Macbeth was the rightful king who defeated the usurper Duncan in battle?

[awkward customer]

According to the laws of Celtic succession, known as 'Tanistry', Macbeth had a rightful claim to the throne.

tanistry, a custom among various Celtic tribes—notably in Scotland and Ireland—by which the king or chief of the clan was elected by family heads in full assembly. He held office for life and was required by custom to be of full age, in possession of all his faculties, and without any remarkable blemish of mind or body. At the same time and subject to the same conditions, a tanist, or next heir to the chieftaincy, was elected, who, if the king died or became disqualified, at once became king. Sometimes the king's son became tanist, but not because the system of primogeniture was in any way recognized. Indeed, the only principle adopted was that the dignity of chieftainship should descend to the eldest and most worthy of the same blood, who well could be a brother, nephew, or cousin. This system of succession left the headship open to the ambitious and was a frequent source of strife both within families and between clans. Tanistry in Scotland was formally abolished in the early 17th century during the reign of James VI of Scotland (James I of England) and the English system of primogeniture was substituted.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/tanistry

I'd never heard of Tanistry.  It sounds like a good idea ....

[Justin Martyr]

Ah Tanistry. Anyone who's ever played a Celtic nation in Crusader Kings II is familiar with it

In my experience, though it sounds great, in practice it leads to more wars over sucession and more mediocre middle aged rulers rather than well groomed, young, and vigorous rulers like you can get via Primogeniture. Frankly Agnatic Primogeniture is the most practical and natural system of sucession for a monarchy.

[awkward customer]

Ah Tanistry. Anyone who's ever played a Celtic nation in Crusader Kings II is familiar with it

In my experience, though it sounds great, in practice it leads to more wars over sucession and more mediocre middle aged rulers rather than well groomed, young, and vigorous rulers Luke you can get via Primogeniture. Frankly Agnatic Primogeniture is the most practical and natural system of sucession for a monarchy.

But Primogeniture also produces really useless kings.  Maybe mediocre, middle of the road kings allow things to tick over nicely and quietly.  Useless kings cause huge damage.

Besides, as the story of Macbeth demonstrates, fiction can be more powerful than the truth, especially when a great playwright is involved.

[mikemac]

According to the laws of Celtic succession, known as 'Tanistry', Macbeth had a rightful claim to the throne.

tanistry, a custom among various Celtic tribes—notably in Scotland and Ireland—by which the king or chief of the clan was elected by family heads in full assembly. He held office for life and was required by custom to be of full age, in possession of all his faculties, and without any remarkable blemish of mind or body. At the same time and subject to the same conditions, a tanist, or next heir to the chieftaincy, was elected, who, if the king died or became disqualified, at once became king. Sometimes the king's son became tanist, but not because the system of primogeniture was in any way recognized. Indeed, the only principle adopted was that the dignity of chieftainship should descend to the eldest and most worthy of the same blood, who well could be a brother, nephew, or cousin. This system of succession left the headship open to the ambitious and was a frequent source of strife both within families and between clans. Tanistry in Scotland was formally abolished in the early 17th century during the reign of James VI of Scotland (James I of England) and the English system of primogeniture was substituted.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/tanistry

I'd never heard of Tanistry.  It sounds like a good idea ....

Actually Tanistry was practiced by Highland Clans into the 18th century up to the Battle of Culloden on April 16, 1746, after which highland culture was destroyed.

[mikemac]

Ah Tanistry. Anyone who's ever played a Celtic nation in Crusader Kings II is familiar with it

In my experience, though it sounds great, in practice it leads to more wars over sucession and more mediocre middle aged rulers rather than well groomed, young, and vigorous rulers Luke you can get via Primogeniture. Frankly Agnatic Primogeniture is the most practical and natural system of sucession for a monarchy.

But Primogeniture also produces really useless kings.  Maybe mediocre, middle of the road kings allow things to tick over nicely and quietly.  Useless kings cause huge damage.

Besides, as the story of Macbeth demonstrates, fiction can be more powerful than the truth, especially when a great playwright is involved.

