Hey fellow historians! I'm currently writing my thesis about the election and coronation of the german and english kings in the Middle Ages. I'm german and I found many sources about the german coronation, but I find it hard to find sources about the english kings.
Was the king actual elected, like in germany, or was it all about inheritance?
I would be so happy if you could give me some tips for literature (in german and english).
I think it would probably be easier if you narrowed down this topic a bit in terms of chronological scope. You could compare English/German kings in the Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, or Late Middle Ages, but I think trying to cover the differences/similarities throughout the entirety of the medieval period might be difficult (because things can change CONSIDERABLY).
That said, I am most familiar with French high medieval history, so I don't have a whole lot to recommend in terms of reading, and certainly not in German. I would say that there might be some useful information for the English side in Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225. I would imagine, at the very least, you might find some even more useful resources in his bibliography directly relating to kingship in England.
I only have an ok knowledge post-Cnut, and in this time period inheritance was considered the way kings came on the throne. This was always mitigated by the fact that whoever had the biggest a stick usually won over, like Henry ii. and then there are the succession crises (Edward I was the first king to inherit without much trouble as the eldest son of a previous king)
Also, there is the fact that the coronation ceremony: there was a lot of symbolism in this coronation, and the king was said to be elected by his nobles and clergy, but this wasn't the reality.
Next, looking at the aethlings, harald Harefoot and harthacnut, is interesting. This was a form of election, as whoever had the support of the powerful noble families, the godwins et al, came out on top. But again, it wasn't constitutional, it was just realpolitik: kings of England derived their right through birth but couldn't rule without the nobles.
Then, the treaty if Westminster 1153, where Stephen decided his son would renounce his claim for Henry ii. This was neither election nor was it primogeniture, but Henry's sons/ descendants ruled for a very long time, until Henry Bolingbroke usurped I believe. Wasn't a clean succession, Edward ii was forced to abdicate for his son, but election was not a real aspect if English royalty.
I recommend reading M.T Clanchy England and it's rulers and James Campbell on the Anglo Saxon state for more info. I hope this was accurate, I just did a paper on it a few weeks ago!