Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What would a religion founded by a woman look like?
Options
Comments
-
-
RDM_83 again wrote: »Other exceptions are Catherine of Arragon, Margaret of York, Caterina Sforza and Isabella I
(sorry) and while you're right about woman having limited political power (History isn;t my specialism so I can't argue) all of your examples of the removal of Female power are from the Early Modern Period.
I think this quote points out an important issue when looking at woman and the Middle Ages (for England at least), and perhaps power in general because often in my opinion we are too concerned with formal power and titles when looking at the past (and even today, a point that probably doesn't need to be made to politically minded atheists in countries with the separation of church and state)
"Medieval Englishwoman were often powerful, but never authorative"
From Women and Power in the Middle Ages - Mary Erler, Maryanne Kowalesk
The examples I used were actually the examples given by Peregrinus to demonstrate women had power- I just provided the background.
I did expand on the English/British/UK Queens as England/Britain/UK was one of the few realms to have a Regina regnant. Two in total. Sisters. Whose combined reigns lasted for a total of 50 years (1553-1603).
I could equally give background on these latest examples - for example - Catherine of Aragon was Queen Consort. She had no power - the most she had was influence and that was limited. She couldn't influence her husband not to divorce her and declare their daughter illegitimate so one can see her influence was dependent on her relationship to her husband, but he had the power.
Women had influence over powerful men - this is a far cry from having actual power - and, as the case of Mary de Medici shows, this was a double edged sword and should they try and exercise power in their own right they were likely to be removed.
Ironically, one of the few European countries where women did have power and the means to wield it were Gaelic Ireland and Scotland - although they were barred from holding any official titles or shares in the clan lands. They did retain personal possession of any 'portable' goods which included troops and ships and also, due to the dowry system in place, controlled much of the finances of the clan and were the single largest extenders of mortgages on land. Mortgages that were rarely repaid so women came to own land outright on their own behalf.
Nor were they limited to just influencing their husband's decisions - they had the legal right to veto outright any decision they believed was not in the best interests of the Clan.
It is notable that the Irish regions that held out the longest against the Tudors and Anglicisation had powerful women in situ- Gráinne Granuaile Ní Mháille in Mayo, Fionnuala Inghean Dubh Nic Dhomhnaill in Tyrconnell and her mother Agnes Campbell in Tir Eoghan. All of these women commanded sizable military forces independently of their husbands.
The ironic part is that it was Elizabeth I who was on the Throne when England systematically destroyed one of the few cultures that did allow women to exercise power in their own right.
Isabella I - yes. She did have absolute power in Castile - in the regions conquered by herself and Ferdinand they co-ruled.
But again, she is the exception - although her daughter Juana la Loca inherited the Throne of Castile she was prevented from exercising any power by a coalition of church/nobles lead by Archbishop Cisneros who cut off her access to funds rendering her unable to take any action which in turn lead to her father Ferdinand forcing her into naming him regent. At which point the funds became available again...funny that.
When Ferdinand died -technically making Juana the first Regina regnant of Spain, she was again denied any access to power and her son Carlos I (a.k.a Holy Roman Emperor Charles V) actually ruled while Juana was literally locked away against her will (she was barking mad by this point but it is a matter of conjecture if she was mad before being shunted aside or if her treatment was the primary cause).
Juana died in 1555 and from then on Spain had only kings - kings known for being so inbred (Spanish Hapburgs only married other Hapsburgs) they made Juana look like the very picture of mental health. So mental health issues were not, in and of themselves, seen as due cause to sidestep a monarch - provided that monarch was male.
In 1712, the first Bourbon king of Spain introduced a law stating that a female could only inheritances the throne if there were absolutely no males in the family alive - no matter how distantly related. Effectively ensuring Spain would never have another Isabella.
1791 when Russian barred women from the throne is not Early Modern by the way...
Victoria was barred from succeeding to the Throne of Hanover in 1837 - very much considered the Modern Era.
