Kid Power

For medieval queens, children are power. This is not to say that queens without children are just ornaments and objects of beauty that sit next to kings with no influence or agency. There have been examples of queens who have not had children or heirs; however, once the king dies… what happens to their queens? They fade away. The are either killed when rivals come to power, or they are quietly shoved out of the sphere of influence and often directly into a nunnery or some other location that will serve to limit their influence.

In the first place, children give a queen an even heavier claim to the throne. They are no longer just partners with the king, but they are also the mother of the heir to the throne. It is their responsibility to ensure that their children are raised in such a way that they are prepared to receive the throne and act in a manner that is befitting of such. Judith, for example, had a number of other duties that alluded to her queenliness such as gift giving and being the King’s right hand man; however, one of the most startling moments in that text is when her young son appears. Although he begs her to join the hunt, she still has the authority to deny him and orchestrate a situation in which the young boy can appease his bloodlust without getting caught up in any of the situations of the hunt that may cause him harm. Her child is just another example of the power that she does genuinely hold.

Another way in which children are power is that they give queens extended access to the throne. As I was saying earlier, if a king dies and the current queen has no children who she can place on the throne up next, she has functionally lost her power. Although she may still have the friends that she has made at court up until this moment, without a child, the power that was always backing up her influence over the king has decreased tremendously . However, if a child is born, no matter how old they may be, -- and in fact this might be easiest with a younger child -- a queen’s reign continues. The person who is now on the throne has been hand reared by her. The amount of influence and respect that the queen is able to command whilst her child or even grandchildren are in power -- in the case of Brunhilde -- allows a queen to remain in the political and royal circles that guarantee her some form of power and influence with court. As long as she remains in the good graces of whichever child is currently on the throne, she is functionally golden. The more she can make them reliant upon her for information and advice the more power the queen is able to exercise through her children.

Lastly, as seen this week in the case of Mabd, children can be actual pawns to further your ambitions and desires. Having at least one son may guarantee the queen access to the throne for a number of decades. Having multiple sons may give you access to multiple kingdoms. Having at least one daughter gives you the ability to make strategic decision for the kingdom and for yourself. A good alliance can double the size of a kingdom, ensure allies in an upcoming battle, or even just add money to the royal coiffers. In the case of Mabd, she genuinely used her daughter as a piece of property that could be rolled out whenever she needed to convince a warrior to act in the “best interest” of the country.

At no point in time would I say that a child is a hindrance to a queen. If they were a hindrance to the queen then why is there often such a need for an heir to be born. A king can do a lot of things on his own, but without a queen his lineage is over, and he could easily be forgotten from history. Children  can increase the legitimacy of a queen’s claim to the throne and can even serve as bargaining chips when the going gets rough.