underage Henry III. A papal legate excommunicated Louis in an attempt to get barons to switch sides. The peace that resulted lifted the excommunication along with Louis acknowledging that he had never legitimately been king of England and promising not to attack England again (though this promise excluded the French lands that the king of England held as a vassal of the French king).

 

[sandro chronicler]

Irene's brutality existed before she decided to blind her son and take the reign of the ERE openly. The Pope didn't try to install an anti-Emperor while she ruled as "regent".

Which is actually interesting, her legitimacy at the time of her "regency" (and everybody knew she was de-facto in charge) was way smaller than when she officially was declared Emperor (not empress, noticeably).

Females being able to inherit titles over their brothers is a more modern example in Western Europe.

It depends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_O'Malley

Unlike how CK3 does not allow the claims of women to be pressed by other character unless the title in question is held by a child or a woman, rulers in the Middle Ages would fight wars for the claims of their wife.

and this is part of the problem. Current in-game christianity didn't really represent medieval Europe.

 

[FishieFan]

So, i made some research about medieval royalty, and noticed curious thing - not only there was quite a lot of female rulers in medieval Europe (in fact, more then in modern one... View attachment 976065), there was couple of women elected as queens/kings (some realm call monarch "king" even if she women) in elective monarchies, there was some cases when female claim was pressed against (not incapable) men, however rare. And, more importantly, i didn't notice any difference in attitude to female rulers... Somebody on this forum mentioned that attitude for women changed drastically in late middle ages after high profile adultery scandal.
So, all this make me wonder, while obviously succession law had male preference, was religion really male dominated (in CK3 terms i mean)? View attachment 976063

When only men could become priests, bishops, arch bishops and popes, yes it was certainly male dominated. When a king is still very much a war leader and not an untouchable being, you need someone who is at least nominally equipped for battle even if they're weak and physically disabled.

Which is actually interesting, her legitimacy at the time of her "regency" (and everybody knew she was de-facto in charge) was way smaller than when she officially was declared Emperor (not empress, noticeably).

How was the legitimacy less during her regency than after killing her own son? A 9 year old can't rule so clearly needs a regent. With mothers and wives long ruling as regents for their sons and husbands away on campaign, just as women can look after a normal household when the main men are away. Whilst the closest example to an Empress Regnant of Zenobia had officially been just regent for her underage son

It depends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_O'Malley

Something happening in the early modern period is an example of it being more modern. Then there's also how Ireland wouldn't really have feudalism in the same way its practiced in game with various tribes and clans instead of clear cut counts and dukes, which helped lead to the Surrender and Regrant policy of the Tudours

and this is part of the problem. Current in-game christianity didn't really represent medieval Europe.

Current in game Christianity doesn't represent mediveal Europe well because of how powerless the Church and the Papacy are in every country. If a womans titles and claims immediately passed to the husband upon marriage you'd probably complain about how it makes female rulers unplayable

 

[sandro chronicler]

When only men could become priests, bishops, arch bishops and popes, yes it was certainly male dominated.

1) in game religious doctrines mostly concern not religious issues, like succession.
2) At least nominally abbesses was equal to bishops, something that not currently represented in the game.

When a king is still very much a war leader and not an untouchable being, you need someone who is at least nominally equipped for battle even if they're weak and physically disabled.

Yet, as was shown here and in previous threads, woman became queens regnant (and kings) occasionally. Examples from elective monarchies are most notable. And there was established on this forums (several times) that occasionally woman fought and lead armies in this period. Honestly, i see no reason to yet again dig out all the numerous examples.

How was the legitimacy less during her regency than after killing her own son?

Because she was officially recognized as emperor by whole empire. And for emperors (byzantine in particularly) killing one's children was perfectly legitimate.

Current in game Christianity doesn't represent mediveal Europe well because of how powerless the Church and the Papacy are in every country.

Thing is, Church wasn't all that powerful for the first half of middle ages, and it power varies depending on region, time period and local politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum (!)

Antipope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[apollo1989vieten]

One thing that should probably change is when the culture had a cultural tradition that either allows woman to inherit (Visigoth codes and Equal Inheritance) or prefers women over men (Warrior Queens) contrary to the religion. Woman should be allowed to be landed if the culture has such a tradition.

 

[Darumaka]

One thing that should probably change is when the culture had a cultural tradition that either allows woman to inherit (Visigoth codes and Equal Inheritance) or prefers women over men (Warrior Queens) contrary to the religion. Woman should be allowed to be landed if the culture has such a tradition.

That should probably be a tradition on its own given to culture with those traditions you mentioned so that the Pope can request the cultural leader to remove it, as he does with the Concubines tradition, without taking away the other parts of that existing tradition.