To my knowledge, there has not been a major war where both countries involved were led by female heads of state.
This market explores historical conflicts, questioning whether there has ever been a war between two sovereign nations simultaneously led by women. Given the rarity of female leadership in the highest offices historically, this market seeks to confirm or refute the occurrence of such an event.
It will resolve to "Yes" if evidence emerges of any past conflict meeting these criteria. Otherwise, it will resolve to "No."
1,000
3.00I wanted to check if ruling queens are indeed that rare, by one metric: England/the UK.
The UK has existed for 317 years, 140 of which under a Queen (Anne, 7 years; Victoria, 63: and Elizabeth II, 70).
Prior to that, going back to 1553, England also saw the reigns of Mary I (5), Elizabeth I (44), Mary II (5) and Anne (5). That's 69 out of 154 years, and the total since 1553 is 209/471 - all of this averages to 45%.
@BrunoParga England/UK is an exception in that regard. Most monarchies over the course of history have favoured male succession.
France for example had the salic law (agnatic succession) which strictly prohibited female heirs.
@RemNi Catherine the Great of Russia. Margaret of Denmark. Wilhelmina then Juliana then Beatrix of the Netherlands. Maria Theresa of Austria. Isabella of Castile. Christina of Sweden. Mary of Scotland.
It is rare for countries to outright ban women from ascending to the throne. They just give preference to males.
@RemNi Queen Victoria: head of state of the United Kingdom
Rani Lakshmibai: Queen and head of state of the Jhansi
@RemNi after the death of her husband, Maharaja Gangadhar Rao, Rani Lakshmibai was recognised as ruler of the Jhansi. During the Indian rebellion of 1857 she took up arms against the British who contested her rule.