Queenly Prerogative
In Response To: Re: Follow the Firstborn ()


There hasn't been a very good melding of history, sociology, and psychology. (Velikovsky was for sure a pioneer along those lines.) Human nature isn't much accounted for in historical studies. But we all know that there are aspects of any culture that aren't documented and yet are critical to understanding culture. For example, I read about a DNA study in Scandanavia that indicated a relatively high percentage of children were not the biological children of the legal father. But this isn't a documented aspect of the culture, nor is likely to ever be, as Scandanavians naturally are reluctant to participate in more comprehensive studies of their mating habits!

Likewise, in royal history, reproduction was a sensitive matter and not to be "published among the Philistines". (Judging from Greek myth, the Philistines would have dearly wanted to know more about it, and in fact Greeks seem to have known, or admitted to, more than most. Greeks were evidently more open about sexuality than other contemporary cultures and it is reflected in their myths/histories. If we are ever able to correlate Greek history with contemporary Near East history we will learn more than we might care about royal sexuality and reproduction.)

Egyptologists presently hold that the "God's Wife of Amun" was a celibate priestess. In fact, she was the "queen bee" and mated with any number of royal "drones". Once a "God's Wife" had been established within a royal dynasty, preference went to her sons. This is the best example I can think of "Queenly Prerogative".