![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Allegedly, hereditary monarchy provides a clear succession of legitimate authority. In practice, we know that's often problematic: the Roman Emperors were a mess, and Egypt had 30 dynasties in 3000 years. OTOH, some dynasties like the Ming or Plantagenet last for 300 years or so. But what chaos does that conceal? I decided to go through the monarchs of England from William the Conqueror on, and *hoo boy*. Until the rise of Parliamentary supremacy, major rebellions are more common than not, and violent interruptions to the succession are pretty common too. They *do* keep it "in the family" -- every one has been a descendant of William the Conqueror, and most have been descendants of Alfred the Great, too. But peaceful contested succession? Hah.
I'll put in codes at the end of lines. P for Peace, in my opinion; p for challenges to the rule. I don't count foreign wars, or extra-familial foreign invasion. I for the succession passing as Intended, i for not. The latter probably implies a peace failure before or after. ? for ambiguity -- are plots caught by the secret police worth counting as a threat to the peace? If the crown passes to the rightful heir because the heir took it by force I count that as 'i', since no one intends to be killed or deposed.
Refresher on the meaning of English noble titles: earls were the Anglo-Saxon royal vassals in charge of earldoms or reeves; counts are the Norman royal companion-vassal close equivalent; barons are all the nobles who are vassals to the king (all counts are also barons); dukes start out as royal relatives because the English didn't follow the Ottoman practice of pruning the family tree.
( Read more... )
So, with the Glorious Revolution, we get 12 peaceful successions, and peaceful reigns apart from Jacobites. Before that the longest sequence was 5, from Henry II to Edward II, and that's counting Richard taking over from his father after bitter fighting. If we also count Edward III, despite his father being deposed, we get up to 7 successions, Henry II to Richard II. Only 3 of those 8 reigns can be counted as peaceful. If we don't count Henry-to-Lionheart or Edward III, the longest chain of intended successions is 4, in 622 years. You don't get two internally peaceful (by my estimate) reigns in a row until Elizabeth and James. That's 22 kings and almost 500 years after the Conqueror.
Depending on what baronial rebellions are like, maybe things weren't so bad for the common people. I've seen multiple sources say the Wars of the Roses may not have been so bad: cities didn't refortify, and the nobles knew they were fighting over the people so avoided sieging them, having pitched set-piece battles instead. Lots of the nobility got killed off, which might have helped later stability, as did Henry VII cracking down on private armies of the magnates.
Even if you discount some of the smaller rebellions, I think the "democratic" (more like oligarchic, even today) period of Parliamentary supremacy is clearly far more peaceful and orderly than the hereditary succession of strong monarchy.
I note that I'm not counting Irish wars and eventual independence, despite being part of the greater kingdom; I'll view it as an overseas colony, no matter what the crown claimed.
So, this is just England after William; maybe Anglo-Saxon England, or France, will be cleaner? I doubt it...
I'll put in codes at the end of lines. P for Peace, in my opinion; p for challenges to the rule. I don't count foreign wars, or extra-familial foreign invasion. I for the succession passing as Intended, i for not. The latter probably implies a peace failure before or after. ? for ambiguity -- are plots caught by the secret police worth counting as a threat to the peace? If the crown passes to the rightful heir because the heir took it by force I count that as 'i', since no one intends to be killed or deposed.
Refresher on the meaning of English noble titles: earls were the Anglo-Saxon royal vassals in charge of earldoms or reeves; counts are the Norman royal companion-vassal close equivalent; barons are all the nobles who are vassals to the king (all counts are also barons); dukes start out as royal relatives because the English didn't follow the Ottoman practice of pruning the family tree.
( Read more... )
So, with the Glorious Revolution, we get 12 peaceful successions, and peaceful reigns apart from Jacobites. Before that the longest sequence was 5, from Henry II to Edward II, and that's counting Richard taking over from his father after bitter fighting. If we also count Edward III, despite his father being deposed, we get up to 7 successions, Henry II to Richard II. Only 3 of those 8 reigns can be counted as peaceful. If we don't count Henry-to-Lionheart or Edward III, the longest chain of intended successions is 4, in 622 years. You don't get two internally peaceful (by my estimate) reigns in a row until Elizabeth and James. That's 22 kings and almost 500 years after the Conqueror.
Depending on what baronial rebellions are like, maybe things weren't so bad for the common people. I've seen multiple sources say the Wars of the Roses may not have been so bad: cities didn't refortify, and the nobles knew they were fighting over the people so avoided sieging them, having pitched set-piece battles instead. Lots of the nobility got killed off, which might have helped later stability, as did Henry VII cracking down on private armies of the magnates.
Even if you discount some of the smaller rebellions, I think the "democratic" (more like oligarchic, even today) period of Parliamentary supremacy is clearly far more peaceful and orderly than the hereditary succession of strong monarchy.
I note that I'm not counting Irish wars and eventual independence, despite being part of the greater kingdom; I'll view it as an overseas colony, no matter what the crown claimed.
So, this is just England after William; maybe Anglo-Saxon England, or France, will be cleaner? I doubt it...