Yes, with Tanistry the King or chief could be replaced if he wasn't doing a good job for his people.  A clear example of this is when Tanistry was replaced with Primogeniture the Highland Clearances happened, which basically depopulated large parts of the Highlands to make way for sheep walks. 

[Justin Martyr]

Ah Tanistry. Anyone who's ever played a Celtic nation in Crusader Kings II is familiar with it

In my experience, though it sounds great, in practice it leads to more wars over sucession and more mediocre middle aged rulers rather than well groomed, young, and vigorous rulers Luke you can get via Primogeniture. Frankly Agnatic Primogeniture is the most practical and natural system of sucession for a monarchy.

But Primogeniture also produces really useless kings.  Maybe mediocre, middle of the road kings allow things to tick over nicely and quietly.  Useless kings cause huge damage.

Besides, as the story of Macbeth demonstrates, fiction can be more powerful than the truth, especially when a great playwright is involved.

Right, but with Primogeniture you also know well in advance who the heir is, and can groom them to be an excellent ruler accordingly. Kings don't descend from the heavens: they are shaped and molded by their predecessor.

[GMC]

Elective monarchies and tribal variants like that are usually very unstable and the source of all kinds of conflicts and civil wars. Primogeniture gives stability and avoids it.

Primogeniture allows the ruler to be formed from an early age, as has already been said. And if the King is literally mentally handicapped, this is greatly mitigated by a functional burocracy, where technocrats (in the sense of experts in their field, call them advisors if you prefer) can call the shots in the absence of a qualified King.

[Maximilian]

Recently I read a great essay by Dio Chrysostom where he demonstrates convincingly that the Trojans won the Trojan War, not the Greeks. Once you read the evidence he collected, primarily from Homer himself, you can't see it any other way.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/11*.html

[awkward customer]

The demands of the primogeniture system caused Henry VIII to divorce his first wife, execute his second wife, and so on .....

And we all know what a disaster that led to.

Is it possible that primogeniture was one of the causes of the Reformation in England?

No doubt Henry VIII was formed from an early age ...

[awkward customer]

Yes, with Tanistry the King or chief could be replaced if he wasn't doing a good job for his people.  A clear example of this is when Tanistry was replaced with Primogeniture the Highland Clearances happened, which basically depopulated large parts of the Highlands to make way for sheep walks.

I once visited the site where the Lords of the Isles used to meet every year on the island of Islay.  These were the clan chiefs and they met to iron out difficulties and maintain peace and cooperation between them.  It was an amazing place of marshy land connected by causeways with views to the bay where the Lords of the Isles would arrive by boat.

The whole clan system was quite fascinating, I think.  Some clans were more powerful than others and some families didn't even have a clan.  But you could apply to join a clan, providing you were prepared to show absolute loyalty to your clan and fight for it if necessary.  I've heard that perhaps 25 per cent of clan members had been 'adopted' in that way.  And of course, if you wanted nothing to do with the system, you could always move to Edinburgh and beyond.

There are always going to be conflicts in any sphere of human life.  How sad that this way of life was destroyed - deliberately. 

[awkward customer]

Recently I read a great essay by Dio Chrysostom where he demonstrates convincingly that the Trojans won the Trojan War, not the Greeks. Once you read the evidence he collected, primarily from Homer himself, you can't see it any other way.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/11*.html

I wouldn't mind hearing more about this.

I think I'll start a new thread on new evidence which suggests that far from resisting the Roman invasion of Britain, some of the tribes actually welcomed them in.

Archaeological evidence shows widescale trading between between Rome and the various tribes long before the invasion.

History, like 'the science' keeps changing as new discoveries are made.

[Justin Martyr]

The demands of the primogeniture system caused Henry VIII to divorce his first wife, execute his second wife, and so on .....

And we all know what a disaster that led to.

Is it possible that primogeniture was one of the causes of the Reformation in England?

No doubt Henry VIII was formed from an early age ...

Henry VIII was, in fact, quite the capable, competent, and faithful monarch in his younger years.

