The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,292
|
Post by The Lost One on May 5, 2021 22:08:39 GMT
But he did steal her throne as she was the heir that her father Henry I had chosen to succeed him. That is the general argument, but it's not completely clear cut. As regards Henry I's wishes, Henry became king by (probably) having one brother murdered. His other brother he fought against to sieze Normandy from. So Henry did not care about going against his own father's wishes when it came to succession. Also if one makes the argument that Matilda was passed over due to sexism, what about Stephen's mother who was Henry's older sister? Why didn't she get the throne over her younger brother? If Matilda was a victim of sexism, Adela, and by extension her son, were victims of an earlier sexism. There were also factors at play other than sexism. The Anglo-Norman barons disliked Matilda due to her abrasive personality and distrust of her husband who was their enemy. With no law of succession in place at the time, the support of the barons is arguably as legitimate a reason for someone to be a monarch as being named successor by a king whose own claim was pretty dodgy. Of course, the elephant in the room in all these discussions is that saying any monarch is legitimate is a bit of a nonsense. At the end of the day, it's a squabble between two grandchildren of a guy who was good at killing people over which of them deserved to rule a sizeable kingdom. But if we for the sake of argument accept the idea of monarchy, there is enough of a grey area that I think someone could make a solid case for Stephen over Matilda (even though like you, I'd probably lean towards Matilda too). It may well have happened anyway; the barons might just have found a different champion if Stephen was unwilling to take the crown rather than accept Matilda as queen.
|
|