Agnatic seniority

In hereditary monarchies, particularly in more ancient or in more underdeveloped times, seniority was a much used principle of order of succession. Agnatic Succession means basically the complete exclusion of females of the dynasty and their descendants from the succession. Its one form is agnatic seniority or patrilineal seniority, under which succession to the throne passes to the monarch's next eldest brother (even if the monarch has own children, sons), and only to the monarch's children (to the next generation) after males of the elder generation have all exhausted.

This rule of succession correlates closely with an idea of genealogical proximity with the "original" monarch.

Succession from a brother to another brother (or otherwise within the same generation) was of necessity very useful and applied in centuries when the average lifespan even in wealthier classes (particularly in families enjoying monarch-level income) was so short that even the eldest children of a parent were not yet adults at the time of the death of the parent. This was usual when living conditions, sustenance and food were poorer, leading to early health problems, and/or when monarchs themselves participated personally much in violent activities such as warring, marauding, expeditions and duels. When the average lifespan got sufficiently increased, primogeniture began to dominate as order of succession. Primogeniture is the practical opposite of seniority, within succession principles – younger brothers are left out in favor of the first-born and the heirs of that one.

See also other succession systems such as degree of proximity, tanistry, rotation and elective monarchy

In succession based on rotation (close to seniority), all (male) members of the dynasty were entitled to the monarchy, in principle. It tends to lead to situations where there is no clear rule to solve who is the next monarch. Brothers succeeding each other as a system lead soon, particularly in next generation(s), to complex patterns and also easily to disputes between branches which had thus formed inside the monarchical House. Monarchs had collateral relatives, some of which were rather distant cousins, who however were as entitled to succeed as the monarch himself. Either one branch obtained sufficient control over others (often by means of war), or the rival branches arrived in some sort of balance (such as the succession becoming rotative), or the inheritance was somehow partitioned.

Rather often, succession based on agnatic seniority or rotation, was attempted to limit to those princes who were sons of an earlier reigning monarch. (Son of a king had higher claim than a son of a prince. In some cases, even that had importance whether the claimant was born to monarch who reigned at the time of birth, or at a time when the father was not the monarch – porphyrogeniture.)

This limit was practical, as otherwise the number of rivals would be overwhelming. However, it usually left more than one rivals who too often waged civil war against each other. In some cases, the eligible branches of dynasty went extinct in male line, at which situation the limit was problematic. Sons of princes who did not live long enough to succeed, were of course unsatisfied with such limits. And it lead to interpretation problems: what if a claimant's father was a rightful monarch, but not recognized by everyone. The cases were further complicated by co-reigning monarchs, whic in cases was a practical solution to controversial succession.

Succession within one family based on seniority was often a form to control an elective Monarchy. At least those two forms of monarchy (agnatic seniority and elective monarchy) were mostly used in same centuries. Most kingdoms were officially elective long into the historical times (though the election usually, or always, fell to family of the deceased monarch).

Preference for males, existing in most systems of hereditary succession comes mostly from the perceived nature of the tasks and role of the monarch: A monarch most usually was, firstly and foremostly, a military protector.

• Tribal chiefs, proto-monarchs, themselves were required to participate, personally, in violent activities such as warring, marauding, robber expeditions and duels.
• His income was very dependent on protection money collected from those people he was in office of protecting against wars, violence, crimes, other injustices (already in those times, this sort of protection money, more or less extorted from people by use or threat of the violent powers of the protector himself, was labelled by the less-infuriating terms "tax" and "duty", and as we all know, those forms of revenue-collecting have continued into our less-monarchical governments, too).
• It was very useful, or even requisite, that the monarch be a warrior, and a commander of military. And, also, war troops (consisting typically only of males) were perceived to approve only males as their commanders, or even warriors.
• Additionally, in some monarchies (such as France), the monarch held a certain mystical position, some task best described as priestly position (high priest or demigod). That sort of position was, depending on the tradition in question, often denied of females. In the French monarchy, one of the official explanations for the Salic Law was that the monarch was obliged to use certain sacred instruments, which females are forbidden even to touch.