The point is that titles in and of themselves are meaningless without access to the mechanisms of power and the means to wield it. Juana of Spain had the title - but was prevented from ruling by her father, her son and a coalition of the RCC and nobility.
Granuaile, Inghean Dubh and Agnes had no titles - but they lived in a society that allowed women to retain absolute control over their personal property even after marriage and to have the power of veto over decisions which affected the security or status of the Clan.
Deny women control over their own lives (including finances) and you deny them any power.0 -
-
Ok I'm not arguing that woman were in anyway equal in terms of power to men as that is clearly false, I am arguing that the view that elite woman were effectively powerless isn't necessarily true especially in comparison to the vast bulk of the population without any power (the one of the points Pereginuis was making i think). I have a strong dislike for all encompassing points when talking about history its like saying there was no powerful Catholics post reformation in England or similarly that every African descendant in the Caribbean was disadvantaged by slavery (the Howard Family in the former, the Afro-Caribbean slave owners in the latter)
The reason I brought up the Early Modern thing (which I'd count as perhaps 1500/50-1750/1800) is because you could consider that this period is defined by the centralization and rationalization of power and the movement away from the 'feudal', to a system where power resides in the state and its systems to a much greater extent thus making official "authority" more important.Bannasidhe wrote: »1791 when Russian barred women from the throne is not Early Modern by the way...
I think we'l agree to disagree on that one (am I off by two years because of the French Revolution, I like rounding up 
)Bannasidhe wrote: »The point is that titles in and of themselves are meaningless without access to the mechanisms of power and the means to wield it. Juana of Spain had the title - but was prevented from ruling by her father, her son and a coalition of the RCC and nobility.
Deny women control over their own lives (including finances) and you deny them any power.
I'm arguing exactly the same point in reverse I think, in that titles are only an indicator of authority not power and that in the pre-modern period they are much less important, and thus the argument that they were not able to hold positions of authority does not imply they are powerless.
I think we have different views on what power is, and I also think that phrases like "control over their own lives" are a bit meaningless when talking about societies and era's where vassalage, servitude and loyalty were integral parts of life from the lowest to the highest with the exception of the very apex of society.
I'm aware of the fact that woman were capable of holding power in Gaelic Ireland, I was restricting my answer to the wider European society/law rather than that under the Brehon system. as it was rather exceptional.
There were powerful woman in Ireland and they did have greater rights however I'd also argue that the system of Tanistry and Septs whether a cause or effect of the chronic instability among the Gaelic Elites resulted in a massively high rate of change of 'leaders of meaning that there would be a greater raw number of females with power even if it isn't a particularly high percentage as is the case.
In situations under brehon law where the situation of succession was more stable you don't see woman with great power (I'm thinking here of the Mcarthy Mor but there is another example that I can't remember).
As an aside one of my pet hates is the interpretation of Brehon law and Irish society as more caring/egalitarian than other systems of the time (leaving aside the problem with application of some of the amazingly specific fines for cattle wandering X distance and similar examples that may indicate what survives in the texts was never meant to be applied), it was less sexist but enshrined the value of humans as having less in a way common law and church law did not (a good example is the restorative justice element of the law on rape, with the exclusion of certain classes from any bloodprice and a steep sliding scale for different social classes).
I'm not really sure what the relevance of the Tyrconnel and Mayo holdouts is being female is? Red Hugh O'Neil the greatest threat to plantation had more experience of the English Court than many 'pro-english' gaelic lords.0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »Ok I'm not arguing that woman were in anyway equal in terms of power to men as that is clearly false, I am arguing that the view that elite woman were effectively powerless isn't necessarily true especially in comparison to the vast bulk of the population without any power (the one of the points Pereginuis was making i think). I have a strong dislike for all encompassing points when talking about history its like saying there was no powerful Catholics post reformation in England or similarly that every African descendant in the Caribbean was disadvantaged by slavery (the Howard Family in the former, the Afro-Caribbean slave owners in the latter)
The reason I brought up the Early Modern thing (which I'd count as perhaps 1500/50-1750/1800) is because you could consider that this period is defined by the centralization and rationalization of power and the movement away from the 'feudal', to a system where power resides in the state and its systems to a much greater extent thus making official "authority" more important.
