I think it's worth adding that a woman cannot be a legitimate monarch. We can read Scottish Reformer John Knox's
First Blast of the Trumpet
Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, in which he refuses to acknowledge Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots as the rightful rulers of England and Scotland respectively.
Quote:
Wonder it is, that the advocates and patrons of the right of our ladies did not consider and ponder this law, before they counseled the blind princes and unworthy nobles of their country to betray the liberties thereof into the hands of strangers: England, for satisfying of the inordinate appetites of that cruel monster Mary (unworthy, by reason of her bloody tyranny, of the name of a woman), betrayed, alas! to the proud Spaniard; and Scotland, by the rash madness of foolish governors, and by the practices of a crafty dame, resigned likewise, under the title of marriage, into the power of France. Does such translation of realms and nations please the justice of God?
Or is the possession, by such means obtained, lawful in his sight? Assured I am that it is not . . . . And yet to these two cruel tyrants (to France and Spain I mean) is the right and possession of England and Scotland appointed.
|
He bases his argument on nature and passages such as 1 Timothy 2:12 --
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."