In later Middle Ages, violence decreased, at least touching lords and their heirs, who slowly decreased their personal participation in violent activities such as warring, marauding, robber expeditions and duels. Sons were much more likely to survive longer than in previous centuries, when almost any noble family lost sons in their teens to constant warfare. Also, living conditions, food and overall health of higher classes (such as high nobility) improved, leading to fewer miscarriages, deaths of babies, and deaths young, as well as lead to higher fertility. The number of sons reaching adulthood and marriage, as well as the average lifespan, increased. Thus, daughters were needed only increasingly rarely to carry on inheritance. In earlier centuries, perhaps in every second or every third generation in average, male line became extinct and females were needed so that the fief will not become extinct. In medieval culture, male lines tended become extinct relatively soon (males engaged much in dangerous warfare, and private wars were common), thus fully agnatic primogeniture (so-called Salic Law) would have been impractical (impossible) to maintain (almost every generation, an exception must have been made or the succession went to relatively distant male, such as second cousin).

Slowly in Middle Ages, Europe became more and more congested. There were no more land available. And societies became more fixed, stable and migration grew rarer. Lands were strictly divided among noble families and tended to remain fixed. This scarcity lead to reinvigorate the ancient tradition of clannishness within agnate heirs. In earlier medieval society, lordships and properties were not as fixed as in, say, 1400–1900. Feudal lords as individuals often made their own position, or it was inherited from not very ancient ancestor. Therefore, a very distant male was not regarded as justified to inherit instead of close female who descended from more several of those individuals who had created the inheritance. During say 1400–1900, scarcity of free lands had lead to situation where landed properties were inherited rather untouched from ancestors centuries ago. Descendants of male line of those ancient ancestors were more often regarded fully justified to receive the forefathers' inheritance, over females who would have brought it to an alien family (husbands controlled properties of their wives). Therefore increasingly, succession preferably going to the eldest son of the monarch, if the monarch however had no sons, the throne would pass to the nearest male relative through male line. Salic Law and operation of totally agnatic succession became thus much more common during those centuries, when lands were strictly divided among noble families and tended to remain fixed. Certain 'xenophobia' also lead to try to exclude those as heirs who have gone or may go to "another clan" – which easily meant exclusion of females from scarce inheritance.

The fully agnatic succession usually was not in interests of individual lords who favored usually and quite naturally close female relatives over very distant males. In earlier medieval times, male lines tended become extinct relatively soon.

In very many cultures, surnames have been most usually agnatically determined. This has been true in many oriental civilizations as well as in Europe – two regions which earlier had almost no interaction. Sort of an outcome of the usualness of clan membership to be determined typically based on agnatic kinship.

Basically, we can imagine a system of cognatic seniority, allowing female siblings to succeed their siblings as monarchs. However, no known monarchy has consistently used such order of succession. Perhaps the reason has been that seniority has been used in such centuries and in such societal situations that females were regarded as too lowly or otherwise impossible.

Agnatic seniority has been used in several historical monarchies, for example in Russia during the Rurikid Dynasty. Nowadays, it is used at least in the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. In the succession of Emperor of Ethiopia, limitation to agnates controlled until very recent times. Particularly (according to research made by historian Taddesse Tamrat) during Zagwe dynasty, the order of succession was that of brother succeeding brother as King of Ethiopia (i.e, the same as agnatic seniority), which apparently was based on Agew laws of inheritance. However, later, the agnatic primogeniture became to dominate, although succession to the throne at the death of the monarch could be claimed by any male blood relative of the Emperor: sons, brothers, uncles or cousins. Namely, to avoid instability and warring, as well as to ensure the desires of the predecessor to dominate the succession, an Emperor typically took care to designate his desired heir, and to strengthen his position againsta rivals, as well as a tradition developed to intern all of the possible rivals in a secure location, which drastically limited their ability to disrupt the Empire with revolts, or to dispute the succession of an heir apparent; the second was with increasingly frequency Emperors were selected by a council of the senior officials of the realm, both secular and religious. The Ethiopian example is particularly good to show in practical terms to which sorts of instability the seniority succession often leads.