Almost every royal succession involved an act of election, partly because, in practice, most successions were disputed, and because there were several candidates for the throne. Even heirs who had been designated and accepted during their predecessor’s lifetime had to have their title confirmed by their leading subjects. Chapter 7 explores the normative framework of elections, and two of its underlying principles: unanimity and probity. In theory, electors merely confirmed a choice that god had already made for them. Yet what did it mean in practice, especially if there were several claimants, if a chosen heir turned out to be inept or tyrant, or if he was under age? And the precise meaning of abstract norms was open to debate, and had to be defined through consensus. Unanimity alone, for instance, was never sufficient: it had to be the right kind of unanimity, reached for the right reasons and by the right people, and it could be achieved over time. Equally, electors were supposed to ensure the moral probity of the king – because that reflected their own moral character. How, then, could that be accomplished? How could consensus be created?

Chapter 8 discusses how royal elections worked in practice. It discusses the preparations necessary for an election to take place, the choice of venue and location, the identity and social composition of the electors and the overlapping stages in which the act of choosing a ruler unfolded. It also shows how each stage served to highlight both abstract normative ideas of how a king should be chosen and the concrete practical necessities that shaped the process of election. It also draws attention to yet another inherent tension: the legitimacy of an election rested on its unanimity and the assumption that a candidate was chosen because he was most suitable to work for the common good. Campaigning, bargaining for votes, etc. were thus frowned upon and should not happen. In practice, unanimity and consent could be achieved only through advance negotiations, and candidates did, of course, canvass and campaign. Equally, electors were not free agents, but had to satisfy the demands and needs of their own followers. They had to secure grants and favours, but could not be seen to strive for them openly. How could these conflicting expectations be reconciled? How did they shape the practice of choosing a king?