I'm fascinated by history, and most of the internal wars or struggles fought in the UK have been succession battles. Therefore I think we should make Charles and William duke it out when the Queen dies...
Seriously though, it wasn't that long ago that the death of a monarch was devastating news with the potential to affect the lives of thousands if not millions if more than one man decided he was the heir. If you were a landed aristocrat you had to chose which claimant to the throne you wanted to back. Pick the wrong one and you lost your life, your family probably lost its lands, title and wealth. If you were a minor Lord, you hoped your Lord picked the right sided, if not you died and lost your lands and wealth. If you were a serf you could be called upon to fight for the side your Lord picked (or the side his Lord picked). You could die, certainly if you were away from home for too long your family could starve without your help to bring in the harvest. If you lost as a serf, or were a free man like a mason living in a village owned by a losing noble, you could find yourself attacked by the winning side in the middle of the night for no other reason than the winners wished to show the rest of the country what happened when you messed with them. It's not, therefore surprising, that we're interested in the question of what happens when the reigning monarch dies. It's inbred because for so long the answer to the auestion was a matter of life and death.