Just a summary reminder in reading European history. (It probably works for all history.) Something you likely knew, but bears
repeating because it is a different understanding than in our own day.
Medieval succession was not as formalized as it is with
European monarchs in more recent times. It was not enough to have the most
direct claim on paper parchment of right to rule. Anyone hoping to become king had to have some sort of claim. But there were many complicating factors, and
any vulnerability would activate others who also had a claim of some sort. In
the imagination of moderns, there would be one rightful monarch according to
the rules, and all others are perceived as cheating in some way, trying to cut
in line. The use of the word “pretender”
illustrates this. To us, it means a
fake. In its time, it meant any claimant to an office who did not hold it.
If a respected king with a reign of some years died with a
legitimate male heir who was of age, especially if he had shown some competence
on his own, his claim would be difficult to dislodge, especially if he moved fast to either take over the treasury or get himself crowned. Speed sometimes mattered, and potential monarchs who were away warring for other interests sometimes had to choose what mattered more. Much could go
wrong, even with the strongest claims. Legitimacy was less important in
earlier centuries but was always a plus.
Female monarchs were rare. Heirs
who were still children might hold the throne under a regency, but in that
instance an uncle, cousin, or brother-in-law might attempt to step in on his
own. If we think of this as underhanded
and unfair, it is worth remembering that this was always in the context of manipulative
or warlike neighbors who might be able to take over the whole country if it did
not have competent leadership. As that
neighbor often had some claim of his own to part of the territory or the throne
itself, the potential attacker might have ready allies within the kingdom
already.
If you or one of your parents originally came from another
kingdom, or even worse, spoke a different language, there might be enough
popular sentiment against you that a younger half-bother, or another grandchild
of a previous monarch would be preferred by many barons, dukes, and counts whose
opinions mattered.
It was a relief when there was an orderly succession, but
there was also some comfort in miserable times in dreaming of the rightful heir
who might come across the water or over the mountain to be restored to his
throne and bring just rule. The stories
of various tasks and signs by which one might know the rightful king grow out
of the misery of warfare when there was a problem of succession.
The stories of
a prince who had accomplished some great quest being granted the hand of the princess
and half the kingdom were likewise deeply satisfying to all stations of life,
as it meant they had some hope of peace and competent government in the coming
years. To those who had seen otherwise, it would still the nighttime fears of
both adult and child.
1 comment:
Non-Western approaches to succession are not obviously superior. Ottoman methods included "resolution by combat" and, of course, the silk cord.
Post a Comment