Should leaders have expected to lead? |
February 21st, 2013 |
| monarchy |
I occasionally hear people advocating monarchy with the idea that this
way you end up with someone in charge who has known they were going to
be running a country since they were a small child and have prepared
(and have been prepared) accordingly. This makes some sense: running
a country requires a specialized skill-set, and I see how starting on
it early could help. But if we look at history, do we find that
younger sons who ended up inheriting when they didn't expect to were
generally better or worse kings than the ones who knew from birth that
they would be king?
(This is going to be distorted by many things, including birth order and that younger sons were still royalty, but it might be a place to start.)
Comment via: google plus, facebook