2007-09-13 04:28:36 · 11 answers · asked by Mick Law 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
its like this. there was once a woman and she had major pre menstrual syndrome and she was feeling powerful aaargh. well she said I am the queen if you have a problem with that step your game up and bring me down. the woman was unbeatable and unstoppable, it must have been, the queens great great great great great grandmother. there you have it.
2007-09-13 04:35:12 · answer #1 · answered by KARMA IS IT THOU? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
John C is partly right it would be one with a big sword, but also one who had the wit to organise his community and provide for them.
It is thought the original clan or tribal leaders were picked through the matriarchal lineage. This meant they would be educated with the mother tongue and the worthiest took leadership rather than the oldest. Kings were thought to have been sacrificed to the Gods when they had served their usefulness.
It was the rise of the Classical civilisations that brought the complete patriarchal rule to Western Europe.
To keep this rule consistent direct lineage of the 1st born male was introduced to save disagreement and quarrel over territory and property.
By the time the Normans arrived the religion of the aristocracy was Christianity, so the divine right was enforced. Therefore in deposing the king you were deposing God's will.
Charles I was the last king to use this will fully as his defence. The rest is history.
2007-09-13 06:18:09 · answer #2 · answered by EdgeWitch 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
King were seen as chosen by God and would be appointed to rule according to his will.
It would be somewhat more complicated than as was described "the guy with the biggest sword"; but thats close enough... you'd have a war, whoever won became King. His wife would be Queen, and new Kings would come from the Eldest son (or failing that, whatever the set protocol would be if there were no sons, usually the Kings eldest brother). If you ever had another war, changing ownership of the lands; than the winner would be the new King to start the process over again.
2007-09-13 04:47:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Pre-1066, in England, it wasn't a strict primogeniture rule. The Witan, the Anglo-Saxon council, chose the King from among the top few members of the Royal Family. So, for example, in 1066, Harold was elected by the Witan although he wasn't the blood heir.
2007-09-13 07:52:23 · answer #4 · answered by elijahyossie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Someone took charge, probably
during the time of War, and the
people backed them up.
It didn't stop, it would past down to
the next Son, Daughter, or Relative of
the King / Queen.
2007-09-13 04:51:27 · answer #5 · answered by elliebear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All groups need leaders - the one others turn to or look to for solutions because for whatever reason that person comes thru and saves the pack.
Probably evolved into a "system" when we put down roots and developed communities/civilization.
Life got more complicated - we started specializing in our roles and jobs - makes sense we'd need a fulltime problem solver
2007-09-13 04:51:39 · answer #6 · answered by dr311 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since the dawn of time,if YOU wanted to rule over other,you simply fought them on the battlefield. THEN,after you defeated your enemy,you simply rounded up the entire family of your enemy including their servants,guards,and THEIR combined families and put them to death so no one could come back later and get revenge on you.
2007-09-16 09:12:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You just tell me, who decides who should be the Queen Bee.
It is all destiny.
2007-09-13 04:40:17 · answer #8 · answered by Hobby 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It was the biggest guy with a sword.
2007-09-13 04:33:06 · answer #9 · answered by John C 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You might as well go back to biblical times, they had them even then.
2007-09-13 08:47:48 · answer #10 · answered by D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