Catholicism and View on Gender

[Gnomey154]

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.

Yeah, I very much agree with this.

It was pretty normal for wives to rule territory in their husbands' absence, even for long periods of time and in the face of sieges etc., and for mothers to act as regents. As that was expected of them, most people probably accepted on some level that women were capable of ruling, and if the woman in question had broad support of the court/nobility/church there wasn't much of an issue in just letting her rule.

If she didn't have that support, though, her womanhood presented an easy target to undermine her legitimacy. And of course you always get people who are more hard-line misogynist and people who are more egalitarian, aside from the more practical dynastic concerns.

 

[FishieFan]

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.

That let out a giggle I must admit

1) in game religious doctrines mostly concern not religious issues, like succession.

You might want to type that again

2) At least nominally abbesses was equal to bishops, something that not currently represented in the game.

Bishops are also terribly represented in game, so dont worry its not sexism causing that

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.

I would definitely like you to dig out the examples of women fighting in hand to hand combat as queens in an army that sounds very interesting. The military incapability of the Karlings in the 10th century was one reason for their deposition. If you didnt wish to dig out the examples again, why start the thread?
Obviously some women became queens regnant, some were titled king in the local language, some were titled lady rather than queen or king, but they are the exception not the rule

Because she was officially recognized as emperor by whole empire.

Was she recognised by everyone as that, was that what she minted all her coins as to give herself more legitimacy, or as there was no prior example of an empress regnant thats what she was called?

And for emperors (byzantine in particularly) killing one's children was perfectly legitimate.

I can think of plenty who blinded their sons, fathers, uncles, aunts, and former favourites, but killing your own son, especially a woman killing her own son, looks like it'd be far more frowned upon, which likely played a part in only having a 5 year sole reign after such an act

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 (!)

Linking a wiki page which says for 100 years it was bad won't help your case for saying it was weak for the first half of the mediveal period. The Church obviously wasn't always an omnipotent force that fired off crusades day after day since the Donation of Pipin, but this is the purpose of in depth game mechanics to cover so that the papacy can grow and ebb in power as time goes on.

Antipope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do bear in mind that anti popes both helps and hinders your argument, as going to all the effort of installing your own pope shows how influential a pope could be, whether as an ally or a source5of legitimacy

 

[Drakken]

*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.

The fact that Matilda was a pompous asshole who insisted to be kow-towed by her Norman vassals as the Holy Roman Empress she believed herself to be definitely did not help her PR campaign when she became Lady of the English. Those who revolted and went to Stephen, then to her son Henry, weren't in revolt because they didn't want a woman on the throne. It was because they didn't want her as a woman on the throne.

Stephen's only claim was that he was Adela of Normandy's son, so the Normans at least accepted that one could have a legitimate claim to the English throne through the cognate lines, so through women. It also introduced the idea, still in action today with Charles III, that succession was not through God's immanent will, but through the assent and consent of the vassals on whose claim to be the King would be accepted.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

The fact that Matilda was a pompous asshole who insisted to be kow-towed by her Norman vassals as the Holy Roman Empress she believed herself to be definitely did not help her PR campaign when she became Lady of the English. Those who revolted and went to Stephen, then to her son Henry, weren't in revolt because they didn't want a woman on the throne. It was because they didn't want her as a woman on the throne.

Stephen's only claim was that he was Adela of Normandy's son, so the Normans at least accepted that one could have a legitimate claim to the English throne through the cognate lines, so through women. It also introduced the idea, still in action today with Charles III, that succession was not through God's immanent will, but through the assent and consent of the vassals on whose claim to be the King would be accepted.

And yet those same nobles went from one "pompous asshole" to another (Stephen). Certainly her actions didn't help, but the nobles had tolerated equivalent behaviours in the previous Kings, and did so again with him, and then with Henry II.

That whole period is a total mess though.

 

[TacticalRetreat]

Sex. You mean sex. Gender is a social construct and that has nothing to do with anything.

The oppression of women was sex-based.

 

[Me_]

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.

That's a rather simplistic view. The end of a dynasty had serious implications for the stability of the realm and shifts in who's important and who's not, so everyone cared.

 

[FishieFan]

The fact that Matilda was a pompous asshole who insisted to be kow-towed by her Norman vassals as the Holy Roman Empress she believed herself to be definitely did not help her PR campaign when she became Lady of the English. Those who revolted and went to Stephen, then to her son Henry, weren't in revolt because they didn't want a woman on the throne. It was because they didn't want her as a woman on the throne.

