Isekai Drug ~Yakugaku Chishiki de Monster Musume-tachi wo Toriko ni shite Nariagaru~ - Vol. 3 Ch. 21

[Kreate]

having multiple mother is the actual problem, not the actual predetermined heir. because the on the line can be assassinate by other mothers to favor their children. you more likely getting assassinate if you are first on the line to the throne.

also help if the king is not a womanizer and having monogamous marriage. not have predetermined also make other candidates become more competent as they did strive to become suitable king so even if they not chosen, they can be give other higher government duty. the problem is when king remarried and have new child with new queen,.then that can cause a problem.

if you already said your first son is going inherit the throne, you second son might be lazy as no point working hard as he not going no be king anyway unless his older brother is dead.

children grow differently and have their own talent but in case of running kingdoms,.that is sacrifice need to be make to ensure kingdom stability and prosperity. they need to compete with each other for the kingdom. that is the cost of power.

its have pros and cons but monarchy actually more stable than democracy as you mostly need to maintain good lineage and education for generations of King instead need to educate whole society to elect better leader for their country.

Ye, but one of the issues is that in some cases having multiple wives might be necessary for a functional and lasting monarchy, as there is the potential need for backups. Also if the first queen either doesn't get with child or only gets girls you are kind of put in a difficult situation in a monogamous system. And girls are not really suited to be heirs given their limited capabilities for having lots of children, and certain other biological challenges. Though this could somewhat be alleviated by moving a bit away from monarch by blood and allowing the male of the couple to be the ruler regardless of who came from the royal family.

Also i think having the default heir be the firstborn son is less about the talent of the children and more about having less room for internal conflicts of interest in the country. While, as you pointed out, this system does not remove the posibility for plotting and removing the first prince from the picture. It does lessen room for political maneuvering like different factions aiming for more power, using the succession conflict to further their own interests.

In regards to competition breeding competence, i do not think that was much of a factor. Sons after the first are backups in case the first doesn't work out. I doubt the skill of the future ruler was really considered as long as they were above a minimum. The goal was more to keep the bloodline in power for as long as possible rather than creating competent leaders. Which is also why monarchies usually end up at some point with the king or emperor in some way either 'being' or 'being connected' to divinity.

Last paragraph i largely agree with. A king just is more invested in the nation and its people than a politician, given they are held accountable.

 

[jagfanbb]

Welp, they are both getting fucked.

 

[Akudia94]

The goal was more to keep the bloodline in power for as long as possible rather than creating competent leaders. Which is also why monarchies usually end up at some point with the king or emperor in some way either 'being' or 'being connected' to divinity.

Last paragraph i largely agree with. A king just is more invested in the nation and its people than a politician, given they are held accountable.

had the king goal is to keep bloodline and also creating competent leaders, their kingdoms would rise to higher height. but in history, there is king that raise competent successor and their kingdom did raise and expend.

about king vs politicians, i view that country is basically a corporation, a company.
monarchy is Private Company and Republic is Public Company.

in private company, The CEO usually the owner and do his best for the company because he want to pass his legacy to his bloodline. He also have higher control of his company because he owns it. other stock holder usually close family member and friends, that basically what nobles is. so CEO is the King.

for Public Company, CEO is president, elected by board of directors and major shareholders. they worked and manage the Company direction and policy but they didn't fully own it and can get dismissed based on the vote of board of directors.
so board and major shareholders basically a lobbyist and CEO following their wish instead of their employees.

the more CEO makes money, the more he get for his retirement but he can't pass his jobs to his son. his intent is to make most money out of it and dipped out. Thats why Monarchy is more stable than republic. that why politicians cannot be trusted as they will make board and shareholders rich, and exploiting their employees.

Gov official basically a higher management member of the public traded company and president is the CEO. they not your allies and care more about lining their pockets.

meanwhile Private company works on nepotism. so if you have good generation of owner that cares about his employees, you get more bonus and holiday. and because the owner also rely on his employees, if he didn't manage the Company properly, his entire legacy is perish. so more incentive to take care of his employees and company so his son can continue his legacy.

public company CEO didn't care. if company down, he still rich and can find another company to join in.