Pictish matrilineal succession

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Back in 23 November 1999, Stewart Baldwin wrote three posts about the question of Pictish matrilineal succession. He concluded that while it wasn't proven, matrilineal succession was the most likely system of succession for the Picts. Almost 23 years later, what is the consensus? Does Stewart Baldwin, himself, have anything to say?

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 3:55:02 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Back in 23 November 1999, Stewart Baldwin wrote three posts about the question of Pictish matrilineal succession. He concluded that while it wasn't proven, matrilineal succession was the most likely system of succession for the Picts. Almost 23 years later, what is the consensus? Does Stewart Baldwin, himself, have anything to say?

There have been a number of scholarly studies that have addressed the issue in the interim, and it tensd to be more skeptical than the initial work that tried to lay out pedigrees. The basic conclusions, based on my reading, are the following:

1) the kings list makes is clear that the Picts did not practice male-preference primogeniture, but then, if you look at other kingdoms from the period, nobody did, so that is not a huge surprise.

2) there is contemporary testimony for inheritance through females, but what exactly this meant is not clear, and particularly it is unclear whether this was what COULD happen, or what MUST happen. This is not only an issue in terms of the succession rules among the Picts themselves, but how they were percieved by the reporting external sources.

3) the onomastics COULD be interpreted as suggesting there were several family groups that come and go and come again, but it is far from clear that this isn't just seeing patterns when there aren't any.

4) the kings list seems to provide at least one specific demonstrable instance of female-linked nephew inheritance.

5) the kings list, toward the end, provides what appears to be male-connected succession, but it is unclear if this was always a possibility and it is just more obvious here, or if the Picts were transitioning to a male-based succession (or perhaps from multi-clan to single-clan succession).

6) attempt to contruct broader rules, or even patterns, of succession are terribly overenthusiastic given the fragmentatry nature of the record.

taf

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thanks for the reply. Could you, please, expand on no kingdom of the time using male preference primogeniture? The Franks started the Salic law though the territory was divided among the heirs.

[taf]

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 7:32:34 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> Thanks for the reply. Could you, please, expand on no kingdom of the time using male preference primogeniture? The Franks started the Salic law though the territory was divided among the heirs.

By male-preference primogeniture, I am referring to the system most monarchies came to use in modern times, where succession would pass to children of the prior holder, with subsequent succession right going to each son, then each daughter in order of age, in each generation. The Frankish succession, as you indicate, involved divisions, with the overall kingship going to cousins, etc. In Asturias you see Fafila succeeded by his brother-in-law, Alfonso, then Alfonso's son, then Alfonso's son-in-law, then Alfonso's nephew, then Alfonso's illegitimate son, then another nephew of Alfonso, then finally returning to Alfonso's senior heir, his grandson, then that man's nephew, then a son of one of the cousins who had served. Among the Visigoths before them you see similar chaotic succession, to the degreer that we don't know the precide relationships of some of the kings. In Wessex and it jumped from branch to branch to branch, with successors ometimes numerous generations removed from a king, and few father-to-son successions after the first generations before you get to Ecgbert's family, and even then you saw whole-generation succession before passing to the next generation. The Irish had their tanistry, with different family branches succeeding in alternation, while the Scots also seem to have alternated. The idea that a king's son would succeed him was not practical when lives were short and the king also had to be a warlord, so a minor was not suitable.

Among the Picts, you do not see a king's father with the same name as a prior king until the very end of the kings list - so they did not practice father-to-son succession for most of their run.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

It's notable - as well as incomprehensible - that people tend to be
blitheringly ignorant of succession conventions in their own time and
place. The matter only comes to the attention of many when uncertainty
arises, and they frequently opt for assumed practicality over principle.

In the past week some "expert" in the UK moronically opined that the
British constitution does not allow for an "intermim" prime minister,
despite the obvious fact that every PM since Walpole has occupied the
interim between the last one and the next one while the system patently
does not allow for a permanent PM. One of them was assassinated without
any succession crisis. All that is necessary is for the sovereign to be
duly advised to invite Y to become PM instead of X, and later for Y to
advise that Z should follow in his or her place. Yet much of the British
media and punditry mindlessly repeated the "expert" nonsense for a day
or so before dropping the idiotic subject.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for this, Todd.