(Kano, etc.), whilst much earlier such kingdoms were to be found in
India and Central America.
By definition, a kingdom can be regarded an example of dynastic
politics. That is, they are not so much governments by individuals as
by families. In the European examples this usually meant that the
state was regarded as all the possessions of a single family regardless
of geographical sense or the ethnic or national origins. Thus the
modern United Kingdom includes Scotland, Wales and parts of
Ireland, as well as the Channel Isles, because the kings of England
inherited these areas from the Duchy of Normandy, succeeded to the
separate throne of Scotland, or conquered adjacent lands. The king-
dom was not united by linguistic, cultural or religious similarities.
Other members of the family were frequently expected to take a
major role in government – queens ruling in the absence of kings, the
eldest son of the Crown of England being designated Prince of Wales.
Similarly, Belgium and Holland could be regarded as possessions of
the Spanish royal family. Within a royal family, rival claims to the
succession could arise, and conflict between young supporters of the
heir to the throne and established counsellors of the king was
virtually the norm.
In the African examples mentioned, the family’s role took very
different shapes. Within the context of polygamy, there was more
scope for dispute as to succession. Such disputes taking the most
drastic form were in Zululand where it was usual for the king to
execute any brothers who failed to go into hasty voluntary exile
(Lemarchand, 1977). In the Yoruba kingdoms a version of the
succession crisis involved ‘king-makers’ selecting the heir from the
ranks of a number of princely families who each provided a king in
turn.
These monarchic political systems shared a ‘court’ style of politics
in which the administration of the royal household and its estates
were inseparable from the business of the kingdom as a whole. Power
in such systems might well reside primarily with those who most
frequently had the ear of the monarch regardless of official position.
This might include the king’s mistress, confessor or hairdresser. The
politics of such a system is primarily conducted within a consensus
on fundamental values (those of the tribe or ruling aristocracy).
There is emphasis on individual advancement through patronage; a
powerful patron rewards his supporters and followers with benefits34 SYSTEMS