Challenge: European queen comes out as a lesbian and marries a woman

[Fabius Maximus]

If anything like this were to occur the monarch would be seen as insane or bewitched with comparisons to Nero (who allegedly forced a man into being a eunuch and his concubine) and Elegabalus likely being thrown out there. Such a move would face universal opposition from all parties.

According to Suetonius, Nero had the man castrated specifically to try and turn him into a woman so he could then marry him. IOW, even Nero saw marriage as a heteronormative institution, so someone who tried to openly marry someone of the same sex would be seen as even more depraved.

The easy answer is marry a man and have a mistress or two. It's a practical solution long used by kings, and rumours about royalty can be dismissed as cheap gossip where sterner measures might be seen as implying an element of truth.

Wasn't Queen Anne rumoured to be sexually intimate with the Dutchess of Marlborough? That might just be modern historians, though. William of Orange was definitely accused of sleeping with one of his pages, though, and it doesn't seem to have caused him many problems. Ditto James I & VI. As long as our lesbian queen is otherwise secure in her rule and isn't too in-your-face about her proclivities, I think she'll manage.

 

[jacob ningen]

maybe make the reconquista fail see Sahar Amir on LGBTQ in Al Andalus

 

[holycookie]

I had a transexual king in my TL but this was in the 1990s.

I mean even this is very fast. I don't know if this would be accepted today certainly not the absolute majority of the world. Or even in a lot of Europe. Françe demands sterilization to be considered of the other sex.

maybe make the reconquista fail see Sahar Amir on LGBTQ in Al Andalus

"LGBT" is not how we see sex today. Relations between people of the same sex at the time was pederasty that is the relationship between a boy and a man.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Wasn't Queen Anne rumoured to be sexually intimate with the Dutchess of Marlborough? That might just be modern historians, though. William of Orange was definitely accused of sleeping with one of his pages, though, and it doesn't seem to have caused him many problems. Ditto James I & VI. As long as our lesbian queen is otherwise secure in her rule and isn't too in-your-face about her proclivities, I think she'll manage.

There's scant evidence for any of these claims rendering most of these claims of alleged homosexuality being speculative at best. The same goes for the supposed Bisexuality of King James VI and I something of which there is little evidence to suggest. Most claims against him come from sources hostile the Stuarts such as the Puritans which were a strong force in Parliament. The Puritans were known for leveling accusations of "crimes of sodomy," lust, greed, etc.

In the case of James, such talk became more open long after his death mostly at a time when the Stuarts were deposed or were in the midst of the civil where the parties involved had an interest in presenting him and his dynastic heirs in the worst light possible especially since when the Hanoverians came to the throne there were other claimants all out there with stronger claims to the throne.

The thing about history is that these thing have a lot of nuance as its hard to differentiate truth from slander as there was no such thing as "objective" scholarship like we sort of have now. Often times the tabloids and the sensationalist gossip are most of the sources we really have to go on (just look at what was written about what Tiberius was doing in Capua). The problem now is that there's a recent trend of some modern "historians" just taking these claims and running with them, overlooking or outright ignoring any nuance or anything refuting what they're claiming, with the result being something "cherry-picked" to confirm their biases and push a narrative.

It doesn't help that "popular-historians" (Youtubers) also push these sorts of claims further perpetuating misconceptions or outright historical fallacies into the public psyche (it also helps drive engagement too).

The reason why we can confidently gauge someone like Philippe d'Orleans' (younger brother of Louis XIV) sexuality is because he was open about such behavior in Versailles which was tolerated by Louis in order to discredit the idea anyone rallying around him as a candidate to oppose him (Louis). Essentially Louis was saying, "if you depose me you'll have that godless 'degenerate' (homosexuality at that time was seen as a sort of degenerate behavior/inclination) as your King."

It worked as the nobility were cowed into obedience lacking a Gaston d'Orleans type figure to rally behind to oppose the centralization of the Crown.

 

[Brita]

I mean even this is very fast. I don't know if this would be accepted today certainly not the absolute majority of the world. Or even in a lot of Europe. Françe demands sterilization to be considered of the other sex.

Agreed (and even in my TL, it cause quite a scandal and eventually resulted in the king's assassination).

Françe demands sterilization to be considered of the other sex.

