________________
288
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1892.
Eldest son
Second son
Third son (died young)
K (7) Second son
Eldest son (died young)
L (8)
M (9) Eldest son
Second son The points to note in the succession are: - (1) the father must, if possible, actually have been king ; (2) brothers must succeed before sons. The next heir by analogy, failing brothers and sons, would be the oldest surviving son of the king before the deceased. E.g., in the above tree, if king M had no sons or brothers, then the sons of king L would succeed in turn,
This custom is evidently widely spread over India and Barma, for (loc. cit. and ante, Vol. XV. p. 273) it has been already shown in this Journal that a part of the Valabhi succession ran thus: -
Bhatarka (1)
Dharaaồna I (2) Dronasimha (3) Dhruvasena I (4) Dharupatta (5)
Guhagêna (6) The Genealogies of the Eastern and Western Chalukya Dynastios (ante, Vol. XX. p. 283, also p. 422, and Fleet's Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, pp. 18-19) give the succession of brothers before sons in several instances; notably in the years between 633 and 663 A.D., and between 696 and 709 A.D. and between Saka 930 and 964.
The Genealogy of the Maldr-KODA State (ante, Vol. XVIII. pp. 328-330) gives parts of the succession thus: -
Sher Muhammad (1)
Ghulam Hussain (2)
Jamál (3)
Bhfkan (6) Bahadur (5) Umr (6) Asadullah (7) Atau'llah (8)
Wazir (9) Properly speaking Atan'llah's son should beve succeeded, and when Wazir's line failed a successor was found in Ibrahim 'Ali, (the present ruler), the great-grandson of 'Atâu'llah.
Throughout the Shan States ante, pp. 119-120) the rule of succession is brothers before sons in order of seniority.
There are three disturbing elements in the rule, however, which must always be taken into consideration in its application :-(1) where the ruler has a multiplicity of wives, there must always be a dimoulty in determining seniority ; (2) in most Oriental States might is right and that heir suoooods, who is for any reason, the most powerful; and (3) the temptation, seldom witastood, to the de facto ruler to oust his brothers in favour of his sons. As a rule, it may be said that every brother and every son looks upon himself as the possible heir, and the actual succession frequently falls to him, who finally succeeds in the struggle for the throne on the king's death.
I give below the Genealogy of the Alompra (Alaungp'aya) Dynasty of Burma, as illustrating the persistenoy of this peculiar law of succession and also the vicissitudes to which it is liable in practical application.
