Hiding the Next Leader
Queen Elizabeth I’s solution was to delay naming her successor. “I know the inconstancy of the people of England,” she is said to have told the Scottish ambassador, “How they ever mislike the present government and have their eyes fixed upon the person who is next to succeed.” Discuss with your team: would it be better if no one knew who the next leader would be until after the current leader left (or died)? Can you find an example of such a system?
Key concepts
- The Heir-as-rival Problem
- The instant a successor is named, anyone unhappy with the current ruler has a living alternative to rally behind — so designating an heir actively drains the sitting ruler's own authority, which is why a leader may rationally keep the choice hidden.
What to know
-
01
Can you find a system that hides its next leader? Three real ones, with opposite results: after Nero died heirless, Rome's Year of the Four Emperors (69 AD) collapsed into civil war; the Ottomans left succession open among a sultan's sons and formalized royal fratricide, the winner executing his brothers; but the papal conclave keeps the next pope secret until the white smoke and stays peaceful — because the office is non-hereditary and the electors are bound by ritual, so there are no blood-heirs to fight.
Across subjects
Theme connection
"Are We There Yet?"
Practice — a sample
LITThe single MOST significant difference between King Lear's handling of succession and Elizabeth I's is that Lear —
- A Reveals heirs early
- B Names no one
- C Keeps it secret
- D Refuses to abdicate
- E Rules for life
Sign in to answer and see why each option is right or wrong.
Keep reading the full lesson
The remaining insights, works, and practice come with full access — $9.99/month or $29.99/season.
Unlock full access →New here? Create a free account to read the free section.