So, here I am, finally posting the question that entered my mind while reading some recent posts here in Theology.


My mind was put in a flutter and is now debating with itself on whether one of my MCs should be a guy or a girl.
To try and give some history/background/explanation...

My original story idea had a female cast as my MC. She was chosen by God to be queen of her people and lead them in victory against their mortal enemies.


Now, from reading some posts, I am (as I said) debating.
I'd like for the MC to remain a girl, because thats how it was from the beginning. But, I think about it and in the story there are others who are willing and able to rule instead. Thinking on some posts from "the Roles of Men and Women" would it really make sense for there to be a new queen during a time of war? Why not a king who could actually lead his men forth?
And on the thoughts from "Women in Battle" yes, in a way she would be defending her country, but even in the original story, she doesn't fight much (the largest battle she's in being the final one). Yet again, wouldn't it be better to have an MC who would actually go out into battle?

The down/flip side of this is, if I make the MC a boy his reactions to situations will differ from what I have figured out. He'll have different feelings and people will react to him differently. This makes me wonder if I could actually get him to follow (roughly) the same path I want the MC to have. Not to mention, I would have to change the genders of a few side characters to match the change. It really brings in a whole new set of ideas and I was already quite happy with what I had planed out.



This dissertation leads up to my question; what do you guys think? I know I'm the one who makes the final choice, but I'd like to see what other people think.
Thanks for reading

My vote is for sticking to the female MC. Queens have abounded in times of peace and war. Hateshepsut, Elizabeth, Victoria, Catherine... especially Elizabeth and Victoria. Both led nations in war, but never fought themselves.

I'd go with a queen. It's unique, it's what you've planned for, and you've explained your reasons very well.

I'd go with the queen, too. At the end of the novel, if you still aren't sure about the woman doing a man's job aspect, you could always make her step down, and have another character take her place, after all the main events of your story.

I agree! I don't think her being a queen is an issue, and I think Aussie makes a good suggestion if you want her to relinquish the title. Just make sure you keep her human and that she reflects your biblical understanding of how your characters should present themselves.

I wouldn't necessarily have her step down. The forces that gave her that position in the first place will force her to keep it. Taking a husband though, would accomplish a similar goal.

The Waymark Trilogy by Lloyd Alexander and The Queen's Theif Series by Meghan Whale Turner are good examples of ruling queens in fantasy.

Yes, that could work too, Vanya. "Haddassah: One Night With the King" by Tommy Tenney gives you a good look into Esther's life as queen.

I agree with Katie. That's another way to handle the situation, if you'd like. Just depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

Well, I agree with what everyone's said. I don't think you have to get rid of the Queen, just make it work for you.

I'd go with the queen as well *throws $.02 into the ring*

eruheran

Yeah, definitely still keep her a queen. There have been so many amazing historical queens, Catherine, Isabella, Victoria, Elizabeth, just look at some of them for inspiration about what awesome rulers women can be.
I personally don't like the idea of her handing over power to anyone else. After she's done so much, it seems to me her sense of duty and desire to continue protecting and love for her people would be huge. And her people's love for her. Even if the change of power was completely consentual, I think the people would be angry and prefer her to anyone else, no matter how good a ruler they are. She'd be a trusted ruler and hero; it would just make sense for her to continue ruling.
I could see perhaps a kind of Isabella and Ferdinand type of thing, two rulers united and equally powerful with mutual and equal respect, but nothing with her giving up power. If she's smart she knows anyone can go from a worthy ruler to a tyrant easily, it seems to me that she would know she had proved herself and not be willing to risk putting a potential tyrant up. Rulers are pretty lonely people; they can really trust only themselves, because they can't know what other's motives are.
As for fighting, people like Catherine and Elizabeth were awesome military leaders in terms of strategy. I've said this other places, but I personally think it's a much worthier thing to be able to strategize and lead than to fight. And it would give, in my opinion, a very unique interpretation of war and get away from the stupid cliche "warrior princess." And sometimes battle-y queens did go to the battlefield. Isabella would work on strategy, and sometimes go into the battlefield to encourage the troops.
Anyway. Just my thoughts. Do whatever you want, of course.