Royalty Question

[Maieius]

I've tried to research this but there's nothing to be found. Even if it doesn't fit, I'm making up my own rules but I still want to know if anyone might have an answer for this. My character's a prince and heir to the throne and until he's of age, his older brother's declared king. His brother can't be king because he can't have children to continue the family. Now my question is, what would actually be the case if the heir couldn't continue the family line? I assume he might continue on as king anyway until he died or abdicated and his nephew/brother would take it.

A back-up question is could there be any other situation where the older brother would only temporarily be king?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

His brother can't be king because he can't have children to continue the family

Never heard of that as a reason. Normally he'd be King and an Uncle, Aunt, Cousin, Nephew or Niece would be heir apparent.
Normally if he died without issue, then if there had been no advance plan, there would be a scrabble.

An elder Brother, son of King is the heir and thus King. The only reason to be temporary King and still alive is abdication or a popular coup (William of Orange was technically an invader)
C.F. James II (William married his daughter Mary) and Edward VIII (abdication)

An elder brother might be regent if someone else was mysteriously the heir but too young.

 

[The Judge]

If we're talking the kind of monarchy that we have here in the UK, where the rules about the line of succession are fixed, then an heir's ability to have children is irrelevant -- we've had childless monarchs on a number of occasions eg William Rufus, Mary, Elizabeth, Edward VI, Charles II, WilliamandMary, Anne, William IV (though, of course, we know now they never had children, but that wasn't foreseen when they came to the throne). In this case, the heir inherits and remains on the throne until death or abdication, whereupon the next in line takes over ie sibling, niece/nephew, cousin, whatever.

At a time when it's important to have a strong monarch, so it's also important to have heirs of the body (ie sons, usually) and especially n the absence of codified rules about succession, then there might well be a bit of jostling for the throne, and the strongest person will win (eg all the Wars of the Roses stuff). Or if those being governed have a say in it and they don't like the look of the monarch's possible heirs, they might invite someone else to take the throne (eg James II being deposed as his son would be Catholic and W&M being brought over from the Ntherlands).

There's nothing to stop a king abdicating if he feels his heir would do a better job -- present day Netherlands springs to mind in this context.

NB In all the systems I know of, it's the elder/eldest son who will inherit before the younger one(s), though an older daughter may well be subordinate to a younger brother (so with us, Princess Anne ranks lower in the succession than Princes Andrew and Edward).

NB2 If an heir is too young to take the throne, usually a regent would be appointed to look after things during the heir's minority eg Edward VI. ie they wouldn't crown another monarch pro tem.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Well from history, Edward the Confessor famously managed to pretty much screw up (I'm sure that's the technical term) his succession. As he was the god appointed king, but as may have taken a vow of celibacy and therefore no children, I think it was down to him to promise the English throne to the next most suitable candidate - and he managed to get this all a bit muddled. In his case he ruled till he died - no intention of giving up the throne till then.

In terms of older brother only being a temporarily king - well the aristocracy did force the abdication of quite a few kings - Richard II was forced to abdicate and pass on his kingship because 'through his tyranny and misgovernment, (he) had rendered himself unworthy of being king'

 

[Ursa major]

It depends, to some extent, on why you don't want the older brother to be King. For example, are you trying to set up an interesting political/family dynamic? Do you want to make a statement about the position of those unable to have children in that society? That sort of thing. Once you're clear about that (mostly to yourself), it should be easier to construct a plausible reason for the way things are.

 

[Gonk the Insane]

For some general background you could try Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession

I'm only really familiar with the British Royal Family (no, not personally, I'm not on first name terms with the Duchess of Cambridge or anything), but usually the eldest child of the ruler (it used to be sons only but now it's regardless of the child's gender) will succeed the King/Queen. Even if that person can't have children of their own they would still be crowned (after all, many people think they can't have children for years and then get a surprise later). On their death, the next in line to the throne would succeed them (younger brother/sister usually if they didn't have their own children).

As The Judge And VB have said, Kings/Queens can abdicate in favour of another. Or a regent could be appointed until the rightful heir reaches an appropriate age.

