[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.

[Hellas me ponas]

Well, it's pretty simple. The king is a king, meaning he can do whatever he want. It's his choice who will be his successor. He/she will pick the one who they think is the most suitable.
This thread shouldn't even exist, the answer is too obvious lol

[Unthinking Majority]

You cut the head off the Monarch and exile the children (after sterilizing them), then the people take over.

I kid, i kid.

[Hellas me ponas]

You cut the head off the Monarch and exile the children (after sterilizing them), then the people take over.

I kid, i kid.

Yeah and then put the corrupted businessman to rule over you.

At least the monarch had some experience on how to rule a nation, he was training his whole life for this and he spent his whole life doing only this.
The businessman first of all probably cares less for his people than the monarch and second has no experience or true understanding of world diplomacy and politics. 4 years ain't enough

[Unthinking Majority]

Yeah and then put the corrupted businessman to rule over you.

At least the monarch had some experience on how to rule a nation, he was training his whole life for this and he spent his whole life doing only this.
The businessman first of all probably cares less for his people than the monarch and second has no experience or true understanding of world diplomacy and politics. 4 years ain't enough

Yes no corruption ever in a monarchy No monarch has ever been paid off by the rich aristocrats to do their bidding. Money is power. At least in a democracy you can create laws, but you actually have to have voters that don't put up with a bought system is

[Rich]

I'm generally very supportive towards monarchy, however there are two conditions that are absolutely non-negotiable. One I must be the monarch and two I don't have to waste my time in silly ceremonies. One of my favourite monarchs is Joseph Stalin. When he was born, even when he was a young man his chances of becoming Tsar looked very poor. Rather than sitting around bitching about how monarchy is unfair, he got off his butt, bent the succession line a little bit and became, as he told his mother, a sort of a Tsar.

The fundamental flaw of Conservatism is to imagine some stable system in the past. The Conservative pines for a past, for an order that never was.

[Hellas me ponas]

Yes no corruption ever in a monarchy No monarch has ever been paid off by the rich aristocrats to do their bidding. Money is power. At least in a democracy you can create laws, but you actually have to have voters that don't put up with a bought system is

I didn't say monarchies can't be corrupted.
On the contrary, most monarchies nowadays are corrupted af (look at Saudi Arabia).

My problem with the current state of matters, is that we don't have real democracy, its just an illusion of democracy.
And at least during monarchy you don't live inside a lie, it's straight up who is ruling and who is tlakigg the decisions. And a guy who has literally everything can be more difficult to control by the grand companies, than a small commoner who arose to power by luck and lies. And that's the only reason democracies prevailed everywhere.
90%of the world has "democracy ", of which, only 5% have real democracy (and even that is bargainable)

[Hellas me ponas]

Again, I prefer to live under a monarchy whose people live enlightened, than a "democracy" whose people live in the dark.

And nowadays most people in the west world live in the dark

[Skynet]

Taking simply the oldest sun does the dynasty not long last.

A Roman saying: the first king is a genius, his son averrage, the grandson an idiot.

Best form of succession is the father choses one of his sons like in North-Korea, a communist absolute monarchy.

In the arab world the monarchy is much more stable then dictatorship

As Europe was lead by monarchy it was the master of the planet.

[late]

Taking simply the oldest sun does the dynasty not long last.

A Roman saying: the first king is a genius, his son averrage, the grandson an idiot.

Best form of succession is the father choses one of his sons like in North-Korea, a communist absolute monarchy.

In the arab world the monarchy is much more stable then dictatorship

As Europe was lead by monarchy it was the master of the planet.

North Korea is a failure.

If you look at the history of rule by European royalty, it's a history of war and failure punctuated by a few success stories. Even there, was the Sun King a success? Ask Louis the 16th..

It's like what Churchill said, democracy sucks, just nowhere near as bad as the alternatives.

We need something better, but that ain't it.

[Skynet]

We need something better, but that ain't it.

North-Korea is a failure due to communism, and sanctions.

A conservative democracy can work like in South-Korea where the LGBTQ-gender crazyness does not rule.

The West has abandoned it's succes formula in Europe women Quota in US black quota but not the best gets the job.

The West is too decadent it will lose to China , then we will see like in Rome a change towards imperial system.

[Skynet]

North Korea is a failure.

If you look at the history of rule by European royalty, it's a history of war and failure punctuated by a few success stories. Even there, was the Sun King a success? Ask Louis the 16th..

It's like what Churchill said, democracy sucks, just nowhere near as bad as the alternatives.

We need something better, but that ain't it.

You are right... but what is with constitutional monarchy like Great Britain???

The discussion in this forum changed my ideology from autoritarian to democracy.

[Potemkin]

You are right... but what is with constitutional monarchy like Great Britain???

That only works in a nation with a particular history and a particular culture. Britain, for example, went through multiple revolutions and civil wars in the 17th century, which killed a larger proportion of the population than both World Wars combined. At the time, the other European powers looked on in astonishment at the chaos and carnage going on in Britain, but by the time the dust settled in 1688, we had a political system - constitutional monarchy - which we could live with, and which wouldn’t stand in the way of the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie in later centuries. Then, in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was the turn of the other European powers to be wracked by revolution and civil wars, while we looked on in astonishment…. Lol.

The discussion in this forum changed my ideology from autoritarian to democracy.

Interesting. May I ask what changed your mind?