Agnatic-cognatic primogeniture not working as intended? (Wrong heir)

[K-vald]

Just to make sure I understand you right:
You argue that the still living son of the living ruler shouldn't be the heir since the living grandson of the ruler should be more eligible as heir to the kingdom of the ruler?

If this is the case then yes, I would say it's indeed WAD since sons are "more" next-in-line than grandsons.

 

[K-vald]

Yes, you understood me right. Thanks for the confirmation. The most important thing is off my plate. I can live with that even though I disagree with the interpretation (kings were sometimes powerless against succession laws too).

But. I believe a more historically accurate interpretation of primogeniture is not blood proximity but representation. Please look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

Edward the Black Prince's son Richard II inherited despite having three living uncles, including John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, which led to the Wars of the Roses. Currently, Prince William and Prince Henry precede Prince Andrew and Prince Edward.

As for male preference: If both Prince Charles and Prince William died but William managed to have a sole daughter, Harry wouldn't become the King and neither would Andrew. Elisabeth II had plenty of uncles and male cousins and still inherited because she was dynastically senior (this is seniority of descent, not of age, as in the seniority succession in which the eldest living dynast inherits regardless how far removed). On the other hand, she wouldn't have inherited if she had had an elder brother (so no absolute cognatic).

That's an interesting point. However, you described the problem as a male descendant to the ruler was more eligible than the DAUGTHER (pardon my mistake in writing grandson earlier) to the deceased rightful descendant to the ruler. This seems to be quite adequate, but if there was a male son of the ruler, having precedence over the grandSON of the ruler then I must say that this indeed sounds a bit off, at least considering primogeniture as it is in real life.

 

[K-vald]

It seems like there is some confusion over what was being queried here.

As I understood it, the OP was saying that the King had had at least two sons. The eldest son had had one daughter before he then died. In agnatic-cognatic primogeniture that should mean that the King's grandaughter, the only child of his (now deceased) eldest son should be his heir but in fact the system was showing her uncle, the King's second son, as the heir.

Perhaps the OP could confirm if I am right and, either way, perhaps K-vald could confirm what should happen in the scenario I have outlined.

Yes, some confusion indeed. But that ought a be cleared up soon, hopefully..

In that scenario you described it should, according to the agnatic-cognatic part, be the uncle (the second son of the king) who's inherits the kingdom instead of the granddaughter.
Just to make everything perfectly clear; the agnatic-cognatic succession system means that women CAN inherit, but only if there is no eligible males. That is, if the king did not have any more children then the granddaughter would be the heir.

 

[K-vald]

As for the confusion regarding my situation: King Siegmund has his first son Gilbert, second Godfrey and so on. Gilbert marries a foreign queen and has daughter Blanche (in my court, just to rule out any interference with allegiance mechanics), no other children. Gilbert dies before King Siegmund. Godfrey the Insolent Ungrateful Rebel gets appointed heir by the game while in prison. Blanche does not get appointed to be the heir. SO: I thought that Blanche should yield to any brothers but not to any uncles (younger than her father), as in male preference applying between siblings. It turns out under K-vald's explanation that male preference is more total. Basically as long as there is any male heir to be construed in any way, Blanche gets nothing (even the king's brother, and he has a couple, would inherit instead of her).

So case solved, right?

It would seem like it's case closed, yes!

I see. That's fully clear now when it comes to offspring. I basically didn't know at which point the male preference was applied by design.

But, what about the grandson, since we've mentioned them? Example: Prince Charles dies before Elisabeth II, does Prince William become the heir or does Prince Andrew get lucky? This one I'm more tense about, since to favour Prince Andrew would mean to put proximity above primogeniture (William should represent/substitute for Charles). I do remember getting a second son as an heir despite the eldest son having a son. The elder son's son should precede a junior son.

Hypothetical in-game example (after reloading): Gilbert has a son Eric after Blanche. Gilbert dies. Under primogeniture Eric should become grandpa's heir to the Kingdom of Poland under primogeniture, whereas proximity would favour Godfrey.

It's implemented exactly as in reality. Meaning that, yes, "Eric" would be grandpa's heir. Same should go for the other example with Prince William.