What gives the "rightful" king the right?

[L. Marcus]

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

 

As good a foundation of a system of government as any.

[Lucius]

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

 

I didn't see this mentioned but I believe the rightful king is determined by a watery tart and a sword!

 

Sometimes - often, especially if a country is in crisis or there is a question of succession - there will be more than one form of legitimacy combined.

 

In the Arthur legend for example, there was both the patrilineal angle "No, really, I really AM the son of the late king!" - and the Divine Selection angle "No one else was able to draw the sword!"

 

Also note what Severian said about "bloodline or other sequence of succession" or however he put it. In Egypt for example, it was usually a son who succeeded - but technically, it was whoever arranged for the last ruler's funeral and tomb. So sometimes it was someone else who buried the last king, and became the next king. The Roman Emperors often "adopted" their own hand picked successors.

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What do you expect, a palindromedary?

[Doc]

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

 

In Egypt for example' date=' it was usually a son who succeeded - but technically, it was whoever arranged for the last ruler's funeral and tomb. So sometimes it was someone else who buried the last king, and became the next king. The Roman Emperors often "adopted" their own hand picked successors. [/quote']

 

This is partially true, in the sens that it could not just be random. Some illiterate peasant could never become king (as he could never burry the late one). A guy doing this must have had some way to impose himself; one cannot just be accepted as ruler by a ruling class just because of some ritual. It takes some strength or some asset of any sort. If not, even though the nobles can't officially depose him, they will do it unofficially...

 

Let me take an exemple here in modern Canada. During the 50s, there was a communist who was legally and correctly elected as member of parliament in some Montréal workers' neiborhood. Even though the political "ritual" of election had been correctly followed, communists in Canada didn't have any negociation asset nor didn't they have any strength to impose themselves, and so the elected one was deposed and deported to USSR a couple of months later...

 

Rituals and principles exist to legitimate the winner of the power strugle, not to determine who wins it.

[The Weapon]

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?

 

Well in a lot of cases yes, and no. The population didn't want a lot of controversy about who was king because such controversies cost blood and treasure. So they had to restrict the position to one "rightful" applicant by a method other than force. Sometimes this was the eldest son, sometimes the son who got the most noble votes, sometimes it was simply person with person with a claim who got the most noble votes. The problems arose when there was more than one applicant who was prepared to fight.

However mostly powerful people didn't accept someone just saying "I want to be king, I've got a bigger army, sucks to you.". This struck at the heart of what little stability there was. So you had to have some sort of a claim unless you want years of civil war and resistance.

[Inu]

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

 

So you had to have some sort of a claim unless you want years of civil war and resistance.

You'd also be unlikely to get teh broad support necessary to get a massive army in the first place. =) A conquering lord without a claim to the throne unsettles kings everywhere. So even an enemy of the country you're about to conquer won't lend you any troops, and will instruct his inferiors not to lend you any, either. It's just not in his interest to set such a precedent. No-one had a personal army big enough to conquer a country, back in the middle ages; they had to come together to do so.

[Doc]

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

 

You'd also be unlikely to get teh broad support necessary to get a massive army in the first place. =) A conquering lord without a claim to the throne unsettles kings everywhere. So even an enemy of the country you're about to conquer won't lend you any troops' date=' and will instruct his inferiors not to lend you any, either. It's just not in his interest to set such a precedent. No-one had a personal army big enough to conquer a country, back in the middle ages; they had to come together to do so.[/quote']

 

 

That's why you need assets, in this case, allies, or something interesting to offer them to assist you, like a position in the new "administration".

[assault]

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

 

No-one had a personal army big enough to conquer a country' date=' back in the middle ages; they had to come together to do so.[/quote']

 

Depends which country.

[L. Marcus]

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

 

No-one had a personal army big enough to conquer a country' date=' back in the middle ages; they had to come together to do so.[/quote']Tell that to Guillaume the Bastard.

[Inu]

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

 

Depends which country.

If it was small enough to be conquered by a single noble, it wasn't a real country anyway. ^_- Not back in the middle ages, anyway.

[Inu]

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

 

Tell that to Guillaume the Bastard.

William the Conqueror? He attacked with himself AND all his feudal subordinates, and some allies. Again, wasn't just him. =) While feudal subordinates were technically required to participate, if enough of them say no, what's the liege lord going to do about it? They'd also likely have had conflicting loyalties -- many of them would have owed allegiance not only to William, but to the King of France. And besides, William DID have a claim to the throne. =)

[assault]

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

 

If it was small enough to be conquered by a single noble' date=' it wasn't a real country anyway. ^_- Not back in the middle ages, anyway.[/quote']

 

 

What do you mean by a "real country"?

