I totally get why it might not be so historically. I mean im talking to some degree about the definition of the bloodline so if it was a thing they could not be seen as invaders. Just seems like it makes so much more sense. Like you think about the crazy royal stuff about witnesses to consumation and it like just have witnesses the kid came out of the right womb.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It might have more to do with men being able to safely father so many more children. 50ish seems the record for mothers, but fathers could have hundreds of kids. On top of that, maternal mortality rates were high, so a matriarch has a chance of dying with every kid.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

well you could still have kings its just the bloodline would run through the female side and you can still go back like when a king dies. Also contrast that with no combat deaths.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why would there be no combat deaths? It's not like the more matriarchal societies throughout history didn't go to war.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 3 months ago

I mean if we are talking all the other stuff the same with medieval europe basically. Doesn't have to be but it went with the still king thing and matrilineal just being the inheritance line.