So i am currently into the 1600s, playing as England. The House of Lancaster is still on the throne. While i am aware that in real life they were deposed due to civil wars by the houses of York and Tudor, the latter provide an example of a hosue dying out and a sucessor being found from an extended relative in the house of Stuart.
Does this happen in game? Can a house die out and be replaced by another? Or is it soley Pretenders that will change the ruling house?
On a side note, England is currently ruled by a regency council and has a 2 year old heir. If the heir died, leaving no one to take the throne ... what would happen? Another Lancaster heir or a new dynasty?
My completed AARs:
WritAAR of the Week 21-4-2013
Dynasty can die out. If you have ruler without heir, and ruler dies one of following will happen:
- New ruler from different (random) house will step into office, most likely he will be illegitimate (like 20 points of legitimacy)
- New ruler from house you have royal marriage with will step into office, it's likely he will be illegitimate too. However you can expect certain improvement of relations with said country. (there is modifier in relations for same dynasty = +3 relations/year)
- If there is claim on your throne or some country you have RM with has higher prestige, it's likely you'll get as ruler king of said country rendering you junior partner in personal union.
Well, i do my best to my dynasty NOT die out. My dynasty (De Bar) got 8 or 9 kings now... and few PU's. Also a good heir. Claim to throne is not realy so good, as if you expand thru PU, you don't expand your dynasty, you expand only your country. And only get cores if same culture anyway. Better to RM whole europe and stack large amount of prestige and get as big dynasty as possible... WHY? For personal amusement and, because conquering the world is boring, isn't it better to make whole europe to have one dynasty, but many kings?