Selecting an Heir

[SønnavDanmark]

It's a feature that I think could have been implemented from the first game, and one that might add a lot more drama to the successions. But consider this:

A Nation has a certain designated "Law of Succession," either Semi-salic Primogeniture, or etc. This law designates a certain succession order. However, as ruler, you can designate for yourself who should succeed you, based on the traits you deem to be most important.

Once the King dies, there could be a "succession crisis," a rebellion whose strength would vary depending on how "legal" the chosen Heir's succession is based upon the Law of the Land. Characters bypassed in succession would receive claims and could become extremely disloyal and/or the ringleaders of the rebellion.

It would give the player more flexibility in determining his heir, something that a real Ruler would have had, while also modeling the destabilizing effects that something like that would have had, historically.

 

[Fookison]

Excellent suggestion!
This would make for some interesting dynamics within the game. It would be fun to be able to manipulate the succession in this manner and see what the effects could become. I often thought that this would be fun to do in the CK game but had to work around the parameters set within the existing game mechanics.

 

[Txini]

Any historical example? I can think of legal heir being overpassed in succession to get a "better heir" near in the list, most times because legal heir was a young child or a female in a moment of internal crisis, but someone appointing a heir, that was not legal heir or lacked a heir....

 

[CatalanNation]

Selecting the heir manually to bypass the current law it's something I'm sure a lot of us is expecting, but even if that feature it's not in and is treated in a similar way than CK1, a good way to handle this part of the game could be something like what about every character in-game having its own favorite succession law.

I mean, every x time, each characters or at least the most relevant ones (EU:R prominence anyone?) check their opinion towards each of the succession laws available, and depending on their relations with the current ruler (the more friendly with him, the more they'll support the same ruler opinion) and their own calculations on what they'll win or lose on each one, they choose their favorite law (pretty much what happens on almost EVERY political/economical decision at a personal/collective level on our society. So if the realm's stability suffers a hit, the characters with different succession opinions may try to start a rebellion or similar actions to overthrow the ruler and impose their favorite succession law, and the ones with the same succession law opinion may follow him.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Any historical example? I can think of legal heir being overpassed in succession to get a "better heir" near in the list, most times because legal heir was a young child or a female in a moment of internal crisis, but someone appointing a heir, that was not legal heir or lacked a heir....

It can happen if there are more legal heirs.

In Hungary for example, all living male members of the Árpád dynasty were legal heirs. Most of the time the brothers made a pact like it's my turn, you are next, then my kiddo. (like Géza, Géza's brother László, then Géza's son Kálmán)

However, if a prince was crowned by the holy crown, he had to be the next king. For example is Imre, who crowned his son during his lifetime, which basicly pushed Imre's brother, Endre out of the succession line. (in the end Endre became king though, since he was still alive when Imre's only son died)

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

It can happen if there are more legal heirs.

In Hungary for example, all living male members of the Árpád dynasty were legal heirs. Most of the time the brothers made a pact like it's my turn, you are next, then my kiddo. (like Géza, Géza's brother László, then Géza's son Kálmán)

However, if a prince was crowned by the holy crown, he had to be the next king. For example is Imre, who crowned his son during his lifetime, which basicly pushed Imre's brother, Endre out of the succession line. (in the end Endre became king though, since he was still alive when Imre's only son died)

Not really an example where Txini is asking for. Since the Hungarians are still following their inheritance rule.

So are there examples of where rulers designated their own heirs, bypassing the laws of the land ?

 

[TheArchMede]

Not really an example where Txini is asking for. Since the Hungarians are still following their inheritance rule.

So are there examples of where rulers designated their own heirs, bypassing the laws of the land ?

Designation was the most important source of legitimacy for every English King from the Conqueror to Henry II. Whether this is bypassing the laws is a different question. If the previous King said you should succeed, that made it lawful.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Designation was the most important source of legitimacy for every English King from the Conqueror to Henry II. Whether this is bypassing the laws is a different question. If the previous King said you should succeed, that made it lawful.

A lot of people in England/Normandy didn't consider it legimate or lawful which resulted in several succession wars each time a king died.

Henry I took the crown, which resulted in war with his elder brother, Robert. Robert lost that war and Henry became king. Henry I though didn't designate Stephen as his heir. Henry I designated his daughter as the new ruler, she was never crowned and wasn't able to rule the country for more then a few months.