I think what you might find tricky is if you use different rules to the ones commonly known - i.e. the eldest son doesn't inherit by default. If you make the rules known, of course, then it would be fine. But it might be easier if the older brother in your story abdicates? Or perhaps isn't an elder brother at all but a distant uncle who serves as regent? Just an idea, mind.

 

[Piousflea84]

Various aristocracies have established -tons- of different rules of succession throughout real-world history. They've also broken those rules repeatedly. In fiction, you could get away with writing just about anything, as long as it "sounds plausible" to the reader.

I agree with Ursa Major: you need to ask yourself what storytelling reasons you have for your fictional rules of primogeniture. It appears that you want to have the main character as the Rightful King, unfairly deprived of his throne by a Pretender. This is a common heroic trope as it allows for the "True King" to experience hardship and persecution before being restored to his rightful place. It's also incredibly common for the Pretender to acquire his power by serving as the Regent for an underage king. Most of the time, those Pretenders will try to kill the True King before he can come of age.

Why did you choose to make the Pretender an older brother? Is it so that you can have dysfunctional family dynamics? If that is the case, why do you choose to make the reason-for-illegitimacy all about infertility? Why is he infertile - was it by choice (a vow of chastity) or due to something shameful such as an "unclean pox" resembling leprosy or syphilis? Or something weirder, like a magical curse?

In both history and fiction, the idea of the Older Brother being ineligible for the throne is very rarely due to infertility. Most of the time an Older Brother is disqualified because he is somehow declared a "*******". In some cases he's an actual *******, with a low-born or illegitimate mother... in other cases he is retroactively declared a ******* when his mother loses favor with the King. In societies that allow divorce, this could mean that his mother is an ex-Queen, whereas the Legitimate Younger Brother is the son of the current Queen. Of course, this makes the two would-be Kings half-brothers and not full brothers.

 

[The Judge]

By the way, I'm not sure how true it is, and it won't help you here, but one twist on the elder son inheriting was the case of twins under the French monarchy (and presumably the rule held good for triplets etc should it have happened), where the first-born was not the heir apparent, and the crown would instead pass to the last born. Apparently, they worked on the basis of "First In, Last Out"!



EDIT: just to deal with one point Piousflea raises, in countries which allow divorce by a monarch, the ex-queen's children would usually (I'd say invariably, but my knowledge is restricted to Western monarchies) be regarded as legitimate and would therefore still be capable of inheriting. Retrospective illegitimacy would usually only occur if the marriage were annulled ie there's a legal declaration that in law it had never taken place at all eg Henry VIII and his first two wives (and nowadays even that would be unlikely to bastardise the children). In a fantasy world, though, you can obviously make the rules up yourself on that point.

 

[goldhawk]

Traditionally, the eldest brother became king and the rest were shipped of to priesthood: The Heir and the Spares. (That's why priests were celibate; so they wouldn't have any children to contest the line of succession.) Of course, if the king dies without issue, the next older brother would become king and his vows annulled.

Something to remember when reading The Three Musketeers. Cardinal Richelieu was the young king's uncle and would inherit the throne if the king died.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

That's why priests were celibate; so they wouldn't have any children to contest the line of succession.

Not the main reason, actually I never heard that reason. Nor did all brothers etc go into the Church. The main reason was as the Church acquired more land they didn't want children inheriting it. Up to 500AD or later celibacy was rare for nuns, monks, priests etc.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

in other cases he is retroactively declared a *******

Or even just making it up to get rid of an heir, or claiming the couple's marriage was faulty etc.

