What gives the "rightful" king the right?

[Zeropoint]

This question first crystallized in my mind while reading the Song of Ice and Fire series, but it has stuck with me ever since: in feudal societies, much is made of the "rightful" king. If the old king dies, it's vitally important to figure out who the "rightful" heir is. If someone usurps the throne, things just aren't right until the rightful line is restored, and so on.

 

Where does that "right" come from? What makes someone the rightful king? In many cases, it's just because he's the first son of the previous rightful king, and the right is passed down from father to son? But where did it come from?

 

If you follow it back, it usually turns out that someone took over by force of arms, led his army to victory and installed himself as king.

 

This gives the impression that the "right" to rule is ultimately based on the ability to put the smackdown on anyone who disagrees with your decisions, which to my mind, raises a serious question:

 

If some rebel upstart marches on the capital, beats up the existing army, puts the old king's head on a pike outside the castle gates and gets comfy on the throne, doesn't that give him a good claim to be the "rightful" ruler now?

 

I guess you could argue that the "right" to rule belongs to the person with the most/best soldiers willing to follow him, or something.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Well, the Great Houses of Europe descended from bandits according to my history professor....

 

The "right" of the King to be King was shrouded in religion for much of the Middle Ages: the Lord ordained the social order and it was by His will that the King held the throne. If the King was weak and couldn't hold onto it, he'd lost the Lord's favor. In practice feudal monarchs had to maintain a delicate political balancing act -- even if they did have the supreme authority, too much exercise of power (especially if done incompetently) would get their vassals to rebel and that's the end of him.

 

In many fantasy worlds, the health and power of the King is closely tied with that of his realm. You can see that in Tuala Morn, for example. Weak king = sick nation, which can recover if the King recovers his strength of will and purpose.

 

An unworthy usurper can have the same effect. An example of this is in Shakespeare's play Macbeth, where the murderer who becomes king finds that his land grows weak and sickly, to be restored when he is overthrown and the "rightful" king (Malcom) enthroned. Even lost in paranoia as he is, Macbeth is still concerned enough to ask people why the realm was in decay -- but of course none in his presence dared tell him the truth. One could make a case that is is a reflection of Macbeth's suspicion and fear.

 

Indeed, a land in fantasy realms can take on much of the character of its monarch, making him its personification. A paranoid, suspicious King rules a land in which nobody trusts anyone; a King who cannot lead in war has a weak, fragile kingdom, etc. But if the King is strong and vigorous, so is the kingdom.

 

Where does this come from? The medieval mind thought it the direct intervention of the Deity, and that's certainly an acceptable answer. A lot of it could also be psychological, much as modern American statesmen put a sort of stamp on their times. Or the realm could indeed be mystically linked to whoever rules it, causing it to choose and reflect its monarch without requiring a conscious exercise of will.

[Curufea]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

God.

 

Or more practically - inheritance and superstition.

 

What you do for a living is pretty much determined by what your parents do. They teach you the craft. The only person qualified to be a king is someone who has be brought up and taught to be the king.

The average person on the street isn't even likely to be able to read, let alone do maths, know several languages and be a good accountant.

 

It is always assumed that children are brought up in the family business. Then you tack on superstition on top of that "Their family is good at coopering, for the last 4 generations - therefore their estranged son back from the wars who spent only 2 years with his folks is probably also darn good at making barrels".

[Curufea]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

I would just like to point out that Kings actually do work for a living, require and use highly specialised skills that not just anybody can master.

 

There seems to be a bit of a strange misconception that all nobles are decadent layabouts. Sure - if you guys were members of the French Revolution, that's an understandable attitude - but otherwise I recommend some kind of research into what nobles actually do for a living...

[Manic Typist]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Often it's decided by availing to perceived standards. Whoever's in charge or holds sway sets the standards, until someone challenges those preconceptions with new ones. Whoever wins gets to decide what qualifies as "rightful."

