I understand that the Bible (which was not written in English) says (in the words of St. Paul, at least in terms of Christian/New Testament doctrine) that women shall not have authority over men. However, I'd like to know where Jesus actually says that (he doesn't). So churches vary on this point - and that still doesn't explain why Supreme Governor is okay but Head is not. I guess it's a semantic thing.
I am not talking about the history of Christianity in general (which I think would be completely off topic - although I could), I'm talking about the movement within the Church of England, which certainly did not exist at the Nicean council. The Gnostics had women in positions of some power, and I do not accept that all Christians were represented at the Nicean council. It's interesting that Sydney remains in the anti-woman priest division.
I'm also not arguing that women have achieved equality - only that change has occurred (verrry slowly as it usually does in large, hierarchical organizations whose main agenda is to conserve power). And I was speaking of the changes in between the Renaissance and now - if you want to go even further back, you could say that in other churches (non-Christian), there were plenty of women in positions of authority (those Siberian shaman women seem to be a prime example).
But the big leap forward, for Christianity, came with the establishment of Protestantism, particularly Anglicanism - but also many other more minor offshoots - and the change in the way women saw themselves as a result. Even though she was burned, that Askew woman spoke out in church - and up until the flames silenced her. Some woman named Mary wrote one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (before the Council at Nicea) and she too was left out/silenced (at the Council).
You keep saying "based on the bible," but there isn't just one bible - and there isn't just one tradition of interpreting it.
And I hope the mods will accept that I too am trying to explain the history of religion (not just "The Church" but the various traditions that lead up to the state of affairs in England today). England was once a pagan nation, the Council at Nicea had very little direct effect on the English of 325 A.D., and the importance of abbesses within their own domains is a form of leadership. The English, for whatever reason, allowed two women of opposing religions (especially at the time) to both be Queen within the span of one year, and that is something that Henry VIII tried very hard to set up via his acknowledgement of the two girls as his heirs after Edward. Would Henry have done the same if he had still been Catholic? We'll never know. But when Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, it changed English church theology.
But none of that is "based in the Bible." It's based in particular notions people had in Western Europe about interpreting the Bible - and what should go into Biblical interpretation.
Let's not forget that a mere 100 years after Queen Elizabeth was Governor, an offshoot of protestantism - Quakerism - founded by two men and two women arose in England. The Church of England is not the only religious force in England - the Quakers were persecuted in part because, like many Mennonites, they allowed women to speak in church and to attain a fairly high - autonomous - status. Quakers are not all that hierarchical and to speak of them having a "head" would be absurd. That's why so many of them left England at that time (and Puritans in American would continue to persecute them - especially for their views on women).
But in my view, the fact that this happens just 100 years after the High Renaissance - and in England - is far more signifcant than its relationship to the Nicean Council. Once religious revolution (against Catholicism) began in earnest, England became home to many dissenting sects, some of whom have gone on to influence history regarding the status of women quite a bit. In America, the execution of Mary Dyer caused divisions within the many fracturing branches of Protestant worldview (not everyone was a Puritan).
It's true that even among Quakers women didn't have anything like true equality (and women still don't have anything like true equality in the religious or political domains, as you point out - even the Queen can't be a Head...)
But, equal primogeniture was not seriously proposed in England in 325 AD or 1066 AD or even 1550 AD. It was 2011, and the result of many prior progressive changes (which is my main point).
...
My point is transitioning into equal primogeniture from male primogeniture is unnecessary. Other than an attack on male chauvinism, which is terrible, equal primogeniture has no purpose in the royal family.
