From Æthelflæd to Ælfthryth: The Idea of Queenship in Tenth-Century England
jhiblog.org
jhiblog.org
And also noting the prominent codpiece [1] covering Henry's family jewels in said portrait[2].
There's no reason to believe that Æthelflæd was captured by vikings and impregnated by Erik Thurgilson before marrying Æthelred. Or that Æthelred was any more a misogynist than any other 10 century christian king. However, we can be pretty sure that Uhtred the bold wasn't even born at this point, never mind Æthelflæd's lover.
Wave of Egg-Kings
Soon after this event Egg-Kings were found on the thrones of all these kingdoms, such as Eggberd, Eggbreth, Eggfroth, etc. None of them, however, succeeded in becoming memorable except in so far as it is difficult to forget such names as Eggbirth, Eggbred, Eggbeard, Eggfish, etc. Nor is it even remembered by what kind of Eggdeath they perished.
and the exam question:
8. Have you the faintest recollection of (1) Ethelbreth? (2) Athelthral? (3) Thruthelthrolth?
[1] https://the-last-kingdom.fandom.com/wiki/%C3%86thelfl%C3%A6d
Edit: Should have hit refresh rather than browse tabs opened a while ago...err, I agree with dave333
But I would be careful calling monarchy despotic as if it were synonymous. Democracies can be far worse. The mob is dangerous and easily shaped through propaganda (as we are witnessing). You can hide from Nero, but the mob is everywhere. Besides, feudal dynastic monarchies aren't Enlightenment despots. Feudal lords, the nobility, the Church, and having to consider the consequences of your actions for yourself during a long reign (vs. 4 year term) as well as the reign of your heir all put limits on the actual power a king has.
Also, mobs were not absent from medieval society (think of the antinomian, flagellant movements in Germany, or various anti-Jewish outbursts). They’re likely to be with us to greater or lesser degree until the end.
My view is that for those of us concerned by the trajectory of modernity (Christian or not), the task is to better understand the phenomenon of totalitarianism, which we will have to contrast against a recovered, “re-realized” understanding of authority (as freedom from arbitrary power). But I don’t think medievalism, or pitting democracy vs monarchy will get us there.
It does appear to be true that female rulers reign during times of increased instability, but it's hard to draw the distinction between female rulers reigning during instability because those are the only circumstances in which they can take power vs female rulers intentionally (or accidentally-but-predictably) creating instability.
And then you can draw another distinction between female rulers like Wu Zetian who have themselves crowned, explicitly making a change to the system, or female rulers like Cixi who exercise power they don't formally hold, which is working within the system.