What gives the "rightful" king the right?

[Vestnik]

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

 

Just pointing out that if you actually believe that the King has been appointed by and is favored by God, you are going to factor what you believe to be the possibility of divine retribution into your plans. It is real to you.

[pawsplay]

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

 

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.

 

They're frequently more useful. Look, whatever, I'm a medieval history buff. The basis of feudalism is armed struggle and the resources to support it. War is the flowering of chivarly. Might makes right. Etc.

 

In almost any serious monarchial controversy, you'll find that the lawful heir (however you calculate it) is rarely the winner. There are always pretenders, next best heirs, marriage and religious controversies, and so forth. The history of the hundred years war is basically a grab for monarchial power... each side had their arguments, and ultimately, they were not important. What was needed was a pretext, not a motivation.

 

Never forget, government is violence, nothing more, nothing less, as George Washingston said.

 

I have one central argument: William the Conqueror. He won, the other guys lost. Therefore, he was the rightful king. He was a foreigner, he was not only the chief involved in the invasion, and he had no pretext for his conquest. He just did it.

 

There are of course subleties to how these things play out, but there it is. The OP asked about an apparent paradox. I explained it. Nobles seek to acquire land and power. The rest is commentary.

 

Before you go spout off about people reading books, you might want to verify a few things about the target of your invective. It is very arrogant to assume that because someone does not agree with you or share your position that they are ignorant. I could be a medieval history professor, for all you know.

[pawsplay]

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

 

Just pointing out that if you actually believe that the King has been appointed by and is favored by God' date=' you are going to factor what you believe to be the possibility of divine retribution into your plans. It is real to you.[/quote']

 

In other words, you scrutinize your rivals for signs of impiety and look for omens. If you are really on the ball, you'll capture the magical blessings of the priesthood. If you look at the aftermath of Henry VIII's death, you can see that kind of thinking in action.

[assault]

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

 

He was a foreigner' date=' he was not only the chief involved in the invasion, and he had no pretext for his conquest. He just did it.[/quote']

 

Nonsense.

 

William the Bastard was the legitimate heir to the throne of England. He had been nominated as such by Edward the Confessor.

 

The English nobles rejected this, and, surprise, surprise, nominated the most powerful of them (Harold Godwinson) as king. Godwin, Harold's father, was the vassal that had caused his king to spend so much of his theoretical reign in exile.

[Lawnmower Boy]

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

 

Calling William a foreigner presumes that there is just a natural country called England that was generally recognised as such, so that a Doverite would recognise someone from Devon or Northumberland as a fellow citizen and a Norman as an alien.

[Michael Hopcroft]

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

 

William certainly exemplifies what an effective medieval monarch was. Regardless of the source of his claim to the throne, William exercised power effectively, and was largely responsible for England becoming a viable nation-state (especially by the loose standards of the time). How many kings of that era would have bothered to compile something like the Domesday Book, accounting for his realm in detail not previously attempted.

[Markdoc]

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

 

Nonsense.

 

William the Bastard was the legitimate heir to the throne of England. He had been nominated as such by Edward the Confessor.

 

The English nobles rejected this, and, surprise, surprise, nominated the most powerful of them (Harold Godwinson) as king. Godwin, Harold's father, was the vassal that had caused his king to spend so much of his theoretical reign in exile.

 

Right. He had two claims via Edward (in addition to the promise, he was also Edward's first cousin once removed). He also - at least apparently - got Harold to swear to accept his claim when he was held prisoner by William. it was the claimed breaking of this oath that helped William secure papal blessing (and a papal banner) for his attempt to reclaim his rightful throne.

 

Even Harald Hardraada didn't just turn up and say "Ooh, nice country, I'll take it" - he ALSO had a legitimate claim to the throne. He had succeeded Magnus as King of Norway - and to settle the war in Denmark, in a treaty around 1039, Harthacanute had promised the throne of England to Magnus if he died without an heir. Edward took the English throne when he died, but the Norwegians refused to recognize his claim, because there was some doubt over whether he had been formally appointed heir.