I think we'l agree to disagree on that one (am I off by two years because of the French Revolution, I like rounding up )
I'm arguing exactly the same point in reverse I think, in that titles are only an indicator of authority not power and that in the pre-modern period they are much less important, and thus the argument that they were not able to hold positions of authority does not imply they are powerless.
I think we have different views on what power is, and I also think that phrases like "control over their own lives" are a bit meaningless when talking about societies and era's where vassalage, servitude and loyalty were integral parts of life from the lowest to the highest with the exception of the very apex of society.
I'm aware of the fact that woman were capable of holding power in Gaelic Ireland, I was restricting my answer to the wider European society/law rather than that under the Brehon system. as it was rather exceptional.
There were powerful woman in Ireland and they did have greater rights however I'd also argue that the system of Tanistry and Septs whether a cause or effect of the chronic instability among the Gaelic Elites resulted in a massively high rate of change of 'leaders of meaning that there would be a greater raw number of females with power even if it isn't a particularly high percentage as is the case.
In situations under brehon law where the situation of succession was more stable you don't see woman with great power (I'm thinking here of the Mcarthy Mor but there is another example that I can't remember).
As an aside one of my pet hates is the interpretation of Brehon law and Irish society as more caring/egalitarian than other systems of the time (leaving aside the problem with application of some of the amazingly specific fines for cattle wandering X distance and similar examples that may indicate what survives in the texts was never meant to be applied), it was less sexist but enshrined the value of humans as having less in a way common law and church law did not (a good example is the restorative justice element of the law on rape, with the exclusion of certain classes from any bloodprice and a steep sliding scale for different social classes).
I'm not really sure what the relevance of the Tyrconnel and Mayo holdouts is being female is? Red Hugh O'Neil the greatest threat to plantation had more experience of the English Court than many 'pro-english' gaelic lords.
Lots here to answer later - maybe we should move it to a new thread?
But It was Red Hugh O'Donnell not O'Neill.
Hugh O'Neill (or shall we call him Tyrone) was completely in the pockets of the English for most of his life and was severely limited in his area of control by Turlough Luineach - The O'Neill, who was married to Agnes Campbell - the troops and the money to pay them which kept the English out were hers and under her command. Even the English recognised this.
Red Hugh O'Donnell was the son of Inghean Dubh (grandson of Agnes) - it was her troops and money that protected Tyrconnell again under her command. Mother and grandmother were instrumental in ending the O'Donnell/O'Neill feud.
Granuaile was married to the last MacWillam (lords of Mayo) to exercise independent rule - guess whose troops and money were used...:p
Her son Tibbóid and son in law MacDeamham an Chorain led the opposition to the Tudor conquest of Mayo - guess whose ships, troops and money was used....
It might be coincidence that the 3 regions that remained stubbornly Gaelic long after the rest had fallen were also the 3 regions where control was effectively in the hands of women... it might also be coincidence that the conquest of each of these regions coincided with the deaths of these women...or it might not.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Lots here to answer later - maybe we should move it to a new thread?
But It was Red Hugh O'Donnell not O'Neill.
Ooops
Bannasidhe wrote: »It might be coincidence that the 3 regions that remained stubbornly Gaelic long after the rest had fallen were also the 3 regions where control was effectively in the hands of women... it might also be coincidence that the conquest of each of these regions coincided with the deaths of these women...or it might not.
To bring it mildly back on topic does this mean one could consider that a religion founded by woman instead of the stereotype might be more warlike, more uncompromising and more resistant to change even when faced with the inevitable :P
ps exception that proves the rule has a rather different meaning to what i thought too until recently0
Advertisement