May I inquire as to the reason for the question?
Benazir Bhutto did not fight any wars (she tried to open peace negotiations with India; her term in office coinciding with Rajiv Gandhi’s in India circa 1990 was one of the few periods of relatively lessened tension between the two countries).
However, she did give birth while in office—a feat unmatched by any other head of government, AFAIK.
Either way, both women were mothers at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. Not that she, or anyone else in the Netherlands, had much choice about war with Germany in 1940.
Before someone cites the counterexample of Massachusetts governor Jane Swift, who gave birth to twins in office, I meant to say that Benazir Bhutto was the only national head of government ever to give birth while in office. As for reigning queens, they are heads of state, not of government.
Yes, reigning queens are heads of state, but generally not heads of government, at least in modern times. But the OP asks about heads of state (although probably heads of government was intended).
Even a constitutional head of state can be actively involved in war. When German troops invaded Luxembourg on 2 August 1914, Luxembourg’s (tiny) army and police force offered no resistance, which would have been futile. However the reigning Grand Duchess Marie Adelheid, who had just celebrated her twentieth birthday, went by car to meet the advancing troops and ordered the astonished German army to retreat.
“I say! you fellows! yes you! the men in the funny hats! Be off with you! Go on - get off my land!”
Me too! I would like to know.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that a head of state is not also head of government and those queens regnant who ruled as well as reigned can certainly be considered to have been head of government. The most obvious example of such a queen who gave birth while in office would be Maria Theresa.
[nitpick]
It was her mother, Wilhelmina, who was queen in 1940.
[/nitpick]
I am pretty sure that Catherine the Great was both head of state and of government, but I could be wrong.
Yep, Catherine was indeed head of the government.
Were there any wars under Mary, Queen of Scots?
No foreign wars. A bunch of rebellions, though.
quote:
Originally posted by d12
May I inquire as to the reason for the question?
A woman in my office said there would be no wars if mothers “ran things.” I came back with some of the above, but I wanted a more complete list.
Her response to Thatcher was particularly good, something along the lines of, “Well I never liked her.”
Here’s a gratifyingly long list of female presidents and prime ministers of the 20th century. Shouldn’t be too hard to find out which ones were mothers and which ones waged war. click here
Aren’t there really a couple of different issues at play here though? I see a huge difference between, say, the British Empires behaviour in its colonies and the examples given of countries that were actually engaged in “real” war. What was happening in the colonies did not imply any risk to the people of England so I would not imagine that any “protective maternal instinct” issues would play in. On the other hand in actual wars, where there is a chance of the other lot kicking your ass, there it might play in. So I see a difference between genocide, internal rebellions and war here.
Ha! Look at asian history! Asia was a matriarchal society, and the female rulers used to kill not only invaders, but also their own people as they saw fit.
Not to get int a debate, but the woman in my office’s point was a mother knows what a life means and wouldn’t risk one in war, regardless of whether it was her children or not.
Queen Elizabeth I of England vs. Spain.
Queen Elizabeth I was a mother?
Queen E had no children.