That's usually the answer when I ask people "when there were kings, if a king died, who would succeed him?"
As it turns out, "his oldest son" isn't as simple as that. There are several different systems, each with it's ups and downs. Primogeniture is fair to the senior grandson but unfair to the junior son; while seniority is fair and unfair vice versa.
Primogeniture
Let's say King John has two children: Richard and William. Both of them have children. Then, John and Richard are both killed in battle. This does not mean that William is king, rather, Richard's eldest son. This is a graphical representation, the numbers being line of succession:
John
.-----------^-----------.
1. Richard 3. William
| |
2. son 4. son
Note that if the family tree looks strange, it is probably because you are not using Times New Roman. This applies to all family trees.
This might be unfair to William, but if law said the eldest living son, this situation might arise:
Doldus had two sons: Drus and Hugard. Drus had a son Dinus. Dinus had always expected when his grandpa died his father would be king, and when his father died he would be king. But when Drus died before Doldus, Dinus was no longer likely to ever be king; the throne would pass to his uncle Hugard and his children.
Thus, primogeniture favors the grandson. But what about granddaughter? Does gender have anything to do with this?
There are different types of primogeniture: agnatic, cognatic, absolute, enatic, and uterine.
Agnatic primogeniture only allows the male line; this dosen't only ban females, but their sons too. If we assumed John in the early example had a daughter, neither she nor her son would have a claim. Only people for whom the progenitor (usually first member of a new dynasty) was father's father's father's father, not father's mother's father's father, had a claim to the throne.
Cognatic primogeniture does allow females and their heirs, but only if their brothers and their heirs are died out. For example, if John had a daughter Mary, she would only be queen if her brothers and their descendants were died out. This would be unlikely, but if Mary had no brothers in the first place, she would be heir to the throne. This system is used in the United Kingdom; HM The Queen Elizabeth II only became the queen because she had no brothers; if she'd had, she would just be princess and her brother would be king.
Absolute or Equal primogeniture dosen't care a thing about gender; the eldest child, not son, is the heir.
Note that often countries using agnatic primogeniture change to cognatic primogeniture, and then to absolute primogeniture.
Enatic primogeniture is just the opposite of agnatic primogeniture; it only allows females, and bans males.
Uterine primogeniture is probably the most intresting type of primogeniture. It only allows males the rule, but through the female line. If this were a list of members:
Mary, the progeniture, had:
One of the problems is that Mary II might have a son during Marius' reign. That would make the son more senior by primogeniture then Marius. Thus, as soon as the son was born, he would depose Marius as a baby. I've come up with a law to avoid this:
The Archeiress is Mary. In the absence of a king, the archeiress' brother becomes the new king. In the event the archeiress has no brother, the archeiress' son becomes the new king. In the event that the archeiress has no alive brother or son, the next senior female descendant of the Archeiress by enatic primogeniture's brother becomes the new king. In the event that next senior heiress has no brother, the next senior heiress' son becomes the new king. This goes on and on.
Thus, the throne would go from Samuel, to Joseph, to Peter, to Marius, to John, to Mary II's son.
Seniority
The principle of seniority favors the brother and cousin over the son, and only goes to the son when all of the early generation is dead.
In other words, the throne in the early example would go from John, to Richard, to William, to Richard's sons, to William's sons, and so on.
There are other variants besides gender. Sometimes one can only inherit the throne if their father was king; if this was true, and William died before Richard, William's descendants would be excluded. Often, a king would have several sons, the eldest succeeding him. But about half of them would die before their brother, so the successor would be a younger son. This would lead to a variant of Ultimogeniture, which is just like primogeniture but favors the younger instead of oldest son.
Another variant is where it depends on the oldest man of the generation, not the oldest son of the oldest son of the oldest son of the progenitor.
Yet another variant is where only the main line can produce kings. This family tree shows the kings:
John I
)------------.-----------.
John II Peter I Richard I
)------------.-----------.
John III Peter II Richard II
)-----------.-------------.
John IV Peter III Richard III
The sons of the Peters and Richards wouldn't have claim to the throne unless the descendants of all the Johns died out.
Just like primogeniture, there are variants based on gender; there is agnatic, cognatic, absolute, enatic, and uterine seniority.
