Winter is here and the ice-fear is very cold (now there's an obscure reference for you). For today's diary, I thought that we might immerse ourselves in medieval jurisprudence. In practice, the laws function in much the same way as in Rome: Vae Victis, but in Crusader Kings II there are two different types of law; one that applies to a character's actual demesne (de facto, or demesne laws) and one that applies to everyone within an ancient traditional kingdom (de jure, or kingdom laws.) Demesne laws cover things like succession, tax levels and how the council operates. Any playable character can fiddle around with his own demesne laws. Kingdom laws cover the freedoms, rights and obligations of burghers, nobles, clergy and peasants. Only the holder of a Kingdom title is allowed to change these laws, and they will affect the whole geographical kingdom, regardless of whether a province is actually under its de facto control. (Like in Crusader Kings, de jure duchies and kingdoms are static, geographical entities that never change.)

Therefore, a player who is, for example, king of Norway and Denmark must change de jure laws separately per kingdom. To make things even more interesting, succession at the kingdom level (and only at the kingdom level) is also handled per kingdom, so Norway might be an elective monarchy while Denmark has primogeniture. Thus, the Norwegian dukes might elect another successor to the throne of Norway than the oldest son of the current king, which would split the kingdoms apart...
Speaking of succession laws, they are slightly different from the ones in Crusader Kings. In Crusader Kings II, most succession laws can be either cognatic or agnatic (that choice is a separate law.) These are the succession laws of CKII:

• Seniority (oldest man in the dynasty succeeds)
• Primogeniture (oldest son succeeds)
• Elective (the current king and the dukes each nominate a successor)
• Gavelkind (all titles are divided among the sons of the ruler)
• Turkish (a succession crisis is almost guaranteed, but the vassals are content)
• Republican (a random vassal or courtier succeeds; used for republics, etc)
• Catholic Bishopric (the liege lord can override the Pope's choice by nominating his own successor)

That's all for now. The game is still a very long way from being finished, but I can at least offer you this screenshot of the current Law interface (though bear in mind that it is still very much subject to change.) In the screenshot, the king stands to inherit the duchy, because the young duke has no legal heir. "Pretenders" are the second and third characters in the line of succession.





Until next time, I bid you a very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Henrik Fåhraeus, Associate Producer and CKII Project Lead

 

[King_Duncan]

I like the idea of estates deciding on who would rule, which was the case in many parts of central Europe and Iberia but much less so in Britain or France, until the late eighteenth century.

Except, of course, the famous case of Philip of Valois, who was chosen over Edward Plantagenet (Edward III of England) by the magnate representatives of the first estate of France to succeed Charles IV in 1328. You could also make a case for the tacit assent of the estates of England for the accession of Henry IV in 1399; parliament recognised the House of Lancaster with barely a murmur. If you're willing to be flexible with your definition of 'the estates', the role of the baronage and leading ecclesiastics in the thirteenth-century English civil wars (notably the ousting of Louis Capet in 1217) are also worthy of mention in this context.

And Scotland (you said 'Britain or France' ) is rife with quasi-conciliar succession decisions. I'll let Calgacus elaborate on that if he wants to

 

[Calgacus]

And Scotland (you said 'Britain or France' ) is rife with quasi-conciliar succession decisions. I'll let Calgacus elaborate on that if he wants to

To be honest, I can't think of any instance. Whenever the succession is unclear in the CK period, a candidate is imposed by England (or more rarely imposed by one section of the kingdom, e.g. Bruce) rather than chosen by the "community of the realm". The latter of course rubber stamped some impositions.

 

[HMAS-Nameless]

sorry if it has already been asked but I noticed that start date was on October 1 1066, two weeks before the battle of hastings. Does this mean that the game will start with Harold Godwinson still in power in England?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

sorry if it has already been asked but I noticed that start date was on October 1 1066, two weeks before the battle of hastings. Does this mean that the game will start with Harold Godwinson still in power in England?

The game will start just before the battle of Stamford Bridge, so in september 1066. Harold and his brothers are therefor still alive.

 

[Ruwaard]

I had a question/idea regarding titles under elective law; will the current title holder be able to get his son or other (male?) relative elected as his successor during his lifetime?
Most elected royals and nobles tried this (if it was allowed), but they weren't always successful, so I suggest some kind of event chain.
Furthermore this should also include an event were the estates (parliament etc.) offer to make the title hereditary in exchange for privileges.

