Monarchies: why oldest-son succession?

[lpetrich]

Delivering Stability—Primogeniture and Autocratic Survival in European Monarchies 1000–1800 | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core
Also at 1499026_kokkonen---sundell-2014.pdf

We defined “monarchy” as a political system where sovereignty is vested in a person (e.g., a king, basileous, prince, or emperor) who is empowered by law or custom to remain in office for life. In other words, monarchy is a type of autocracy with legal and/or customary foundations (Tullock 1987).

This would also include a president-for-life in a nominal republic.

The authors considered three kinds of succession: elective, oldest-brother (agnatic (male-line) seniority), and oldest-son (primogeniture).

In elective succession, the electors are usually a very small group, usually aristocrats or members of the royal family. Aristocrats: the Holy Roman Empire, the Republic of Venice, pre-partition Poland. Royal-family: present-day Saudi Arabia. Sometimes there is only one elector: the current monarch. In the Roman Empire, an emperor's successor was usually chosen by the emperor himself.

Around 1000 CE, many European monarchies used elective or oldest-brother succession, while by 1800, the surviving monarchies mostly used oldest-son succession. The authors found that oldest-son succession was the most stable of the three types, followed by elective and oldest-brother.

They then speculate on why oldest-son succession should be so stable. Part of the reason may be the "crown prince problem", when some appointed successor gets a bit too eager to get the job. A king's oldest son seems safer than the other possibilities. He's usually much younger, meaning that he can afford to be patient, though he is not the sort of known quantity that a king's brother is or possible election candidates are.

Hereditary Succession in Modern Autocracies | World Politics | Cambridge Core

It happens there also, and likely for the same reasons. If a leader comes to power before some political party that he decides to found, if any, then he is likely to be succeeded by his son. But if a party came first, than that becomes much less likely.

I am most familiar with Communism, and for the most part, Communist regimes have avoided hereditary succession. The main exception has been North Korea, whose Kim dynasty is now in its third generation. In fact, North Korea's leaders recently revised their nation's ruling party's 10 principles to state that that party will be "kept alive forever by the Baekdu bloodline." (North Korea rewrites rules to legitimise Kim family succession | South China Morning Post)

Aside from that, I only know of Cuba, where Fidel Castro made his brother Raul effective leader before he died. However, in China, when Mao Zedong died, his successors made big villains out of a certain "Gang of Four", including Mao's widow.

 

[Sarpedon]

Mao is the perfect example of why the system where the ruler chooses his own successor isn't common: because it is unstable. Mao chose his own successor, twice. The first, Liu Shaoshi, lost Mao's trust at some point, and was eliminated. His second choice, Hua Goufeng, didn't have Liu's roots in the power structure. Mao didn't see him as a threat to himself, but once Mao was gone, Hua didn't have the staying power. Mao was revered by the masses, but had lost the confidence of those close to him. After he died, they were happy to bring back Deng, who had the deep roots and support in the party, despite being removed multiple times due to Mao's paranoia. So to generalize, if the chosen heir is personally powerful, the ruler will begin to regard him as a threat. If he is personally weak, he risks being cast aside once the ruler is gone.

That the primogeniture system was the most common is no surprise: it was the simplest and most stable. There is the least doubt of the legitimacy of the new ruler. Those occupying positions of power usually don't have to worry about the new ruler, as they have known him for years and have had every opportunity to cultivate him. The only real problem is the occasional heir who is obviously unfit. And its probably easier to deal with the occasional dud and make excuses afterwards than to create a whole new, potentially less stable system.

As far as the brother system goes, its very rarity is testament to its futility. It looks as if it won't survive this generation in Saudi Arabia.

The elective monarch system has had some success, but is likewise not stable. All too frequently the elections are predetermined. The only way they work if the electors are the people who actually have the power in the system, and they all tacitly agree that accepting the election results is better than open conflict; not a very stable situation. Economic changes can bring new people to power, who might not be the traditional electors, powerful electors might not choose to accept an election that doesn't go their own way, and so forth.

