[Joona]

To those of you who are (authoritarian) monarchists:

Assume the monarch has multiple children. Should the firstborn child always be a default choice to succeed the monarch (as is traditionally the case)? Or should there be some system to pick the most suitable son (or daughter) to the position, by having some council or such making a choice between the monarch's multiple children when the time comes or something?

[One Degree]

All the children should play Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun. If no one survives, then you abolish the monarchy.

[SolarCross]

It is up to the monarch of course, but given human nature and game theory they will most likely always choose the eldest son. Once the eldest son in named heir in virtually every succession then it becomes obvious who the monarch would pick even if monarch never gets around to naming a specific heir and thus a tradition is born.

The reason why older heirs are chosen over younger heirs is because the older you get the wiser and more confident you get and thus the better ruler. Also older children are less likely to be cuckoos than younger children...

Males are chosen over females because a monarch is head of a military association essentially and war is a game for men.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Joona,

I am somewhere between an Anarcho-Capitalist and Anarcho-Monarchist and was at one time an Imperial Monarchist in the more Traditional Christian wing of the Alt. Right. That being said, I think the nature of monarchic succession is pretty straightforward so I found your inquiry quite odd. Indeed, I concur with what @SolarCross said above.

Likewise, Christianity taught that the eldest should receive a double-portion of the inheritance and should take over the family's "House" following the father. This was a Hebrew concept originally, stemming from the Law in Deuteronomy 21. It finally became vogue among European monarchs only after the Teutonic pagan practice of equally dividing an inheritance among all sons was found to be destructive to empire building as it had been to the Franks immediately following the death of Charlemagne.

Oddly enough, that stupid practice is still popular among many in the west even to this day (even my own parents in point of fact)

On a further note,

Monarchic succession follows a very familial, religious, and traditionalist conception of succession based on a hereditary right. What matters is the breeding, pedigree, and where one stands in the line of succession as far as nearest male relation to the King.

Authoritarian dictators and totalitarians are supposed to be different; wherein, the leader is the embodiment of the will of the people as a collective and not just a ruling family. In this system, after one "embodiment" of the people dies, the next one "worthy" of this position would assume this role. Typically dictators groom such individuals who are supposed to be qualified based on fitness or merit. A right based of superior ability not necessarily on hereditary birth.

However, as we have seen with cases like North Korea's "dictators", they end up following the same ideas of familial heredity as monarchy does.

Blood is thicker than water after all...

[Stormsmith]

In England, during the Anglo-Saxon years, was the closest to having a chosen successor would be the Saxon kings who could nominate candidates for consideration by the Witenagemot, or council to the monarch. Today, the crown passes to the oldest child, regardless of gender.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Today, the crown passes to the oldest child, regardless of gender.

HERESY!!!

[Stormsmith]

I would imagine most of the European monarchies will assume the British model as a number already have, and do it sooner rather then later, except the Papacy which for obvious reasons will continue by election.

[Missus V. Spolia.]

(even my own parents in point of fact)

Yes, quite annoying and it doesn't make much sense; especially with a farm.

Oh well. We'll figure it out.