4 ms·

I tend to agree. It's not a meaningless question but definitely not one that the actor playing Lady Macbeth needs to answer for herself. As for "having multipl

I tend to agree. It's not a meaningless question but definitely not one that the actor playing Lady Macbeth needs to answer for herself. As for "having multiple children leads to downward mobility" -- I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'd like to see some actual data on that. I thought the pattern was more "first son inherits, second son goes into the Army or Navy, third et al go into the clergy." And a clerical life was not bad at all, until 1850 or so. For multiple daughters: well, if they don't all have great dowries, then they don't get high born husbands. They still get married.

eru 2y ago
> I thought the pattern was more "first son inherits, second son goes into the Army or Navy, third et al go into the clergy." And a clerical life was not bad at all, until 1850 or so. At the time of the historical Macbeth the pattern would have perhaps been similar, but would not have involved the Navy. Especially not for a king of Scotland. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_branch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_branch
- gumby 2y ago
  Back in the days of the kingdom of Alba no such convention existed — it was feudal.
  - eru 2y ago
    Which convention do you mean? If you have primogeniture in feudalism, you still need to figure out you do with the other offspring.
    - gumby 2y ago
      The problem was spare had to be good at fighting case heir kicked the bucket. Then you had to figure out how to keep spare from killing heir. Standard technique was to encourage them to go conquer someplace else. This was also an important driver of the crusades, which had the bonus of sending that heavily armed relative far away.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      I was wondering that myself.
      - gumby 2y ago
        I answered in a parallel comment.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      In Scotland at the time, there wasn't primogeniture at all. You got to be king by general acclimation -- you were king when everybody said you were king. The previous king might nominate a successor, and it might be his son -- any son. And if the thanes didn't like it, they'd fight about it. ("Thane" was an Anglo-Saxon context that's not really appropriate to Scotland at the time, but they had something kinda parallel.) Shakespeare hints at that, in an important scene were Mac expects to be named the heir. Shakespeare's audience would have understood that, because it had been roughly the same in England under the Saxons. (That was more than a half-millennium ago, but the history was well understood by the educated, using the same sources Shakespeare did.) There was a problem with offspring in general. Shakespeare actually discussed that one, too, in King Lear. Properties could be divided, but not indefinitely, and it often caused fighting. It's what led to the clan system, which really evolved after the Norman invasion but hints of it lay earlier.
      - eru 2y ago
        Thanks! Sounds a bit like the election of the German king in the Holy Roman Empire by the Great Electors. (It was customary for the king to semi-automatically become emperor.)
- arethuza 2y ago
  Out of interest, why do you say "Especially not for a king of Scotland"?
  - eru 2y ago
    If you are a minor noble, you might send your younger sons to serve in the church. But if you have the resources of a king, you are more likely to find your extra sons some minor fiefdom to rule. See https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a0xxn/comment/ciqj5pl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a0xxn/comme... for what I mean. (Of course, some still went to the church occasionally.)
CRConrad 2y ago
> As for "having multiple children leads to downward mobility" -- I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'd like to see some actual data on that. I thought the pattern was more "first son inherits, second son goes into the Army or Navy, third et al go into the clergy." And a clerical life was not bad at all, until 1850 or so. Sure, perhaps "not bad", but surely a step or three down from being lord of the manor (or duke of something bigger)? And as soon as you have more than two kids, there are more of these socially-downwards-mobile ones than of those that get to stay in the caste they were born into. So yes, seems perfectly plausible that for the majority of those children, their parents having multiple children does lead to downward mobility.

eru 2y ago

> I thought the pattern was more "first son inherits, second son goes into the Army or Navy, third et al go into the clergy." And a clerical life was not bad at all, until 1850 or so. At the time of the historical Macbeth the pattern would have perhaps been similar, but would not have involved the Navy. Especially not for a king of Scotland. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_branch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_branch

gumby 2y ago
Back in the days of the kingdom of Alba no such convention existed — it was feudal.
- eru 2y ago
  Which convention do you mean? If you have primogeniture in feudalism, you still need to figure out you do with the other offspring.
  - gumby 2y ago
    The problem was spare had to be good at fighting case heir kicked the bucket. Then you had to figure out how to keep spare from killing heir. Standard technique was to encourage them to go conquer someplace else. This was also an important driver of the crusades, which had the bonus of sending that heavily armed relative far away.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    I was wondering that myself.
    - gumby 2y ago
      I answered in a parallel comment.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    In Scotland at the time, there wasn't primogeniture at all. You got to be king by general acclimation -- you were king when everybody said you were king. The previous king might nominate a successor, and it might be his son -- any son. And if the thanes didn't like it, they'd fight about it. ("Thane" was an Anglo-Saxon context that's not really appropriate to Scotland at the time, but they had something kinda parallel.) Shakespeare hints at that, in an important scene were Mac expects to be named the heir. Shakespeare's audience would have understood that, because it had been roughly the same in England under the Saxons. (That was more than a half-millennium ago, but the history was well understood by the educated, using the same sources Shakespeare did.) There was a problem with offspring in general. Shakespeare actually discussed that one, too, in King Lear. Properties could be divided, but not indefinitely, and it often caused fighting. It's what led to the clan system, which really evolved after the Norman invasion but hints of it lay earlier.
    - eru 2y ago
      Thanks! Sounds a bit like the election of the German king in the Holy Roman Empire by the Great Electors. (It was customary for the king to semi-automatically become emperor.)
arethuza 2y ago
Out of interest, why do you say "Especially not for a king of Scotland"?
- eru 2y ago
  If you are a minor noble, you might send your younger sons to serve in the church. But if you have the resources of a king, you are more likely to find your extra sons some minor fiefdom to rule. See https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a0xxn/comment/ciqj5pl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a0xxn/comme... for what I mean. (Of course, some still went to the church occasionally.)

CRConrad 2y ago

> As for "having multiple children leads to downward mobility" -- I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'd like to see some actual data on that. I thought the pattern was more "first son inherits, second son goes into the Army or Navy, third et al go into the clergy." And a clerical life was not bad at all, until 1850 or so. Sure, perhaps "not bad", but surely a step or three down from being lord of the manor (or duke of something bigger)? And as soon as you have more than two kids, there are more of these socially-downwards-mobile ones than of those that get to stay in the caste they were born into. So yes, seems perfectly plausible that for the majority of those children, their parents having multiple children does lead to downward mobility.