Can the people of your dynasty get mistresses? Say your last guy is growing old or dying and he lacks a male heir. Can he legitimize illegitimate children?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That would be a possibility, or simply make him your heir because of his great service to you
yes and yes...You can even name an illegitimate heir over a legitimate one with great penalties however. Atleast this is my understanding
Well there dont necessarily have to be "great" penalties. There might be a reason to name the illegitimate son heir such as greater support among your vassals, or him just being a more fit ruler. Of course piety at least should suffer. But the consequences shouldnt necessarily be severe.
Though he may be more able to lead your dynasty, making a choice of him over one who rightfully has claim I believe has been said will incur penalties. Severity I dont know. Thats what civil wars are for
hmm interesting
so you keep track of children and have both legitimate and illegitimate ones? do you have control over this, or is it just a random occurance?
so you keep track of children and have both legitimate and illegitimate ones? do you have control over this, or is it just a random occurance?
Kinda like Guiscard choosing Roger Borsa over the son he had by his first wife, Bohemund.
Well, Guiscard divided his land between the two though. The only problem was that most of the land Bohemund got was newly conquered Byzantine territory, and ths was later lost by a Byzantine re-conquer...
I believe that the view of illegitimate children changed over time. The Merovingian kings of France didn't seem to care, but as time went by, concubinage began to be frowned upon.
Still - it would be fun to be able to sneak into another kings bedchamber to "plow his fields"... Imagine the repercussions!
Still - it would be fun to be able to sneak into another kings bedchamber to "plow his fields"... Imagine the repercussions!
IIRC in Wales being illigitimate was not a barrier to inheriting your fathers lands/titles.
Naming a bastard as your heir though will certainly spark some ill feelings in those who feel that they have a more legitimate claim to the throne.
Naming a bastard as your heir though will certainly spark some ill feelings in those who feel that they have a more legitimate claim to the throne.
Bohemund was Prince of Taranto, and most of his lands were in the "heel" of Italy, which never was re-conquered by the Byzantines after they were kicked out in 1071. Robert Guiscard favored his second son over his first simply because through his mother he was heir to Salerno and half-Lombard, which the Guiscard hoped would keep the Lombard part of the population more content...
From what I've read Bohemond played a leading role in Robert Guiscard's attacks on Byzantine Albania in 1081. These Albanian holdings were left him by his father, together with Taranto, to defend.Originally posted by Demetrios
Bohemund was Prince of Taranto, and most of his lands were in the "heel" of Italy, which never was re-conquered by the Byzantines after they were kicked out in 1071. Robert Guiscard favored his second son over his first simply because through his mother he was heir to Salerno and half-Lombard, which the Guiscard hoped would keep the Lombard part of the population more content...
The fact that Roger got what he did could be justified with his bloodline as a heir to Salerno, not necescarily favourisation by their father.
Same thing in Norway. This was changed with Archbishops Øystein's rules of succession from 1164.Originally posted by Sonny
IIRC in Wales being illigitimate was not a barrier to inheriting your fathers lands/titles.
Naming a bastard as your heir though will certainly spark some ill feelings in those who feel that they have a more legitimate claim to the throne.
There is something I don't understand about all this. In this game..do you play as a person ( as in the genghis khan series where your 'player' changed every 65 or so years ) or more like EU2 where you are a state more than anything else, or do you play a dynasty instead? Who is your 'player'?
And if your ruler or whatever dies and has no heir, does that spark off hostilities with other dynasties or even SUB branches of your own claiming the lands you've worked so hard to obtain?
And if you DO name a 'bastard heir' when they assume power will others not recognize that and begin to stake ( perhaps stronger?) claims to what is yours?
and in your family, will there be subbranches that are linked to other families. Kinda like how there was Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine once the main branch died out. But I did read the Este family in Emilia had two branches..the main one Italian and then a subbranch that existed in Italy. Those two werent united until the 16 or 1700s i believe.
This game sounds fun and has a lot more depth than the other strategy games i've played
) or more like EU2 where you are a state more than anything else, or do you play a dynasty instead? Who is your 'player'?And if your ruler or whatever dies and has no heir, does that spark off hostilities with other dynasties or even SUB branches of your own claiming the lands you've worked so hard to obtain?
And if you DO name a 'bastard heir' when they assume power will others not recognize that and begin to stake ( perhaps stronger?) claims to what is yours?
and in your family, will there be subbranches that are linked to other families. Kinda like how there was Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine once the main branch died out. But I did read the Este family in Emilia had two branches..the main one Italian and then a subbranch that existed in Italy. Those two werent united until the 16 or 1700s i believe.
This game sounds fun and has a lot more depth than the other strategy games i've played
1. You are the dynasty, you therefor control everything with it.
2. Maybe
3. Same as 2. it depends
4. Yes you will see them on the family tree, put they will slowly fade away
2. Maybe
3. Same as 2. it depends
4. Yes you will see them on the family tree, put they will slowly fade away
I've read that being known as a 'Bastard' back in the medieval days, (Say around 1066) was not neccessarily a bad thing. There was even a sort of romanticism attached to being a bastard.
It wasn't always consistent in any one country. William I was a bastard, yet became Duke of Normandy and conquered England, yet when Henry I (William's son) died, Robert, Earl of Gloucester was not considered eligible to succeed him because he was a bastard, much to England's loss.
True, I guess it depends on the laws of succesion, I wonder if we will get to create them.
If he had become king then perhaps Henry II might not have become king and I think Henry II was one of the better kings that England ever had.
Remember that bastards were only given a bad stigma in the Victorian era, bastards in the middle ages often held the same power as the youngest legitimate sons, sometimes even inheriting lands!