According to the succession laws, Stephen of Blois was the legimate king and he was the king (how ever weak/unsuccessfull he was). Stephen was forced to accept the son of Maud as his heir while actually Eustace the son of Stephen was the legitimate heir. Luckily Eustace died before his father, which made a somewhat smooth succession.

 

[A_Dane]

Well, I'm not entirely certain, but in Denmark (and other places if i remember correctly), it was actually a electoral monarchy (nobles should in theory choose the next king), but most of the time, the king either managed to get his son elected as a kid, or they simply chose the son.

(As an example: in 1250, King Abel of Denmark got his brother murdered, and he succeeded, as the brother had no legal heirs. He died himself 2 years later, and his son was bypassed by his younger brother, who got the throne through election, this brother then managed to get his son designated as his next heir, to avoid conflict between his nephew and son, this ultimately failed..)

Now, this is just from memory though, it's been quite a while since i read about it...

 

[TheArchMede]

A lot of people in England/Normandy didn't consider it legimate or lawful which resulted in several succession wars each time a king died.

Henry I took the crown, which resulted in war with his elder brother, Robert. Robert lost that war and Henry became king. Henry I though didn't designate Stephen as his heir. Henry I designated his daughter as the new ruler, she was never crowned and wasn't able to rule the country for more then a few months.

According to the succession laws, Stephen of Blois was the legimate king and he was the king (how ever weak/unsuccessfull he was). Stephen was forced to accept the son of Maud as his heir while actually Eustace the son of Stephen was the legitimate heir. Luckily Eustace died before his father, which made a somewhat smooth succession.

The most important element of King making in England in 1066 was designation. None of the 3 claimants had a serious claim by birth (that belonged to Edgar the Aethling who no one seriously thought of making King of England when the Confesser died). Hardrada based it on an old designation by Hathacnut, Godwinson and the Bastard on designations by the Confessor.

Rufus succeeded the Conquerer by reason of desgnation. His father said he was to be King, on William's death, he carried a letter from William to the Archbishop of Canterbury telling the Archbishop that Rufus should be crowned. Rufus succeeded because his father designated him. Robert didn't like it, but he never contested that Rufus was rightfully King. He made the best of it by doing a deal with Rufus that designated each of them the others heir.

Stephen did not have the best claim by birth. Even by excluding women (and a women did succeed to a throne in Spain in Henry's reign) and infants (the future Henry II was about 2 years old when Henry I died) he does not have the best claim. Stephen also had an older brother, Theobald. Stephen followed the example of Rufus. He hastily crossed the Channel and convinced the archbishop of Canterbury that it was Henry's dying wish that Stephen be crowned. (and Theobald like Robert before him decided that going along with his brother rather than asserting his superior right by birth was the best thing to do.) When the relative merits of the claimants were argued before the Pope, Stephen based his claim on Matilda being illegitimate and Henry designating him heir on his deathbed. Even if the Pope went along with the obviously false allegation of illegitamacy, Stephen still needed designation to have a better claim than Theobald.

While Stephen's elder son predeceased him, his younger did not. Henry II succeeded by reason of designation.

CK1 deals with this fine. The "strongest descendant inherits" laws allow the ruler to designate an heir by piling titles onto them. There isn't any need to have any extra mechanic. Just give them half a dozen Dukedoms and its obvious to everyone they are your designated heir.

 

[The Kingmaker]

It's a feature that I think could have been implemented from the first game, and one that might add a lot more drama to the successions. But consider this:

A Nation has a certain designated "Law of Succession," either Semi-salic Primogeniture, or etc. This law designates a certain succession order. However, as ruler, you can designate for yourself who should succeed you, based on the traits you deem to be most important.

Once the King dies, there could be a "succession crisis," a rebellion whose strength would vary depending on how "legal" the chosen Heir's succession is based upon the Law of the Land. Characters bypassed in succession would receive claims and could become extremely disloyal and/or the ringleaders of the rebellion.

It would give the player more flexibility in determining his heir, something that a real Ruler would have had, while also modeling the destabilizing effects that something like that would have had, historically.

I'm all for this.

 

[Txini]

The most important element of King making in England in 1066 was designation. None of the 3 claimants had a serious claim by birth (that belonged to Edgar the Aethling who no one seriously thought of making King of England when the Confesser died). Hardrada based it on an old designation by Hathacnut, Godwinson and the Bastard on designations by the Confessor.

