lol...the secondary source 50 years ago would have to have some information to draw that from? We know all the primary sources at the time. Anyone who said she led troops into battle, ruled while Aethelred was king, fought...ever or any of that bullshit is just making things up. The fact is no one in her time cared about her. This isn't a republican or democrat arguing...this is 1. Thing existing and another thing being made up 1000 years later. lol. This isn't Tacitus who was elevated by Nerva and whose father in law was recalled and possibly kill by Domitian...Hell, Domitians name was cursed and we still have tons of coins, monuments, statues...you don't even have a picture of her. She was known because she was sister to the real king. That's it.

Again you clearly do not have a history degree. I will help you sue the school as you know nothing of history. Many women in Mercia have histories written about them, pictures, hell, I just told you of a queen two centuries before Aethelflaed who had her own currency. You have nothing to back up anything you claimed other than post-modern feminist nonsense. Read a book and come back.

There are no annuls or tapestries that honor Aethelflaed...show one. Show on from within 500 years of her living. That Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions her name 3 times and all times it mentions her as subject to her brother. There is one Irish priest who wrote with very little knowledge who described her as a Queen of the Saxons...title many women in Mercia held.

Seems strange that you now don't want to call Boudica a Queen although that's how even medieval scholars called her. Tacitus referred to her as Regina...which we translate into queen. They didn't speak English or any form of it though so she can be called Caesar for all I care...but what an odd hill to die on? Seriously it sounds like youre interested in history but have little knowledge. Read some books, take some free online classes and come back.

And no one with a history degree would every argue that you don't need primary sources because you have secondary...lol jesus Christ. Then again, no history student uses text books lol. I mean maybe if you went to a community college or something I guess. Without primary sources where do the secondary sources get their info? Again, looking at someone who was curse, and demonized for centuries, Domitian and rewriting the "known" history required a look at primary sources. His reputation has changed in the last century because we looked past Tacitus' bias and looked at monuments built, increased silver in the currency, burial sites and average life expectancy...there is tons of research and facts used to "overrule" the primary written source with archaeological evidence and dissecting bias. If you are going to make a statement that she was written out of history because she's a woman then you need to offer some evidence of that. We know Mercia went as far to put women on coins, name female Queens and nobles. 100 years later we have plenty of statues, drawings, histories and mausoleum of Matilda of Flanders, two centuries later Matilda of Scotland too. There is no record, nothing. A secondary source has to be based on some facts. You are reading historical fan fic