OK, so Hamlet Sr. gets poison poured in his ear and Denmark needs a new king. I thought the traditional rules of European succession were for the eldest son, not the brother, of the previous king to inherit the monarchy. I know, many kingdoms didn’t have very cut-and-dried rules for the succession, but I never heard of any kingdom where the brother’s claim was considered ipso facto superior to the eldest son’s. Surely Hamlet Jr. should have been at least a candidate for the throne. But still, in all the versions of the play that I’ve seen, I don’t remember there ever being any discussion about anyone other than Claudius succeeding to the throne.
So why didn’t we have King Hamlet II instead of King Claudius I?
that was one of the major points which drove Hamlet to insanity (third after his father’s murder aother’s near-infidelity)–he WAS the rightful heir to the throne.
Unfortunately, when Hamlet’s father died, Hamlet was out of the country (presumed dead?), and instead of an interregnum while he was away, his uncle who, had Hamlet not been born would have been next in line for the throne, usurped.
If Hamlet had succeeded his father, there wouldn’t have been a play in the first place.
In Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare, Isaac tells us that in Europe up through the early Middle Ages, the succession of father to oldest son was not firmly established. The new king was usually chosen from among the royal family, but he was not always the oldest son of the old king, especially if the son was relatively young and inexperienced.
The bad-uncle plot device seems to have been a favorite of Shakespeare’s. He also used it in Richard III and in King John, but in these cases the younger claimants (Edward and Arthur, respecively) were killed.
Partly true. The Danish monarchy in the period in which Hamlet takes place possessed unique succession traditions as well. It was in fact an electorate, in which the king was something of a primus inter pares. Usually the eldest male heir was simply elected successor by the Danish magnates. However, there was a power play. Presumably Claudius leveraged the peers of the realm into electing him rather than Hamlet, who was, of course, studying in Germany at the time.
Maeglin is absolutely correct on Denmark’s succession system, although I think it may have been abandoned by the time Shakespeare wrote the play (1501 or so). Also, don’t forget that Shakespeare also wrote it that way because that’s simply part of the story he inherited. There was at least one other, now-lost stage play of Hamlet (commonly attributed to Thomas Kyd) floating around by the time Shakespeare wrote his version. And even before that, the Hamlet story was available in print in England. Don’t remember the tale’s origins, but it had been around for quite a while.
The earliest known source of the story is Gesta Danorum (also known as Historia Danica) written by Saxo Grammaticus in Latin about A.D. 1200. At least one English translation was available in Shakespeare’s time. An English translation of the part that is about Hamlet (Amlethus) can be seen here There is no evidence I am aware of that Hamlet was anything other than a legendary figure, even though Gesta Danorum purports to be a work of history.
I believe that in the early medieval period, the Scottish monarchy was similarly not a straight primogeniture system, and that brother could succeed brother if the late king’s children were too young. Bear in mind that in this period, the primary function of the king was to be the war-leader, defending the country, putting down rebellions, etc. The deceased king’s adult brother would be more capable of doing this than the deceased king’s 10 year old son.