Legitimization of bastards

[PLrc]

If legitimization of bastards is so easy in CK why was it so difficult in history if possible at all? If it was that difficult in history why is it so easy in CK? Many kings despite having many male bastards had a huge problem with succession because they didn't have a son from a marriage. It looked completly differently in reality.

 

[JodelDiplom]

If legitimization of bastards is so easy in CK why was it so difficult in history if possible at all? If it was that difficult in history why is it so easy in CK? Many kings despite having many male bastards had a huge problem with succession because they didn't have a son from a marriage. It looked completly differently in reality.

Unlike in CK3 people in real history weren't playing a dynasty but just living their own lives. And in their old age they may not have cared as much about the succession, as a CK3 player might. Instead they may have cared more about maintaining control, by dividing their ambitious sons instead of favoring one of them over the others.

Also, old men have needs. They want to have women around them who care for them and for their needs. This might involve giving them what they in turn want, like, that they should totally not legitimize some random grown up bastard from an earlier dalliance, and let him be a lethal rival to the toddler son that the youngest wife hopes will succeed the old father. To the old ruler, maybe he thinks he'd rather keep the young mother's company than legitimize his bastard son, even if it means the kingdom will suffer from a boy king upon his death. Who likes planning for one's own death anyways.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

It's all about the land. And feudalism.

Original title in land belongs to the king, and everyone else is in fief or sub-fief, but right to hold is inherited. Once you give away land to someone to hold, they and their descendents can hold it forever.

Land is often the only wealth a monarch has. He has no cash, no jewels, no chattel to dispense as rewards or salaries. So the only way a monarch can win friends and bribe enemies is to "reward" them with land. But land is finite and runs out. And a piece of land, once given, is gone. You cannot give it away again. Unless the family dies out, then you get the land back and have the chance to give it away again.

The only way to ensure land title is "lost" and returns to the original owner is to ensure families "die out". So you want to make the law of inheritance as narrow as possible to increase the probability that there is no legitimate heir. No girls. No bastards. No adoptive children. No corporations.

Alas, what applies to the vassal also applies to the lord.

Before the 9th Century (when feudal rules became entrenched), legitimization of bastards was generally a lot easier.

 

[IsadorBG]

Also in many countries, it was the Church who could rule out if a bastard was legitimate or not. Prior to the Xth century, concubinage was frequent in Christians countries. Denying rights to bastards was one of the weapons used by the Church to enforce monogamy and postnuptial child making.

But the second power is solely absent in CK games so you won't see the Church say no to your ruler.