 

[RedRooster81]

Except, of course, the famous case of Philip of Valois, who was chosen over Edward Plantagenet (Edward III of England) by the magnate representatives of the first estate of France to succeed Charles IV in 1328. You could also make a case for the tacit assent of the estates of England for the accession of Henry IV in 1399; parliament recognised the House of Lancaster with barely a murmur. If you're willing to be flexible with your definition of 'the estates', the role of the baronage and leading ecclesiastics in the thirteenth-century English civil wars (notably the ousting of Louis Capet in 1217) are also worthy of mention in this context.

And Scotland (you said 'Britain or France' ) is rife with quasi-conciliar succession decisions. I'll let Calgacus elaborate on that if he wants to

I bow to your superior knowledge of English history. I am more familiar with the intricacies of Iberian history myself. My point, of course, was that the estates (however they manifested locally) should have a call on who would rule, in reply to the question of posthumous inheritance, perhaps overruling the mathematics of succession laws that was central to the CK1 experience.

 

[Doomdark]

I had a question/idea regarding titles under elective law; will the current title holder be able to get his son or other (male?) relative elected as his successor during his lifetime?
Most elected royals and nobles tried this (if it was allowed), but they weren't always successful, so I suggest some kind of event chain.
Furthermore this should also include an event were the estates (parliament etc.) offer to make the title hereditary in exchange for privileges.

Not "elected" as such. You nominate a successor and can always see who currently has the most votes. This person will succeed unless something changes.

 

[RedRooster81]

Not "elected" as such. You nominate a successor and can always see who currently has the most votes. This person will succeed unless something changes.

Cool. Similar to the current patched version of EU3 for the HRE elections. Would it be possible, maybe with a mod, to have the current monarch's favorite made a crown prince of sorts, giving him some bonus in votes?

It would be great too if it would be possible (as happened in such a system like the HRE where it was known as the electoral capitulation) for the leading candidate to make campaign promises of sorts with the major electors. This would help differentiate between simple primogeniture and elective-succession realms, where a member of the ruling dynasty would probably be elected, but the kingdom's magnates have a chance to force through some concessions. The Bohemian estates often pushed their own terms on foreign-born rulers, and I understand a similar arrangement went on in Sweden. All of this sounds really cool, and I know you guys have a lot to do before release, but just some ideas to add some complexity to matters of regal succession.

Finally, a bit off topic maybe, but will there be court factions, like in EU Rome? Especially for regencies or weak monarchs, this could lead to some interesting results. E.g., a pro-papal vs. pro-regal faction; merchants vs. aristocrats? Just another idea.

 

[Nick B II]

I'm not sure there's much reason to give the Monarch's favorite an edge in the election. The Crown Prince is gonna have to win that election himself, after the King's dead. There're also gameplay concerns -- it should be a major pain to keep an elective throne, just like it was IRL. Otherwise there's no reason not to be Elective.

I like the other idea, thop.

Nick

 

[Woody Man]

I'm not sure there's much reason to give the Monarch's favorite an edge in the election. The Crown Prince is gonna have to win that election himself, after the King's dead. There're also gameplay concerns -- it should be a major pain to keep an elective throne, just like it was IRL. Otherwise there's no reason not to be Elective.

I like the other idea, thop.

Nick

Generally being nominated as the King's choice for successor gave you a big edge at the time.

 

[Ruwaard]

I'm not sure there's much reason to give the Monarch's favorite an edge in the election. The Crown Prince is gonna have to win that election himself, after the King's dead. There're also gameplay concerns -- it should be a major pain to keep an elective throne, just like it was IRL. Otherwise there's no reason not to be Elective.

I like the other idea, thop.

Nick

Yes it was a major and even in elective monarchies (like in the Holy Roman Empire, were a new king of the Romans could be elected once the Holy Roman Emperor was crowned; or early Capetian France) were IRL a king could try to get his nominated successor elected during his lifetime, this was far from certain to happen. However if I understand correctly the only thing a king can do in CK2 is to convince, bribe tec. during his lifetime and hope it will be enough to let his dynasty continue their reign.
OTOH it should give an edge over the other candidates, however if the predecessor was not popular, it should become more likely that rebelious vassals can agree on a compromise candidate, who can defeat the 'crown prince'. However if there erupts a rebellion against this compromise candidate, the old crown prince is the most likely anti king.

