In about 1473 BCE, a woman, Hatshepsut, took the unprecedented step of becoming king of Egypt with full kingship powers and a male identity. She thus displaced, for about two decades, her stepson and nephew, assumed heir of her husband. And she did this in a time of relative peace and considerable economic prosperity and stability in Egypt; most women who ruled as regents or solely did so in chaotic times. Here's a summary of some of the current thinking about Hatshepsut's motivations for becoming -- and remaining -- the Pharaoh of Egypt.
Older versions of the story assume that Hatshepsut seized power and ruled as a "wicked stepmother," and that her stepson and successor got his revenge after her death by removing her memory from history. Is this what happened?
Hatshepsut's initial rule was as the regent for her stepson, and though she was depicted as a senior ruler and he as the junior partner in their rule, she did not initially take on full kingship. In ruling as a regent, protecting the throne for her husband's heir, she was following in some recent footsteps.
Women rulers before Hatshepsut had ruled as the mother of the next king. But Hatshepsut's regency was a bit different, and thus her legitimacy in ruling may not have been quite so clear.
When Hatshepsut took power as king, she did so in a context of religious beliefs. We might call this mythology today, but to the ancient Egyptian, the identification of the king with certain deities and powers was essential for the security of the unified Egypt.
Once Hatshepsut took the step of becoming fully king, she went to great lengths to justify that this was the "right thing to do" -- that all was right with the universe even with a woman taking on a male and kingly role.
If we think we understand why Hatshepsut or her advisors felt it necessary to take on the full kingship, there's one question left: why, when Thutmose III became old enough to rule, didn't he seize power or Hatshepsut step aside voluntarily?
