Hamlet, Claudius, succession

[janesmythe22]

If the order of succession was by primogeniture, how come that Claudius became the king? Shakespeare doesn't suggest that Claudius usurped the throne. What kind of the succession order Shakespeare had in mind? Surely, had it been by primogeniture, Claudius would haven't gained much by killing his brother? 

[mystress]

 

Many Royal Dynasties of the past, who should succeed was not clear; and therefore they allowed Brothers of Kings to inherit the Crown.I think in Hamlet Claudius not only wanted to be King,but also wanted Gertrude,and to make their relationship legal.I have no doubt that Gertude was sleeping with Claudius before Hamlet's Father's death.

Something similar can happen today.When King Badouin of Belgium died about 6 or 7 years ago, everyone in that country assumed that the Kings Nephew would become King,BUT the Kings Brother decided he wanted to be King(before his son). What I am saying is,that in some Royal Houses (even now) the direct succession is not fixed.

How old IS Hamlet in the play? If under 18 he would not inherit,but would have to wait for his uncle to die.

I don't think Shakespeare has to suggest Claudius usurped the throne,it is obvious from Hamlet's disposition,and also from what the Ghost says.

[janesmythe22]

mystress: I'm aware that the order of succession is not fixed in many cases. I don't have any kind of statistics related to monarchies of different counties. I just assume (no matter how 'dangerous' is to assume anything) that the most common order of succession is/was by primogeniture. This is just out of curiosity, as I'm aware that Hamlet is piece of fiction.

I really can't say anything whether Gertrude had an affair with Claudius and I don't feel it to be of major importance.

Furthermore, Claudius became king and not 'prince-regent' or 'regent' (that is, 'a someone who rules during...minority of the country's monarch').

[Artful]

Look here, janesmythe, you might be satisfied with the explanation.

[janesmythe22]

Artful, thanks for your effort. Obviously some other people were curious about the same question. As usual a lot of guesswork. Trully, I find Hamlet entertaining piece of work, but tend to agree with Tolstoy that Hamlet is 'unintelligable'.

�Exactly why Claudius rather than Hamlet succeeded Old Hamlet is not explained. Hamlet refers (V.ii) to "the election", i.e., the choosing of a new king by a vote of a small number of warlords (as in Macbeth). (By Shakespeare time, it was the Danish royal family that voted.) Interestingly, the Norwegian king is also succeeded by his brother, rather than by his own infant son Fortinbras.�
�On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;
So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited. The rest is silence.�
Dies

[janesmythe22]

And yes, Artful, I forgot to mention-that quotation from your link (about Macbeth), is somewhat questionable:

DUNCAN
My plenteous joys,
Wanton in fulness, seek to hide themselves
In drops of sorrow. Sons, kinsmen, thanes,
And you whose places are the nearest, know
We will establish our estate upon
Our eldest, Malcolm�

[Artful]

Well I'm sorry, janesmythe, but I did try. However I did like what was said in the 2nd link re why Claudies and not Hamlet. I didn't see the Macbeth quote.

[janesmythe22]

Thanks again, Artful. I do appreciate your effort.

[Artful]

Hey, janesmythe, please don't think I was trying to get another thankyou from you. I just meant that I was sorry none of us helped much despite trying. It's always disappointing to not be able to satisfy!

[jno]

primogeniture was one popular way of succeeding to the throne, on the basis that a son would probably inherit whatever qualities people liked in his father. But there were other ways, including usurpation and victory in battle. Shakespeare worried about this a lot; many of his kings have rickety relationships with power. (Richard III murders to get to the throne, Henry IV is a usurper.)

He was probably writing Hamlet as Elizabeth's reign was coming to an end; not having married, she had no clear successor at all and the establishment was in a state of great confusion about who would succeed her and on what grounds. In fact it went to James I - the son of Mary Queen of Scots, whom Elizabeth had had put to death. So the question of legitimacy of power was a hot topic around 1600.