I am trying to understand both of these concepts. I know regicide is the murder of a king. Usurpation is an legitimate claim for power where a ruler is killed and replaced. My question is.... If you kill a king, doesnt his guards or followers then kill/imprison the killer? Can someone explain to me how a killer can become king? Context: my character commits regicide by killing his father, who is the king, in order to stop a pointless war. My character then becomes king, because he is the only surviving son of age. This is what i want to happen. My the part of my brain that knows little to nothing of the politics behind regicide and usurpation is wondering "ok, but hes just suddenly accepted as king after killing the previous king??" Just wondering how it all works behind the scenes (not that i will include all the interworkings of it)
There's a saying along the lines that if you're going to kill a king, you should do it in the throne room in front of everybody. (Not sure if that's Machiavelli.) The guards' loyalty to the king ends when he's dead, and they might want to re-evaluate lots of things. And normally people don't bother killing kings unless they have a claim to the throne. But if a prince does that, they acquire loads of official responsibilities without increasing their perks, and they set a risky precedent. This is a cool Wikipedia list:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regicides Military commanders feature prominently! I'd suggest a prince might do that if the king was about to remarry in a way that changed the line-of-succession. Maybe the rules are that the new partner's children enter the line as the prince's equals and one of them is slightly older. Or if the military wanted him to give a coup a veneer of respectability. Imagine if Igor Putin stabbed his grandfather in the head: all the generals wouldn't be imprisoning that kid for interrupting their glorious conquest of Ukraine.
They have to have the support of whatever institutions/powers-that-be who control the country if they want to retain power. Similar to a more modern coup, which usually includes the military and oligarchy/nobility, some portion of the populace, and any would-be meddling foreign powers. Different story if it's a random assassin.
There are so many methods of committing regicide, from murder during imprisonment (Edward II) quiet poisoning (Edward VI) to Parliamentary condemnation (Charles I) to death in battle during civil war (Richard III). English history is rich in examples, Scottish history even richer, and I'm not even going to mention the Medici over there in mainland Europe. You might be interested in this little essay on some famous murders in English history: https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/kill-king-regicide-execute-charles-i-history-edward-ii-henry-vi-richard-iii/ It isn't definitive, of course, but is an easy place to start.
A lot will depend on how popular the deceased King or ruler was, the overall culture, etc. If you look at Ancient Rome, often it was the emperor's own guards that killed him. There's like three or four in a row like that on the list Homer linked (it should be noted that while Ancient Rome had dynasties, it wasn't usually a primogeniture ascension - hope I said that right). I like the story of emperor Galba. He was killed, and numerous people tried to take credit to get a reward from the emperor that followed him, Otho. So they started making a list of everyone making a claim. Plutarch says that the emperor after Otho had everyone on the list executed.
Usurpers typically have a very tenuous or nonexistent claim to power, which they press through violence. This could mean anything from a relatively bloodless palace coup to marching on the capital at the head of an army. In any case, a usurper needs political support to seize and hold power. In a feudal society, this is most likely to come from the nobility. In a more modern absolute monarchy, it’s the military and intelligence/security services. For a fictional example, consider Robert Baratheon from A Song of Ice and Fire. He has a very weak claim to the throne through his grandmother, a daughter of the ruling House Targaryen who married into House Baratheon. Normally, he wouldn’t even be in the discussion, but the king has grown increasingly insane and ultimately executes a prominent nobleman and his heir. Three of the major noble houses and their vassals immediately rise in revolt. A fourth joins in after securing a marriage alliance with one of the rebel houses. After the rightful heir is killed and his army shattered, a fifth betrays the king. The only (known) surviving member of the house is an infant whisked across the sea into exile, leaving Robert free to be crowned king. But his legal claim is just a fig leaf covering the fact that he rules by right of conquest. Everyone who might object is either dead or knows openly opposing him and his allies is futile. Turning to your prince, does anyone actually have to know he was involved in the death of the king? There are tons of ways he could avoid direct involvement and, by extension, suspicion. He’s the legitimate heir; he wouldn’t even be seen as a usurper if he isn’t linked to the killing. If it’s not possible to keep him “clean”, he needs allies to pull off the assassination and secure power. Major nobles, the spymaster, officers in the royal guard, etc.
What if another country supported the prince's killing of the king? theres a lot of regicide.... in the first place, "Bad King" killed "Good King" and put his son on the throne which spurned a 20 year war. The son wants the war to end because ANOTHER country got wrapped into it when the "Bad King" got greedy and started going after them. the "Good King's" heir rises to power and the BK's son is seemingly killed. the BK's son is not dead but supports the GK's claim to the throne, and wants to help stop the BK from further taking over other countries. So, with the support of 2 countries, he kills the BK and becomes King (temporarily). in short: Bad King of country A kills Good King of country B = war with country C and D Prince has been ousted for Good King's heir Prince allies with D and kills Bad King Prince= New King of country A and allies with B and D (ETA: i posted this then X's response popped up after screen refresh)
My MC doesnt want to become king, but he wants to stop his father from doing the terrible things he's doing. He was also raised as a warrior and is know through the surrounding kingdoms to be merciless on the battlefield. I woudn't want him to make a show of killing his father, but i want that confrontation there. the king has an infant son (the prince's half brother). obviously he cant become king, and the Prince doesnt kill women or children (thats already established). if the Prince decides not to take the throne, the next in line would be the King's brother (?). which is not great, but the brother of the king isnt a terrible, warmongering person like the King was...This brother has no heirs, but takes on his infant nephew to raise as his heir. I want people to know the Prince killed the king... or at least, speculate his involvement, which he neither confirms or denies.
