Look, it's a sad fact of history that women are usually given short shrift. This is true of women in pretty much every culture and era - from the commoners to even the highest royalty. But women have been leading empires and conquering nations for as long as there have been empires and nations on the planet.
If you've ever had a question about famous historical females you never got satisfying answers to, a great place to visit is the AskHistorians subreddit. In that open forum, real experts answer all history questions great and small. Below is a selection of some of the most fascinating responses to history questions about queens. Vote up the ones that are truly enlightening.
Did Queen Elizabeth II Really Work During WWII, Or Was That Just Good PR?
Asked by Redditor u/DirtyBleachh:
Did Queen Elizabeth II really work as a mechanic during WWII, or was it more of a photo op kind of situation?
An excerpt from Redditor u/SelketDaly's answer:
The Princess Elizabeth was part of the Territorial Army Service in the Auxillary Territorial Service and had the service number 230873. The Territorial Army Service itself went onto to form part of the Women's Royal Army Corps. During her time in the ATS, she was promoted to Junior Commander.
As part of National Service during World War II, unmarried women between the ages of 20 and 30 were called up to serve in the auxiliary services, including the ATS, the Women's Royal Naval Service, the Women's Auxillary Airforce, and the Women's Trasport Service. Women could also join the Women's Voluntary Service and the Land Army.
It was Elizabeth's choice to join the ATS, and she certainly completed the training to become a qualified lorry driver. This included taking driving and vehicle maintenance courses. On completion of her training, her role in the ATS was mostly symbolic, according to Ben Pimlott: "The rank was an honorary one, but the training in driving and vehicle-maintenance she underwent at No1 Mechanical Transport Training Centre at Aldershot, was genuine."
The heir to the throne doing her part for the war effort would have been used to boost the morale of the country and encourage other young women to join the auxiliary services. As Pimlott says, "Since the enrollment of a royal princess could not be kept secret, her participation in the ATS inevitably became part of the morale-boosting display of the Monarchy."
Members of the ATS could expect to be deployed during the war, or to support the war effort at home. It is unlikely Elizabeth would have been deployed abroad or be placed in dangerous positions on the home front, particularly as her involvement was so well publicized. This can also be seen more recently, with Price Harry being withdrawn from deployment in Afghanistan due to fears of him being targeted.Enlightening answer?
Was Queen Anne's High Rate Of Child Mortality Normal For Her Era?
Asked by Redditor u/bluelily216:
Queen Anne of England was pregnant 17 times yet had no children reach adolescence. Was this high rate of child mortality standard in all social castes at the time? Or is it more likely due to centuries of inbreeding by the royal families of Europe?
An excerpt from Redditor u/mimicofmodes's answer:
Well, the basic answer is that since this case shows a 100% child mortality rate, it couldn't be standard in any social class at the time, or else the population of that class would not replace itself.
It's hard to compare Queen Anne's situation to the population at large because so many of her pregnancies - twelve out of the seventeen - resulted in miscarriages or stillbirths, and most women living at that time would have not recorded these, particularly the former, enough for us to draw statistical analysis from them.... We just do not know how frequently aristocratic, mercantile, artisan, peasant, or pauper women miscarried. However, Anne's number of miscarriages is likely greater than normal for women of any of those groups: the authors of English Population History from Family Reconstitution, 1530-1837 came to the conclusion based on various statistics that the rate of miscarriage/spontaneous abortion/stillbirths was not very high in England in the early modern period.
As the last Protestant in the Stuart royal line, Anne was under a great deal of pressure to produce a living heir to avoid the throne potentially being claimed by the Great Pretender, James Francis Edward Stuart, her Catholic half-brother, instead of her designated but more distantly-related heir, George of Hanover. Most women who had this many stillbirths and miscarriages would have probably resigned themselves to childlessness much sooner and decided with their husbands to stop conceiving....
I want to emphasize again that a 100% child/infant mortality rate was still not typical, but, sadly, infant mortality rates were at a high in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries: about 90 infants in 1,000 born at the same time would die....
