The late nineteenth and mid-twentieth century bore witness to dynamic forces of change affecting the succession policies for royal dynasties. As a consequence new systems relating to succession were adopted, which in certain cases questioned earlier precedent or reinterpreted customary practices by revisiting pre-colonial patterns that had been largely forgotten, and in other instances paved the way for novel ideas. In 1947, Sir Kenneth Fitze wrote an official, concise history of succession in princely India on the eve of Independence for use within the Political Department. Fitze, who figured in the last chapter, had been a one time Resident, trained in the classics. This document was classified as confidential and provided a review of ‘modern practice in regard to successions.’ In particular, it highlighted the role of colonial intervention within princely India in regards to succession law.

Fitze's report is valuable as it brings out of the archive some of the primary succession cases in late colonial princely India. In particular, it reveals the crucial role of royal women – both as symbols and players – in the ‘dynastic politics’ of these kingdoms. This chapter probes into the way that marriage choices and attitudes towards miscegenation contributed to the succession disputes within the states of Idar, Bijawar, Phaltan and, most significantly, Pudukkottai, which receives an in-depth analysis by Fitze. In addition, it will critique those instances where female rulers directly altered succession law, particularly the examples of the Maharani of Bastar in 1922 and the Begum of Bhopal in 1926. The aim of this chapter is to provide an outline for exploring how regal dynasties were changed by the introduction of western attitudes relating to inheritance and succession law and how they simultaneously opposed exogamous influences. In certain cases, there was sharp discontinuity with pre-colonial practice and in others an upholding of earlier traditions.

The nature of colonial intervention was often undefined and ambiguous. It was in a constant process of change and redefinition. Political officers maintained the authority of paramountcy while celebrating and endorsing indigenous forms of kingship.