 

[Nick B II]

Generally being nominated as the King's choice for successor gave you a big edge at the time.

That's true in countries like England, but they aren't particularly relevant because they don't use Elective Law.

How often did the King's chosen succesor win in Sweden?

Nick

 

[Woody Man]

That's true in countries like England, but they aren't particularly relevant because they don't use Elective Law.

Nick

Prior to the Norman monarchy England was technically an Elective Kingdom.

 

[Ruwaard]

That's true in countries like England, but they aren't particularly relevant because they don't use Elective Law.

How often did the King's chosen succesor win in Sweden?

Nick

That's why IRL they tried to have an election during their own lifetime, to ensure succession (I know that this won't make it to the game), however such an early election could only happen when the current ruler was popular and powerful enough (although too powerful might be a reason to prevent such an early election)...

Furthermore just like events to make the kingdom elective, there should be events and decisions to, slowly, restore hereditary rule of a dynasty.

 

[unmerged(58160)]

Just reread all the diaries after realizing this was posted this month, not last. So excited for this.

 

[Drakken]

I'm not sure there's much reason to give the Monarch's favorite an edge in the election. The Crown Prince is gonna have to win that election himself, after the King's dead. There're also gameplay concerns -- it should be a major pain to keep an elective throne, just like it was IRL. Otherwise there's no reason not to be Elective.

That's how the French monarchy became hereditary after Hugues Capet. After two generations of Kings presenting their eldest heir as favourite candidate, they stopped bothering about the whole election thing, but kept the system and pump built around it (peers of the realm, etc) so that they could keep the pretense of "choosing" and confirming the election of the future King as a body.

So yeah, it mattered a great, great, great deal.

 

[Nick B II]

That's how the French monarchy became hereditary after Hugues Capet. After two generations of Kings presenting their eldest heir as favourite candidate, they stopped bothering about the whole election thing, but kept the system and pump built around it (peers of the realm, etc) so that they could keep the pretense of "choosing" and confirming the election of the future King as a body.

So yeah, it mattered a great, great, great deal.

The relevant question here is "How important was the King's choice in countries using Elective Law in CK?" After all, if Paradox changes elective to simulate the Capetians they won't actually affect the Salic-Law using Capetians, but will screw up the Elective Swedes.

So I'm wondering how much Swedish Kings could actually influence their succesion. I'd assume the answer is not much, because if they could do that they probably would have made their kids their heirs, and for CK purposes they'd be Semi-salic Consanguinity or something. But that's just an educated guess.

Does anybody know anything about Royal elections in Sweden in CK's time period?

Nick

 

[xGhost4000x]

Was this topic really started on the 2nd? I could have sworn it had already been a month....wow time is crawling....

 

[Kaleidoscope]

in Crusader Kings II there are two different types of law; one that applies to a character's actual demesne (de facto, or demesne laws) and one that applies to everyone within an ancient traditional kingdom (de jure, or kingdom laws.)

Do these universally applied De Jure/Kingdom laws mean that we won't be able to grant special privileges to certain vassals?
One example I like to use is the Marcher Lords in Wales. These nobles had enormous independence from the English Crown - they could declare war, set taxes, build castles, get married and define all laws and punishments for any crime except treason. This was in contrast to the nobility of the rest of England, who were very much under the thumb of the King. They needed royal assent for pretty much everything listed above.
Will we be able to define certain areas of our realm where the laws are more relaxed?

 

[Ruwaard]

Do these universally applied De Jure/Kingdom laws mean that we won't be able to grant special privileges to certain vassals?
One example I like to use is the Marcher Lords in Wales. These nobles had enormous independence from the English Crown - they could declare war, set taxes, build castles, get married and define all laws and punishments for any crime except treason. This was in contrast to the nobility of the rest of England, who were very much under the thumb of the King. They needed royal assent for pretty much everything listed above.
Will we be able to define certain areas of our realm where the laws are more relaxed?

I like the idea, but it should also margraves in the Holy Roman Empire. Another example is the Privilegium Minus, which turned the margraviate of Austria into the duchy of Austria. One of the privileges of Austria was that they as a duchy were allowed to keep the specific rights of a margraviate.