which is better - primogeniture or merit?

The very first conflict in a play rife with conflicts is between Bassianus and Saturninus. The subject: which of the emperor's two sons, the eldest or the more meritorious, should succeed Titus as emperor? The traditionalist Titus settles the question in favor of primogeniture, thus setting off a series of events that renders Rome corrupt and feeble, and creates unspeakable tragedy for the Andronici. Shakespeare, it seems, feels that merit ought to take precedence over primogeniture; the whole play, it might even be argued (as the critic Sid Ray has done), is a plea for elective rather than aristocratic descent.

The Goths have their own twisted interpretation of the primogeniture versus merit question, as can be seen in the debate between Chiron and Demetrius over who should woo Lavinia in the beginning of Act Two. Chiron says that he should because he is the eldest, and Demetrius opposes him on the basis of worth. Of course, their argument is mere bravado; a fact that becomes painfully obvious when Aaron suggests that they "both should speed." Still, by echoing the Bassianus/Saturninus debate in the bickering of two violent rapists, Shakespeare makes a statement about the dangerous, petty childishness of the political process as a whole.