 

- Also, what do you mean by "the middle ages", exactly?

 

- "Claims" are a very fluid category. At least some of the ones used historically were dubious at best, and essentially non-existant in some cases.

 

- Furthermore, the resources available to a "single noble" could be extensive, and technically included their feudal subordinates. The Duke of Burgundy, for instance, was a "single noble" - and Charles the Rash created a standing army. Of course you *could* define away his subordinates - but the taxes they raised paid for his Ordonnance Companies. In short, your point is correct only if you play games with definitions.

 

- Despite the above, there were still "real countries" that could have been conquered by a single wealthy and important noble and his household - or by a company of mercenaries in his pay. Or, indeed, by the mercenaries on their own behalf.

[Inu]

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

 

 

What do you mean by a "real country"?

 

- Also, what do you mean by "the middle ages", exactly?

 

- "Claims" are a very fluid category. At least some of the ones used historically were dubious at best, and essentially non-existant in some cases.

 

- Furthermore, the resources available to a "single noble" could be extensive, and technically included their feudal subordinates. The Duke of Burgundy, for instance, was a "single noble" - and Charles the Rash created a standing army. Of course you *could* define away his subordinates - but the taxes they raised paid for his Ordonnance Companies. In short, your point is correct only if you play games with definitions.

 

- Despite the above, there were still "real countries" that could have been conquered by a single wealthy and important noble and his household - or by a company of mercenaries in his pay. Or, indeed, by the mercenaries on their own behalf.

Real country, in the middle ages (by which I mean proably 800-1300 or so), being a country that was actually independent, not one that was propped up by outside sources.

 

But mainly 'real' country is a snarky term used to cut out the tiny countries which are, of course, exceptions to the rule. ^_- Anyone can take over Luxembourg. An LA street gang could take over Luxembourg. Of course, they'd then get counter-invaded by someone who would then restore the 'legitimate' monarchy, but hey. Even in the modern setting, there's no definition of 'nation' that can really encompass Luxembourg or Monaco without serious gymnastics, aside from circular arguments like 'a nation is anything that is generally recognised to be a nation'. Sucks to be Taiwan, huh?

 

And of course, in the middle ages, if you took over a tiny country, with no legitimate claim to the throne... chances are, you'd get exactly the same sort of counter-invasion. No king wants any kind of precedent set that says that blood doesn't matter, and anyone can be king. Even ones descended from barbarian chiefs (which is most of them). So again, even if you CAN take over Luxembourg, KEEPING it is another matter.

[assault]

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

 

Real country, in the middle ages (by which I mean proably 800-1300 or so), being a country that was actually independent, not one that was propped up by outside sources.

 

But mainly 'real' country is a snarky term used to cut out the tiny countries which are, of course, exceptions to the rule.

 

Ah. So the overwhelming majority of countries in this period are cut out. Gotcha.

 

Actually, I'm wondering what the "real countries" were during this period. I'm not sure even France qualifies for at least some of it! Certainly England doesn't, nor does the Holy Roman Empire.

[Inu]

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

 

Ah. So the overwhelming majority of countries in this period are cut out. Gotcha.

 

Actually, I'm wondering what the "real countries" were during this period. I'm not sure even France qualifies for at least some of it! Certainly England doesn't, nor does the Holy Roman Empire.

Hehe. If I wanted definitions that would stand up to any scrutiny, I'd do a lot more research into the topic than a forum warrants. I'm using terms somewhat loosely here, because there's only so much effort I can put in. Of course no country was COMPLETELY independent. No country is today, either, however much some like to think they are. But there were countries that could basically stand on their own, and there were countries that required a more powerful state to prop them up. I even note that I used the term 'real' country mostly as a rhetorical device rather than a technical definition.

 

And yes, there's going to be a lot of modern terminology and rethinking laid over medieval mindsets. Anjou might have thought itself a relatively independent entity, but militarily, it depended on its leige-lord for defence. Which brings us back to what I was saying in the first place: it takes more than one lord to conquer one other lord. Because even if they CAN overrun that lord's defences, it activates the whole web of feudal responsibilities and suddenly you're fighting a whole lot more guys than you thought. So you better bring your buddies, and have a good reason for invading so that your buddies are motivated (above and beyond 'you owe me service', because that often wasn't actually a great way of motivating people to get into wars).

