Primogeniture - Advantages And Disadvantages

[Mbruno]

In most monarchies, royal succession is hereditary in a particular family. However, not all monarchies use primogeniture to determine the line of succession within the family. Sometimes the current monarch has the discretion to name his successor and, sometimes, even some form of election may be used to choose the successor within the family.

Supporters of primogeniture claim that it eliminates uncertainty and prevents divisions within the royal family. On the other hand, the randomness of primogeniture means that the succession may not always fall on the most suitable candidate in the family, even though the firstborn conceivably receives special training for the role since his or her birth.

What do you think ?

 

[Marty91charmed]

IMO it would be better to choose the most suitable heir at some point , during his/her mature age... I know it entails uncertaintly and lot of work but I reckon it is the best measure to adopt...

 

[eya]

In the old days it might have made sense to become King the suitable.
But nowdays the role of King or Queen is much more decorative.
It makes no sense to look properly.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

In medieval Western Europe, the land-owning aristocracy developed practices and laws meant to prevent the splitting of estates and the titles and privileges that went with them. The lord of a manor would pass down his individual lands and titles to his eldest son.

 

[King of the Jungle]

The predictability of knowing the heir enables early training and getting used to the responsibilities.
A King or Queen would not necessarily be the most suitable out of their siblings but I think the solidarity of the system is more important than having to cope with the differences between individual monarchs. Variety and poor performers can add an eclectic, enjoyable drama for short periods without denigrating the overall establishment. It's also shows a tolerence to humanity - we are all born with diverse creative talents and incompetencies.
These days a leader is relentlessly judged, followed and photographed. It has added pressure for them to behave fairly much as they should. Perhaps, because of that, we are in line to get a few dull but conscientious monarchs.

 

[Countessmeout]

Jordan they are allowed to choose from among their brothers or sons. Abdullah was not considered a likely heir to his father. He was heir for three years when he was born, but was replaced by his Uncle Hassan until 1999. At one point the intention was for Hassan to be king but for him to name Prince Ali (Hussein's son with Queen Alia) as his heir, though the king's nephew Talal was also considered. It was only months before Hussein's death that Abdullah was reinstated as heir. When he came to the throne his brother Hamzah was heir, but he later displaced Hamzah with his own eldest son. If a king dies without officially naming an heir, it falls to a counsel to choose the next king.

Thailand is interesting. Before the 1920's the counsel of nobles had a lot of power. Mongkut (king and I) was eldest son of the king and should have succeeded, but the nobles chose the son of one of the royal concubines instead. Mongkut spent many years as a monk instead before he was named king. In the 1920's a new law was made that the king could appoint any male member of the royal family as his heir (as long as he was not excluded for a number of reasons including marrying a foreigner). If the king died without choosing a heir, they went down a line which would start with his eldest son if he was not excluded. Changes have been made in the decades since including the one prohibiting women from inheriting. In the 70's a princess could be appointed but only in total absence of a male heir. In recent changes, the king has the right to choose from among any of his children, including his daughters. The current king's only son is heir, his second child. His eldest daughter lost a right to be considered by marrying a commoner and foreigner. Since her divorce she is referred to as Princess again but lost her HRH and any right to succession. One of the kings younger daughters married a commoner, but her father permitted her to keep her HRH designation.

countries where a counsel chooses from the royal family the heir:
-Cambodia
-Malaysia
-The Holy see

Saudi Arabia the house of Saud has a counsel which decides upon an heir to the throne. This can change based on the actions of the crown prince.

In Swaziland it is not the king who is chosen but the queen mother. The royal family chooses among the wives who will be the 'the great wife/she-elepant/queen mother'. It is her eldest son who will be the next king. The eldest son of the king is never chosen as heir to the throne, he has a different ceremonial role.

 

[Andy T]

A further advantage of primogeniture is that it minimizes the risks of a regency in the sense that the oldest child is the most likely to be an adult if the reigning parent dies relatively young (or abdicates/is deposed).

This is less of a political consideration nowadays than it was in the first half of the 20th century, when child kings ruled Yugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria at a time of immense instability (and in Bulgaria's case, war), weakening the state against the forces of extremism.

Bearing in mind the intensity of media attention and intrusion nowadays, one could argue that it is still important to have a 'system' which does its utmost to ensure that monarchs accede at an age where they can cope with the exposure and are protected from it during their childhood.