The concept of royal inbreeding is kind of exaggerated today, because it's odd to think that wealthy people were hurting their own descendants by fixating on bloodline purity and because of some really well-known examples. The Spanish monarchs from the Hapsburgs forward did seem to actively prioritize first cousins and uncle/niece arrangements in marriage proceedings. England and then Great Britain, however, was very much not like this, with royal consorts generally coming from all different corners of Europe. Anne in particular was not inbred: her mother was not part of the royal class that married off their children, but an English commoner named Anne Hyde, who married the future James II out of love, sexual attraction, and already being pregnant. James's parents, Charles I and Henrietta Maria of France, were also not related...
Ultimately, we don't really know why Anne had problems carrying children to term. It may very well have been genetic, since her sister, Mary II (who did in fact marry her first cousin), had at least one miscarriage and no heirs as well, but it was almost definitely not the case that inbreeding caused the fetuses to have severe defects.Enlightening answer?
Did Egypt Fall Apart After Cleopatra Perished?
Asked by Redditor u/lil_hagrid:
Why did Egypt just completely fall apart after Cleopatra died? Cleopatra is one of the most well known pharaohs of all. She was a manipulator and a strategist, but not really a leader. Which begs the question; what made Cleopatra’s demise so devastating that Egypt just fell to pieces over it?
An excerpt from Redditor u/decadentgremlin's answer:
First, we have no reason to believe that Cleopatra was not an incredibly successful leader. She ascended to the throne at the young age of 18 and ruled for 21 years, fighting off threats to her power both from inside her country and outside it. Egypt flourished under her reign. Cleopatra herself was multilingual, and known for her political prowess. The primary reason she is remembered otherwise is because her tomb has remained thus far undiscovered, and there exist next to no records of her reign that would have been produced during her lifetime (with the exception of coins bearing her likeliness). In fact, the only historic biographic account of Cleopatra is found in the work of Plutarch (Parallel Lives), in which she is mentioned within the biographies of Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony. It is from these accounts of Plutarch, and the various literary accounts that follow, in which Cleopatra becomes immortalized as the "oriental femme fatale" in the western tradition.
It’s worth noting that despite becoming a sex symbol of sorts, Plutarch doesn’t even eulogize her as being remarkably beautiful: “For her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her, or that no one could see her without being struck by it, but the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible” (Plutarch, Biography of Anthony). The biggest issue is that the works of Plutarch are written well after the fact (almost two centuries later, given that Cleopatra died in 30 BCE and Plutarch’s Parallel Lives are estimated to have been published in the beginning of the 2nd century CE) and are rather dramatized. His preference is clearly towards the male romans who are “corrupted” by Cleopatra. It makes his accounts of her to a particular extent unreliable.
As for Egypt's downfall, Cleopatra's [taking her own life] coincides with the end of the final war of the Roman republic, a civil war notably between Octavius and Cleopatra alongside Mark Anthony. After Cleopatra’s... defeat, Egypt became a Roman province and by no means “fell apart.” It was one of the wealthiest Roman provinces. It was just no longer independent from Rome.Enlightening answer?
Was Queen Nefertiti A Particularly Powerful Ruler Of Ancient Egypt?
Asked by Redditor u/matildemp:
Why is Queen Nefertiti perceived as the most powerful female figure of Ancient Egypt?
Answered by Redditor u/kookingpot:
Nefertiti was the wife of Akhenaten, the father of Tutankhamun. She is one of the most famous female figures of Ancient Egypt, due to the fact that her husband was the famous "heretic" who attempted to make Egypt follow a monotheistic religion centered around the sun god Aten, and also initiated some artistic changes toward realism rather than typical idealized Egyptian art. She is mostly famous because of the well-known bust of her head that is currently displayed in the Neues Museum in Berlin.
Few other female figures were depicted so beautifully, and had their name known. This is why you know of her. I don't think she was particularly powerful in her own right. With her husband, many changes were made in Egypt, between the religion and switching the capital of Egypt to Tell el-Amarna, so her reign had a lot of impact, culturally. But I wouldn't really say she was unusually powerful. She is certainly the most beautifully depicted of the Ancient (Pre-Greek) Egyptian queens.
But Hatshepsut (who proclaimed herself Pharaoh and ruled in her own right, and made expeditions to Punt) and Cleopatra (who was influential and perhaps had a role in the way the Roman Empire eventually was founded, due to her relationships with the Roman ruling families) have better claims to the status as "most powerful."Enlightening answer?