Rufus succeeded the Conquerer by reason of desgnation. His father said he was to be King, on William's death, he carried a letter from William to the Archbishop of Canterbury telling the Archbishop that Rufus should be crowned. Rufus succeeded because his father designated him. Robert didn't like it, but he never contested that Rufus was rightfully King. He made the best of it by doing a deal with Rufus that designated each of them the others heir.

Stephen did not have the best claim by birth. Even by excluding women (and a women did succeed to a throne in Spain in Henry's reign) and infants (the future Henry II was about 2 years old when Henry I died) he does not have the best claim. Stephen also had an older brother, Theobald. Stephen followed the example of Rufus. He hastily crossed the Channel and convinced the archbishop of Canterbury that it was Henry's dying wish that Stephen be crowned. (and Theobald like Robert before him decided that going along with his brother rather than asserting his superior right by birth was the best thing to do.) When the relative merits of the claimants were argued before the Pope, Stephen based his claim on Matilda being illegitimate and Henry designating him heir on his deathbed. Even if the Pope went along with the obviously false allegation of illegitamacy, Stephen still needed designation to have a better claim than Theobald.

While Stephen's elder son predeceased him, his younger did not. Henry II succeeded by reason of designation.

CK1 deals with this fine. The "strongest descendant inherits" laws allow the ruler to designate an heir by piling titles onto them. There isn't any need to have any extra mechanic. Just give them half a dozen Dukedoms and its obvious to everyone they are your designated heir.

Sincerely I don't see neither 1066 succession nor Henry II's as examples to what I said, the first because as said designation if there was no legal heir was only thing I said to recognize, second because you can't consider the succession to be due to dessignation, but imposition, in fact some of Stephen's followers offered the crown to Stephen elder brother Thibaut that declined the offer, the same as he declined the first time when Henry I's only son died to make a claim on it. This could be an option in a peace offer, recognize X as your Heir. Then we get the doubt, was he really appointed or was more his brother bypassed because William took power earlier in the same way as Stephen would do later?

 

[Doomdark]

There is a succession law in CK2 called "Feudal Elective" (i.e. Elective Monarchy.) The current ruler gets to throw his weight behind a candidate, but this only counts as one "vote". If he is a king, each duke also gets to nominate a candidate (from among the dukes and the children of the king.) Mind you, this is still somewhat tentative, but expect something very similar to be in the game.

 

[Hellvink]

There is a succession law in CK2 called "Feudal Elective" (i.e. Elective Monarchy.) The current ruler gets to throw his weight behind a candidate, but this only counts as one "vote". If he is a king, each duke also gets to nominate a candidate (from among the dukes and the children of the king.) Mind you, this is still somewhat tentative, but expect something very similar to be in the game.

Hurray Germany!

 

[Davisx3m]

There is a succession law in CK2 called "Feudal Elective" (i.e. Elective Monarchy.) The current ruler gets to throw his weight behind a candidate, but this only counts as one "vote". If he is a king, each duke also gets to nominate a candidate (from among the dukes and the children of the king.) Mind you, this is still somewhat tentative, but expect something very similar to be in the game.

Awesome!!

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

There is a succession law in CK2 called "Feudal Elective" (i.e. Elective Monarchy.) The current ruler gets to throw his weight behind a candidate, but this only counts as one "vote". If he is a king, each duke also gets to nominate a candidate (from among the dukes and the children of the king.) Mind you, this is still somewhat tentative, but expect something very similar to be in the game.

That already sounds a lot better then the Elective Law in CK1.

 

[Rysz]

There is a succession law in CK2 called "Feudal Elective" (i.e. Elective Monarchy.) The current ruler gets to throw his weight behind a candidate, but this only counts as one "vote". If he is a king, each duke also gets to nominate a candidate (from among the dukes and the children of the king.) Mind you, this is still somewhat tentative, but expect something very similar to be in the game.

And now I'm starting to drool I so hope the 2nd Dev Diary already will come to the theme of succession

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

And now I'm starting to drool I so hope the 2nd Dev Diary already will come to the theme of succession

I believe Doomdark already said that it would be about Barons

Next month: Barons - why Vladimir hated Leto

 

[Rysz]

I believe Doomdark already said that it would be about Barons

Oh right, I forgot. Ah, that'll be interesting too Just being a bit over-enthusiastic. Can't hurt, can it?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Oh right, I forgot. Ah, that'll be interesting too Just being a bit over-enthusiastic. Can't hurt, can it?

Every bit of info about the game makes me more enthusiastic