So its not that they didnt want to humble themselves before a woman who claimed the crown, they didn't want to humble themselves before a woman who claimed to be an empress, got it

Stephen's only claim was that he was Adela of Normandy's son, so the Normans at least accepted that one could have a legitimate claim to the English throne through the cognate lines, so through women. It also introduced the idea, still in action today with Charles III, that succession was not through God's immanent will, but through the assent and consent of the vassals on whose claim to be the King would be accepted.

You can take that view, you can also take the view that God's plan was manifest by Stephen failing to disrupt the succession with a bloody civil war following due to his ambition and greed.

 

[Aliquam]

What even is this odd thread

While medieval Europe had women as reigning monarchs and women crowned as "king", the general preference was always male. Even the motion that monarch regnant must be named king was an example of how the cultural patterns favoured men. There is still stuff like this present in modern languages, where in UK the wife of the king is the queen, but if the queen is regnant, her husband is named prince, to mark the "unusual" situation.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

I recently looked at the wikipedia page on Irene. She probably had some legitimacy during her regency. When her son initially tried to rule alone, he made some poor decisions and was basically forced to bring her back as like a co ruler. Her legitimacy during this period was very low. She eventually led a palace coup against her son 5 years after she was brought back, blinding him that ultimately led to her death. There are a few pieces of evidence she used the traditional Byzantine title instead of the feminine version, but there is also some evidence that she did use the feminine version as well. She was ultimately deposed the same way that she became emperor.

 

[Darumaka]

Sex. You mean sex. Gender is a social construct and that has nothing to do with anything.

The oppression of women was sex-based.

Well there are more than a few female saints who lived as males. They were seen in a positive light for a woman striving to be a man, and acting like one, was seen as pious. Essentially this elevated "manliness," the opposite was also true however, any men who sought to live their lives as women were looked down upon for they reduced the status of manliness for all.

Things of course get muddied when a woman sought so perform in "male" activities whilst still proudly being a woman. I.e. Joan of Arc. She never pretended to be a man and was open about it all whilst wearing armor and participating in combat, hence the "heresy.*

 

[Gnomey154]

I think Joan of Arc runs back to the point that, ultimately, people's beliefs tend to weirdly coincide with whatever happens to be convenient to them. The people who supported and fought under Joan of Arc presumably didn't see anything wrong with what she was doing, quite the opposite. The people who fought against her or felt threatened by her popularity and influence also happened to be the ones who had moral issues with what she was doing.

 

[Silens]

Joan of Arc. She never pretended to be a man and was open about it all whilst wearing armor and participating in combat, hence the "heresy.*

You underestimate the pragmatism of that time. The accusation of heresy on that grounds (among other things) came from her enemies, who acted in England's interests. The entire process was rigged and if not for that reason, they'd have burned her for something else. Heresy or not was the least of their concerns, if at all. It was a convenient means to a desired end.

France didn't have a problem with her and how she carried herself. She herself also said that she wasn't trying to be a man, just fulfilling god's mission and then returning to her life (as a woman) afterwards. Wearing men's clothes or cutting her hair short was entirely pragmatic and people around her accepted it as such.

In the end even the church overruled the outcome of the process, declared it unjust and fully restored her status as a non-heretic. (making her a saint came much later, so it's not relevant here)

 

[sandro chronicler]

She was ultimately deposed the same way that she became emperor.

Like majority of byzantine rulers, male or female.

Even the motion that monarch regnant must be named king was an example of how the cultural patterns favoured men.

Problem is, as was mentioned, most of such examples was elected. Majority of nobility in this kingdoms supported female candidate even while male ones was available.

You might want to type that again

https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Doctrines - i don't see anything about clergy in "View on Gender", which this thread are primary about.

Bishops are also terribly represented in game, so dont worry its not sexism causing that

sexism is not my concern, historical accuracy is.

Linking a wiki page which says for 100 years it was bad won't help your case for saying it was weak for the first half of the mediveal period.

that about 1/10 of all medieval period, which is quite significant. More importantly, maximum church power was achieved after this period.

I would definitely like you to dig out the examples of women fighting in hand to hand combat as queens in an army that sounds very interesting.

This one oddly specific question, especially considering that most male kings didn't fight personally on battlefield (although, it wasn't exactly uncommon).
As for the question itself, in addition to cases when queens (in armor) personally commanded armies on battlefield but didn't participate in fight, https://www.medievalists.net/2014/07/ten-medieval-warrior-women/ - №7 is queen that some sources claim personally charged at enemies. №9 and 10 are countess and duchess respectively, latter according to other sources fought with the glaive in naval battle.

In other thread was also mentioned that there was surprising number of knighted woman, mostly as honorary knights, and usually for not military accomplishment, yet it was honor unimaginable for most man. What also interesting, female knights (i.e. actual, in title and as fighter) appear surprisingly often in medieval literature.

 

[Darumaka]

You underestimate the pragmatism of that time. The accusation of heresy on that grounds (among other things) came from her enemies, who acted in England's interests. The entire process was rigged and if not for that reason, they'd have burned her for something else. Heresy or not was the least of their concerns, if at all. It was a convenient means to a desired end.

France didn't have a problem with her and how she carried herself. She herself also said that she wasn't trying to be a man, just fulfilling god's mission and then returning to her life (as a woman) afterwards. Wearing men's clothes or cutting her hair short was entirely pragmatic and people around her accepted it as such.

In the end even the church overruled the outcome of the process, declared it unjust and fully restored her status as a non-heretic. (making her a saint came much later, so it's not relevant here)

Oh no I'm well aware of the farce, on both sides. The church was always pragmatic when appropriate (consecrating pagan sites, allowing dynasty cults, aligning saints and biblical figures with mythical pagan figures to ease new converts, changing pagan holidays into saint feasts, etc). I'm merely speaking in general, it wasn't purely about sex, but gender too.

Many of those notions stay with us to this day as a matter of fact, what with MtF people being thought of as promiscuous and a danger to women around them. Except back in the day this was because the church saw lustfulness as an inherently feminine thing, and thus any men who would crossdress and act as a woman was merely doing so in an attempt to act on their lust, at least according to the church. To be a man was to be closer to God, so any men looking to be womanly was automatically a deviant

Any ways we're drifting away from the topic at hand.

 

[Aliquam]

Problem is, as was mentioned, most of such examples was elected. Majority of nobility in this kingdoms supported female candidate even while male ones was available.

Have you considered it could be due to multitude of various factors present at the moment?
In my country a woman was selected king, because she was the last descendant of Piast dynasty and the alternatives were all connected to foreign big noble houses, and magnates and lord of course wanted to avoid such candidate.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Even if 10% of the time daughters inherited over trueborn sons, that still does not make a good case for changing Catholicism to be an equal religion in game. Even if that number is not skewed by cultures in which women held more rights, that doesn't improve the argument.

 

[sandro chronicler]

In my country a woman was selected king, because she was the last descendant of Piast dynasty and the alternatives were all connected to foreign big noble houses, and magnates and lord of course wanted to avoid such candidate.

Except they did elect foreign candidates in other cases. In any case, Her being of Piast descent was way more important than her gender, which is not what game call "male dominated".
P.s. It actually happened twice in Poland.

Even if 10% of the time daughters inherited over trueborn sons, that still does not make a good case for changing Catholicism to be an equal religion in game. Even if that number is not skewed by cultures in which women held more rights, that doesn't improve the argument.

What important here is two things:
1) Christianity in game are not currently historically accurate;
2) it actually pretty easy to solve, in multiple ways (easiest would be to add additional doctrines).
P.s. Even if Catholicism would be made equal, succession law is still "male preference" by default, and you need high crown authority to change it (which AI are not so good at rising). And this variant still would be somewhat closer to real historical thing than what we have now. Not the best, but better.

P.P.S. It's funny how some people who can't prove their points instead hide behind dislikes.

 

[apollo1989vieten]

What important here is two things:
1) Christianity in game are not currently historically accurate;
2) it actually pretty easy to solve, in multiple ways (easiest would be to add additional doctrines).
P.s. Even if Catholicism would be made equal, succession law is still "male preference" by default, and you need high crown authority to change it (which AI are not so good at rising). And this variant still would be somewhat closer to real historical thing than what we have now. Not the best, but better.

P.P.S. It's funny how some people who can't prove their points instead hide behind dislikes.

You seem to be hiding behind some flimsy arguments. I believe people here have been making it perfectly clear that culture has more to do with how women many rights in the medieval world that women could have. Multiple reasons for women inheriting some when the father has sons can be made clear. Even if the monarchy is elective, women were at an initial disadvantage, though other factors could override the disadvantage. The father could give the daughters a few abbeys and towns to run, like how Ferdinado gave his daughters those small places to run. If the people respected the woman, like in Mercia, a woman could rule in the absence of a man. Most women during the middle ages that gained power did so behind the scenes or as a regent.

The representation of Christianity in the game is not perfect because it doesn't represent how the church's power structure changed throughout the medieval period, but I don't see you giving any suggestions in how it could be improved.

 

[Aliquam]

Mister Sandro, why not just go to google scholar and search for papers assessing women's position in medieval era?