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.
Circle back around to this when you put pregnant and lactating women on the battlefield to prove you contention that men are NOT better suited than women for these leadership positions.
Yeah, Milk boobies, that's teach the attacking hordes not to mess with 'Murica.
Yes, yes he did.
This is what we are going to do.
I’m going to throw my posts in an Excel sheet and give each sentence a line. Then I’ll skip a line and leave it blank, so you can offer your objections or agreements to what I’ve actually said, rather than what you THINK I said.
The electronic spreadsheet was invented by, get this: A MAN!