WI: No Salic Law?

With all this talk of unions and personal unions I got to thinking about Salic Law, and, specifically, female inheritance.

If sovereignty passed equally through male and female rulers, what would be the result?

United European Empire by 1900?! :eek:

.....

Seriously though, I want your thoughts.
 
The medieval nobility largely functioned as a military caste, and the King as the leader of that military caste. Asskicking = Authority was baked into the culture on a very deep level. The "Heir Club for Men" approach (not just Salic law, but also male-preference primogeniture and Jus Uxoris) was based on the assumption that in an era of melee combat, women just couldn't keep up with men on the battlefield.

We started seeing women inherit thrones and successfully rule in their own rights in Europe during the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, when the role of laws and formal power structures were becoming more important than personal martial prowess, and when changes in weapons and logistic technology were reducing the importance of the nobility as a military caste (i.e. when the nobility's power became more rooted in economic clout and accepted legal authority, because the backbone of the military was now pikemen and musketeers who too weeks or months to train and could be recruited from the vast ranks of commoners, not knights and men-at-arms who took years or decades to train and generally only came from the families of nobles and their trusted retainers).

To avoid gender preferences in inheritance laws, you probably need a way to preserve an environment where political leaders are not expected to personally kick anyone's ass. Perhaps have the Western Roman Empire break up in an orderly manner (devolving into local successor states with Roman-derived institutions) rather than being replaces with Barbarian tribal governments, or try to establish a lasting Carolingian renaissance to restore law-based societies much earlier.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Uh, women can't fight on melee didn't mean their husbands and sons are not capable.


An Empress Matilda scenario on Charlemagne, Constantine or other famous christian ruler. Charlemagne died with no son, but his daughter have capable husband or son and accepted as successor, could make tradition that female is acceptable as heir.
 
In which case, power lies with their husbands and sons, not them. A better way to look at it: You, a male ruler, have no sons. Whom do you trust to keep your realm after you're gone - your daughter's husband, whom you probably only know peripherally and probably married your daughter to him to get the goodwill and resources of HIS father, not him...or your kid brother, and your kid brother's sons, whom you've known all their lives and whom (hopefully) you know think like you and will respect your legacy?

And if you're thinking of the same Empress Matilda I am, all she managed to do was wreck England while bleeding the continent financially, so not a very good argument in favor.
 
And if you're thinking of the same Empress Matilda I am, all she managed to do was wreck England while bleeding the continent financially, so not a very good argument in favor.
And why did that happen? Because one noble thought that he should be king instead of a woman and arrived in London long before Matilda did. At that time England did not have any laws of succession and who ever reached London first would be crowned King, because only a coronation in London made the succession valid. Matilda did the only thing any heir would have done after an ursurper claimed the throne. she fought for her inheritance (and in the end she did win, because her son inherited the throne after the ursurper's death).

A change from agnatic succession (agnatic seniority and agnatic primogeniture) to equal primogentur would lead to some civil wars. This happened after the introduction of primogenitur in some realms.
 
You'd probably see a type of tanistry being the usual - sure the daughter COULD become queen by law, but in most cases they would choose a new MALE ruler from amongst the eligible males of the dynasty

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
You'd probably see a type of tanistry being the usual - sure the daughter COULD become queen by law, but in most cases they would choose a new MALE ruler from amongst the eligible males of the dynasty
I disagree. Because the succession laws are made by the noble houses for themselves and if one house did introduce equal primogeniture then they will use it. I think that is is more likely that cognatic primogeniture (as in the United Kingdom, Monaco, Spain and Thailand) will be used. And generations later it will changed into equal primogeniture.
 
I disagree. Because the succession laws are made by the noble houses for themselves and if one house did introduce equal primogeniture then they will use it. I think that is is more likely that cognatic primogeniture (as in the United Kingdom, Monaco, Spain and Thailand) will be used. And generations later it will changed into equal primogeniture.

Think about if Henry VI died without a direct heir and the nearest heir was female, the various scions of the royal families would be the ones throwing their hats into the ring, ignoring the superior claims of the woman - no doubt ONE of the claimants would be married to the woman, but his rivals are not going to let that sway them

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Think about if Henry VI died without a direct heir and the nearest heir was female, the various scions of the royal families would be the ones throwing their hats into the ring, ignoring the superior claims of the woman - no doubt ONE of the claimants would be married to the woman, but his rivals are not going to let that sway them
Henry VI of England is a bad example because of the Wars of the Roses, which was a series of dynastic civil wars between two rival branches (Lancaster, York) of the House of Plantagenet. So if Henry VI nearest heir was female, we would have a situation similiar to the end of the rule of Richard III. The legiminate heir of Eward V was his older sister Elizabeth. (Richard III was an ursurper who murdered his nephews in order to become king himself). Henry Tudor married Elizabeth to secure the stability of his rule and weaken the claims of other surviving members of the House of York. His coronation was before his marriage to Elizabeth, because he was King by conquest.

Female queens regnant were not uncommon: List of Queens regnant.
 
Top