 

By this period, it had already became the rule that you needed some form of legitimacy to have much chance of ascending the throne.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vestnik]

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

 

In other words' date=' you scrutinize your rivals for signs of impiety and look for omens. If you are really on the ball, you'll capture the magical blessings of the priesthood. If you look at the aftermath of Henry VIII's death, you can see that kind of thinking in action.[/quote']

 

When Henry said bye-bye to the Church of Rome, weren't there fears of divinely induced famine in the countryside? Or is that totally wrong?

[Vestnik]

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

 

 

By this period, it had already became the rule that you needed some form of legitimacy to have much chance of ascending the throne.

 

cheers, Mark

 

There's always the option of making up the source of your legitimacy. As when Pugachev pretended to be Catherine the Great's (dead) husband.

[Markdoc]

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

 

There's always the option of making up the source of your legitimacy. As when Pugachev pretended to be Catherine the Great's (dead) husband.

 

Of course - but even in this example, the person is assuming someone else's legitimacy. He couldn't just turn up and say - "Hi, I'm Pugachev, an' I'm gonna be your Emperor" - even though he had a huge army of Cossacks and won almost every battle. When it turned out that maybe he wasn't actually Peter III, his supporters started to melt away or change sides. They might have stuck with him after the defeat at Tsaritsyn if they really had believed his claims - as it was, they were prepared to accept his being the supposedly murdered Tsar as long as the going was good. But he still needed some cover of legitimacy

 

The same applied most places. It didn't matter if your claim was a really good one, but you had to have some basis for a claim. Likewise, even if you had a good claim, if you couldn't enforce it (or you didn't have allies who could) it didn't matter. In 1066, everyone remembers the three claimants who had armies (Harold, Harald and William) but everyone forgets the fourth claimant - Edgar Etheling, the dead king's closest relative. He had an excellent claim - his father Edward the Exile had been in direct line to the throne before his sudden and mysterious death. But he was only a kid and had no powerful lords in his following.

 

Harold had no prior form, so he based his claim on a deathbed anointing by Edward. This was considered a bit unlikely by many, so Harold was forced to agree to an adjudication by the witan (council of elders) along with the other three contenders. His winning was not a forgone conclusion: he had marriage ties to many of the witan and was generally popular because of his military victories, but he also had many enemies - especially in the church. This shows that even the man with the largest army in England and close ties to the court couldn't just claim the kingship: he needed some sort of legal cover.

 

cheers, Mark

[pawsplay]

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

 

Nonsense.

 

William the Bastard was the legitimate heir to the throne of England. He had been nominated as such by Edward the Confessor.

 

The English nobles rejected this, and, surprise, surprise, nominated the most powerful of them (Harold Godwinson) as king. Godwin, Harold's father, was the vassal that had caused his king to spend so much of his theoretical reign in exile.

 

Okay, I was a wrong. He had a pretext. He was still a Norman and brought his own army.

[Vondy]

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

 

It depends on how kings are selected, doesn't it?

 

Not all cultures select kings the same way, or even regard them as serving the same functions. It should also be noted that the more tribal the society the more the consent of the tribe and simple ability to lead will matter.

 

The Pharohs, Sumerian Kings, and Roman Emporers claimed varied levels of divine status - "I rule because I am a god!"

 

In pre-republican rome the king was a sacral king selected from among a small group of proto-patricans of ancient stock. It wasn't necessarily hereditary.

 

The spartans had two kings concurrently from two royal lines who were said to descend from the city's founders.

 

The first two kings of Israel were appointed by the Prophet Samuel, and David was promised a dynasty which became hereditary, however, he picked which son (solomon) would follow him. So this would be a combination of divine right and appointing an elligible (male decended) successor.

 

In the early saxon and norse tribes kings were charismatic, generally warrior, kings who ruled with the consent of their warriors (and the rest of the tribe). Succeed and rule wisely and be king. Fail and someone else will be king.

 

In medieval europe a combination of primogeniture, precedence, and papal consent played a role in choosing kings.

