A historical rant...
There are four monarchs in English history who were proclaimed king/queen but never actually crowned: in chronological order, Empress Matilda, Edward V, Lady Jane Grey and Edward VIII. Can anyone explain to me why the male monarchs are included in the English lists of monarchy but the women aren't?
If the act of coronation is what makes a monarch then none of them should appear in the lists, since none were crowned. If it's being the rightful heir and being acclaimed as such, then I can understand not including Lady Jane Grey but Matilda should still be there: she was Henry I's only surviving legitimate child; she was acknowledged as queen by his barons, all of whom swore an oath to accept her as queen; she effectively deposed Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln and was in control of the country (albeit only for a few months) - why is she not included in the lists of monarchs? The lists acknowledge the back and forth of the crown between Edward IV and Henry VI between 1461 and 1470, so why do they not do the same with Matilda and Stephen?
She was as much queen of England as little Edward V was king - in fact, more so, since he was just a child, was never crowned and never even ruled in his own right for one moment! She was the legitimate heir, she was proclaimed queen, she defeated the man who'd usurped her throne in battle, she controlled the country - short of the actual act of coronation, she couldn't have been more of a queen. So what gives?
It's bloody sexist, is what it is.
If the act of coronation is what makes a monarch then none of them should appear in the lists, since none were crowned. If it's being the rightful heir and being acclaimed as such, then I can understand not including Lady Jane Grey but Matilda should still be there: she was Henry I's only surviving legitimate child; she was acknowledged as queen by his barons, all of whom swore an oath to accept her as queen; she effectively deposed Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln and was in control of the country (albeit only for a few months) - why is she not included in the lists of monarchs? The lists acknowledge the back and forth of the crown between Edward IV and Henry VI between 1461 and 1470, so why do they not do the same with Matilda and Stephen?
She was as much queen of England as little Edward V was king - in fact, more so, since he was just a child, was never crowned and never even ruled in his own right for one moment! She was the legitimate heir, she was proclaimed queen, she defeated the man who'd usurped her throne in battle, she controlled the country - short of the actual act of coronation, she couldn't have been more of a queen. So what gives?
It's bloody sexist, is what it is.