1. No one said Victoria was a tool of Alberts.
2. By diaries left behind, we know that Victoria had warmer relationships with some of her children.
3. She arranged marriages. Easy to do from ones sitting room. Akin to leading soldiers on to a battlefield? No.
4. Additionally I’ll submit that her infatuations and obsessions with younger men as she was in her dotage should be looked at in askance.
My main point here is that men are better suited for leadership. Even Victoria knew that.
You're being disingenuous at best; obtuse and irrational at worst!
We're talking about "LEADERS"; not about battlefield tacticians.
Victoria, by her children's accounts an d those alive throughout her reign and yes, even afterwards, including all of her children, NEVER claimed that Victoria Regina had "warm relations" with any of her children! Did she like some more than others? Yes, she did. That's just not the same thing at all.
OTOH, even Victoria, herself, said that Albert was the better, more caring parent.
Oh, so old, widowed men are "better" ?
And she wasn't "infatuated" with Abdul; she as the EMPRESS OF INDIA, was fascinated by India and as a GOOD LEADER should do, wanted to learn EVERYTHING she could about th nation and people of India!
The Scot "gillie", John Brown, filled a hole in her weary, sad later years. Can we or should we call it "infatuation"? I doubt it.
Though far more men than women have ever been in leadership positions, most fall far short of being an actual "LEADER"!
And yet, here you are, still smearing women in your latest post.
Few men and even fewer women, the later due to both cultural and biological reasons, have had far fewer chances to become "leaders" of any kind.
Please state the source for your "....men are better suited for leadership. Even Victoria knew that." assertation.
If you want a woman leader, how about Elizabeth?
The first one.