Country cousins are useful if this issue bothers you.
The Serpents of the Nile Part 2 - The Continued Tales of the Egypto-Norse
Blood and Iron - An Interactive Prussian AAR
My AwAARds: Weekly AAR Showcase 15/03/09 , 26/09/10 and 27/08/12 , WritAAR of the Week 13/12/09, 13/06/10, 11/09/10 and 16/09/13 , Best Character Writer of the Week 10/10/10 and 29/09/13 , Fan of the Week 11/1/11
My ACAs: Favorite History-Book AAR, Vicky II in Round 3 2010 for my Carlist AAR
2010 SilvAAR Goblet for my D'Albon AAR (CK) , 2010 3rd Place in the OscAARs for my For my Habsburg AAR (EUIII)
Winner of Two: Lord Strange Cookie of British Excellence: ● - For my D'Albon AAR (CK) and For my Habsburg AAR (EUIII)
Check out my AAR history at my Inkwell (Post 164)
Join the Red Paradoxians!
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.
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.
Issues: 6 hour workday
Militancy: 0 (-0.10)
Consciousness: 4 (+0.1)
But I like assassinating infertile wives!!!
"I shiver all over when I see your lovely tan, and I can tell by your clear blue eyes you're a sailor man." - Turbonegro
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
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...
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 :-)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. :-)