Dying without an heir

[RedRooster81]

This would also be good for the Japanese mod idea if you could adopt members from outside your dynasty (and give them your dynastical name). Although I guess for that I'd prefer it to be as a special edict to allow/disallow so it could work with different existing inheritance laws since according to Doomdark we won't be able to create our own custom inhertiance law.

Good thinking. What I would say is: (1) Doomdark has said that sons can inherit through their mothers and change their dynasty names, so maybe you could change the dynasties of other courtiers to suit your needs; and (2) expect some controversy, unless the adopted son or daughter is already an established member of your realm.

[Tommy4ever]

Country cousins are useful if this issue bothers you.

[Infocalypse]

I really like the idea of naming/adopting a heir out of the line of succession/ current succession law. If a factor like legitimacy (as in EU3) would be implemented, this could have large impact on the legitimacy of the current ruler and its would be heir and result in civil war, as it did between Elisabeth I and Mary of Scotland and in many other cases. This way, you could always play on as someone else, but having a legitimate heir would still be an option to crave for.

[Drakken]

Name me one known adopted heir in Western Europe since the beginning of the Middle Ages.

It couldn't be done, blood proximity was too important for succession matters in Europe. Uncles have pushed away and even plain murdered their older brother's son for mere doubts about their paternity, imagine what they'd do when they are passed over for an adopted child.

[Don_giorgio]

Name me one known adopted heir in Western Europe since the beginning of the Middle Ages.

It couldn't be done, blood proximity was too important for succession matters in Europe. Uncles have pushed away and even plain murdered their older brother's son for mere doubts about their paternity, imagine what they'd do when they are passed over for an adopted child.

I agree with adoption (aka namining an heir)... But for Byzantines only... it was done often in the Eastern Roman Empire since at least nominally it was an elective monarchy... As for Westerners... no way... It was almost never used in the west...

[Sortulv]

I agree with adoption (aka namining an heir)... But for Byzantines only... it was done often in the Eastern Roman Empire since at least nominally it was an elective monarchy... As for Westerners... no way... It was almost never used in the west...

France at least used this for this period - Basically the king had the nobles gathered and made them swear to the heir before he passed away. Technically France was an elective monarchy too, but the king forced the vote early...

[Khaelyn]

But I like assassinating infertile wives!!!

[RedRooster81]

France at least used this for this period - Basically the king had the nobles gathered and made them swear to the heir before he passed away. Technically France was an elective monarchy too, but the king forced the vote early...

That's why I like elective monarchies. Pick the most competent (or land-wealthy) male in your dynasty and make him your heir, and marry him to the heiress of a powerful family if you can. It's easier to do with realms with few dukes and lots of your dynasts. And elective monarchies are closed systems: the kingdom can't get inherited by someone who is not a member of your political community, but then again it makes it harder to set up dynastic unions, but it's also a bit more exciting IMO.

[whatguts]

you know, there will be families to take over the dynasty, say a brother of the recently died ruler will take over, or some distant relative... the ruler's advisors will also try to run the country, a regency... the ruler's mother in some case will rule until there's someone... even if without heir, the game should not end, instead try to survive without 1 until there is someone worthy, it would be a whole new challenge, like neighbors are more likely to attack, armies morale drop, rebels might spring, and neighbors try to pressure you into letting them take over the dynasty, forcing personal union like in EU3... there should still be someway to break off like an event for finding the descendant of that ruler, or fabricate a clam that someone is in the bloodline... that's how Europe worked around the time i think

[RedRooster81]

you know, there will be families to take over the dynasty, say a brother of the recently died ruler will take over, or some distant relative... the ruler's advisors will also try to run the country, a regency... the ruler's mother in some case will rule until there's someone... even if without heir, the game should not end, instead try to survive without 1 until there is someone worthy, it would be a whole new challenge, like neighbors are more likely to attack, armies morale drop, rebels might spring, and neighbors try to pressure you into letting them take over the dynasty, forcing personal union like in EU3... there should still be someway to break off like an event for finding the descendant of that ruler, or fabricate a clam that someone is in the bloodline... that's how Europe worked around the time i think

You're talking about an interregnum, if I understand you. The king is dead, now who is the king? That should be modeled in, if only because it took months for the new guy to arrive, same for new brides. (if there's a war on, watch out. $$$$) As to personal unions, I'm not sure whether that's planned or not, but really that is what's going on when you own more than one king title: every kingdom (and duchy in some cases) has its own succession laws, traditional way of dealing with the monarchy (and vice versa), and so forth. What you can do in England you better not try to pull off in Aquitaine, Your Majesty. :-)

[Don_giorgio]

An interregnum event would be cool... The country is without a King ruled by a noble as a Regent or a handful of nobles as Regency Council while in the meantime every each one of them (either they are regents or not) struggle to obtain the crown... I like that...

[whatguts]

You're talking about an interregnum, if I understand you. The king is dead, now who is the king? That should be modeled in, if only because it took months for the new guy to arrive, same for new brides. (if there's a war on, watch out. $$$$) As to personal unions, I'm not sure whether that's planned or not, but really that is what's going on when you own more than one king title: every kingdom (and duchy in some cases) has its own succession laws, traditional way of dealing with the monarchy (and vice versa), and so forth. What you can do in England you better not try to pull off in Aquitaine, Your Majesty. :-)

so i think each dynasty has it's own rules, but they can break it, at a greater cost. and if the old king that died was a good king, his people will support the next heir when he/she is finally found, or if the king was a bad king, his enemies in the nobility might start a coup, making them the ruler, and pretenders might take this chance to seize the throne... nothing is impossible, My Highness :-)

[RedRooster81]

so i think each dynasty has it's own rules, but they can break it, at a greater cost. and if the old king that died was a good king, his people will support the next heir when he/she is finally found, or if the king was a bad king, his enemies in the nobility might start a coup, making them the ruler, and pretenders might take this chance to seize the throne... nothing is impossible, My Highness :-)

That wouldn't be so bad of an idea. The dukes could force a change to electoral succession, but there would have to be a delay from the death of one king to the coronation of the new one. Many kingdoms has some sort of assembly of notables who had to at least rubber stamp the new national leader.