Did the most thrones of the monarchs in the old times basically pass from fathers to sons?
- bluebellbkkLv 79 months agoFavourite answer
Generally speaking, yes. Of course there have been lots of exceptions.
- WOOWHOLv 79 months ago
Did most thrones of Monarchs in the "OLD TIMES " ...... ?
i suspect the question is IN HISTORY
were and are the majority of cultures with systems of monarchies
PATRIARCHAL ..... YES with some exceptions
were there any MATRIARCHAL cultures
a SOCIAL system were females ( collectively ) hold the PRIMARY positions of power political moral AUTHORITY and social PRIVILEGED
most ANTHROPOLOGIST hold there were NO KNOWN anthropological societies that were UNAMBIGUOUSLY MATRIARCHAL
we do see in SOCIETY cultures where WOMEN a FEMALE is the HEAD of a HOUSEHOLD which is called MATRICENTIC
then again last i checked a Female sits on the Throne of England
then there was CLEOPATRA and Hatsheput
there were 7 Female leaders of egypt
research as to WHY Cultures tend to be PATRIARCHAL and also why most THEISTIC religions have as their DEITIES gods to be predominately associated as MALE
is NARCISSISM or ARROGANCE ( an exaggerated sense of SELF importance ) primarily a male characteristic ]]
then again the Structure of a MONARCHY in many societies the PERSON placed on the throne did not have much say it was forced upon them .
. and a Female could be KILLED for not producing a SON .
. we also get RELIGION and politics as BED FELLOWS
claiming KINGS are "ORDAINED " by God the right to RULE
and the Gods are usually portrayed as males
- LudwigLv 69 months ago
"In the Old Times" What Country and What Period?
- Anonymous9 months ago
That's the theory. Monarchy is supposed to be stable in that succession is easily determined.
But history shows that it doesn't always work that way. William the Conqueror began the current English monarchy in 1066. When he died the throne passed to his son William II. But when William died without children his brother Henry I seized the throne. When Henry I's eldest son William of Adelin died, he arranged for the throne to pass to his daughter Matilda. But instead, her cousin Stephen launched a civil war against her. Stephen became King, but when he died, the throne passed to Matilda's son Henry II as part of an agreement which had ended the fighting. Henry's son Richard I inherited the throne next, but when Richard died it went to his brother John.
Thus, in the first 100+ years of the English monarchy, the throne only actually passed from father to son twice. After John's son Henry III inherited th throne it passed into a long period of succession from father to son. But beginning in the 14th century there was a dirsuption as Edward III passed the throne on to his grandson Richard II, who was in turn overthrown by his cousin Henry IV. Henry's son and then grandson inherited the throne, but Henry VI saw a civil war against his rule as the York family sought to unseat him. He was unseated by Edward IV, briefly regained the throne, then was unseated again. When Henry died, his son Edward V inherited the throne but was unseated by his uncle Richard III. Richard in turn was deposed by Henry VII, a distant relation. Henry's son, Henry VIII succeeded him and ruled a long time, but when he died he was succeeded by his son Edward VI, but when Edward quickly died he was succeeded by his cousin Lady Jane Grey then by his older sister Mary. Mary was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth. Elizabeth was succeeded by her grand nephew King James VI of Scotland who became James I of England. James' son Charles I succeeded him but ws deposed in favor of a republic. When the monarchy was restored Charles son Charles II became King but when Charles died his brother James II inherited it. James, in turn, was deposed by his daughter Mary II and her husband William of Orange. Mary's sister, Anne, inherited the throne after them and when she died the throne went to George of Hanover, a German noble who was a distant descendent of the British monarchs.
What you can see from this long litany is that the simple theory of monarchy, where thrones stably pass from father to son, is anything but simple and stable in practice. In the first 600 years of its existence, England saw three major civil wars over the succession, at least two instances of Kings being deposed without major bloodshed, and a number of other cases where they had to go pretty far afield to find the next royal heir, including to foreign countries like Scotland and Germany.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- John PLv 79 months ago
Possibly "most" but certainly not all. For instance, in Anglo-Saxon times in England the king was often chosen (elected, you might say, though the process was not as formal as an election) from a group of leaders.
And, of course, William the Conqueror had to invade England to claim the throne to which he had a reasonable claim. There were also reasonable claims from other relatives to whom the throne had also been promised, so William had to fight Harold - William won and changed British history and culture for many centuries.
In 1685 Britain wanted to get rid of unloved King James 2nd, so William of Orange (married to James' sister Mary) was invited in by a group of English leaders, and, after scarcely a battle, William was proclaimed joint monarch along with his wife Mary, the only time there has been a joint husband/wife team on the throne of Britain.
And do not forget that there were three queens on the throne of England after Henry 8th died. Two of them were indeed daughters of Henry 8th. (Thus not "father to son"!)
Across the world there have been other instances of monarchy passing not in a direct line from father to son.
- Anonymous9 months ago
In peace times, yes.
- PAMELALv 79 months ago
Not always,sometimes they were fought for.
- PhilLv 69 months ago
Eldest sons. yes.
- mokrieLv 79 months ago
- Rick BLv 79 months ago
Yes, and they still do.