>>The Heortling model is roughly based on the Celtic/Viking/Anglo-Saxon
>>model. That developed into the medieval European system by placing
>>greater importance on legitimate heirs - i.e. church approval of the
>>parents.
>
>I really don't see the development. Hereditary succession and elective
>leadership has been kicking back and forth across Europe down through
>the centuries. In particular the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish
>Crown were elective.
Sure the development took place at different times in different places. However prior to about 1000 AD most of Europe had a system of selecting the most suitable candidate from an elite group. By the renaissance most of Europe had a system based on inheritance. I'm unaware of any country which went from a hereditary monarch to an elective one in that period. In the Middle East that development probably took place in pre-history.
>Even if the Prince had to be a blood descendent of Sartar, the
>Sartarite practice would have been to chose the most competent
>candidate rather than the one with the best claim.
Not the most competant, the most politically acceptable. However there is a qualification based purely on inheritance. That's a change from my understanding of Heortling practice.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail