• 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.
I suppose as a king, you will have all your vassals fighting for their own titles between them. In this example, the king attacked a bad vassal and give a reward to a good one which appeared to have the claims, so he doesn't mind about the tiers that are below unless one of them threaten him. If the countess (now duchess) would have intriged to become Scotland's queen, no doubt he would have crushed her.

Essentially, I think a king should worry when all is too calm in his kingdom, because that means either that no-one has any ambition or that they are planning to give him trouble. This is counterweight however by the fact that you know what are your relationship to those people. So basically, you have to worry about people from your rank or just below you, maybe also if a character is really successful, but you won't have to interfer if you are the HRE in a plot created by counts of nowhere about the poor duchy of whatever.

I think it should be the other way, in times of prosperity there is less need to be cutthroat and scheme for more power and land, in times of hardship though you will be in extreme danger because income is more scarce.
 
I suppose as a king, you will have all your vassals fighting for their own titles between them. In this example, the king attacked a bad vassal and give a reward to a good one which appeared to have the claims, so he doesn't mind about the tiers that are below unless one of them threaten him. If the countess (now duchess) would have intriged to become Scotland's queen, no doubt he would have crushed her.

Essentially, I think a king should worry when all is too calm in his kingdom, because that means either that no-one has any ambition or that they are planning to give him trouble. This is counterweight however by the fact that you know what are your relationship to those people. So basically, you have to worry about people from your rank or just below you, maybe also if a character is really successful, but you won't have to interfer if you are the HRE in a plot created by counts of nowhere about the poor duchy of whatever.

Yes, but weren't the countess of Fife and the king of Scotland also friends? So this intervention also had a personal component, and thus the other vassals might see it as the king favoring and/or helping one of his favorites.
 
Betrothal?

...Why didn't her scheming mother Regent have Orabilia betrothed to her friend, the future King of Scotland? Seemed like a match made in Heaven!

I believe it was common practice at the time for young people to be formally betrothed to one another, but no such betrothals were consummated as it was considered a contract between familes rather than between the future husband and wife.

Btw: Excellent with homosexual trait - that was sadly missing from CK1. If there are two of a kind in a court, it would be fun to have one become a "favourite" of the other, with added benefits such as cash trickling her/his way.
 
...Why didn't her scheming mother Regent have Orabilia betrothed to her friend, the future King of Scotland? Seemed like a match made in Heaven!

It might be because it would have not helped the mother at all. Not to mention that he is a king and she was just a count. Marrying a duchess might be good but countess would not really be the best choice. Marrying someone makes the two realms allies and as King of Scotland you really need bigger allies than one county countess.
 
Incapable as a trait? Or incapable to rule because dead?
"Incpable" is just a trait like others. It provides a negative modifier to a bunch of stuff.

...Why didn't her scheming mother Regent have Orabilia betrothed to her friend, the future King of Scotland? Seemed like a match made in Heaven!
The obvious reason was that the mother wasn't me! :D
Even when the a.i. is fully implemented, presumably an a.i. regent won't be in a position tro impose a betrothel on a human char.
 
...Why didn't her scheming mother Regent have Orabilia betrothed to her friend, the future King of Scotland? Seemed like a match made in Heaven!

I believe it was common practice at the time for young people to be formally betrothed to one another, but no such betrothals were consummated as it was considered a contract between familes rather than between the future husband and wife.

Btw: Excellent with homosexual trait - that was sadly missing from CK1. If there are two of a kind in a court, it would be fun to have one become a "favourite" of the other, with added benefits such as cash trickling her/his way.

There where gays in Crusader Kings I, the event where a character falls in love doesnt care about gender. There was even an event where you could choose to tolerate it for a piety loss or banish them.
 
There where gays in Crusader Kings I, the event where a character falls in love doesnt care about gender. There was even an event where you could choose to tolerate it for a piety loss or banish them.

They were only available in a couple of mods, they weren't in the vanilla game.
 
...Why didn't her scheming mother Regent have Orabilia betrothed to her friend, the future King of Scotland? Seemed like a match made in Heaven!

Not really a match made in heaven.

The Crown prince of Scotland isn't gonna agree to a matrilineal marriage, which means poor Orabilia's heir would be a Dunkeld, and Kriegsspieler'd lose when she died.

Nick
 
Couldn't Orabilia's realm have a different succession law then the kingdom it is in? So she could have married Dunkeld then have her sisters son inherit, keeping it in the family? Or just grant the land to her nephew directly.