# Why wasn't Hamlet crowned King of Denmark? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 2, 2001, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124 "2001-01-02T19:01:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Danimal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Danimal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danimal)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124/1 "2001-01-02T19:01:34Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124/2 "2001-01-02T19:10:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124/3 "2001-01-02T19:13:49Z")
“aother’s” was actually “and mother’s” We apologise for the inconvenience. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124/4 "2001-01-02T19:27:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124/5 "2001-01-02T19:27:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124/6 "2001-01-02T22:24:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124/7 "2001-01-03T00:27:32Z")
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](http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/amleth.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-hamlet-crowned-king-of-denmark/48124/8 "2001-01-03T02:54:21Z")
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.