No European house managed to maintain an unbroken male-line father-to-son succession from the middle ages, even when counting the brother-to-brother successions. The ones who did upheld the male-line succession did it by bringing in cousins (Capetians, Savoy, Wittelsbach).
No European house managed to maintain an unbroken male-line father-to-son succession from the middle ages, even when counting the brother-to-brother successions. The ones who did upheld the male-line succession did it by bringing in cousins (Capetians, Savoy, Wittelsbach).
The Hohenzollerns came close, just one succession of an uncle by a nephew during the time they ruled Brandenburg/Prussia/Germany. The Ottomans didn't have to resort to distant relatives either, but that's not a fair comparison.
True, not to mention large families: The Austrian Hapsburgs were almost always able to "dig" somebody up while the Spanish seemed to have a problem having healthy boys. A direct descent son to son isn't as rare as it seems- it didn't happen in England because of the Wars of the Roses though...not really down to Richard and Berengaria.
And even then it could easily not have happened.
Henry VIII had two younger brothers who dies as Infants. Had either of them lived and had a son, I can easily imagine Henry passing over his daughters in favour of their uncle and male cousin in which case England could well have the Salic Law to this day.
Though they both took the throne through their mother, not for.
Very true and there's never a guarantee such a figure could come about with those exact same circumstancesThey'd accept that, at a pinch. They'd also accept a husband ruling in right of his wife, if he was persona grata - as unfortunately Matilda's wasn't.
A Queen Regnant would be accepted if and only if no credible male candidate was available. It took Elizabeth Tudor to break that attitude.
Yeah but most dynasties that never had a queen regnant didn't grant any dynastic rights to women or only if all males in dynasty were extinct. My argument is it is almost inevitable slippery slope from recognizing that woman could pass dynastic rights to a woman ruling in her own right.Though they both took the throne through their mother, not for.
Very true would be fascinating to see such a thing potentially happeb in France as wellYeah but most dynasties that never had a queen regnant didn't grant any dynastic rights to women or only if all males in dynasty were extinct. My argument is it is almost inevitable slippery slope from recognizing that woman could pass dynastic rights to a woman ruling in her own right.
In countries following tanistry (Pictland was one), the succession went through females, but they never became queen regnant.My argument is it is almost inevitable slippery slope from recognizing that woman could pass dynastic rights to a woman ruling in her own right.
In countries following tanistry (Pictland was one), the succession went through females, but they never became queen regnant.
Yeah, but that is a quasi electoral, different set of rules, not one based on blood right alone, and I guess that far back also the kings will.
Hmm, isn't tanistry more a case of eldest member of those (descended from*) the Royal Dynasty?
* ie sons of "princesses" count but not daughters.
Very true would be fascinating to see such a thing potentially happeb in France as well