 

If you want to have a more academic debate with precise terminology, let me know and I'll put more time into each post.We'll also need to agree on definitions of lord, conquer, middle ages, king, claim to throne, and of course COUNTRY, which can mean almost anything if you want it to. Frankly, too much effort outside of academic arenas. If you want to have an internet forum debate, with somewhat loose terminology and each side giving the other a bit of leeway in interpretation (because there's only so much time to type, the language probably won't be as precise as it should be), then let's proceed. I don't think what I'm saying is terribly controversial, however, and I'm confused why it's become a thing, but then, I'm responding to pokes and prods at my argument, without a counter-argument being presented (and without all points of my argument being addressed, either). So if you want to continue, can you please elaborate on your points?

[Curufea]

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

 

Actually' date=' I'm wondering what the "real countries" were during this period. I'm not sure even France qualifies for at least some of it! Certainly England doesn't, nor does the Holy Roman Empire.[/quote']

 

http://www.medievalmap.net/

[AmadanNaBriona]

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

 

http://www.medievalmap.net/

 

that was a very cool link!

[Captain Obvious]

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

 

Tell that to Guillaume the Bastard.

 

William may not have been allied with him, but he certainly gained an advantage by invading at the same time as Harald Hardrada.

[assault]

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

 

http://www.medievalmap.net/

 

Pretty. Sadly lacking in detail though.

 

In this context it is potentially misleading, since it aggregates many of the actual political units into larger ones.

[Markdoc]

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

 

http://www.medievalmap.net/

 

Cool! It's basically an online rip of the old Penguin Atlas of the Middle ages (http://www.amazon.com/New-Penguin-Atlas-Medieval-History/dp/0140512497/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_: one of my favourite quick reference books. Not detailed or super-accurate, but a handy gazeteer, nonetheless.

 

cheers, Mark

[Curufea]

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

 

It is a starting point though, but more information can be found with mere seconds of internet searching.

 

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_europe.html

http://www.davidrumsey.com/directory/where/Europe/

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/maplinks.htm#medieval

[The Weapon]

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

 

For a fantasy world, Birth Right is passed on! The only change in that is Might Make Right!

 

Penn

 

 

"If you usurp me or attack my country dad and his dad and his dad and his dad will be really mad. Therefore I should be King because they're really scary. Particularly grandad who was one of the world's best decapitators and dismembers of fighting men."

"They're all dead though."

"And that makes them less scary how? All it means is they no longer bother to dodge."

[The Weapon]

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

 

You'd also be unlikely to get teh broad support necessary to get a massive army in the first place. =) A conquering lord without a claim to the throne unsettles kings everywhere. So even an enemy of the country you're about to conquer won't lend you any troops' date=' and will instruct his inferiors not to lend you any, either. It's just not in his interest to set such a precedent. No-one had a personal army big enough to conquer a country, back in the middle ages; they had to come together to do so.[/quote']

 

 

Good point, I didn't think of that.

[The Weapon]

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

 

William the Conqueror? He attacked with himself AND all his feudal subordinates' date=' and some allies. Again, wasn't just him. =) While feudal subordinates were technically required to participate, if enough of them say no, what's the liege lord going to do about it? They'd also likely have had conflicting loyalties -- many of them would have owed allegiance not only to William, but to the King of France. And besides, William DID have a claim to the throne. =)[/quote']

 

And the late king had (probably) made him heir. Possibly he had the best legal claim. Of course that didn't mean he was given it since there was a claimant that more local nobles liked and another one with just a big army and some supposed verbal agreement nobody else had overheard.

[pawsplay]

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

 

I guess you could argue that the "right" to rule belongs to the person with the most/best soldiers willing to follow him' date=' or something.[/quote']

 

Yup. You have now grasped medieval political philosophy.

[Curufea]

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

 

Yup. You have now grasped medieval political philosophy.

 

And completely failed to break holywood stereotypes or realise actual information from history. But what the hey - advice from gamers who refuse to read must be more credible than actual books on the subject, right?

 

So ignore diplomacy, social contacts, managerial skills, traditions, political machinations, law, and just go with whatever Truthiness you like.

 

After all, simple generalisations are much easier to put into quippy sentences than long accurate descriptions with detail.