T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan: Achilles heel of dynastic rule

LINE & LENGTH

History shows that the ruled must watch out when Number Four begins to rule.

The idea of a divine right to rule as a device for legitimising dynasties has always been a matter of considerable interest to rational people. Now that even democracies are beginning to adopt it, the interest has grown.

It seemed instructive therefore to examine the data on dynasties. The purpose was to ascertain, as far as possible, whether the arrogation or conferring of such a right produces geniuses without pause right through the line of succession, or whether it tends to sputter from time to time.

The research has revealed a most interesting little nugget. This is that when the fourth in the line""after either the founder or an extraordinarily successful monarch""succeeds to the throne the line almost always tends to sputter not "wholly or in full measure, but very substantially". Certainly sufficiently for us to be able to suggest, indeed with some authority, that the ruled must watch out when Number Four rules.

Adduced below is the evidence from dynasties from all over the world. It covers different periods and different dynasties. As economists like to say when they get all giggly with pride, "it is robust".

Since one can start randomly with practically any dynasty, let me start with the Romanovs of Russia. But you can take your pick and check if what I have found is very horribly wrong.

The Romanov line started in 1613. Its most important figure since then was Peter the Great. He died in 1725. He was followed by Catherine I (not to be confused with Catherine the Great) and Peter II. The fourth in the line was Anna Ivanovna, a side-descendant. Wikepedia says about her "she spent most of her time at that city in the company of her foolish and ignorant maids" and found delight "in humiliating old nobility". Her 10-year rule is widely conceded to be something of a disaster.

Then Catherine II (The Great) came along and restored things. The fourth from her was Nicholas II, the chap who lost it all to the Communists in 1917.

Move on to England now and you get the same picture. You can start pretty much anywhere in its history but let us, for the sake of convenience, begin with the Tudors in 1485.

You get Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI and voila! Mary I, also known as Bloody Mary, because she killed Protestants in large numbers, burning as many as 283 heretics at the stake. Thanks to her, England became what would be called communally divided now and sank into hopeless despair. It took her successor, Elizabeth I, nearly 30 years to get things back on track.

The Tudor dynasty gave way to the Stuarts in 1603. The first of them was James I, a Scottish import. He started the "divine right to rule" theory. His son was Charles I, who tried to test it and was beheaded by Oliver Cromwell. Then came Charles II, who received Bombay in dowry.

The fourth in that line was James II. And guess what happened. The guy turned out to be a Catholic, something which the law had forbidden English kings to be. The result was consternation, chaos and the so-called "Glorious Revolution", in which James II was chased out in ignominy in 1688.

A Dutch fellow was then invited to be the King. He was called William of Orange but by 1715 the line ran out after only the second successor. The Brits, ever pragmatic, imported another King, this time from Hanover. He was called George I.

The fourth from him (in 1795) was George IV, who turned out to be completely useless. But for William Pitt the prime minister, England would surely have succumbed to Napoleon. Nevertheless, he reigned till 1830.

A few years later came the well-known Queen Victoria, who ruled until 1901. The fourth from her was Edward VIII, who caused a constitutional crisis because he wanted to marry a commoner and a divorcee, a Mrs Wallis Simpson of, horror of horrors, America. He abdicated and went off to seek marital bliss.

Where the French Bourbons are concerned, the rule appears to break down somewhat. Louis XVI (who caused the French Revolution and got guillotined) was fifth in the line from the founder Henry IV, but fourth from the consolidator, Louis XIII. But if you take Louis XIV the Sun King""and the best of them all""as the starting point, Louis XVIII was the fourth and he fits the rule. He too was a disaster and his reign ended in 1824.

Closer home, we have had the Mauryas and the Guptas.The first three of the Mauryas were good rulers, but during the rule of the fourth the Bactrian Greeks invaded the land. Among the Guptas, again the first three were decent rulers but rot started with the fourth. Then we have the Mughals. The fourth in the line was Jahangir, having been preceded by Babar, Humayun and Akbar, who built and consolidated the empire. He was a drunkard and had very little time to rule sensibly. He was also besotted with his wife Nur Jahan. It was he who, as it happens, let in the British into India and began caving into their demands one by one.

The fourth from Aurangzeb, another great emperor, whatever the BJP might say, was a fellow called Rafi ul-Darjat. He ruled for just a few months before a couple of Biharis""the Sayyid Brothers""got rid of him because, hold your breath, one of the brothers had fallen in love with the emperor's wife! Wah!!

I rest my case, but you can extend the research if you like.