 

[Bronzeage]

Any governmental system which keeps a person in office for life has the basic flaw that no one has much influence when they are dead. When this is combined with the fact that most "Poohbah for Life" type governments, rely on force to keep the Poohbah in office, a dead Poohbah means the government is instantly unstable. What is gained by force, can be taken by force.

The key to PFL government is to create layers of government officials, all of whom are also in office for life, and have a great vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Most of the time, the secondary level, usually called the nobility, prefers stability and order, and work very hard to maintain the recognized order of succession. Sometimes this leads to the absurd situation of governed by ruled by a toddler king. Of course, there is always someone who just can't stand being on the secondary level because it's so close to the top level. This results in civil war. History is full of stories of frustrated would be kings.

The real reason Kings exist in history is to protect a particular group of people from other Kings. This means the King really doesn't do anything productive. He is an expense which is distributed over all the group. The larger the group, the easier it is to support him, so he can keep the other Kings at bay. This is the reason a kingdom must remain integral after a succession. No one wants to be a king of a place that can't maintain a King's lifestyle. There's always a nearby King with a bigger kingdom, which means more money and soldiers. Dividing a Kingdom among all the heirs is governmental suicide, and is truly a recipe for civil war. Since stability and order are critical, if you want to keep all the stuff you've managed to accumulate, the succession system will always evolve to something which names one person over everything.

 

[Cycad]

There is something positive to be said for the succession in Arab countries. A ruler will usually consolidate his power by marrying one wife of each of his 4 most influential clans. Thus stabilizing his authority and sharing the wealth. 4 wifes make a straightforward « eldest son gets the throne » difficult.

Sh Zayed founding ruler of the UAE, had I believe 36 official sons.

For this reason, A ruler is usually choosing a successor, during his lifetime, within the group of sons. Favouring one clan against the 3 others can lead to internal struggle. Specially in case a radical or extreme successor is chosen.
This instability is avoided by choosing a son acceptable by all clans. Such a figure should be by definition moderate and able to compromise.
This doesnt guarantee smooth succession but usually avoid complete imbeciles being put in power or extreme viewpoints being short tracked to a dangerous position.

However, even this system fails regularly, which leads to huge problems in peaceful removal of the ruler.

So better stay with the French : chopped the head of their king and queen, destroyed the order which was said to be inspired by god himself and choose for the Republic.


Vive la republique !

 

[bilby]

There is something positive to be said for the succession in Arab countries. A ruler will usually consolidate his power by marrying one wife of each of his 4 most influential clans. Thus stabilizing his authority and sharing the wealth. 4 wifes make a straightforward « eldest son gets the throne » difficult.

Sh Zayed founding ruler of the UAE, had I believe 36 official sons.

For this reason, A ruler is usually choosing a successor, during his lifetime, within the group of sons. Favouring one clan against the 3 others can lead to internal struggle. Specially in case a radical or extreme successor is chosen.
This instability is avoided by choosing a son acceptable by all clans. Such a figure should be by definition moderate and able to compromise.
This doesnt guarantee smooth succession but usually avoid complete imbeciles being put in power or extreme viewpoints being short tracked to a dangerous position.

However, even this system fails regularly, which leads to huge problems in peaceful removal of the ruler.

So better stay with the French : chopped the head of their king and queen, destroyed the order which was said to be inspired by god himself and choose for the Republic.


Vive la republique !

The English did it first; But it didn't stick.

I mean, obviously they couldn't put the king's head back on; but they ended up putting his son on the throne just over a decade later.

The reason? The new boss died, his son inherited, and the son was bloody useless. So the people said "If we are going to have a useless leader chosen by heredity, we might as well go back to the ones who have a bit of tradition behind them".

Of course, after a king has been beheaded, it gives future monarchs a healthy respect for parliament and the will of the people; The English haven't had a supreme ruler (in the old style) since.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of Napoleon's many reforms of the French legal system, was what is known as forced heirship. We still have it in Louisiana. A person's estate must be divided evenly among his children. A child cannot be disinherited without legal justification(there's a list of acceptable reasons). The practical effect of this was to break up all the large noble estates in France. It was a sort of and reform, without seizing land from rich people.