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

I would just like to point out that Kings actually do work for a living, require and use highly specialised skills that not just anybody can master.

 

There seems to be a bit of a strange misconception that all nobles are decadent layabouts. Sure - if you guys were members of the French Revolution, that's an understandable attitude - but otherwise I recommend some kind of research into what nobles actually do for a living...

 

Let me see: the ability to administer High and Low Justice and decide criminal cases would be PS: Judge. One wonders what is the more important aspect of that for a king: getting the fair result or getting the result of greatest advantage to your keeping the throne (something seen in Shakespeare's Richard II that the title character proved spectacularly bad at, along with just about everything else he tried).

[Ocelot]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

The king who took over by force of arms did so by the grace of God. God ordained that he and his descendants were to rule. Finding the rightful king is important because any other king is not the chosen ruler. At least, that's the basic logic that feudal societies seem to follow.

[Zeropoint]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

The king who took over by force of arms did so by the grace of God. God ordained that he and his descendants were to rule. Finding the rightful king is important because any other king is not the chosen ruler. At least, that's the basic logic that feudal societies seem to follow.

 

See, that's just what I have a problem with. So the OLD king took over by force of arms, doing so by the grace of God, and has therefore been ordained by God as the rightful ruler. I can accept that. Makes a sort of sense.

 

Then if I come in and take over by force of arms, just like he did, kicking him to the curb, just like he did with guy HE defeated, God must have decided that it was time for new management and I'm now the rightful king, right?

 

Right?

[Curufea]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Depends if you have a Pope on your side or not.

 

Or some other kingmaker.

[Inu]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Eh, the whole 'God' thing wasn't a justification in and of itself. When you see rule by conquest, you either see such a complete conquest that any resistance is crushed and the old nation effectively ceases to exist (say, William the Conquerer) or you have a current king who is so disliked that everyone's frankly happy to see him go (William III overthrowing James II, who people were convinced was going to start burning Protestants like his mentor, the king of France).

 

In Song of Ice and Fire, the old king was mad and busy screwing with whoever he could get his hands on. He needed killin' -- even his old allies more or less agreed with that. Had the upstart (stag-dude... I forget his name. B-something?) rebelled against a nice, happy king, he'd have faced a lot more resistance.

 

It also helps if the conquerer can make a claim to the throne through some manner of descent. Both conquering Williams in England could make such a claim, as can just about any noble in Song of Ice and Fire.

 

Basically, it's an extension of the old maxim: the ruler holds power by the consent of the governed. This is more direct in a democracy, but is still more or less true in a monarchy. If the heir doesn't have the support of the nobles, he's not going to be king.

 

And yeah, people can have different opinions. In ASoIaF, the Targaryens certainly don't recognise the new guy as 'rightful'. They believe they're 'rightful'. In England, William wasn't seen as 'rightful' by the people until... probably a few generations until they stopped whining about Alfred. This was helped by the fact that he preserved the existing laws and institutions. There have been countries that have had periods of insurrection lasting over a thousand years; those people wouldn't recognise their rulers as 'rightful'.

 

There's another definition: "A rightful king is anyone who is better for me than his rivals." A lot of inheritance struggles have been decided by this rather than the value of their blood.

 

But yeah, the idea of inheritance does mean a lot. You don't tend to get inheritance struggles when there's a legitimate son, for instance. They happen when there's some lack of clarity about who should inherit, especially when the most obvious choice isn't popular (say, King John).

 

Short answer: it's kinda complex!

[Old Man]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Then if I come in and take over by force of arms, just like he did, kicking him to the curb, just like he did with guy HE defeated, God must have decided that it was time for new management and I'm now the rightful king, right?

 

Right?

 

You're really thinking about this too much. Basically, you can kick the current king to the curb, but then it's up to the rest of the nobles and clergy whether they think you are the new Chosen. Which is why you need to buy them off by giving them land and titles to reward them for their vote.