A couple of examples of kings who took the throne despite not being next in line, with some suspicion that they killed their predecessors after they became king: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower Note that in both cases, rival claimants rose to fight them.
For what it’s worth, the infant could absolutely become king. He just couldn’t rule, so there would have to be a regent. Succession usually goes to the previous monarch’s children—oldest to youngest, oldest boy—>youngest boy—>oldest girl—>youngest girl, or oldest boy—>youngest boy being the most common forms in our world—no matter their age before looking back up the family tree at the monarch’s siblings, uncles/aunts, nieces/nephews, or cousins. Of course, you’re in complete control of this kingdom’s succession laws. If you want a minimum age for inheriting the throne, you can create one. I’ll just note that this makes it possible for a younger sibling to disinherit their elder sibling’s children by arranging an “accident” for the monarch before the children are old enough. This loophole seems like something most countries would try to eliminate because of the potential for instability.
"The king is dead; long live the king!" That's why I was named Robert; my father and grandfather didn't want to load on the baggage of my being Richard III.
kind of depends on the situation, you know. If someone walked into the king's throne room and just yeeted him for no reason, then he doesn't get to be king. But if a nobleman is like, "screw you, man" and all his homies agree that he would be a way better king because his mother's aunt's nephew's third cousin's cocker spaniel licked the current king's great-grandfather's hand one time, and they raise a big army and fight the king, and they win, then he gets to be king. There are unwritten rules about these things. The thing about a pre-modern feudal society is that the vassals had a lot of power, and the king's authority was dependent on his vassals being cool with it. 16th and 17th century France is an instructive epoch in regard to the power struggles between the king and his magnates. I'm just kind of assuming that your society is feudal, so sorry if I'm wrong about that. At any rate, there will be powers behind the throne (ministers, eunuchs, etc.) who can make and break a usurpation, so you kind of need their support.
oh @Friedrich Kugelschreiber , you have such a way with words -sighs- this is my character's flaw, then. he hangs around with his disgraced cousin who's been exiled. his father's council thinks he "soft" because he's not as barbaric as his older brother and doesnt want to "conquer the world." they think he's soft because he cares about the people and the land. he'd be better supported by the common people versus his society's nobility
interesting article about a more latter-day example of regicide Royal Succession | European Royal History (wordpress.com) depends, I think inheritance under semi-Salic and Salic law were both more common, at least in Europe, although absolute primogeniture is now the general rule. Agnatic succession appears to be most common throughout present day Asian monarchies.
That depends on the rules of succession. If this is a fictional country, you created it so you get to make the rules. The rule in Great Britain currently is that the throne goes to the king's oldest child. So we have Prince Chuck as heir to the throne after Elizabeth, but the next in line after Chuckie isn't Randy Andy, it's Wills. Harry is William's younger brother, but every time Wills and Kate have another child, Harry gets bumped down another notch in the order of succession. Typically, if a monarch dies and the eldest child isn't of age to assume the throne, a regent is appointed to run the ship of state until the heir reaches whatever age that country's rules have established for ascending the throne.
Unless said child is a Roman Catholic. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, therefore must be Anglican.
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." --- John Harington
Usually this sort of thing happens with the collusion of the bodyguard. Sometimes it's even the bodyguard that does it. Sometimes family are in on it too. A lot of Roman/ Byzantine emperors died this way. Otherwise getting the thing done without the guard's knowing is often viable. In many cases the guard's loyalty is to the office and not the man, so while they might fight to the death to protect the ruler, they aren't bound to avenge him. This was the case I believe with the Byzantine emperor's Varangian guard.
Of course the Cataline conspirators didn’t actually wind up taking the throne. They all died by violence on by their own hands.
Brutus and co-assassins came after the Cataline conspirators and were constitutionalists rather than populists (to use modern terms). Where Brutus et al had Cicero's retrospective blessings for Caesar's murder, the Catalina's most certainly didn't get any such approval from Cicero and Caesar himself only narrowly avoided sharing the blame with and fate of the Cataline conspirators. Of course, both sets met with violent ends all the same. (I may have misunderstood you; which is very likely and more common than I would like.) Whilst on that period though, it is a great tale of how best to usurp power; wait for someone else to murder your uncle, then be called Octavian and go avenging and avenging until they definitely don't make you king, my word no, merely censor, emperor, tribune and Miss Rome.
See also Mark Anthony - after the assassination of JC having lepidus bring 6000 veteran troops into Rome to "restore order" ... theres nothing like having some grizzled veterans outside to make the senate view your position 'favorably'
