Political Dynasties Forbidden! Has there ever been a country (culture/society/whatever) that has forbidden the children of those in high office from serving in high office themselves?
I saw a mention of Oliver Cromwell in passing in a book I was reading and it got me started on this train of thought, probably helped along by the repeated factoid this election season that the GOP hasn't successfully elected a president without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket since Hoover
. It's always bothered me that Oliver Cromwell overthrew the monarchy and then had his son
succeed him as Lord Protector. Power was also inherited in Athenian democracy
So this got me to thinking about the Kennedys, Bushes, Tafts, etc., and the various American political dynasties. On the one hand, the children of these families grow up breathing politics and well-connected and so are often effective in political roles. On the other hand, it stinks of aristocracy at the expense of democracy. But probably there would be huge unforeseen consequences to forbidden children of politicians from seeking political office themselves. Then I wondered if someone had tried it.
So that's the question: Has a society (it can be a smaller or less-organized subidivision than a country, if you like) ever excluded the children of certain elites from seeking high office? What resulted?
The one that comes to mind for me is that, for example, the Prime Minister in the U.K. has to be a commoner these days, but the children of the peerage aren't forbidden from seeking ALL high offices, just a few. But I suppose things like that could count.