Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
To give one data point: 18 out of 40 monarchs of England (I'm counting William and Mary as one and beginning with William the Conqueror because that's where the wikipedia article detailing the history of the succession I'm looking at starts. I'm also just kind of eyeballing this and wouldn't be surprised if my counts are one or two off) have been succeeded by someone other than their son. Though this includes situations such as where King Stephen was forced to pass over his own young son in favor of Henry of Blois, or when the throne passed to Edward III's grandson due to his son predeceasing him, as well as monarchs who would probably have passed the throne to an heir but for being deposed.
So, at least in terms of final results, amd at least for England, slightly under half. If you mean failed to produce a son period, including sons who died young and never inherited, the proportion drops down to around 10%. Most monarchs are capable of producing at least one son. It's just that, between the pre-modern era's abundance of infant mortaility and battlefields where princes were expected to actively participate, many didn't survive to inherit.
More options
Context Copy link