[Zeropoint]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Things like this make me think that taking over the world might be more trouble than it's worth.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

"Acknowledge my claim as just and I'll let you live" was a pretty standard means of gaining a majority of support back in the day.

 

Politics were a bit simpler then.

Possibly more honest, too.

[Inu]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Things like this make me think that taking over the world might be more trouble than it's worth.

Hellz yeah. Even if you do conjure up world-dominating military might from thin air, you have to deal with the WHINING.

 

"Wah, he overthrew our rightful ruler!"

"Wah, he's ignoring democratic process!"

"Wah, he crushed my family to death with his ubertanks!"

"Wah, he's mean!"

 

Endless whining. They invented nukes for a reason, dammit. Perfect civilisation emerging from the Vaults when the radiation levels die down, that's how it should be done.

[Inu]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Now, in a fantasy game, there may well be a deity-ordained 'rightful king'. After the old king dies, this might pass automatically to the heir, or it might require someone to gain consensus of the governed before they are granted the 'rightful' perk. Can the perk be lost? Could be!

 

If the rightful heir is Ordained By Gawd on the instant of the old king's death, and others in the setting could sense this, it might be interesting to see who wants to go agains the Will of Gawd to get their own favorite target in. On the whole, though, I'd say that this system would remove a lot of intrigue from the setting. Recommended only for games that don't want to involve inheritance politics.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Public perception (driven by whatever -- religion, belief in a particular form of government, practices regarding inheritance and entitlement, etc) backed up by sufficient resources (whether that be composed of land, money, troops, allies, family connections, whatever) to make it stick.

[azato]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

The word "right" implies to a set of rules set by a higher power that does not necessarily involve God. For instance, if somebody secures a majority of votes during a certain time and place and fulfills certain obligatory restrictions that person has the "right" to become president/mayor etc. That right comes from the set of laws established by our country.

 

For a Fantasy campaign the concept of "divine right" needs to be looked at from a chosen perspective. If you want to take a "non-theistic view" you would have to say that it was an artificially devised system to keep people entrenched in the status-quo.

 

IF you are looking at it from a theistic view then you would need to say that the god(s) indeed has set up criteria for who is to be ruler. (this could get existential - what gives the god(s) the right to give a right?)

 

 

Going back to the real world, that issue could be explored for years. I will add this, in England there were a number of dissenters (Samuel Rutherford) who held that the king was more of a position and that he wasn't the law but was accountable to the law. If he violated those laws he should be removed. This was done worked out from a completely orthodox Christian point of view (the book Lex Rex).

 

 

 

This question first crystallized in my mind while reading the Song of Ice and Fire series, but it has stuck with me ever since: in feudal societies, much is made of the "rightful" king. If the old king dies, it's vitally important to figure out who the "rightful" heir is. If someone usurps the throne, things just aren't right until the rightful line is restored, and so on.

 

Where does that "right" come from? What makes someone the rightful king? In many cases, it's just because he's the first son of the previous rightful king, and the right is passed down from father to son? But where did it come from?

 

If you follow it back, it usually turns out that someone took over by force of arms, led his army to victory and installed himself as king.

 

This gives the impression that the "right" to rule is ultimately based on the ability to put the smackdown on anyone who disagrees with your decisions, which to my mind, raises a serious question:

 

If some rebel upstart marches on the capital, beats up the existing army, puts the old king's head on a pike outside the castle gates and gets comfy on the throne, doesn't that give him a good claim to be the "rightful" ruler now?

 

I guess you could argue that the "right" to rule belongs to the person with the most/best soldiers willing to follow him, or something.

[McCoy]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

See, that's just what I have a problem with. So the OLD king took over by force of arms, doing so by the grace of God, and has therefore been ordained by God as the rightful ruler. I can accept that. Makes a sort of sense.

 

Then if I come in and take over by force of arms, just like he did, kicking him to the curb, just like he did with guy HE defeated, God must have decided that it was time for new management and I'm now the rightful king, right?

 

Right?

Basically. If you take over and things improve (let's say good weather and a few years of record harvest), you're God's new favorite (especally if you grease the clergy to say so every Sunday). If your takeover is followed by drought, famine and plague, you're an evil usurper and the kingdom will never be whole until the Rightful Heir yadda yadda yadda.

[Markdoc]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

OK.

 

Historical hat:

The "divine right of kings" is of relatively recent origin. It's not medieval, but rather post-renaissance and a huge chunk of European history was bloodied by kings saying "I am king by right of conquest/descent" and the pope saying "No, you are king by divine choice, and therefore as the divine regent on earth you owe fealty to me." Now the pope carried a lot of weight back then, so him anointing someone else, or threatening to do so, had a dramatic effect (Henry's penance in the snow, for example). However, that only happened because Henry was king (emperor, technically) over a bunch of fractious nobles. Popular, powerful kings could flip the pope the bird, and often did.

In the end - once the pope lost most of his temporal power and was no longer trying to be an earthly prince as well as a religious one, he came to an agreement with the various crowned heads and legitimized their lines as chosen by god.

 

Which brings us to bloodlines. Verra, verra important. Reason? Well, threefold.

 

First, training. King (or any high noble) is actually a fairly specialized job: it's like playing diplomacy, only 24 hours a day with hundreds of players instead of 6. High nobles were trained for this pretty from much once they stopped soiling their clothes. They also had families (read: staff) ready-made. When you move into the big house, everyone knows what to do. It turns out that "commoner kings" in general didn't last that long - assuming they clawed to the top of the heap at all.

 

Second: monopoly. If you make bloodlines - and especially high bloodlines - "special" then it stops any old guy with a big cleaver from getting to be king. It cuts down the competition. Think of the various noble families like baseball commissioners. You think they want people to be able to recruit who they want, or even start their own teams? Hell, no. Convince the rubes that you are the only game in town, and your chances of making a good living - even if you don't get the big prize this year - are greatly improved. Look at medieval laws: there were a vast number that deal with things like what you could wear, who you could marry, who inherited and in what order, what names you could have, when children were actually in line and which weren't and so on. And many of them carried severe penalties. For changing your surname to a reserved one? Death. Wearing clothes of a certain colour? Face branded with red-hot irons, and so on. All devoted to one thing: defining who had special ("gentle") blood and who didn't and stopping them mixing. As an important part of this, it's also a way for rich people to ensure their accumulated wealth goes to their children - always a popular theme.

 

People were not unaware of this in medieval times, nor of the fact that nobility was an invented trope: there's a song sung by rebellious english peasants in the 14th century "When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?" - meaning that originally there were no noble families.

 

Third: practicality. If you convince everyone - even yourself - that certain sorts of blood are special and that some are more special than others, it cuts both ways. It means you can't just kill the old king and take his throne and smokin' hot daughter under most circumstances. After all, he's special! This actually - even though it restrains your own (doubtless rightful) ambitions has a benefit: a kingdom at constant war is no good to anyone except bandits. Sometimes, it makes sense to choke it down and support the consensus candidate (ie: the "rightful" king) - even if he's still wetting on his nurse - rather than launch a ruinous war. And it has the plus that if everyone agrees on a consensus candidate family, even if it's not yours, at least it isn't those 3€&%&!!! from the next fief over.

 

Medievals were quite aware of this aspect too - contemporary writings show awareness of the importance of continuity and tradition in keeping order, even if the king himself was a waste of human skin. People like William Marshall, who could almost certainly have become King had he so chosen, chose instead to support a variety of "royal candidates" - because that's what his sense of honour demanded - said code of honour also being carefully built up overtime to support and strengthen this bloodline progression.

 

So there was more to the whole rightful king deal than being the baddest mutha in the land - even if most royal bloodlines started that way. And it's laughable how many people who did slaughter their way into power, suddenly discovered that actually, they were descended from Barbarossa, or King Arthur, or John the Baptist, etc etc.

