Nowadays, the rules specifically select the sociopaths to put them in power.
When you put it like that, maybe divine right of kings had something going for it…
It’s not like every monarchy had succession automatically to the firstborn, plenty of rulers would name their heir. Also I’ve played enough Crusader Kings to know how to get rid of a low-stat child!
“I’m alright raising bastards as long as they’ve got good stats” - average CK enjoyer.
All my bastards have good stats, I never claim the others!
I legitimize all my bastards. It helps dilute the elector votes.
“What’s that out the window?” Push
“Good news Harold! Your older brother has decided to join the priesthood. Yes, it was of his own accord… well, maybe he needed a little convincing…”
“Sad news Harold! Your older brother was fatally wounded during a hunting trip. If only he had joined the monetary. Alas.”
“A hunting accident? In the New Forest? What a strange and unexpected occurrence!”
Dudes obviously magic tho, summoning a strong enough concentrated beam of light inside with a futuristic lens design of unknown origin for the time period!
It’s nothing fixed by a hunt in the woods
This may suck but at least you’re not a turk and have to do a battle Royale with your 15 other brothers for the throne once the dad dies.
Seems epic
Just kill the shitheads until a decent candidate is next in line. It’s not complicated.
Doesn’t the king make the rules though?
Not necessarily, since the magna carta
That’s part of the plot of Aladdin.
Spoilers!
was it really like that? does anybody have more knowledge in this field? or is this just a flawed prejudice?
Depends on where and when you are. Not every kingdom practiced primogeniture and several places and time periods had ways to remove people from the line of succession. Even when they didn’t have any of that, civil wars to put a more well-liked person on the throne were a thing. Cleopatra’s faction trying to crown her over her less competent brothers, for example.
That’s just accurate, now more than ever.