It can all fall down a bit when an early death of an heir results in the passing of the throne from grandparent to grandchild. Fortunately for him, Carl XVI Gustaf was able to prepare for this almost from birth until he succeeded in his twenties but were it not for his grandfather's longevity, that wouldn't have been the case.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Primogeniture in the Middle Ages
Primogeniture in the Middle Ages - mrdowling.com

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Primogeniture

Norman inheritance law gives all the land to the first son.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The Legal Implications of Inheritance
Does the eldest son inherit everything?
http://www.reyabogado.com/us/does-the-eldest-son-inherit-everything

 

[Mirabel]

IMO it would be better to choose the most suitable heir at some point , during his/her mature age... I know it entails uncertaintly and lot of work but I reckon it is the best measure to adopt...

But sometimes the most suitable turns out to be the worst possible choice later.

At one time there was speculation that Phillippe of Belgium should be replaced by his brother (before the brother became immersed in scandal).

Prince Andrew was the most popular royal once, hard as it is to believe now.
Anne, who was held to be undiplomatic and arrogant, is now admired for her work ethic.

There's just no way to decide suitability until after years on the job, so primogeniture is as good a way to select an heir as any other, imo.

 

[Linda_26]

But sometimes the most suitable turns out to be the worst possible choice later.

At one time there was speculation that Phillippe of Belgium should be replaced by his brother (before the brother became immersed in scandal).

No, it was really never suggeested that the throne should go to Laurent. There was constant speculation in the 1990s that Philippe might never marry and so the throne, after him, would go his sister Astrid and her descendants (the Salic Law had been abolished in 1991, placing Astrid and her children before Laurent)

 

[Mirabel]

I read something mentioning Laurent as the best replacement, but it was so long ago that I don't recall the particulars.

Anyway, my point is that it is impossible to decide the best choice, so may as well go with tradition.

 

[Somebody]

I agree that it might be hard to judge who is the most capable/suited for the role in advance, thus, a clear line of succession is preferable. The system of 'choosing' might lead to a more unstable situation and can easily lead to factions within the royal family. However, in some cases it is quite clear that someone is unsuited, so it is important that there are mechanisms to remove the heir from the line of succession if needed (in exceptional circumstances).

 

[Toledo]

The Malaysian system of elected kingship seems to work for them, and if Germany was again a multi monarchy state it would fit in perfectly like the old pre-Nepoleon empire with elected emperors.

Now in the case of traditional monarchies that go from parent to oldest child, the problem is what if the candidate(s) are not up to the level expected to keep the monarchy afloat. Case and point had Spain's Juan Carlos selected his oldest daughter to succeed him, her entitled and spoiled son would have ended the monarchy for sure.

I wish there was some clause to correct this and put the institution first and relations to work around it. For example, for the monarch to decide the order of succession and whom to remove from the list. Give us a succession line that will keep the institution alive and just remove from the candidates those who choose some wild lifestyle that is not fit for the future job. That will clear that path, and worries, from the "Marthas, Harrys, Andrews, etc" and choose within the family who advances on that list.

 

[Somebody]

The Malaysian system of elected kingship seems to work for them, and if Germany was again a multi monarchy state it would fit in perfectly like the old pre-Nepoleon empire with elected emperors.

They've indeed another interesting system. They seem to have a very clearly regulated order in which the kingship is shared by the various sultans.

Since the first cycle of nine Yang di-Pertuan Agong (1957–1994), the order among the eligible state rulers has followed the order established by that cycle, namely:

• Negeri Sembilan the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan
• Selangor the Sultan of Selangor
• Perlis the Raja of Perlis
• Terengganu the Sultan of Terengganu
• Kedah the Sultan of Kedah
• Kelantan the Sultan of Kelantan
• Pahang the Sultan of Pahang
• Johor the Sultan of Johor
• Perak the Sultan of Perak

Now in the case of traditional monarchies that go from parent to oldest child, the problem is what if the candidate(s) are not up to the level expected to keep the monarchy afloat. Case and point had Spain's Juan Carlos selected his oldest daughter to succeed him, her entitled and spoiled son would have ended the monarchy for sure.

However, had he been the heir, he would have been raised very differently, and therefore, most likely also behaved very differently. So, I don't think based on his current behavior (in which even his mother was set aside by his uncle), we can say anything about how he would have lived his life in completely different circumstances.

I wish there was some clause to correct this and put the institution first and relations to work around it. For example, for the monarch to decide the order of succession and whom to remove from the list. Give us a succession line that will keep the institution alive and just remove from the candidates those who choose some wild lifestyle that is not fit for the future job. That will clear that path, and worries, from the "Marthas, Harrys, Andrews, etc" and choose within the family who advances on that list.

It seems that having parliament involved is more effective in removing people from the list than leaving that up to the monarch, who more likely is 'too soft' on their own off-spring.