a word from our sponsors
See the new shakespeare.com. This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 3.15.97: Top | Help
The "election" of kings was nothing like the elections we have today. There
was no official "call" made at which people could cast nominations and votes.
Instead, the king was chosen by and from a group of powerful noblemen and
courtiers. The choice made had to be a person popular with the commoners as
well, but ultimately the common man had very little say in the matter; at least
not in the same way that people have say in their choice of leaders today. They
could revolt, of course, if they didn't like a king. (Which is why when Laertes
returns with the mob yelling "Laertes will be king", this should be read as a
real threat to Claudius.) Now often times, a king would "recommend" a successor
as Claudius does with Hamlet; and often times this successor is a son or other
close relative, but the assembly of nobles could easily choose someone else once
the king had bought the farm.As for "Hamlet's" mention of Denmark as having a matrilinear monarchy, I've never
heard that before, but it's entirely possible: after all, in the traditional Nor-
dic societies women could hold great power. However it seems inconsistant with
what we know of the passage of wealth in the society, which saw weapons, ships,
livestock, and treasure being handed down from father to eldest son (here I cite
Kevin Crossley-Holland in his introductory piece to "The Norse Myths"). When monarchs
were no longer elected, they became patrilinear. A stage of matrilinear monarchy
in the middle of this sounds kind of like a rogue card (but, again, is not an impos-
sibility).Posted by LunarCaustic on March 29, 1997 at 12:54:42
In Reply to "Rightful King" posted by Lillith on March 29, 1997 at 07:32:40
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 3.15.97: Top | Help