Law of the Jungle seems pretty apposite in the case of Chlodomer's sons.
It may be a language thing that I don't get (sorry if it's the case), but when it comes to the definition of "law of the jungle", here's what I have.
"The law of the jungle" is an expression that means "every man for himself," "anything goes," "survival of the strongest," "survival of the fittest," "kill or be killed," "dog eat dog" and "eat or be eaten"
While bloody, it's not what we have for Chlodomer's sons, but a political move. As I tried to point above, the fear of civil war and inner conflicts existed among Frankish nobility, and killing claimants was eventually the safest way to deal with.
Bloody, without any douby, but hardly "blood for the blood throne".
Think what happens in lion prides.
I fail to see the reference, unfortunatly.
Do you mean "Look, they totally behaved as animals"? I beg to differ. Hugely.
Political murder have a "a long and glorious tradition" with it, and was hardly based on bestiality.
Chlothar even took over Chlodomer's widow.
Given the importance of matrilinearity in succession, I don't see what the "law of the jungle" part there.
It wasn't a "to the victor the spoils", but most probably made to both assert its power on Neustria and Burgundy, neutralize a possible opposition (Frankish queens tended to have an important political weight).
Later Merovingians -- they were just about all child kings after Dagobert I. The only exceptions I can think of were Chilperic II and Dagobert II. No wonder they had lost all real power by the end.
But again "they lost all power" is something repeted again, and again, and again (critically from Carolingians, along the "they did nothing, so we kinda had to intervene. We only tought about Francia, we sware") without being that obvious.
There, we must really see separatly Neustrian/Burgundian and Austrasian politics to really get what happened.
Neustrian kings as Clovis II (in spite of being young, is praised for his policies) seems to have enjoyed a real power, even if limited by regency (as Bathild's).
At the exception of Ebroin, the majordomos of Neustria seems to have worked relativly well with (and not on or under) the kings.
The coup of the former really weakened the political balance and allowed Peppinids to takeover all Francia under the pretext of supporting Thierry III's rule.
The whole "they had no power after Dagobert I" leave a gap of almost 50 years that is hard to explain as such; or the aformentioned alliances and tentative to get out Peppinid yoke up to Charles Martel. That alone imply some power, legitimacy and prestige.
Even in Austrasia, the fact Franks reacted really negativly to the tentative of Grimoald to put his son (or at the very least, a Merovingian that he had totally under his thumb) as heir of Sigebert should inform us about the prestige of the Merovingian line.
Nothing can be proved, but the regularity with which kings lived long enough to have a son or two then died was downright sinister.
I'm not that convinced : when Frankish kings were murdered, it was generally said they were.
I don't see why they would have dissimuled it just because.
Critically when it was eventually easier to cloister them, and to use them as pressure or figureheads when you needed it.
After the crowns were united under Chlothar II in 613, Burgundy didn't get its own king in future subdivisions. The chronicles don't say why.
Well, not having its own king is a bit irrelevant. Neustria and Austrasia often had, but with distinct (and rival) majordomos.
Now, it's true that Burgundy ceased to have its own majordomo in the late VIIth century. From what I gathered, it could be traced back to different reasons (not mutually exclusive), but he unifying trend of the era probably played an important role.
Up to Dagobert's sons, Merovingian kings tried hard to unify kingship on their heads, and the presence of majordomos was seen as a factor of division. Eventually, they tried to play them along (as well with a matrimonial policy) : majordomos of Bourgogne became majordomos of Austrasia or Neustria.
This, plus the absence of relevance of Burgundy as separate with the military part of the frankish kingship must have played a role (while not wholly justifying it :the survival of the patrician title may point it)