 

Scottish clanheads were selected from the leading families of the clan by the clan council and it was customary NOT to have it be the current chiefs son. In fact, they often selected his successor (a much younger person) well before he was due to pass on - and sometimes on the same day he became chief.

 

The leader of the holy roman empire was elected by the principle nobles who would form his base in real-politick, though he theoretically had to come from the right family/families (and primogeniture played a significant part in the process).

 

 

There are other bizarre ways of choosing a king. It boils down to how the culture is organized, what its core beliefs are, and how it selects its top leaders. Those are for you to decide and you can come up with whatever process you want.

 

I used this for a culture once: the culture is run by an autocratic despot with absolute power and his bureacracy. The despot is selected by the women of the imperial cult (harem) and is deposed by the cult of astrologers (and sacrificed by the funerary cult who interns his skull in the "chamber of skulls" - they talk, its spooky). The harem elects its own members and consists of one woman from each (occupational) cult except the warriors. Women leave the imperial cult and return to their cult house at forty. At least, that's the simplified version.

[Vondy]

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

 

Democratic or republican states can exist in fantasy settings, obviously. In fact, they can have as much "divine right" as any other state.

 

Heresy. We call it "manifest destiny." Shhhhh.

[Vondy]

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

 

Of course - but even in this example' date=' the person is assuming someone [i']else's[/i] legitimacy. He couldn't just turn up and say - "Hi, I'm Pugachev, an' I'm gonna be your Emperor"

 

I prefer: "Hi, I'm Pugachev, an' I've got the guns."

[Tungsten Shephard]

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

 

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?

 

 

Blasphemy! Off with his head!

 

 

In my D&D group we asked this question ourselves then launched a campaign to place the rightful heir back on the throne under the obligation that the heir would give us land and gold, women seem to arrive with gold. Then it dawned on us. The goal is to place someone the people like on the throne so that the people the heir likes gets the land and the gold. Then the people will look past the heir's friends who get the women.

[Agemegos]

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

 

This question first crystallized in my mind while reading the Song of Ice and Fire series' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

It is worth noting that all the well-known kingdoms were actually elective until the High Middle Ages. If there was a rightful king immediately on the death of any king, it was probably because his dad had staged a rigged election some years before, and got him elected co-king.

 

That didn't happen in Ireland, of course. The Irish kings appointed a 'tanist' from among a class of qualified candidates. When the king died, the tanist automatically became king.

 

Look at England, for instance. The kingship was elective until 1066. When a king died, the witanargemot elected another--sometimes they acknowledged an invader, other times they chose a foreigner. In 1066 Willim of Normandy invaded the country and murdered King Harold. The witanargemot elected Edgar the Atheling, but William just took over. When William died, his heir was his son Robert, but his second son William took over. When William was assassinated his older brother Robert was his heir, but his younger brother Henry took over. When Henry I died his heiress was his daughter Matilda, but his nephew Stephen of Blois took over. When King Stephen died his heiress was his cousin Matilda, but her son Henry took over. When Henry II died his heir was his grandson Arthur, but his son Richard took over. When Richard I died his nephew Arthur was his heir, but his brother John took over. In 1216 King John died and was succeeded by his son Henry III, and that was the first time that the kingdom of England was inherited. After then it was established that the kingship was hereditary, but whenever a king died without an eldest son to replace him you got a succession struggle. It wasn't until 1689 that England actually had a law of succession.

 

The French when through the rigmarole of electing the 'dauphin' as his father's co-king until 1179 or thereabouts. The kingdoms of Poland and Germany were elective as long as they lasted. The kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy vanished early anyway.

 

In short, mediaeval 'feudal' societies never really made much of the 'rightful king'. That is a projection backwards of standards pertaining in a later period, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, when Royal absolutism had eclipsed feudalism.

[Agemegos]

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

 

Nonsense.

 

William the Bastard was the legitimate heir to the throne of England. He had been nominated as such by Edward the Confessor.

 

Even supposing that were true (our only evidence for it is that William said so), Edward the Confessor had no right to appoint his successor, or to bequeath his kingship like a piece of property. The right of choosing teh king belonged to the Witanargemot, and they had elected Harold of Wessex.

