Post History
I don't think they make sense together, if the queen has no political power, she is just a pretty prop or puppet that has to do as the men decide. You say she does not rule "directly", that is inco...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-19T22:13:36Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40099 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T10:09:50Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40099 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
I don't think they make sense together, if the queen has no political power, she is just a pretty prop or puppet that has to do as the men decide. You say she does not rule "directly", that is incorrect. **She does not rule at all,** she can make no decisions, she is just a lucky heiress. I think these concepts work against each other; long ago the men would have overthrown the weak women and taken charge directly, for the fortune and direct power and just out of their own ego for being the first King. To me it makes no sense for this state of affairs to exist.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2018-11-13T14:49:57Z (about 6 years ago)
Original score: 4