I think this particular requirement was abolished a few years ago... but still, they waited for the 21st century to do it.

 

[desmirelle]

Well, given that Cain and Seth had offspring, I think it's safe to say that Adam and Eve had daughters too.

Oh, yeah, no question. My point was that Adam & Eve couldn't have been homosexuals; it would have had to start with the second generation.

 

[holycookie]

eventually resulted in the king's assassination

yeah that makes sense

I think this particular requirement was abolished a few years ago.

I mean it was a demand in 2016, I don't know how it is now.

 

[desmirelle]

The only, and I mean the ONLY situation where I could see a situation even remotely similar to this working is as some kind of grand scheme where the king is engaged to a woman who is sent to his kingdom to be married, only for him to die and the throne to fall to his sister, who cannot let the father of the would-be-bride know that the alliance is off because it would ruin them or cause them to lose a war.

Maybe, and only MAYBE could I see a sort of sham being played off where the sister is rightful queen but the would-be-wife is playing a role of also-queen and the Two of them just seeing how long they can keep it contained.

Obviously this would never work for very long. Blah blah female duplicity and, as others have said, might hurt the support for female rulers in other nations. Though, to be fair, the only place I could imagine this is in some miniscule kingdom or royal fief where they could get away with this for more than a few weeks.

You're right on the miniscule kingdom and the few weeks.

However: once the king dies, a dowager queen consort is either a tool for her new country's powers that be or [this one is more likely if she has no children] she returns to her home country; she had no power[see Katherine Parr Tudor v. Anne Stanhope Seymour and the guardians of Edward VI]. It doesn't necessarily mean the treaty is dead; that would require actions by one of the countries. The new Queen will be vulnerable at the point of power transfer. She, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. Any rumors of her 'perversion' and it's 'Next Heir' for the monarchy. Too many nobles & clergy jockeying for power for an obviously disturbed [as it would be seen] woman to remain on the throne.

No way a 'beard' husband would be complacent with an "I'll play along" scenario. Even allowing for him having his own Piers Gaveston by his side, he's going to want to rule. [I think that's what would have happened with Jane Grey because she was not seen as a 'real' heir to Edward; Guilford would gradually become more and more powerful; remember the marital contract between Mary & Philip - had to give up any rights to rule in England.]

All things considered, I can't see this being anything than ASB.

 

[sarahz]

Those sexual practices that the Bible condemns include people of the same sex having sex with each other. I fail to understand your point.

It also forbids eating ham borrowing money with interest and onanism and advocates for slavery and for burning witches so perhaps not a complete guide to moral behaviour even in pre modern times the issue is more culture and tradition than exact biblical texts

 

[BoleynBuff]

It also forbids eating ham borrowing money with interest and onanism and advocates for slavery and for burning witches so perhaps not a complete guide to moral behaviour even in pre modern times the issue is more culture and tradition than exact biblical texts

Unfortunately, it's what people in a Christian European kingdom would believe.

 

[FalconHonour]

Best case scenario short of ASB intervention is probably a Queen who never marries but manages to retain her throne, and who also has a particular female courtier that she is exceedingly close with. Assuming she kept the throne until her (natural) death she would presumably be powerful enough to have chosen her heir and given them solid footing to begin their reign.

Which means it kinda has to be Elizabeth I. I pick Mary Dudley as her lover, and John Carey, Henry Carey's eldest son, to survive her as her heir.

 

[mrmandias]

In case someone hasn't pointed it out yet, the idea that basically marriage is meant to show that two people really really like each other is extremely modern. Even a hypothetical strongly lesbian queen is unlikely to think that she needs to get married to her paramour because the point of marriage especially for a monarch is bloodline continuation.

 

[mrmandias]

It also forbids eating ham borrowing money with interest and onanism and advocates for slavery and for burning witches so perhaps not a complete guide to moral behaviour even in pre modern times the issue is more culture and tradition than exact biblical texts

Shockingly enough, people in the Middle Ages were against borrowing money with interest, thought onanism was immoral, and with caveats were ok with slavery and burning witches. Its unclear why you think these points matter to a middle ages ATL.

 

[sarahz]

Shockingly enough, people in the Middle Ages were against borrowing money with interest, thought onanism was immoral, and with caveats were ok with slavery and burning witches. Its unclear why you think these points matter to a middle ages ATL.