[Agemegos]

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

 

William the Conqueror? He attacked with himself AND all his feudal subordinates' date=' and some allies.[/quote']

 

And with a blessing from the Pope (obtained by perjury), and by offering estates to anyone who would join in and bring troops. A lot of lords from Brittany and Flanders 'came over with the Conqueror'.

[Agemegos]

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

 

Right. He had two claims via Edward (in addition to the promise' date=' he was also Edward's first cousin once removed). He also - at least apparently - got Harold to swear to accept his claim when he was held prisoner by William. it was the claimed breaking of this oath that helped William secure papal blessing (and a papal banner) for his attempt to reclaim his rightful throne.[/quote']

 

Another important factor in securing Papal support was lying about which archbishop had consecrated Harold. William said it was Stigand (the archbishop of Canterbury, but a pluralist and simoniac who had recieved his pallium from an antipope). Harold said iy was Aldred (archbishop of York).

[Markdoc]

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

 

Even supposing that were true (our only evidence for it is that William said so)' date=' Edward the Confessor had no right to appoint his successor, or to bequeath his kingship like a piece of property. The right of choosing teh king belonged to the [i']Witanargemot[/i], and they had elected Harold of Wessex.

 

Not entirely true. Harold claimed the kingship - and was acclaimed king by his followers in London, pretty much immediately on Edward's death. He was only forced to go to the Witan because he was in no position to force his claim with both Harald and William certain to press claims of their own: he needed a united kingdom. So the Witan was not an official "kingmaking body" - no such thing existed. Harold merely used it as a legitimating body that everyone could agree on.

 

After all, prior to 1066, its role had been limited indeed - the house of Wessex ruled England, and the throne passed by primogeniture: Egbert was succeeded by his son Ethelwulf, who was succeeded in turn by his son, Ethelbald. Ethelbad died without a son, so the throne went sideways to his brother, Ethelbert. When Ethelbert died without sons, the throne went sideways to his brother, Ethelred. Ethelred did have two sons, but they were both very young and the kingdom was in a war for its survival. So the rule of primogeniture was broken and the throne went to Alfred the great, the King's brother and a proven warleader. This is the first place the witan actually pops up in all of this succession, when Alfred took the throne but was forced to agree to secure his nephew's succession, to assure support from all the major families. He reneged of course - Alfred, in turn, left the throne to his son Edward the Elder. And so on - through Elfward, Edwin, Athelstan, Edmund, Edred, Edwy's, Edgar, and Edward we go son, brother, son, son, brother, brother, son, all the way down to the viking conquest and the first viking kings. It was this long line of succession by the direct male line of Egbert that allowed Harold - who came from the same line - to lay claim to the throne.

 

Weak kings - Harold in 1066, Ethelred II for most of his reign - had to rely on the witan because they could not compel obedience by all the nobles and especially weak kings (Sigeberht in the mid 8th century) could actually be deposed. But the idea that the witan chose the king by election is patently false - for hundreds of years, the throne passed down the patrilineal line of Wessex to the applause and head-nodding of the witan. Generally the witan's role in the succession was to acclaim the king's chosen successor - hardly surprising, since the royal Witan could only be called by the king and he could - and often did - appoint some of its members. For the witan to assemble without his approval was considered treason. It was a royal advisory committee, not a true parliament.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vestnik]

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

 

Even supposing that were true (our only evidence for it is that William said so)' date=' Edward the Confessor had no right to appoint his successor, or to bequeath his kingship like a piece of property. The right of choosing teh king belonged to the [i']Witanargemot[/i], and they had elected Harold of Wessex.

 

You guys could just settle this disagreement the old-fashioned way by having a war about it.

[L. Marcus]

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

 

I call general!

[Inu]

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

 

I call general!

I call arms dealer!

[L. Marcus]

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

 

. . . Who deals the other limbs? Any takers? I mean -- we can't have a war without legs.

[Michael Hopcroft]

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

 

Two little kings playing a game

They gave a war and nobody came!