 

[The Judge]

Just had another thought reading VB's post. In some societies at some times it has been possible for a monarch to appoint his successor(s), either during his lifetime or under his will (which is what Edward VI tried, but it failed as the Devise wasn't accepted by enough people). So if you don't want to worry about inventing rules on the question of infertility or whatever for rigid inheritance laws, you could simply have their father deciding the issue by leaving the throne to the younger boy.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I'll have to echo the others. The usual system of inheritance is called primogeniture - or the eldest gets it all. So my question would be why doesn't the eldest brother rightfully inherit? He is the first born of the siblings I suppose. Being infertile raises questions to me. First how does anyone know he's infertile? Unless of course it's due to some obvious condition. To paraphrase the Naked Gun - he had his balls bitten off by a doberman? I can't imagine that if this is a medieval epic fantasy they'd be doing fertility tests. Second where's the conflict? The elder brother would presumably carry on as king until he died - I assume childless - at which point the younger brother would fairly much be the heir anyway and take over. This is why the heir and the spare rule of thumb exists. One to inherit. A spare to take his place should the eldest die etc. And of course third sons etc were useless - and usually got chucked in the military or the priesthood. Great fodder there for a character by the way - I speak from experience.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Maieius]

It's not political; the infertility is an important factor. The family mustn't die out to maintain a magical protection in the country which was built by the first king - if the blood dies, the magic does. But because of this, the family musn't spread into cousins as it makes the family a lot more vulnerable and less manageable to protect. As Piousflea guessed, it's a sort of curse in the family that only one child can be fertile. Usually, this would be the first child but every now and then, the family might have to have more than one child. This setup is also the downfall of the family.

I think I should point out that this isn't the main conflict of the story. The aim of the enemy isn't to get the throne. The older brother will get killed off eventually as well but it would just be too easy to ignore everything else because of that - after all, he and nobody else has any clue he'll die. He's not a bad guy and actually does a very brave and sacrificial thing for his family. Also, a lot of what makes my main character who he is is the pressure of becoming king and his responsibilty as the only fertile child, otherwise he wouldn't have as much to care about and the changes he encounters in the story would be much less significant.

I've been leaning more to the brother abdicating due to his infertility, I like his potential as a character this way. This is very new to the story and changes it all slightly, trying to figure out his character as he's also very new. It was originally his father but I've reconsidered a few things. But I couldn't find very much on the subject to make me think more about it and consider everything.

Thanks so much guys for all your input, it's very helpful.

Something to remember when reading The Three Musketeers. Cardinal Richelieu was the young king's uncle and would inherit the throne if the king died.

This possibly changes things. It's made me think more and now I think I need a lie down.

Being infertile raises questions to me. First how does anyone know he's infertile? Unless of course it's due to some obvious condition. To paraphrase the Naked Gun - he had his balls bitten off by a doberman? I can't imagine that if this is a medieval epic fantasy they'd be doing fertility tests.

There is a way of knowing, though I'm still working it out, going along the lines similar to how using rabbits can determine pregnancy with a bit of magical methods mixed in. And it's not medieval, but closer to the beginning of the industrial revolution.

 

[Overread]

I think the most important thing is to realise that succession has a few ground rules:

1) It varies from nation to nation and period to period and often as not a very powerful or influential individual will change the rules - or try to. So as such there are not overall absolute rules without context.

2) It nearly always attempts to be a form of consolidation and retention of power within a family or political grouping. So the rules that evolve to define it are generally based upon protection of the status quo and the group(s) in power. Of course this also hinges upon the nature of the power system in play; strict monarchy where the King/Queen rules absolute all the way to what the UK has today where you've almost a puppet monarch and a government doing the running of things.
Ontop of that you've got the perceived and real - ergo there might be a set of rules which outline how it all works but it might not lead to the power being where you'd think it should be (ergo the rules might be setup to retain power in the single monarch, who might in reality be more ruled by the government than independent).



For your story it sounds more like the older brother is only holding the thrown and might even not hold the throne itself, but is more acting its guardian whilst waiting for the younger brother to come of age. Of course he can still do this whilst having the throne seat itself as well.
Key for you is establishing how smooth and formal the situation is; ergo is the older brother ruler in name only or is he REALLY running the show fully. Then you've got how viable it would be for power-groups to start courting the brothers and playing them off against each other; then you've got their own relationship to each other and to their newpositions in the world - how it affects them and how likely they would be (if left alone) to swap over when the time comes.

Another thought is how long the older brother knew this would happen this way; however long can affect how likely the older brother is to hand things over; depending upon his personal character of course.