One of the many interesting features of Colin Drumm’s doctoral dissertation, The Difference Money Makes, is an extended discussion of the interlocking of problems of monarchical succession with monetary policy in medieval England. In his discussion of more central and more peripheral names of English kings, Drumm speaks of potential but more distant successors in current financial terms, as “options on succession.” On the one hand, it’s good that, say, a grandson of a previous king is available as a backup in case the present king fails to produce an uncontested heir; on the other hand, since arguments for legitimacy based on lineage are always a bit sophistic, having such options raises the possibility of civil war if the king fails to maintain some concord or balance between the various social factions. And whether or not he does so depends heavily upon monetary policy—an “austere” policy, which insists that all currency be equivalent to its metallic content, satisfies the nobility because it ensures the dues they are owed by their peasants will retain its value; a “liberal” policy, on the other hand, which depends on the king declaring issued currency to have a certain value regardless of its metallic content, is necessary for merchants buying abroad and supplying the peasantry, which in turn enables them to keep up payments to the nobles. There is also a crucial question of national sovereignty here (even if that’s not the word that would have been used).
Options on Succession
Options on Succession
Options on Succession
One of the many interesting features of Colin Drumm’s doctoral dissertation, The Difference Money Makes, is an extended discussion of the interlocking of problems of monarchical succession with monetary policy in medieval England. In his discussion of more central and more peripheral names of English kings, Drumm speaks of potential but more distant successors in current financial terms, as “options on succession.” On the one hand, it’s good that, say, a grandson of a previous king is available as a backup in case the present king fails to produce an uncontested heir; on the other hand, since arguments for legitimacy based on lineage are always a bit sophistic, having such options raises the possibility of civil war if the king fails to maintain some concord or balance between the various social factions. And whether or not he does so depends heavily upon monetary policy—an “austere” policy, which insists that all currency be equivalent to its metallic content, satisfies the nobility because it ensures the dues they are owed by their peasants will retain its value; a “liberal” policy, on the other hand, which depends on the king declaring issued currency to have a certain value regardless of its metallic content, is necessary for merchants buying abroad and supplying the peasantry, which in turn enables them to keep up payments to the nobles. There is also a crucial question of national sovereignty here (even if that’s not the word that would have been used).