The point I was making is precisely that it is the cultural view point that matters not the precise citation thank you for reinforcing my point although you clearly did not mean too. One caveat though the Vatican did not believe in burning witches then or now whatever the public thought. Belief in the existence of witchcraft is heretical as it grants Satan real world power which is the purview of God alone

 

[Hastings]

Yeah, this isn't happening. Lesbian sure, show heavy favoritism (likely to cause resentment and backlash of course). But like marriage isn't happening. No one will marry them and you need a priest to. Also remember mindsets. It is very unlikely that even a homosexual would think of the idea of marrying their lover. Gay marriage is a *very* recent idea in the West and has a lot less antecedent's in other cultures than many other 'modern' norms (though not quite literally none). Marriage as being mostly about love is itself kind of new. Not to say people haven't always valued love to varying degrees, but marriage is traditionally a social contract, reproductive unit, etc which may or may not be loving. And in this sense a gay marriage in the middle ages is serving essentially zero function (other than getting yourself institutionalized). Its like saying the sky is yellow. Results are pretty predictable if people believe you actually think that.

 

[JanWellem]

In western Europe it has to happen before the 14th century, when the Catholic church stopped practising Adelphopoiesis / affrèrement, the sanctioning of (at least officially) platonic same sex partnerships. In orthodox countries it could've happened until the 19th century with Empress Elisabeth of Russia as the most likely candidate able to pull it off.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

given that even in "anything goes" Belle Époque Paris courtesan Liane de Pougy's "bisexuality" was considered scandalous, and Marie Antoinette's relationships with Lamballe and Polignac were derided as lesbian in an effort to discredit her, I honestly cannot fathom how a queen would get away with it at an earlier date.

In fact, it might actually mean they close the legal loopholes allowing lesbianism (most European countries while having a punishment for sodomy and male homosexuality, had no specific law against female homosexuality. Hungary is one that springs to mind IIRC).

 

[Fabius Maximus]

In western Europe it has to happen before the 14th century, when the Catholic church stopped practising Adelphopoiesis / affrèrement, the sanctioning of (at least officially) platonic same sex partnerships. In orthodox countries it could've happened until the 19th century with Empress Elisabeth of Russia as the most likely candidate able to pull it off.

Adelphopoiesis ("brother-making") was, as the name suggests, conceived of as analogous to a familial relationship, not to a marriage. Nor was it ever at all widespread.

 

[Polish Eagle]

The point I was making is precisely that it is the cultural view point that matters not the precise citation thank you for reinforcing my point although you clearly did not mean too. One caveat though the Vatican did not believe in burning witches then or now whatever the public thought. Belief in the existence of witchcraft is heretical as it grants Satan real world power which is the purview of God alone

Slightly more complex than that. Before about 1200-1300, it was indeed true that the Vatican (and the Catholic Church more broadly) explicitly disbelieved in the very existence of witches. That was in the Code of Canon Law about 1000 AD, and secular law reflected that (shortly after Hungary became Christian, laws against witchcraft were abolished "because there are no witches", for example).

BUT, and this is often overlooked, the belief in witchcraft came back with a vengeance by the Late Middle Ages, while Europe was still pretty uniformly Catholic. The 1300s saw a steady rise in the number of trials, and then the 1400s saw a more rapid rise--and then the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum. I'm not entirely sure why the belief returned, but I think the overlap in time with the social trauma of the Black Death (~1350) is extremely suggestive--I think people were looking for a scapegoat. The prevalence of Dominicans in witch hunting also suggests that the Inquisition, invented to fight Catharism, might have settled on witches as a new threat (to justify its own continued existence). I've also heard it suggested that renewed interest in Roman and Greek literature might also, ironically, have played a role (since the existence of witches is taken for granted in many such works).

(sorry, just a nitpick of mine; Catholic apologists have largely memed the notion that witch trials were a Protestant invention into widespread acceptance, but that just oversimplifies the real history)

 

[holycookie]

Catholic apologists have largely memed the notion that witch trials were a Protestant invention into widespread acceptance

Stating that there were no witch hunts in Catholic countries is a lie, but denying their intensity in Protestant kingdoms is also wrong. It wasn't like they occurred equally. The flame of witch-hunting was more intense in Protestant regions.