 

OK, so much for the history hat. On with the GM hat. In this case, it's whatever makes sense.

 

In my current FH game, all the "kingdoms" are actually "principalities" - the last heir to the line of kings (who were not only originally appointed by the gods, but intermarried with them) suffered a surfeit of pointy bits of metal and the families of the people he left in charge of various regions have been in charge ever since. There's nothing mystical, they just have the most professional soldiers.

 

In an adjacent kingdom, the Queen is queen because she's a vampire sorceress, older than sin, and can suck your soul out through your eyes. Are you going to argue? Besides, OK, she drains a few citizens dry every year, but in return she keeps the streets orderly, the taxes light, the kingdom monster- and adventurer- free and the borders secure. Most citizens will happily offer that she has less blood on her hands than any of the neighboring princes.

 

Across the sea, on the other hand, the leader of Tyrannc is most definitely "the rightful king" - or warlord, to be more accurate. All the priests say so, and not only does that imply a divine right, but most priests of Tyrannc go around in blood-spattered robes because they haven't changed clothes today. Probably not smart to debate the question. Also he can do miracles, and has not been consumed by the divine maw of the Living God, which is a pretty clear show of divine favour, right?

 

And so on. In this case, "rightful" can mean anything that seems useful

 

cheers, Mark

[USAFguy]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

The winner writes the history books (ok, they get that right even if they are illiterate)

[Lord Liaden]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Like much of later eras' perspectives on the past, the notion of "the rightful king" has been romanticisized to make for compelling stories, while in real life it was ignored when convenient. However, as Markdoc points out it did have several practical benefits, to which I would add "helping keep the peasantry in line and accepting of their place."

[Curufea]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

"accepting of their place" is another annoying stereotype not typical of the actual times. Presuming peasants to be trodden down masses not happy with their lives.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

"accepting of their place" is another annoying stereotype not typical of the actual times. Presuming peasants to be trodden down masses not happy with their lives.

 

Agreed. I never said that the peasants were necessarily downtrodden and unhappy (although there have certainly been times and places where that was the case, at least temporarily). But if you tie the health of the realm with the established order in the public consciousness, it does help restrain agitation from the bottom, and provides a weight of public opinion to dissuade agitation from higher up.

[assault]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

Basically, success proves the king has the Mandate of Heaven. If it is withdrawn, the king falls.

 

In some settings, of course, the ghodz are likely to be more directly involved than in others. They aren't necessarily all on the same side, either! (See the Trojan War for further details.)

 

One final thing about royal ancestry: pre-Christian royal families often claimed divine ancestry. Some of these families continued into the Christian era. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the current Danish royal family couldn't trace their ancestry back to Odin! The British royal family might be able to do so too.

 

I'd be a bit careful about the "bandits becoming kings" argument. Changes of dynasty usually involved legitimate claims to the throne throughout much of the European medieval period. Even William the Bastard had been named the legal heir of Edward the Confessor. Harold Godwinsson was the usurper, although he was supported by most of the English nobility.

 

In earlier cases, usurpers would usually come from the same clan as the ruler being overthrown. For example, the Ostrogoths were ruled by members of the Amaling clan. Indeed, it might be fair to define an Ostrogoth as "a follower of the Amalings", rather than as an "ethnic" category. Basically, in that case, if you overthrew an Amaling, you had to either be an Amaling yourself, or control one as a puppet. Or you could be a member of the rival Balti dynasty.

 

Of course that is oversimplified.

 

In any case, dynasties were "usually" supposedly descended from ghodz or great heroes. In a fantasy setting, we can take this literally.

 

That "lost heir" isn't just a bandit, but actually is, indeed, the rightful king. And probably has the sword to prove it.

[L. Marcus]

Re: What gives the "rightful" king the right?

 

. . . And the birthmark.