There was also the whole thing with a prince being too young when his father died and then essentially the queen ruled until the boy came of age, usually with the support from a noble or nobles.
For anyone interested The Wars of The Roses has this and was a fairly interesting period during the 100 year war.
Of course. But that's normally viewed as some form of regentship -- which people can make a legit argument that it's not really 'femals being lords." However, the interesting bit is that even without counting in female regents, females did ascend to lordship and queenship actually without much problems, because although the traditions differed between regions, female inheritance wasn't something that was fundamentally made impossible or anything. In most cases the law of inheritance did prioritize male heirs over females, but when there were no males? The female heiress naturally ascended.
And surely, through about 1,000 years of Medieval ages (in the wide sense), PLENTY of noble houses met such situations -- and no, bringing in outside son-in-law to marry the female heiress, does not mean that son-in-law inherited the House.
As a matter of fact, the whole weakening of the French crown and the subsequent dynastic crisis of France that led to the 100 years war, began when Philippe of Poitier made a stunt to try and bar females from inheriting the crown. After the death of Louis X, there wasn't a precedence of a Queen in France, but people didn't particularly see a problem with a Queen on the throne. Philippe challenged that notion, and consequentially dragged in the long-dead Salic laws to force his position to disqualify a female from the French throne.
Then came the irony, that when Philippe himself died, his House met the exact same situation where Philippe had no male heirs, and only females. His enemies used the exact same argument to disqualify the female heirs from the throne... and this meant there was a huge confusion in succession as to whom the crown should go...
...and lo and behold, the English royal family, that had ties with the French through isabelle of France, now got entangled in the mess.
So, trying to stop female inheritance, was actually abnormal, because Philippe's citation of the Salic laws caused a huge controversy back then, because many argued it was a long-dead law not in use, and therefore invalid.
These games are hardly realistic and have never really sought to simulate medieval times nor late antiquity. You can't use the "realism" argument to exclude a whole gender in a fictional setting that thankfully does not have follow the unfortunate reality of sexism...
I don't think OP is sexist nor are most of the people defending them, but you have to understand that it is kind of disappointing to see posts like this that ask for such mods/features. Why not include greater female representation? There are many female gamers and male gamers who like to experience more diverse settings highlighting different experiences with which they can better connect. Including a more diverse cast can only be a net benefit to the community as it draws more players!
My problem is that most of this backlash appears when games/developers move away from the all white all male model of world building (slight exaggeration; almost wholly white/male). Why is it so bothersome to include women (or people of colour in other cases)? That is the concerning part, that simply the presence of female characters generates activity like this.
For the record, history is full of examples of female warriors and/or queens, not in the same abundance as men but certainly a notable amount. Read about, Boudicca, Zenobia, Cleopatra, Nerfititi, and many more.
Actually it's pretty much dead giveaway the op is wholly sexist ,so you don't really have to shy-away from that. But even still, in my case I would still somewhat respect his preferences, so long as he doesn't force his own preference on the game. So if he wants a mod to remove all females, sure. He can go have fun with it.
Let's keep things dry and real here -- he wants to play the fantasy he wants, who is to stop him? It's his right.
All there is, is simply correcting his comments and false excuses. That's the only thing I'm interested in. His view of history is just plain wrong, so it can't be used as one of his excuses. That's the only thing I care about in this disucssion.
