Quote Originally Posted by Spendius
I don't agree with heir selection. There should be a defined rule: eldest son, if this one dies before having a heir, then is oldest brother takes over.
For specific cases (underage heir), being able to choose a regent, until the heir's majority, leading to possible civil wars for regency... Or bastard heirs appearing if a king has a mistress, leading to even more civil wars!
While I think people would generally agree with this statement for European (and other cultures possibly, but I'm not a historian there) cultures that the general concept of "eldest son" holds, I think you'll find in reading that it was hardly the hard and fast rule and certainly not universal.

There were many instances in the English successions, both pre- and post-norman where a son other than the eldest inherited, either due to preference, intrigue, or ability. Look at the Holy Roman Empire, while I am not well versed on it's history, iirc the "Emperor" was actually elected by the nobility, and the eldest sons did not always obtain the crown. I'm also positive that in Poland, the nobles elected a King from their ranks, and this king in effect had very little power and his sons most certainly did *not* inherit the throne. Also take for example the Mongols, which were a very strong meritocracy-based society. I'd look for someone who knows more about that such as Orda to give a better answer but I believe that on the ruling individual's death, the ruling class reconvened to elect a new ruler. I have zero knowledge of how the Islamic nations handled inheritance.

The bottom line is that while in general eldest son inherits is true, it was far and away not a hard and fast rule, with plenty of examples of where it did not hold true or was simply not the way the ruling body worked at the time.

Cheers!