It's a simplification to say he was obsessed with procuring an heir; the initial cause of schism was that he personally believed, based on his private interpretation of scripture, that his marriage with Catherine was illegitimate since she was his brother's wife. Her (relative) barrenness was, he believed, God's way of punishing him for marrying his brothers wife and contracting an illegitimate marriage. Only after he failed to obtain an annulment and went into schism did he become obsessed with procuring a male heir for the sake of itself, and by that point his intellect was darkened.

Mind you, England used Agnatic-Cognatic primogeniture, so he already had an heir; namely his daughter Mary he had with Catherine of Aragon. And he did eventually procure a male heir with his third "wife", Jane Seymour. That did not stop him from disposing of her and marrying thrice more.

Ultimately, the example of Henry VIII is a cautionary tale about the dangers of private judgement, scrupulosity, the effects of schism, and lust. It was not the system of primogeniture which compelled him to do what he did.

[awkward customer]

Henry VIII was, in fact, quite the capable, competent, and faithful monarch in his younger years.

It's a simplification to say he was obsessed with procuring an heir; the initial cause of schism was that he personally believed, based on his private interpretation of scripture, that his marriage with Catherine was illegitimate since she was his brother's wife. Her (relative) barrenness was, he believed, God's way of punishing him for marrying his brothers wife and contracting an illegitimate marriage. Only after he failed to obtain an annulment and went into schism did he became obsessed with procuring a male heir for the sake of itself, and by that point his intellect was darkened.

Mind you, England used Agnatic-Cognatic primogeniture, so he already had an heir; namely his daughter Mary he had with Catherine of Aragon. And he did eventually procure a male heir with his third "wife", Jane Seymour. That did not stop him from disposing of her and marrying thrice more.

Ultimately, the example of Henry VIII is a cautionary tale about the dangers of private judgement, scrupulosity, the effects of schism, and lust. It was not the system of primogeniture which compelled him to do what he did.

Okay, fair enough.  Perhaps I was being a bit too simplistic. 

I've never heard anyone state the above bolded part before, ever.  I take it that Agnatic-Cognatic primogeniture allows the crown to pass to daughters as well as sons, whereas Agnatic primogeniture restricts it to the male line. 

One male heir is a bit risky though, especially in those days.  You really need an heir and a spare, or two. 

[Justin Martyr]

Henry VIII was, in fact, quite the capable, competent, and faithful monarch in his younger years.

It's a simplification to say he was obsessed with procuring an heir; the initial cause of schism was that he personally believed, based on his private interpretation of scripture, that his marriage with Catherine was illegitimate since she was his brother's wife. Her (relative) barrenness was, he believed, God's way of punishing him for marrying his brothers wife and contracting an illegitimate marriage. Only after he failed to obtain an annulment and went into schism did he became obsessed with procuring a male heir for the sake of itself, and by that point his intellect was darkened.

Mind you, England used Agnatic-Cognatic primogeniture, so he already had an heir; namely his daughter Mary he had with Catherine of Aragon. And he did eventually procure a male heir with his third "wife", Jane Seymour. That did not stop him from disposing of her and marrying thrice more.

Ultimately, the example of Henry VIII is a cautionary tale about the dangers of private judgement, scrupulosity, the effects of schism, and lust. It was not the system of primogeniture which compelled him to do what he did.

Okay, fair enough.  Perhaps I was being a bit too simplistic. 

I've never heard anyone state the above bolded part before, ever.  I take it that Agnatic-Cognatic primogeniture allows the crown to pass to daughters as well as sons, whereas Agnatic primogeniture restricts it to the male line. 

One male heir is a bit risky though, especially in those days.  You really need an heir and a spare, or two.

Yes; Agnatic is male only, Agnatic-Cognatic is females inherit if there are no male heirs.

One always needs an heir and a spare

[GMC]

The Visigoths, when they conquered Hispania, implemented the traditional elective monarchy of the Germanic tribes, the problem with this model is that it had continuous succession disputes. There were some attempts to implement the Roman politic system but they failed.

When the Moors invaded the peninsula in the year 711, they were in one of those dynastic disputes, between those who supported King Rodrigo and the supporters of Witiza.

Well, the witizans had no better idea than to ally with the Moors and betray Rodrigo, with the result of the conquest of almost the entire Peninsula and 8 centuries to reconquest it completely.