Proximity of Blood
While this system favors the son over the brother like primogeniture, it favors the brother over the grandson or nephew like seniority. What matters is not descent from a progenitor, but relation to the previous monarch. This is the standard order:
Mary, the progeniture, had:
- Samuel, who had:
- Samuel
- Isabel
- Joseph, who had:
- Joseph
- Anna
- Anna, who had:
- Mary II
- Marius
- John
- Peter, who had:
- Stephen
- Petrus
One of the problems is that Mary II might have a son during Marius' reign. That would make the son more senior by primogeniture then Marius. Thus, as soon as the son was born, he would depose Marius as a baby. I've come up with a law to avoid this:
The Archeiress is Mary. In the absence of a king, the archeiress' brother becomes the new king. In the event the archeiress has no brother, the archeiress' son becomes the new king. In the event that the archeiress has no alive brother or son, the next senior female descendant of the Archeiress by enatic primogeniture's brother becomes the new king. In the event that next senior heiress has no brother, the next senior heiress' son becomes the new king. This goes on and on.
Thus, the throne would go from Samuel, to Joseph, to Peter, to Marius, to John, to Mary II's son.
Seniority
The principle of seniority favors the brother and cousin over the son, and only goes to the son when all of the early generation is dead.
In other words, the throne in the early example would go from John, to Richard, to William, to Richard's sons, to William's sons, and so on.
There are other variants besides gender. Sometimes one can only inherit the throne if their father was king; if this was true, and William died before Richard, William's descendants would be excluded. Often, a king would have several sons, the eldest succeeding him. But about half of them would die before their brother, so the successor would be a younger son. This would lead to a variant of Ultimogeniture, which is just like primogeniture but favors the younger instead of oldest son.
Another variant is where it depends on the oldest man of the generation, not the oldest son of the oldest son of the oldest son of the progenitor.
Yet another variant is where only the main line can produce kings. This family tree shows the kings:
John I
)------------.-----------.
John II Peter I Richard I
)------------.-----------.
John III Peter II Richard II
)-----------.-------------.
John IV Peter III Richard III
The sons of the Peters and Richards wouldn't have claim to the throne unless the descendants of all the Johns died out.
Just like primogeniture, there are variants based on gender; there is agnatic, cognatic, absolute, enatic, and uterine seniority.
Proximity of Blood
While this system favors the son over the brother like primogeniture, it favors the brother over the grandson or nephew like seniority. What matters is not descent from a progenitor, but relation to the previous monarch. This is the standard order:
- Son (or daughter)
- Brother (or sister)
- Grandson (or granddaughter)
- Nephew (or niece)
- 1st Cousin
- 2nd Cousin
- So on...
If the throne was absolute or cognatic, it could easily pass from John to Peter to William in such a way that John didn't share an ancestor with William. This family tree shows how:
.-------------------. .---------------.
Richard Samuel = Mary Marius
| | |
John Peter William
A simple amendment to the succession law like only those descended from the progenitor are eligible for the succession could easily fix this.
Like those mentioned before, there are variants on gender.
Other Systems
These are some other systems:
Ultimogeniture is just like primogeniture, but it favors the younger over the older.
Elective monarchy is when the king is voted for; sometimes it could be anyone and it has nothing to do with family, or it could be a vote between all descendants of the progenitor. This could be all agnatic, absolute, enatic, or uterine descendants.
Partition splits the kingdom between all the sons, or children, or daughters. It is probably the most fair of all systems, but when used in a kingdom it can turn an empire into a set of city-states. It's happened before.
--
So there you have it. All sorts of different systems; primogeniture, seniority, proximity, and the little uncommon stuff. In our modern world of democracy, the elective presidency or prime ministry is most common among government, while partition is commonly written on wills.
If you were a monarch, what would you choose?
If you like your senior grandchild, use primogeniture.
If you like your sibling, use seniority.
If you like your children equally but don't want to split the kingdom, use proximity of blood.
If you like your junior grandchild, use ultimogeniture.
If you feel democratic, use elective monarchy.
If you like your children equally and don't care if the kingdom is torn apart by war after you die, use partition.
Think about it.
