For a curious Wikipedia journey, I can recommend starting with the reigning UK monarch[1], then keep clicking the predecessor's link repeatedly. Marvel as the images lose colour, turn to paintings, then statues, drawings of painting (noting Henry VIII's power stance), statues, drawings of statues, tapestries, well-worn coins, then eventually evapourate into myth somehwere in Wessex.
At that stage in his life, the king was too weak and ill to stand, so the artist, Holbein, improvised, creating the iconic "power stance" image we associate with Henry VIII
The author should have pointed out that the historical background of Mercia was much more in line with the Britons (I.e, original Britons like the Welsh as opposed to the Saxons) in their perception of the concept of female rule. Not that Mercia wasn’t Saxon, but they were influenced by their closer neighbors. Aethelflaed very ably built up Merician defenses and came to the aide of her brother, the Saxon King Edward, on a number of occasions. As the daughter of Alfred, she had a lot of legitimacy for her rule after Aethelred’s death. It’s not inconceivable to believe that her legitimate rule was downplayed by her brother and subsequent Saxon rulers for their own political purposes.
So do I, of course remembering that this is a completely fictionalised version of events.
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.
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?
You can get a lot of insight into this period and into what we learned to think of as the “dark ages” from the British History Podcast. His coverage brings these people to life and illuminates a time that was a lot more complex than most of us knew about.
Warwick School, which was purportedly founded by Æthelflæd in 914, is the oldest boys public school in the country, as well as the oldest surviving school founded by a Woman.
Likewise, The Last Kingdom TV show covers these characters probably even more - Æthelflæd is in all 5 seasons [1] (although season 5 isn't out yet), and there's a lot of focus on Mercia.
Unfortunately that show has some odd changes to history done for the purpose of entertainment. Particularly on her character, and the history of Mercia and its relationships.
Not sure what the OP means, but perhaps it has something to do with a higher incidence of war and such during the reigns of queens than kings.
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.
I’m all for dispelling Whig propaganda about the European Middle Ages, but I’m not sure medieval monarchies and contemporary democracies can compared in this way.
As you mentioned, medieval societies were heavily variegated, religious, and did not have the means to manipulate nature in the way we do today, all of which were practical constraints on a wicked or despotic monarch. These constraints are now gone. I don’t think you could hide from Nero (or King John, to stay more overtly medieval) today.
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.
There is a traditional Chinese view that women in power promote instability. (And that instability is bad.)
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II